Report of WG3 Contribution of field data acquired in NFI for forest biodiversity assessment

Transcription

1 Report of WG3 Contribution of field data acquired in NFI for forest biodiversity assessment COST ACTION E43 Harmonisation of National Inventories in Europe: Techniques for Common Reporting Lisbon 5 7 June 2008 Leaders: Gherardo Chirici & Susanne Winter

2 The questions in our minds at the beginning of the project A number of international processes require harmonized reporting about forest biodiversity: CBD SEBI2010 MCPFE Montreal Process FAO Forest Certification Are NFI s able to satisfy this demand of harmonized information? Which are the definitions and the methods currently adopted by NFI s to acquire and report these information? Is it possible to harmonize these information? How? Which are the recommendations to optimize NFI for forest biodiversity monitoring?

3 REPORT BOOK COST action E43 WG3 activities

4 First online questionnaire of WG3

5 Light grey: Countries answered the first questionnaire Winter et al., 2008

6 % Sweden Slovakia Czech Republik Finland Spain Belgium United Kingdom Switzerland Norway USA Cyprus Austria Denmark Germany Estonia Lithuania Portugal Hungary Slowenia Italy Greece France Figure: Percentage of the 41 parameters for assessing biodiversity currently monitored by European NFIs Winter et al., 2008

7 FOREST TYPE EXAMPLE On which base forest type classification is implemented? Number of countries FOREST SPECIES SITE TYPE UNDERSTORY VEGETATION CLIMATIC CONDITIONS, BIOGEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS AND ALTITUDE PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES SOIL CONDITIONS AND FERTILITY MA NA GEMENT ECONOMY ADMINISTRATIVE (PROPERTY) AGE

8 FOREST TYPE EXAMPLE Forest type classification is based on actual or on natural potential vegetation? POTENTIAL REAL AND POTENTIAL REAL

9 Ground Vegetation Example area m² Sampling area Area surveyed (m²) Austria Belgium Czech Republic Estonia France Germany Italy Lithuania Norw ay Romania Slovak Republic Spain Spain Sw eden Sw eden Sw eden Sw eden Sw itzerland

10 Springer book

11 WG3 References of COST Action E43 Structure/Levels of the references for the biodiversity assessment: Reference Level 1: Forest biodiversity The first reference level refers to the overall objective of our Working group. Reference Level 2: Main WG3 components of forest biodiversity- core variables Forest categories Forest structure Dead wood Forest age Ground vegetation Naturalness Reference Level 3: Biodiversity indicators Categorical or continuous variable whose values are calculated from Reference 4 attributes and indicate the degree of biodiversity for a core variable. (tested by the common database or proposed for harmonisation/standardisation) Reference Level 4: Measured NFI attributes - ground level attributes Definition of all used attributes for the field assessment.

12 Reference 1: Forest biodiversity Forest biodiversity pertains to the variety, abundance and spatial distribution of ecosystem attributes which belong to the following classification systems that characterise the (bio)diversity: (1) Lévêque (1994) and Gaston (1996): genetic, taxonomic, and ecosystem level (2) Whittaker (1971) three spatial types of diversity: alpha diversity, which refers to ecosystem diversity beta diversity, which refers to the change in diversity between ecosystem gamma diversity, which refers to the overall diversity for different ecosystems within a region. (3) Noss (1990): tree components: compositional, functional, which relates to ecological and evolutionary processes; and structural, which relates to physical organization of the pattern of elements. In the WG3 we focus mainly on the definition of Noss 1990.

13 WG3 References of COST Action E43 Examples R1: Forest biodiversity R2: Forest structure R3: Standard deviation of the heights R4: tree, tree height R1: Forest biodiversity R2: Deadwood R3: Standing deadwood by decay classes R4: standing deadwood, decay classes R1: Forest biodiversity R2: Forest age R3: Top age (average age of the oldest trees) R4: tree, tree age

14 The operative test with NFI data

15 Requested Data TABLES PLOT TREE DEADWOOD SHRUB GROUND VEGETATION COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY PLOT_ID PLOT_ID PLOT_ID PLOT PLOT FOREST_TYPE TREE _ID PIECE_ID SPECIES GROUPs or SPECIES NATURALNESS GENDER LAYING_STANDYING COVER COVER ORIGIN SPECIES INVENTORYING_METHOD DATE CUTTING_SYSTEM ICP_COD PLOT_AREA YEARS_FROM_LAST_TREATMENT NATIVENESS LIS_LENGTH OTHER_HUMAN_ACTIVITIES DBH DIAMETER1 FOREST_AGE SAMPLING_UNIT_AREA DIAMETER2 LAYERS BASAL_AREA_FACTOR LENGTH REGENERATION_COVER MEASURED_HEIGHT VOLUME_FUNCTION REGENERATION_NUMBER MODELLED_HEIGHT VOLUME AGE DECAY AGE_METHOD FOREST_CATEGORIES MANAGEMENT_SYSTEM SOCIAL_POSITION

16 13 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES: 8886 PLOTS DENMARK 855 PLOT IRELAND 1105 PLOT NORWAY 1361 PLOT SWEDEN 188 PLOT FINLAND 336 PLOT GERMANY 855 PLOT BELGIUM 400 PLOT SWITZERLAND 401 PLOT CZECH REP. 302 PLOT AUSTRIA 1104 PLOT PORTUGAL 250 PLOT SPAIN 775 PLOT ITALY 351 PLOT

17 3 USA ECOREGIONS: 5752 PLOTS ECOREGION PLOT ECOREGION PLOT ECOREGION PLOT

18 Forest structure indicator: Percentiles of the Dbh Distribution according to Forest Types 10% thickest trees Winter, 2008

19 Forest structure indicator: Vertical heterogeneity forest layering Country One layer Two layers Three layers Four layers Multilayer A CH CZ DE DK ES IT01 IT02 SE USA Harmonisation options Harmonised One layer More than one layer Layer Code Harmonised One layer Two layers More than two layers Layer Code Winter, 2008

20 Effects of minimum dbh on estimates of structural and compositional biodiversity These effects should be expected because increasing minimum diameter decreases the range of dbhs observed on the plot which, in turn, decreases the standard deviation. Also, the increase in minimum diameter means not as many trees are observed on the plot which, in turn, decreases the number of species observed. A reasonable expectation is that a decrease in plot size would have the same effects for the same reasons Standard deviation, s dbh (in) Mean s dbh Mean H' Shannon index, H' Minimum dbh threshold (in) The consequences for harmonization are somewhat discouraging. They indicate that estimates of structural and compositional diversity would be difficult to harmonize for NFIs that use different minimum dbh and different plot sizes. About the only approach for obtaining comparable estimates of structural and compositional diversity among countries would be to select the largest minimum dbh and the smallest plot size. McRoberts, 2008 Working Group 3 Harmonised indicators and estimation procedures for assessing components of biodiversity with NFI data

21 Forest Categories: European Forest Types (EUFT) system of nomenclature European Forest Types = 14 classes of European forests growing under relatively homogeneous ecological conditions (climatic, edaphic) and levels of anthropogenic modification MAIN GOAL To serve as a framework to stratify forest biodiversity indicators at pan-european level

22 Forest Categories: DB plots distribution COUNTRY Category AT BE CH CZ DE DK ES FI IE IT NO PT SE TOTAL PLOTS NUMBER OF CAT. Key message from COSTE43 test: The scheme proves feasible to stratify NFIs plots from different regions of Europe; no gaps in classification coverage found

23 Forest Categories: DB plots distribution COUNTRY Category AT BE CH CZ DE DK ES FI IE IT NO PT SE 68.5 % Forest types % plantations TOTAL PLOTS NUMBER OF CAT. Key message from COSTE43 test: The scheme proves feasible to stratify NFIs plots from different regions of Europe; no gaps in classification coverage found

24 Deadwood harmonization: first results minimum diameter threshold of 10 cm, minimum length 1.3 m: Puletti, 2008

25 FOREST AGE LIFE SPANS of forest trees For dominant tree species per EFC Reference: Natural and virgin forests Problem: Missing and implausible data Harmonisation: Within WG3? Only one life span for each EFC? 8 Brändli June 08 Average life span of dominant tree species per European Forest Category Species Abies alba Acer campestre Acer platanoides Acer pseudoplatanus Alnus glutinosa Alnus incana Betula pendula Betula pubescens Carpinus betulus Castanea sativa Fagus sylvatica Fraxinus angustifolia 250 Fraxinus excelsior Fraxinus ornus Juglans regia 175 Larix decidua 300 Ostrya carpinifolia Picea abies Pinus cembra 700 Pinus heldreichii 200 Pinus nigra Pinus pinaster 150 Pinus pinea 200 Pinus sylvestris Pinus uncinata 300 Populus tremula Prunus avium Quercus cerris 400 Quercus coccifera 200 Quercus frainetto Quercus ilex Quercus petraea Quercus pubescens Quercus robur Quercus suber Salix caprea 150 Salix spp Sorbus aria 100 Sorbus aucuparia Sorbus domestica Tilia cordata Tilia platyphyllos Ulmus glabra Ulmus minor Most dominant species values too high or low in comparison with other EFCs missing data 111 fvalues from other ETCs

26 FOREST AGE INDICATOR RESULTS (1) Dominant age Values are in general relatively low. Differences between EFC and countries are big. No plantation (EFT 14) has reached half of the natural life span in any country Proportion of plots older than half of the natual life span of dominant tree species SE IE DK DE CZ European Forest Categories 13 Brändli June 08

27 First papers Cooperation/relationship with other projects: - COMMON (Anna-Lena Axelsson) -BIOSOIL (Annemarie Bastrup-Birk) - ICP (Richard Fischer) - JRC tender DOWNSCALING -EUFT

28 Products: - scientific papers - book (accepted by Springer): NFI methods and definitions, harmonization procedures, recommendations for future NFI The potential contribution of information already acquired by NFI for an harmonised forest biodiversity monitoring system is VERY HIGH A large number of forest biodiversity indicators can be estimated at EU level (and USA) test with real NFI data Some technical limitations do not enable a complete full harmonization With adeguate availability of resources NFI can potentially be one of the main source of information for forest biodiversity monitoring and reporting Deadwood Forest categories Naturalness Forest structure Ground vegetation Forest age