An analysis of the Modeling and Inventory Support Tool: Yield curves vary with Forest Ecosystem Classification

Stand-level growth and yield models are essential to assessing sustainable levels of forest harvest; such assessments are supported in Ontario by the Modeling and Inventory Support Tool (MIST), which combines updated yield estimates and predicted successional trajectories to improve yield forecasts in Ontario. Currently, forest management planning and MIST stratifies the landbase by the Standard Forest Unit (SFU), but not ecosite as defined under the Forest Ecosystem Classification (FEC) system. Here we examined variation in MIST’s input and output parameters (site index, top height, and basal area) for ecosites that fall within the definition of the PW1 SFU in Central Ontario (white-pine-dominated sites). Ecosites showed significant differences in site index values and top height, but not basal area, results indicating systematic differences in productivity among ecosites within the SFU. These results show that fine-scale variation in edaphic factors, as indicated by ecosite information, correspond to differences in stand productivity, and suggest the importance of a more harmonized approach between yield modeling, SFUs, and the FEC system in Ontario.

[1]  B. Pokharel,et al.  An ecological land classification approach to modeling the production of forest biomass , 2011 .

[2]  M. Woods,et al.  Validation of empirical yield curves for natural-origin stands in boreal Ontario , 2008 .

[3]  George Bruemme.  The Forestry Research Partnership: Developing the partnership , 2008 .

[4]  F. W. Bell,et al.  Developing a silvicultural framework and definitions for use in forest management planning and practice , 2008 .

[5]  F. W. Bell,et al.  Ontario's Forestry Research Partnership: Progress and next steps , 2008 .

[6]  F. W. Bell,et al.  Ontario's forest growth and yield modelling program: Advances resulting from the Forestry Research Partnership , 2008 .

[7]  M. Penner.  Yield prediction for mixed species stands in boreal Ontario , 2008 .

[8]  N. Coops,et al.  Application of high spatial resolution satellite imagery for riparian and forest ecosystem classification , 2007 .

[9]  Dan Rouillard,et al.  A method to validate stand attributes in a forest resource inventory: case study in Nipissing Forest, Ontario. , 2007 .

[10]  A. Fenech,et al.  The Ontario Forest Health Data Co-Operative , 2001, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[11]  S. Huang,et al.  Height growth pattern of white spruce in natural subregions in Alberta, Canada. , 2000 .

[12]  Changhui Peng,et al.  Understanding the role of forest simulation models in sustainable forest management , 2000 .

[13]  Philip J. Howarth,et al.  High Spatial Resolution Remote Sensing Data for Forest Ecosystem Classification: An Examination of Spatial Scale , 2000 .

[14]  Bernard R. Parresol,et al.  White Pine Site Index for the Southern Forest Survey , 1998 .

[15]  I. Ferguson.  Sustainable Forest Management , 1996, Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior.

[16]  W. H. Carmean.  Forest site-quality estimation using Forest Ecosystem Classification in Northwestern Ontario , 1996, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[17]  Jerome K. Vanclay,et al.  Modelling Forest Growth and Yield: Applications to Mixed Tropical Forests , 1994 .

[18]  B. Payandeh.  Plonski's (metric) yield tables formulated , 1991 .

[19]  G. Hills.  REGIONAL SITE RESEARCH , 1960 .