MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron...
-
Upload
felix-halliwell -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron...
![Page 1: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED?
Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest ResourcesNick Crookston, US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research StationPhil Radtke, Virginia Tech
![Page 2: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
• Measures of site productivity are needed:– Growth and yield projections– Management regimes– Landscape classification
• Most common means of quantifying in forestry is site index– Applicable to forested places
• Other quantitative measures have been used with varying degrees of success:– Maximum MAI– Maximum basal area– Yield
INTRODUCTION
![Page 3: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
• Site index has often found to have a limited relationship with soil, climate, and physiographic variables (Carmean 1975)
• Monserud et al (1990) offered several reasons for this:– Number of samples
often low– High within- and
between-stand variability in estimates
– Failure to measure the true causes of site productivity
INTRODUCTION
![Page 4: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
• Process-based models and remote sensing tools offered as a more effective tool for assessing site productivity (Swenson et al. 2005; Waring et al. 2006, etc.) –Mechanistic– Integrate soil and
climate– Can map productivity
across large regions and all biotic communities
– Predict future productivity
INTRODUCTION
![Page 5: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
INTRODUCTION
Latta et al. (2010)Coops et al. (2010)
Both empirical and process-based models predict a change in future site productivity,
but differ in the level of change
![Page 6: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
RESEARCH QUESTION
• How to better represent potential changes in future site productivity in an empirical growth and yield model like FVS?– Use a process-based
model– Re-fit equations to
include climate– Relate site index to
climate
![Page 7: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
1. What is the relationship between climate and several measures of site productivity in the Western US?
2. What are driving variables influencing each measure of site productivity?
3. Does it matter what climate model used to make the assessment?
4. What is the future forecast for changing productivity?
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
![Page 8: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
• Individual tree height-age data obtained from USFS FIA– n=83,016– 61 different species– Douglas-fir most common
(38%)
• Estimates of site index standardized using Monserud (1984) equation– Flexible model form– Avoids species and regional
differences– Strong correlation between
standardized and observed site index
• Tree-level estimates averaged for each plot (n=21,554)
METHODS
![Page 9: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
• Climate data obtained for each location based on fuzzed lat/long– USFS Moscow lab
(http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/climate/; Rehfeldt 2006) • 1961 to 1990• Monthly resolution• Developed using ANUSPLINE• Point estimates
– DAYMET (http://www.daymet.org/)• 1980 to 2003• Daily resolution• Truncated Gaussian weighting
filter(Thornton et al. 1997)• Grid estimates (1 km2)
METHODS
![Page 10: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
METHODS
• Climate variables used to develop different temperature and moisture indices identified by Rehfeldt et al. (2006)
![Page 11: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
• Estimates of gross primary production (GPP) obtained from 2 sources based on fuzzed lat/long– 3-PG (Nightingale et al. 2007)• Relatively simple process-
based model• Relies on monthly climate and
soils (held constant) data
– MODIS (Running et al. 2004)• Driven by a NASA satellite
sensor• Daily estimates of current
APAR, LAI, and surface climate• ε*(APAR/PAR)*PAR
METHODS
![Page 12: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
• Variable importance assessed using RandomForests– Nonparametric technique– Iteratively ran so that the least
influential was dropped until only 2 left (~35 initial variables)
• Maps of current and future site index generated from RandomForests model
• Multiple models developed– Climate only– Climate and GPP– Climate, GPP, and physiographic
variables (lat, long, elev)
METHODS
![Page 13: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
RESULTS
Limited relationship between site index and GPP, but MODIS GPP was a significant improvement over 3-PG
![Page 14: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
RESULTS
• Both site index and MODIS GPP highly related to climate variables
• Generally, 7 variables was most effective
• 2 variables explained between 70-78% of variationResults of RandomForests
Fit
![Page 15: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
RESULTS
• Relatively little difference between DAYMET and Moscow
• Neither MODIS or 3-PG GPP in top 10 of influential variables for site index
• Results dependent on whether physiographic variables included
Climate Climate/Physiographic
Variable %IncMSE
Variable %IncMSE
prdd5 49.0 elev 83.7
mmax 48.3 mmax 77.1
mmindd0 36.0 sdi 72.6
maptd 33.7 prdd5 71.7
sdi 33.0 gsptd 60.0
gsptd 32.1 lat 59.1
tdgsp 25.7 maptd 55.6
RMSE (m)
4.59 RMSE (m)
3.75
![Page 16: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
RESULTS
![Page 17: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
RESULTS
mindd0 gsp
![Page 18: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
RESULTS
Climate Climate/Physiographic
Mean change -6.3 m Mean change +4.5 m
Distributions of site index for future climate change scenarios
![Page 19: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
RESULTS
Climate Climate/Physiographic
![Page 20: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
RESULTS
Climate Climate/Physiographic
![Page 21: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
RESULTS
Climate Climate/Physiographic
![Page 22: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
• Process-model output significantly related to derived climate variables– Is the complexity
necessary?
• What’s elevation a proxy for?– Imprecise climate estimates– Solar radiation– Soils*Climate interaction– Gas concentrations
• Is there a better measure of potential productivity?
DISCUSSION
![Page 23: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
• Assumes a static relationship between site index and climate– Genetics?– Influence of CO2?
• Role of past and potential future disturbances not considered
• Uncertainty in stand-level estimates of site index not addressed– Only 1-4 sample
trees/plot
LIMITATIONS
![Page 24: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
• Climate an effective predictor of current site index across western US
• Site index influenced by both temperature and moisture limitations– Elevation is an important variable
in addition to climate
• PNW Coast Range most vulnerable to a changing climate
• Site index an imperfect measure, but allows relatively easy modification of FVS predictions
CONCLUSIONS
![Page 25: MAPPING CURRENT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL SITE PRODUCTIVITY: ARE PROCESS-BASED MODELS NEEDED? Aaron Weiskittel, University of Maine School of Forest Resources.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/55168bb4550346a2698b6218/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
• Carmean, W.H., 1975. Forest site quality evaluation in the United States. Advances in Agronomy 27, 209-269.
• Coops, N.C., Hember, R.A., Waring, R.H., 2010. Assessing the impact of current and projected climates on Douglas-fir productivity in British Columbia, Canada, using a process-based model (3-PG). Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40, 511-524.
• Latta, G., Temesgen, H., Adams, D., Barrett, T., 2010. Analysis of potential impacts of climate change on forests of the United States Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management 259, 720-729.
• Monserud, R.A., 1984. Height growth and site index curves for inland Douglas-fir based on stem analysis data and forest habitat type. Forest Science 30, 943-965.
• Monserud, R.A., Moody, U., Breuer, D.W., 1990. A soil-site study for inland Douglas-fir. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20, 686-695.
• Nightingale, J.M., Coops, N.C., Waring, R.H., Hargove, W.W., 2007. Comparison of MODIS gross primary production estimates for forests across the U.S.A. with those generated by a simple process model, 3-PGS Remote Sensing of Environment 109, 500-509.
• Rehfeldt, G.E., 2006. A spline model of climate for the Western United States. In, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-165. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, p. 21.
• Rehfeldt, G.E., Crookston, N.L., Warwell, M.V., Evans, J.S., 2006. Empirical analysis of plant-climate relationships for the Western United States. International Journal of Plant Science 167, 1123-1150.
• Running, S.W., Nemani, R.R., Heinsch, F.A., Zhao, M.S., Reeves, M., Hashimoto, H., 2004. A continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. Bioscience 54, 547-560.
• Swenson, J.J., Waring, R.H., Fan, W., Coops, N.C., 2005. Predicting site index with a physiologically based growth model across Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35, 1697-1707.
• Thorton, P.E., Running, S.W., White, M.A., 1997. Generating surfaces of daily meteorology variables over large regions of complex terrain. Journal of Hydrology 190, 214-251.
• Waring, R.H., Milner, K.S., Jolly, W.M., Phillips, L., McWethy, D., 2006. Assessment of site index and forest growth capacity across the Pacific and Inland Northwest U.S.A. with a MODIS satellite-derived vegetation index. Forest Ecology and Management 228, 285-291.
REFERENCES