Propagating the errors of initial forest variables through stand- and tree-level growth simulators

Developments in the field of remote sensing have led to various cost-efficient forest inventory methods at different levels of detail. Remote-sensing techniques such as airborne laser scanning (ALS) and digital photogrammetry are becoming feasible alternatives for providing data for forest planning. Forest-planning systems are used to determine the future harvests and silvicultural operations. Input data errors affect the forest growth projections and these effects are dependent on the magnitude of the error. Our objective in this study was to determine how the errors typical to different inventory methods affect forest growth projections at individual stand level during a planning period of 30 years. Another objective was to examine how the errors in input data behave when different types of growth simulators are used. The inventory methods we compared in this study were stand-wise field inventory and single-tree ALS. To study the differences between growth models, we compared two forest simulators consisting of either distance-independent tree-level models or stand-level models. The data in this study covered a 2,000-ha forest area in southern Finland, including 240 sample plots with individually measured trees. The analysis was conducted with Monte Carlo simulations. The results show that the tree-level simulator is less sensitive to errors in the input data and that by using single-tree ALS data, more precise growth projections can be obtained than using stand-wise field inventory data.

[1]  J. Hyyppä,et al.  Estimation of timber volume and stem density based on scanning laser altimetry and expected tree size distribution functions , 2004 .

[2]  M. Maltamo,et al.  Nonparametric estimation of stem volume using airborne laser scanning, aerial photography, and stand-register data , 2006 .

[3]  H. Burkhart,et al.  Suggestions for choosing an appropriate level for modelling forest stands. , 2003 .

[4]  Yrjö Vuokila,et al.  Viljeltyjen havumetsiköiden kasvatusmallit. , 1980 .

[5]  I. Korpela.  Individual tree measurements by means of digital aerial photogrammetry , 2004, Silva Fennica Monographs.

[6]  George Z. Gertner,et al.  Effects of measurement errors on an individual tree-based growth projection system , 1984 .

[7]  Göran Ståhl,et al.  A framework for evaluating data acquisition strategies for analyses of sustainable forestry at national level , 2006 .

[8]  Antti Mäkinen,et al.  SIMO: An adaptable simulation framework for multiscale forest resource data , 2009 .

[9]  Annika Kangas,et al.  Comparison of treewise and standwise forest simulators by means of quantile regression , 2008 .

[10]  J. Holmgren,et al.  Estimation of Tree Height and Stem Volume on Plots Using Airborne Laser Scanning , 2003, Forest Science.

[11]  Tomas Lämås,et al.  The influence of forest data quality on planning processes in forestry , 2006 .

[12]  Hannu Hökkä,et al.  Models for predicting stand development in MELA System , 2002 .

[13]  Matti Oikarinen.  Etelä-Suomen viljeltyjen rauduskoivikoiden kasvatusmallit. , 1983 .

[14]  G. Ståhl,et al.  Cost-Plus-Loss Analyses of Forest Inventory Strategies Based on kNN- Assigned Reference Sample Plot Data , 2003 .

[15]  Kari Mielikäinen,et al.  Koivusekoituksen vaikutus kuusikon rakenteeseen ja kehitykseen. , 1985 .

[16]  Arto Haara,et al.  Comparing simulation methods for modelling the errors of stand inventory data , 2003 .

[17]  Annika Kangas,et al.  Localization of growth estimates using non-parametric imputation methods , 2008 .

[18]  T. Tokola,et al.  Functions for estimating stem diameter and tree age using tree height, crown width and existing stand database information , 2005 .

[19]  Paula Soares,et al.  Modelling Forest Systems , 2003 .

[20]  Annika Kangas,et al.  Methods for assessing uncertainty of growth and yield predictions , 1999 .

[21]  Tron Eid,et al.  Use of uncertain inventory data in forestry scenario models and consequential incorrect harvest decisions. , 2000 .

[22]  Terje Gobakken,et al.  Comparing stand inventories for large areas based on photo-interpretation and laser scanning by means of cost-plus-loss analyses , 2004 .

[23]  Simo Poso,et al.  Kuvioittaisen arvioimismenetelmän perusteita. , 1983 .

[24]  Annika Kangas,et al.  Accuracy of partially visually assessed stand characteristics: a case study of Finnish forest inventory by compartments , 2004 .

[25]  Michael L. Clutter,et al.  The value of timber inventory information for management planning , 2008 .

[26]  Markus Holopainen,et al.  Effect of data acquisition accuracy on timing of stand harvests and expected net present value. , 2006 .

[27]  E. Næsset.  Predicting forest stand characteristics with airborne scanning laser using a practical two-stage procedure and field data , 2002 .

[28]  Annika Kangas,et al.  On the prediction bias and variance in long-term growth projections , 1997 .

[29]  H. Todd Mowrer.  Estimating components of propagated variance in growth simulation model projections , 1991 .

[30]  Mika Lehtonen,et al.  Reusing legacy FORTRAN in the MOTTI growth and yield simulator , 2005 .

[31]  Annika Kangas,et al.  SIMO – SIMulointi ja Optimointi uuteen metsäsuunnitteluun , 1970 .

[32]  H. Todd Mowrer,et al.  Uncertainty in natural resource decision support systems: sources, interpretation, and importance. , 2000 .