Abstract
Many drivers affect woody biomass projections including forest available for wood supply, market behavior, forest ownership, distributions by age and yield classes, forest typologies resulting from different edaphic, climatic conditions, and last but not least, how these factors are incorporated into projection systems. Net annual increment has been considered a useful variable for estimating future wood and biomass supply, but it can be misleading. In Europe, two different approaches have been used: a common European-level tool for all countries (“top-down” approach); and national tools (“bottom-up” approach). The trade-offs are that the “top-down” approach produces comparable results among countries, but ignores most of the topographic, climatic, vegetative and socio-economic conditions that are unique to countries and regions. The “bottom-up” approach better accommodates national and regional conditions but at the cost of comparability among country level results. A brief discussion of how these issues are handled in North America provides insights into different approaches and their linkages to national circumstances regarding country sizes, ownerships and general political frameworks. Another challenge lies in accommodating climate change and uncertainty in projections. Finally, working closely with experts from the demand side to minimize possible misunderstandings is also required. The first step towards increasing comparability of results from country-level projection systems is to understand the differences among these tools. Only then, can progress be made in terms of harmonizing the input and output variables or even progressing towards a common methodological approach and software structure.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alberdi I, Michalak R, Fischer C et al (2016) Towards harmonized assessment of European forest availability for wood supply in Europe. Forest Policy Econ 70:20–29. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.05.014
Antón-Fernández C, Astrup R (2012) Empirical harvest models and their use in regional business-as-usual scenarios of timber supply and carbon stock development. Scand J Forest Res:1–14. doi:10.1080/02827581.2011.644576
Cao QV (2006) Predictions of individual-tree and whole-stand attributes for loblolly pine plantations. For Ecol Manag 236:342–347
Crookston NL, Dixon GE (2005) The forest vegetation simulator: a review of the structure, content, and applications. Comput Electron Agr 49:60–80. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/18474. Accessed 15 Nov 2016
Fahlvik N, Wikström P, Elfving B (2014) Evaluation of growth models used in the Swedish Forest Planning System Heureka. Silva Fenn 48. doi:10.14214/sf.1013
FOREST EUROPE (2015) State of European Forests 2015
Fortin M, Langevin L (2012) Stochastic or deterministic single-tree models: is there any difference in growth predictions? Ann For Sci 69:271–282. doi:10.1007/s13595-011-0112-0
Fortin M, Bédarda S, DeBloisa J, Meunierb S (2009) Assessing and testing prediction uncertainty for single tree-based models: a case study applied to northern hardwood stands in southern Québec, Canada. Ecol Model 220:2770–2781. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.06.035
Fortin M, Robert N, Manso R (2016) Uncertainty assessment of large-scale forest growth predictions based on a transition-matrix model in Catalonia. Ann For Sci 73:871. doi:10.1007/s13595-016-0538-5
Gertner G (1987) Approximating precision in simulation projections: an efficient alternative to Monte Carlo methods. For Sci 33:230–239
Gertner G, Dzialowy PJ (1984) Effects of measurement errors on an individual tree-based growth projection system. Can J For Res 14:311–316
Holm S (1981) Analys av metoder för tillväxtprognoser i samband med långsiktiga avverkningsberäkningar. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Biometry and Forest Management, Working Paper. 22 p. [In Swedish]
Kangas A (1997) On the prediction bias and variance of long-term growth predictions. For Ecol Manag 96:207–216
Kangas AS (1999) Methods for assessing uncertainty of growth and yield predictions. Can J For Res 29:1357–1364
Kurz WA, Apps MJ (2006) Developing Canada’s national forest carbon monitoring, accounting and reporting system to meet the reporting requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. Mit Adapt Strat Glob Change 11:33–43
Lindstrom MJ, Bates D (1988) Newton–Raphson and EM algorithms for linear mixed-effects models for repeated-measures data. J Am Stat Assoc 83:1014–1022
Lundmark T, Bergh J, Hofer P et al (2014) Potential roles of Swedish forestry in the context of climate change mitigation. Forests 5:557–578
Mäkinen A (2010) Uncertainty in forest simulators and forest planning systems. Dissertationes Forestalis 97, 38p. doi:10.14214/df.97
Mantau U, Gschwantner T, Paletto A et al (2016) From inventory to consumer biomass availability – the ITOC-model. Ann For Sci. doi:10.1007/s13595-016-0582-1
McCulloch CE, Searle SR (2001) Generalized, linear, and mixed models. Wiley, New York
McRoberts RE, Westfall JA (2014) Effects of uncertainty in model predictions of individual tree volume on larger area volume estimates. For Sci 60:34–42
Mowrer HT (1991) Estimating components of propagated variance in growth simulation model projections. Can J For Res 21:379–386
Mowrer HT, Frayer WE (1986) Variance propagation in growth and yield projections. Can J For Res 16:1196–1200
Natural Resources Canada (2015) Forestry. http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography/atlas-canada/selected-thematic-maps/16874. Accessed 15 Nov 2016
Oswalt SN, Smith WB, Mile PD, Pugh SA (2014) Forest Resources of the United States, 2012: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2015 update of the RPA Assessment. General Technical Report WO-91. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, DC, 218p. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/47322. Accessed 15 Nov 2016
Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, Krug T, Kruger D, Pipatti R, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, Wagner F (eds.) (2003). Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama
Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (1995) Approximations to the log-likelihood function in the nonlinear mixed-effects model. J Comp Graph Stat 4:12–35
Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New York
Rinaldi F, Jonsson R, Sallnäs O, Trubins R (2015) Behavioral modelling in a decision support system. Forests 6(2):311–327. doi:10.3390/f6020311
Vidal C, Sallnäs O, Redmond J, Alberdi I, Barreiro S, Hernández L, Schadauer K (2016) Introduction. In: Vidal C, Alberdi I, Hernández L, Redmond J (eds) National forest inventories: assessment of wood availability and use. Springer, Cham, pp 1–24. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44015-6_1
Walker WE, Harremo€ees P, Rotmans J, Van Der Sluijs JP, Van Asselt MBA, Janssen P, Krayer Von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty – a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr Assess 4(1):5–17
Wolfinger R, O’Connell M (1993) Generalized linear mixed models: a pseudolikelihood approach. J Statist Comput Simul 48:233–243
Zhang S, Amateis RL, Burkhart HE (1997) Constraining individual tree diameter increment and survival models for loblolly pine plantations. For Sci 43:414–423
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schadauer, K., Barreiro, S., Schelhaas, MJ., McRoberts, R.E. (2017). Future Challenges for Woody Biomass Projections. In: Barreiro, S., Schelhaas, MJ., McRoberts, R., Kändler, G. (eds) Forest Inventory-based Projection Systems for Wood and Biomass Availability. Managing Forest Ecosystems, vol 29. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56201-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56201-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56199-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56201-8
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)