High-resolution mapping of forest vulnerability to wind for disturbance-aware forestry

Abstract Windstorms cause major disturbances in European forests. Forest management can play a key role in making forests more persistent to disturbances. However, better information is needed to support decision making that effectively accounts for wind disturbances. Here we show how empirical probability models of wind damage, combined with existing spatial data sets, can be used to provide fine-scale spatial information about disturbance probability over large areas. First, we created stand-level damage probability models using wind damage observations within 5-year time window in national forest inventory data (NFI). Model predictors described forest characteristics, forest management history, 10-year return-rate of maximum wind speed, and soil, site and climate conditions. We tested three different methods for creating the damage probability models – generalized linear models (GLM), generalized additive models (GAM) and boosted regression trees (BRT). Then, damage probability maps were calculated by combining the models with GIS data sets representing the model predictors. Finally, we demonstrated the predictive performance of the damage probability maps with a large, independent test data of over 33,000 NFI plots, which shows that the maps are able to identify vulnerable forests also in new wind damage events, with area under curve value (AUC) > 0.7. Use of the more complex methods (GAM and BRT) was not found to improve the performance of the map compared to GLM, and therefore we prefer using the simpler GLM method that can be more easily interpreted. The map allows identification of vulnerable forest areas in high spatial resolution (16 m × 16 m), making it useful in assessing the vulnerability of individual forest stands when making management decisions. The map is also a powerful tool for communicating disturbance risks to forest owners and managers and it has the potential to steer forest management practices to a more disturbance-aware direction. Our study showed that in spite of the inherent stochasticity of the wind and damage phenomena at all spatial scales, it can be modelled with good accuracy across large spatial scales when existing ground and earth observation data sources are combined smartly. With improving data quality and availability, map-based risk assessments can be extended to other regions and other disturbance types.

[1]  F. Woodward,et al.  Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric CO2 , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  H. Peltola,et al.  A mechanistic model for assessing the risk of wind and snow damage to single trees and stands of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch , 1999 .

[3]  A. Venäläinen,et al.  The 10-Year Return Levels of Maximum Wind Speeds under Frozen and Unfrozen Soil Forest Conditions in Finland , 2019, Climate.

[4]  Manfred J. Lexer,et al.  Unraveling the drivers of intensifying forest disturbance regimes in Europe , 2011 .

[5]  J. Fridman,et al.  Modelling probability of snow and wind damage using tree, stand, and site characteristics from Pinus sylvestris sample plots , 1998 .

[6]  A. Venäläinen,et al.  Combined Occurrence of Wind, Snow Loading and Soil Frost with Implications for Risks to Forestry in Finland under the Current and Changing Climatic Conditions , 2011 .

[7]  H. Henttonen,et al.  Distribution of Heterobasidion butt rot in northern Finland , 2018, Forest Ecology and Management.

[8]  E. Hart,et al.  Use of machine learning techniques to model wind damage to forests , 2019, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology.

[9]  Jonas Fridman,et al.  Factors affecting the probability of windthrow at stand level as a result of Gudrun winter storm in southern Sweden , 2011 .

[10]  Erkki Tomppo,et al.  Designing and Conducting a Forest Inventory - case: 9th National Forest Inventory of Finland , 2011 .

[11]  Stephen J. Mitchell,et al.  Portability of stand-level empirical windthrow risk models , 2005 .

[12]  Werner Rammer,et al.  Climate change amplifies the interactions between wind and bark beetle disturbances in forest landscapes , 2016, Landscape Ecology.

[13]  P. M. Narendra,et al.  Image Segmentation with Directed Trees , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[14]  J. Aalto,et al.  New gridded daily climatology of Finland: Permutation‐based uncertainty estimates and temporal trends in climate , 2016 .

[15]  H. Mäkinen,et al.  High-resolution topographical information improves tree-level storm damage models , 2018, Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

[16]  H. Peltola,et al.  Effects of wood decay by Heterobasidion annosum on the vulnerability of Norway spruce stands to wind damage: a mechanistic modelling approach , 2017 .

[17]  Axel Albrecht,et al.  Modelling the wind damage probability in forests in Southwestern Germany for the 1999 winter storm ‘Lothar’ , 2009, International journal of biometeorology.

[18]  Impacts of climate change on timber production and regional risks of wind-induced damage to forests in Finland , 2010 .

[19]  S. Mitchell Wind as a natural disturbance agent in forests: a synthesis , 2013 .

[20]  Brian R. Miranda,et al.  Tree mortality submodels drive simulated long‐term forest dynamics: assessing 15 models from the stand to global scale , 2019, Ecosphere.

[21]  F. Helles,et al.  Windthrow probability as a function of stand characteristics and shelter , 1986 .

[22]  C. Schill,et al.  A neural network approach to identify forest stands susceptible to wind damage , 2004 .

[23]  S. Wood Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models , 2011 .

[24]  M. Dobbertin Influence of stand structure and site factors on wind damage comparing the storms Vivian and Lothar , 2002 .

[25]  T. Kuuluvainen Introduction. Disturbance dynamics in boreal forests: defining the ecological basis of restoration and management of biodiversity , 2002 .

[26]  Werner Rammer,et al.  Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. , 2014, Nature climate change.

[27]  Dominique Guyon,et al.  Mechanistic and statistical approaches to predicting wind damage to individual maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) trees in forests , 2016 .

[28]  D. Hosmer,et al.  Applied Logistic Regression , 1991 .

[29]  G. Monette,et al.  Generalized Collinearity Diagnostics , 1992 .

[30]  E. Keskitalo,et al.  In the eye of the storm: adaptation logics of forest owners in management and planning in Swedish areas , 2018, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research.

[31]  B. Gardiner,et al.  Anchorage of coniferous trees in relation to species, soil type, and rooting depth , 2006 .

[32]  Marc Hanewinkel,et al.  An inventory-based approach for modeling single- tree storm damage — experiences with the winter storm of 1999 in southwestern Germany , 2010 .

[33]  Improved models of harvest-induced bark damage , 2016, Annals of Forest Science.

[34]  J. R. González-Olabarria,et al.  Modelling damage occurrence by snow and wind in forest ecosystems , 2019, Ecological Modelling.

[35]  J Elith,et al.  A working guide to boosted regression trees. , 2008, The Journal of animal ecology.

[36]  A. Laaksonen,et al.  Increasing large scale windstorm damage in Western, Central and Northern European forests, 1951–2010 , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[37]  H. Mäkinen,et al.  Forest susceptibility to storm damage is affected by similar factors regardless of storm type: Comparison of thunder storms and autumn extra-tropical cyclones in Finland , 2016 .

[38]  H. Peltola,et al.  Regional risks of wind damage in boreal forests under changing management and climate projections , 2017 .

[39]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning , 2001 .

[40]  C. Bouget,et al.  The effects of windthrow on forest insect communities: a literature review , 2004 .

[41]  Seth D. Guikema,et al.  Statistical modeling of tree failures during storms , 2018, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[42]  Meiting Hou,et al.  Estimation of the high-spatial-resolution variability in extreme wind speeds for forestry applications , 2017 .

[43]  A. Townsend Peterson,et al.  Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data , 2006 .

[44]  Miroslav Svoboda,et al.  Forest disturbances under climate change. , 2017, Nature climate change.

[45]  D. Schindler,et al.  Improving empirical storm damage models by coupling with high-resolution gust speed data , 2019, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology.

[46]  J. Fridman,et al.  Forest management and forest state in southern Sweden before and after the impact of storm Gudrun in the winter of 2005 , 2014 .

[47]  Gert-Jan Nabuurs,et al.  Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries , 2003 .

[48]  Juha Hyyppä,et al.  Using multi-source data to map and model the predisposition of forests to wind disturbance , 2016 .

[49]  Urban Nilsson,et al.  Storm and snow damage in a Norway spruce thinning experiment in southern Sweden , 2014 .

[50]  B. Muys,et al.  Are forest disturbances amplifying or canceling out climate change-induced productivity changes in European forests? , 2017, Environmental research letters : ERL [Web site].

[51]  Jonas Fridman,et al.  Modelling probability of snow and wind damage in Scots pine stands using tree characteristics , 1997 .

[52]  K. Korhonen National Forest Inventories , 2016, Springer International Publishing.

[53]  Xavier Robin,et al.  pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[54]  Anssi Pekkarinen,et al.  Image segment-based spectral features in the estimation of timber volume , 2002 .

[55]  D. Schindler,et al.  Using highly resolved maximum gust speed as predictor for forest storm damage caused by the high‐impact winter storm Lothar in Southwest Germany , 2016 .

[56]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.