Martin Goude, Urban Nilsson, Euan Mason, Giulia Vico. (2022). Comparing basal area growth models for Norway spruce and Scots pine dominated stands. Silva Fennica vol. 56 no. 2 article id 10707. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.10707

Keywords: Pinus sylvestris; basal area; Picea abies; National Forest Inventory; regression; difference equation; long-term experiment

Highlights: Models were developed that predict basal area growth for Scot pine and Norway spruce stands in Sweden; There were no apparent differences in the ability to predict basal area development between a linear regression model for basal area growth or a compatible growth and yields model for basal area; The model based on data from the 80s had similar performance as the models with data from the 2000s, showing that both can reliably be used to predict forest development.

Abstract | Full text in HTML | Full text in PDF | Author Info

Models that predict forest development are essential for sustainable forest management. Constructing growth models via regression analysis or fitting a family of sigmoid equations to construct compatible growth and yield models are two ways these models can be developed. In this study, four species-specific models were developed and compared. A compatible growth and yield stand basal area model and a five-year stand basal area growth model were developed for Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). The models were developed using data from permanent inventory plots from the Swedish national forest inventory and long-term experiments. The species-specific models were compared, using independent data from long-term experiments, with a stand basal area growth model currently used in the Swedish forest planning system Heureka (Elfving model). All new models had a good, relatively unbiased fit. There were no apparent differences between the models in their ability to predict basal area development, except for the slightly worse predictions for the Norway spruce growth model. The lack of difference in the model comparison showed that despite the simplicity of the compatible growth and yield models, these models could be recommended, especially when data availability is limited. Also, despite using more and newer data for model development in this study, the currently used Elfving model was equally good at predicting basal area. The lack of model difference indicate that future studies should instead focus on model development for heterogeneous forests which are common but lack in growth and yield modelling research.

Goude, Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2179-292X E-mail: martin.goude@slu.se
Nilsson, Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden E-mail: urban.nilsson@slu.se
Mason, School of Forestry, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand E-mail: euan.mason@canterbury.ac.nz
Vico, Department of Crop Production Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden E-mail: giulia.vico@slu.se

Click this link to register to Silva Fennica.

If you are a registered user, log in to save your selected articles for later access.

Contents alert

Your selected articles

Follow @SilvaFennica