Assessing the measuring time of forest plots

Lucio Di Cosmo

doi:10.15287/afr.2023.2820

Authors

Lucio Di Cosmo CREA Council for Agricultural Research and Agricultural Economy Analysis, Trento, Italy

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2023.2820

Keywords:

forest inventory, forest monitoring, fieldwork efficiency, measurement costs, forest mensuration, sample, survey.

Abstract

Forests provide a wide range of ecosystem services and information requirements on forests have grown considerably. Nevertheless, collecting information in the forest is expensive and for this reason assessment of forest resources strongly relies on statistical sampling. However, plot measurement remains essential even when remote-sensing data are used, and field assessments are still among the costliest components of forest inventories. Studies on the costs for plots survey are limited and usually based on expert evaluation rather than on data. This article analysed the relationship between the time needed for measuring forest plots and their site-related characteristics (slope, terrain roughness), stand features (number of trees, subsample trees, stumps, coarse woody debris, understorey vegetation) and protocol-related procedures, by means of univariate and multivariate analyses. Analyses showed that the time needed for measuring plots depends on the workload or the intensity of fieldwork. Especially, the number of variables surveyed matters, because the variables explained the measuring time variation by an additive effect, suggesting that within a complex field protocol the total number of measurements taken may not represent properly the overall intensity of work. Marking in an effective way permanent plots is recommendable because the retrieval success of the pins buried into the ground was the most important explanatory variable. Presence of understorey vegetation was more important than the number of individuals measured. The results obtained are consistent and logical, but the variance explained was limited, suggesting that predictability of the measuring time under complex field protocols might be intrinsically limited by the interactions among factors with opposite effects and especially by the adaptation of the surveyors to specific circumstances. For example, effects of physical tiredness were not detected in the days when two plots were measured; conversely, measuring a second plot reduced the measuring time of the first, an event most likely dependent on the surveyors’ behaviour. Under the conclusion that predictability is low by nature, the inference of studies based on simulation data and simplified protocols to practical applications was finally discussed.

References

Berenguer E., Gardner T.A., Ferreira J., Aragão L.E.O.C., Camargo P.B., Cerri C.E., Durigan M., Oliveira Junior R.C., Vieira I.C.G., Barlow J., 2015. Developing Cost-Effective Field Assessments of Carbon Stocks in Human-Modified Tropical Forests. PLoS ONE 10(8): e0133139. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133139

Bosela M., Gasparini P., Di Cosmo L., Parisse B., De Natale F., Esposito S., Scheer L., 2016. Evaluating the potential of an individual-tree sampling strategy for dendroecological investigations using the Italian National Forest Inventory data. Dendrochronologia 38: 90-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2016.03.011

Brockerhoff E.G., Barbaro L., Castagneyrol B., Forrester D.I., Gardiner B., Gonza´lez-Olabarria J.R., Lyver P., Meurisse N., Oxbrough A., Taki H., Thompson I.D., van der Plas F., Jactel H., 2017. Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv 26: 3005-3035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1453-2

Di Cosmo L., Giuliani D., Dickson M.M., Gasparini P., 2020. An individual-tree linear mixed-effects model for predicting the basal area increment of major forest species in Southern Europe. Forest systems 29(3): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5424/fs/2020293-15500

Düggelin C., Keller M., Cioldi F., 2016. Field Assessment. In Fischer C., Traub B. (eds.), Swiss National Forest Inventory – Methods and Models of the Fourth Assessment. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 159 – 186. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19293-8_9

FAO, 2001. Appendix 2 Terms and definitions. In Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 main report. Forestry paper, vol 140, pp. 363-370.

Floris A., Di Cosmo L., Rizzo M., Patrone A., 2022. Field assessment – survey protocols and data collection. In Gasparini P., Di Cosmo L., Floris A., De Laurentis D. (eds.), Italian National Forest Inventory—Methods and Results of the Third Survey, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering, pp. 90-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98678-0_4

Gasparini P., Di Cosmo L., Cenni E., Pompei E., Ferretti M., 2013. Towards the harmonization between National Forest Inventory and Forest Condition Monitoring. Consistency of plot allocation and effect of tree selection methods on sample statistics in Italy. Environ. Monit. Assess. 185: 6155-6171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-3014-1

Gasparini P., Di Cosmo L., 2016. Italy. In Vidal C., Alberdi I., Hernández L., Redmond J.J. (eds), National Forest Inventories - assessment of wood availability and use. Springer, Switzerland, pp. 485-506.

Gasparini P., Di Cosmo L., Rizzo M., Giuliani D., 2017. A stand-level model derived from National Forest Inventory data to predict periodic annual volume increment of forests in Italy. J For Res 22 (4): 209-217. 10.1080/13416979.2017.1337260

Gasparini P., Floris A., 2022. Definitions and sampling design. In Gasparini P., Di Cosmo L., Floris A., De Laurentis D. (eds.), Italian National Forest Inventory—Methods and Results of the Third Survey, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering, pp. 17-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98678-0_2

Goetz S.J., Hansen M., Houghton R.A., Walker W., Laporte N., Busch J., 2015. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 12300. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/123001

Häbel H., Kuronen M., Henttonen H.M., Kangas A., Myllymäki M., 2019. The effect of spatial structure of forests on the precision and costs of plot-level forest resource estimation. Forest Ecosystems 6:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-019-0167-1

Henttonen H.M., Kangas A., 2015. Optimal plot design in a multipurpose forest inventory. Forest Ecosystems 2-31.

Köhl M., Magnussen S., Marchetti M., 2006. Sampling methods, remote sensing and GIS multiresource forest inventory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 373 p.

Köhl M., Scott C.T., 1992. Survey planning for national forest inventories. In Wood G.B., Turner G.J. (eds.), Proceedings of the Integrating Forest Information over Space and Time Conference, Canberra, 1992.

Loetsch F., Haller K.E., 1973. Forest inventory volume 1. Second edition. BLV Verlagsgesellschaft, Munchen, 436 p.

McRoberts R., Tomppo E.O., Czaplewski R.L., 2015. Sampling designs for national forest assessments. In: Knowledge reference for national forest assessments. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/8fd3b298-e843-4d3f-9ee0-cdb0e41739fd. Accessed 9 Apr 2021.

Molinier M., López-Sánchez C.A., Toivanen T., Korpela I., Corral-Rivas J.J., Tergujeff R., Häme T., 2016. Relasphone—Mobile and participative in situ forest biomass measurements supporting satellite image mapping. Remote Sens. 8, 869. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8100869

O'Regan W.G., Arvanitis L.G., 1966. Cost effectiveness in forest sampling. For. Sci. 12(4): 406-414.

Rodeghiero M., Vesterdal L., Marcolla B., Vescovo L., Aertsen W., Martinez C., Di Cosmo L., Gasparini P., Gianelle D., 2018. Soil nitrogen explanatory factors across a range of forest ecosystems and climatic conditions in Italy. For. Ecol. Manag. 408: 25–35. doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.10.039

Spurr S.H., 1952. Forest inventory. The Ronald Press Company, New York, 476 p.

Tewari V.P., 2016. Forest inventory, assessment, and monitoring, and long-term forest observational studies, with special reference to India. Forest Science and Technology 12(1): 24-32.

Tomppo E., Gschwantner T., Lawrence M., McRoberts R.E. (eds.), 2010. National Forest Inventories-pathways for common reporting. Springer, Netherlands, 612 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3233-1

Tomppo E., Kuusinen N., Mäkisara K., Katila M., McRoberts R.E., 2017. Effects of field plot configurations on the uncertainties of ALS-assisted forest resource estimates. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 32(6):488-500. doi:10.1080/02827581.2016.1259425

Van Laar A., Akça A., 2007. Forest Mensuration. Springer, Dordrecht, 385 p.

Vastaranta M.V., Melkas T., Holopainen M., Kaartinen H., Hyyppä J., Hyyppä H., 2009. Laser-based field measurements in tree-level forest data acquisition. The Photogrammetric Journal of Finland 21(2): 51-61.

West P.W., 2004. Conducting an Inventory. In Tree and Forest Measurement. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05436-9_11

Westfall J.A., Lister A.J., Scott C.T., 2016. Precision and cost considerations for two-stage sampling in a panelized forest inventory design. Environ Monit Assess 188(11): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-5002-8

Zeide B., 1980. Plot Size Optimization. For Sci 26: 251-257.

Assessing the measuring time of forest plots

Authors

DOI:

Keywords:

Abstract

References

Downloads

Published

Issue

Section

License

Make a Submission