Analyzing the impacts of forest disturbance on individual tree diameter increment across the US Lake States
- 38 Downloads
Disturbances play a critical role in forest ecosystem dynamics. Disturbances cause changes in forest structure which in turn influence the species composition of the site and alter landscape patterns over time. The impacts of disturbance are seen over a broad spectrum of spatial scales and varying intensities, ranging from biotic agents such as insect and leaf disease outbreaks to abiotic agents such as a windstorm (a stand-replacing disturbance). This study utilized Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data collected between 1999 and 2014 in the US Lake States (Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) to examine the impacts that disturbances have on the growth of residual trees using species-specific diameter increment equations. Results showed that animal and weather damage were the most common disturbance agents and fires were the least common in the region. Results also indicated that while the diameter increment equations performed well on average (overprediction of 0.08 ± 1.98 cm/10 years in non-disturbed stands), when the data were analyzed by species and disturbance agent, the model equation was rarely validated using equivalence tests (underprediction of 0.30 ± 2.24 cm/10 years in non-disturbed stands). This study highlights the importance of monitoring forest disturbances for their impacts on forest growth and yield.
KeywordsTree growth Growth and yield Validation Forest Inventory and Analysis
We thank Ram Deo, Chad Keyser, Jacob Muller, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments that improved this manuscript.
This work was supported by the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station (project 42-063).
- Bechtold, W. A., & Patterson, P. L. (2005). The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program, General Technical Report SRS-80. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.Google Scholar
- Brand, G. J., Nelson, M. D., Wendt, D. G., & Nimerfro, K. K. (2000). The hexagon/panel system for selecting FIA plots under an annual inventory. In R. E. McRoberts, G. A. Reams, & P. C. Van Deusen, (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Forest Inventory and Analysis Symposium. General Technical Report NC-213. (pp. 8–13). St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station.Google Scholar
- Bruce, D. (1977). Yield differences between research plots and managed forests. Journal of Forestry, 75(1), 14–17.Google Scholar
- Canavan, S. J., & Ramm, C. W. (2000). Accuracy and precision of 10 year predictions for Forest Vegetation Simulator-Lake States. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 17, 62–70.Google Scholar
- Crookston, N. L., Colbert, J. J., Thomas, P. W., Sheehan, K. A. & Kemp, W. P. (1990). User's guide to the western spruce budworm modeling system. General Technical Report INT-274. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.Google Scholar
- Deo, R. K., & Froese, R. E. (2013). Refitting the large-tree diameter growth equations of the Lake States and Central States variants of the Forest Vegetation Simulator. School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328974689_Refitting_the_Large-Tree_Diameter_Growth_Equations_of_the_Lake_States_and_Central_States_Variants_of_the_Forest_Vegetation_Simulator/stats. Accessed 18 Nov 2018.
- Dixon, G. E., & Keyser, C. E. (2008). Lake States (LS) variant overview-Forest Vegetation Simulator. Revised October, 2017. Internal Report. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Management Service Center.Google Scholar
- Johnsen, K., Samuelson, L., Teskey, R., Mcnulty, S., & Fox, T. (2001). Process models as tools in forestry research and management. Forest Science, 47(1), 2–8.Google Scholar
- Lessard, V. C., McRoberts, R. E., & Holdaway, M. R. (2001). Diameter growth models using Minnesota forest inventory and analysis data. Forest Science, 47, 301–310.Google Scholar
- Marsden, M. A., Eav, B. B., & Thompson, M. K. 1993. User's guide to the Douglas-fir Beetle Impact Model. General Technical Report RM-250. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar
- Munro D. D. (1974). Forest growth models—a prognosis. In: Growth models for tree and stand simulation. Research Note Number 30. Stockholm, Sweden. Swedish Royal College of Forestry.Google Scholar
- Payandeh, B., & Papadopol, P. (1994). Partial calibration of ‘ONTWIGS’: a forest growth and yield projection system adapted for Ontario. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 11, 41–46.Google Scholar
- Reyer, C. P. O., Bathgate, S., Blennow, K., Borges, J. G., Bugmann, H., Delzon, S., Faias, S. P., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Gardiner, B., Gonzalez-Olabarria, J. R., Gracia, C., Hernández, J. G., Kellomäki, S., Kramer, K., Lexer, M. J., Lindner, M., van der Maaten, E., Maroschek, M., Muys, B., Nicoll, B., Palahi, M., Palma, J. H. N., Paulo, J. A., Peltola, H., Pukkala, T., Rammer, W., Ray, D., Sabaté, S., Schelhaas, M. J., Seidl, R., Temperli, C., Tomé, M., Yousefpour, R., Zimmermann, N. E., & Hanewinkel, M. (2017). Are forest disturbances amplifying or canceling out climate change-induced productivity changes in European forests? Environmental Research Letters, 12(3), 34027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Robinson, A. (2016). equivalence: provides tests and graphics for assessing tests of equivalence. R package version 0.7.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=equivalence. Accessed 18 Nov 2018.
- Russell, M. B., D'Amato, A. W., Albers, M. A., Woodall, C. W., Puettmann, K. J., Saunders, M. R., & VanderSchaaf, C. L. (2015). Performance of the Forest Vegetation Simulator in managed white spruce plantations influenced by eastern spruce budworm in northern Minnesota. Forest Science, 61, 723–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- US Forest Service. (2014). The Forest Inventory and Analysis database: database description and user guide version 6.0 for phase 2. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
- Wellek, S. (2003). Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar