Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Managing Forest Ecosystems ((MAFE,volume 29))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gertner G (1987) Approximating precision in simulation projections: an efficient alternative to Monte Carlo methods. For Sci 33:230–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Gertner G, Dzialowy PJ (1984) Effects of measurement errors on an individual tree-based growth projection system. Can J For Res 14:311–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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]

    Google Scholar 

  • Kangas A (1997) On the prediction bias and variance of long-term growth predictions. For Ecol Manag 96:207–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kangas AS (1999) Methods for assessing uncertainty of growth and yield predictions. Can J For Res 29:1357–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch CE, Searle SR (2001) Generalized, linear, and mixed models. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowrer HT (1991) Estimating components of propagated variance in growth simulation model projections. Can J For Res 21:379–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowrer HT, Frayer WE (1986) Variance propagation in growth and yield projections. Can J For Res 16:1196–1200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (1995) Approximations to the log-likelihood function in the nonlinear mixed-effects model. J Comp Graph Stat 4:12–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger R, O’Connell M (1993) Generalized linear mixed models: a pseudolikelihood approach. J Statist Comput Simul 48:233–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S, Amateis RL, Burkhart HE (1997) Constraining individual tree diameter increment and survival models for loblolly pine plantations. For Sci 43:414–423

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klemens Schadauer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics