Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Rural Sustainability Research

Former: Proceedings of the Latvia University of Agriculture

2 Issues per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2256-0939
See all formats and pricing
More options …

The Accuracy of Standwise Forest Inventory in Mature Stands

Ainārs Grīnvalds
Published Online: 2014-12-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/plua-2014-0007

Abstract

Traditionally forest resources are estimated in each compartment or stand with ocular standwise forest inventory. However, this inventory technique has shortages with measurement accuracy. In the study the accuracy of the standwise forest inventory was estimated by comparing the growing stock volume of the standwise inventory with the accurate (instrumental) re-measurements. Comparison was done with 4515 mature stands of pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.), birch (Betula spp.), aspen (Populus tremula L.) and black alder (Alnus glutinosa L.). The stands’ measurements by callipers or by harvesters (recalculated to growing stock volume) were used for accurate re-measurements. The study results show that the volume of standwise forest inventory have relative bias of 17.6% (volume is underestimated by 17.6%) and relative root mean square error 27.5 % for the whole data. Spruce stands are more accurately measured and black alder stands - inaccurately. The accuracy of pine, birch and mixed stands was similar to overall trends. Stands with volume 200 - 300 m3 ha-1 are more accurately measured and stands with the volume less than 200 m3 ha-1 - most inaccurately. The accuracy of stands with the volume more than 300 m3 ha-1, decreases by increasing the volume of stands. The volume estimation of individual species has different trends in standwise forest inventory. The volume of pine and birch is overestimated and the volume of spruce, aspen and black alder is underestimated.

Keywords : standwise forest inventory; precise re-measurements; accuracy; bias; relative root mean square error

References

  • 1. Anttila, P. (2002). Updating stand level inventory data applying growth models and visual interpretation of aerial photographs. Silva Fennica, 36 (2), 549-560.Google Scholar

  • 2. Bettinger, P., Boston, K., Siry, J.P., Grebner, D.L. (2009). Forest management and planning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • 3. Dubrovskis, D. (2004). Meža inventarizācijas datu precizitāte, datu izmantošanas iespējas Latvijas meža resursu apsaimniekošanas stratēģijas plānošanā. Pārskats par Meža attīstības fonda pasūtīto pētījumu (The accuracy of forest inventory data, data use options in the forest resource management strategy planning of Latvia. Report of the study of the Forest Development Fund). Salaspils: Latvijas valsts mežzinātnes institūts Silava (In Latvian).Google Scholar

  • 4. Eid, T. (2000). Use of uncertain inventory data in forestry scenario models and consequential incorrect harvest decisions. Silva Fennica, 34 (2), 89-100.Google Scholar

  • 5. Kinnunen, J., Maltamo, M., Pussinen, A. (2003). The Accuracy of Forest Inventory Data in the Novgorod Region in Russia. In Economic Accessibility of Forest Resources in North-West Russia, 4-5 December, 2002, European Forest Institute, 53-62.Google Scholar

  • 6. Koivuniemi, J., Korhonen, K. (2006). Inventory by compartments. In A. Kanngas & M. Maltamo (Eds.) Forest inventory methodology and applications (pp. 271-278). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

  • 7. Kuliešis, A., Kasperavičius, A. (2004). Reliability and efficiency of Lithuanian national forest inventory sampling design and results. Baltic Forestry. 10(1), 27-35.Google Scholar

  • 8. Matuzanis, J. (Ed.) (1988) Нормативы для таксации леса Латвийской ССР (The regulations of forest inventory of Latvia), Rīga: Latvijas mežzinātnes institūts Silava (In Russian).Google Scholar

  • 9. Veinbergs, R. (2007). Meža inventarizācijas datu precizitātes novērtējums galvenās cirtes vecumu sasniegušās mežaudzēs valsts mežos (The assessment of accuracy of forest inventory data in mature stands in state managed forests). Master thesis, Latvijas Lauksaimniecības universitāte, Jelgava, Latvija (In Latvian).Google Scholar

  • 10. Zālītis, P., Kalniņa, Ā., Vuguls, J., Zālīte, R., Jansons, J., Zariņa, M. (2013). Bērza audžu ar egles otro stāvu ražības novērtējums un apsaimniekošanas režīms. Valsts pētījumu programmas rakstu krājumā: Vietējo resursu (zemes dzīļu, meža, patikas un transporta) ilgtspējīga izmantošana - jauni produkti un tehnoloģijas 2010 - 2013 (Productivity and management regime of birch stands with spruce understorey. In proceeding: Sustainable Use of Local Resources (Entrails of the Earth, Forest, Food and Transport) - New Products and Technologies 2010-2013), (pp. 77-81). Rīga, Latvija: Koksnes Ķīmijas institūts (In Latvian).Google Scholar

  • 11. West, P.W. (2009). Tree and forest measurement. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2014-12-30

Published in Print: 2014-12-01


Citation Information: Proceedings of the Latvia University of Agriculture, ISSN (Online) 2255-8535, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/plua-2014-0007.

Export Citation

© by Ainārs Grīnvalds. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in