Comparisons of DFSIM, ORGANOIN and FVS David Marshall Olympia Forestry Sciences Laboratory PNW Research Station USDA Forest Service Growth Model Users.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Site and Stocking and Other Related Measurements.
Advertisements

Returns and Yields 2005 AFA Landowner Clinic April 9, 2005 Magnolia, Arkansas Matthew H. Pelkki University of Arkansas-Monticello School of Forest Resources.
FVS, State - Transition Model Assumptions, and Yield tables – an Application in National Forest Planning Eric Henderson Analyst, Hiawatha National Forest,
Thinning intensity studies and growth modeling of Montana mixed conifer forests at the University of Montana’s Lubrecht Experimental Forest Thomas Perry.
Modeling Tree Growth Under Varying Silvicultural Prescriptions Leah Rathbun University of British Columbia Presented at Western Mensurationists 2010.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS of the FOREST VEGETATION SIMULATOR Southern Variant (FVS-Sn) Nathan D. Herring Dr. Philip J. Radtke Virginia Tech Department of Forestry.
Forest Mensuration II Lecture 11: Stocking and Stand Density Nick Buda Northwest Science and Information Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources November.
The Effects of Site and Soil on Fertilizer Response of Coastal Douglas-fir K.M. Littke, R.B. Harrison, and D.G. Briggs University of Washington Coast Fertilization.
0 1 5/9/2015 Creating and Maintaining Multi-Strata Stands Is FVS wrong? GMUG 11/15/2013 Weikko Jaross DRAFT subject to change1.
Modeling bark beetle effects in a fireshed assessment An application of the Westwide Pine Beetle Model & the FFE in the Deschutes National Forest Andrew.
NASP IMDS Stand Density THE BIG THREE: Absolute stand density Quadratic Mean Diameter Basal Area.
Growth Model Users Group Growth Model Run-Off January 2002.
Use of FVS for a Forest-wide Inventory SPOKANE INDIAN RESERVATION.
Growth and yield Harvesting Regeneration Thinning Fire and fuels.
Modeling Effects of Genetic Improvement in Loblolly Pine Plantations Barry D. Shiver Stephen Logan.
Examining Clumpiness in FPS David K. Walters Roseburg Forest Products.
1 Effect of Site, Age, and Treatments of Type II Installations on Standing Tree Acoustic Velocity David Briggs, Eric Turnblom, Gonzalo Thienel File: Agenda_2020_TreeLogMill_Study.
Brief History of Site Quality Estimation from a Forest Mensuration Perspective Eric C. Turnblom ESRM Forest Soils and Site Productivity - Autumn.
A Young Douglas-fir Plantation Growth Model for the Pacific Northwest Nick Vaughn University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
15 September 2003 SMC Fall Policy Meeting TreeLab (v1.0) Variable-density Yield Simulator for Immature, Managed Stands of Douglas-fir Sam D. Pittman Eric.
The Rural Technology Initiative –“Better technology in rural areas for managing forests for increased product and environmental values in support of local.
Simulating growth impacts of Swiss needle cast in Douglas-fir: The blood, sweat and tears behind the ORGANON growth multiplier Sean M. Garber April 26,
Summary of results from the Regional Forest Nutrition Research Project and Stand Management Cooperative Rob Harrison, Dave Briggs, Eric Turnblom, Bob Gonyea,
Estimating Response of Douglas-fir to Urea in Western Oregon & Washington By: Eric Sucre M.S. Thesis Defense.
What Do You See? Message of the Day: The management objective determines whether a site is over, under, or fully stocked.
Materials and Methods Stand Management Cooperative (SMC) Type 1 Installations Research Plots Six 1 acre Douglas-fir plots per installation were examined.
Improving longleaf pine mortality predictions in the Southern Variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator R. Justin DeRose 1 John D. Shaw 2 Giorgio Vacchiano.
Estimation and Application of Genetic- Gain Multipliers for Douglas-Fir Height and Diameter Growth Peter J. Gould 1, David D. Marshall 2, Randy Johnson.
Comparison of FVS projection of oak decline on the Mark Twain National Forest to actual growth and mortality as measured over three FIA inventory cycles.
 Discuss silvicultural principles related to restoration/fuels treatments  Compare conditions from the 1900 Cheesman Lake reconstruction to current.
West Virginia University Division of Forestry 3 rd Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference February 13-15, 2007 Fort Collins, Colorado.
Bringing stand level fire risk to the landscape level: Fire risk assessment using FFE-FVS with the Landscape Management System. Kevin Ceder And James McCarter.
Modeling the Effects of Silvicultural Regimes on Douglas-fir Crown Morphology and Related Wood Quality Attributes N. Osborne, D. Maguire and D. Hann Oregon.
1 Density and Stocking. 2 Potential of the land to produce wood is determined mainly by its site quality. The actual production or growth of wood fiber.
Fire Prevention as a GHG Mitigation Strategy Presented by Robert Beach, RTI International Brent Sohngen, The Ohio State University Presented at Forestry.
Comparing Stand Age 140 Basal Area per Acre Outputs from the DFC, FVS and ORGANON Models Steve McConnell Forest Integrity Spokane, WA Growth Model Users.
The Potential of the Alder Resource: Challenges and Opportunities David Hibbs and Andrew Bluhm Hardwood Silviculture Cooperative Department of Forest Science.
FVS The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) A review of the Pacific Northwest Variants Chad Keyser Forest Vegetation Simulator.
Validating the Prognosis DDS model for the Inland Empire Robert E. FroeseAndrew P. Robinson School of Forest Resources Etc.Department of Forest Resources.
Using the Gingrich (1967) Stocking Chart for Upland Hardwood forests in the Central States Gingrich, S. F Measuring and evaluating stocking and.
Effect of retained trees on growth and structure of young Scots pine stands Juha Ruuska, Sauli Valkonen and Jouni Siipilehto Finnish Forest Research Institute,
Do stem form differences mask responses to silvicultural treatment? Doug Maguire Department of Forest Science Oregon State University.
Sustainable Production Forestry THE JOINT FORCES OF CSIRO & SCION Development of a productivity Index for Douglas-fir Leith Knowles.
Thinning mixed-species stands of Douglas-fir and western hemlock in the presence of Swiss needle cast Junhui Zhao, Douglas A. Maguire, Douglas B. Mainwaring,
Growth Model Users Group November 15, 2013 Greg Johnson Weyerhaeuser NR Company.
Carbon Sequestration and Fire Risk in a East-Side Pine Forest Martin Ritchie Research Forester Pacific Southwest Research Station.
Projecting FIA Data With FVS and ORGANON Greg Latta Oregon State University College of Forest Resources.
Looking for the Plateau in Douglas-fir Annual Volume Increment
Effects of Thinning on Production of Dead Trees and Stand Structure Michael Pollock, NOAA-NWFSC Thomas Spies, Forest Service, PNW Research With special.
RAP-ORGANON A Red Alder Plantation Growth Model David Hibbs, David Hann, Andrew Bluhm, Oregon State University.
Modeling regional variation in the self-thinning boundary line Aaron Weiskittel Sean Garber Hailemariam Temesgen.
Sustainable Production Forestry THE JOINT FORCES OF CSIRO & SCION Application of the New Zealand Douglas-fir stand-level growth model to data from the.
USING THE FOREST VEGETATION SIMULATOR TO MODEL STAND DYNAMICS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION OF CHANGING CLIMATE Climate-FVS Version 0.1 Developed by : Nicholas.
Understanding Site-Specific Factors Affecting the Nutrient Demands and Response to Fertilizer by Douglas-fir Center for Advanced Forestry Systems 2010.
Annualized diameter and height growth equations for plantation grown Douglas- fir, western hemlock, and red alder Aaron Weiskittel 1, Sean Garber 1, Greg.
Comparing ORGANON & SPS Using the Bakuzis Matrix Growth Model Users Group December 15, 2005 Dave Hamlin.
Establishing Plots to Monitor Growth and Treatment Response Some do’s and don’ts A discussion.
Incorporating Genetics into Growth Models: Results from Block-Plot Trials of Douglas-Fir Peter Gould and Brad St Clair PNW Research Station Keith Jayawickrama.
GROWTH AND YIELD How will my forest grow? Dr. Glenn Glover School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Auburn University.
Forest Management Service Center Providing Biometric Services to the National Forest System Program Emphasis: We provide products and technical support.
Leah Rathbun PhD Candidate, University of British Columbia
What is new with the Forest Vegetation Simulator?
and Other Related Measurements
Rapeepan Kantavichai, PhD student
Developing Edition 3.0 of CIPSANON
Tree List Generator (TLG) v1.0
CIPS80 v. 1.0.
Stand and Tree Characteristics at Age 30
Kirk Hanson (360)
Presentation transcript:

Comparisons of DFSIM, ORGANOIN and FVS David Marshall Olympia Forestry Sciences Laboratory PNW Research Station USDA Forest Service Growth Model Users Group August 10, 2005

Model Comparisons Based on work done while testing ORGANON version 8.

Model Comparisons Part 1 – “Out of the Box” Part 2 – Plot Comparisons Part 3 – Density Regimes

Model Comparisons Part 1 “Out of the Box”

Model Comparisons – Part 1 Will Focus on 4 Models –DFSIM –Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) –ORGANON –TreeLab Does not suggest these are the best –Represent the heart of the DF region –DFSIM, FVS and ORGANON are widely used –Available for free on the internet

Model Comparisons – Part 1 DFSIM version 1.4 –Curtis and others 1986 (revised 1999) –Stand Model (annual) – FVS-PN (RV ) –US Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center –Tree Model (10-year increment - default) – ORGANON SMC version 7 and 8 (pre-release) –Hann and others at Oregon State University ( ) –Tree Model (5-year increment) – TreeLab –Turnblom and students at the University of Washington (2001) –Stand Model (annual) –

Model Comparisons – Part 1 “Out of the Box” “Out of the Box” projections Models –DFSIM –TreeLab –ORGANON –FVS Site Index 121 feet Planted to about 450 trees per acre Trees List at 14 years Growth to 64 years

Model Comparisons – Part 1 “Out of the Box” years Site Index 121 feet Planted (450 tpa)

Model Comparisons – Part 1 “Out of the Box” years Site Index 121 feet Planted (450 tpa)

Model Comparisons – Part 1 “Out of the Box” DFSIM –Default maximum RD = 70 –Curtis suggests higher (seems to like RD about 80)

Model Comparisons – Part 1 “Out of the Box” DFSIM –Default maximum RD = 70 –Curtis suggests higher (RD about 80) ORGANON –Default SDImax= 520 –Some evidence suggest lower (480)

Model Comparisons – Part 1 “Out of the Box” DFSIM –Default maximum RD = 70 –Curtis suggests higher (RD about 80) ORGANON (version 7) –Default SDImax= 520 –Some evidence suggest lower (480) FVS has extensive growth modifiers –Default SDImax (maximum BA) = 950 –Growth multipliers for: Basal area growth Mortality Height growth Crown change

Model Comparisons – Part 1 FVS Adjustments SDImaxGrowth MultipliersProjection at 54 years ( 4 cycles ) BAIMORTCRTPABAPACR

Model Comparisons – Part 1 “Out of the Box” DFSIM –Default maximum RD = 70 –Curtis suggests higher (RD about 80) ORGANON –Default SDImax = 520 –Some evidence suggest lower (SDImax = 480) FVS has extensive growth modifiers –Default SDImax (maximum BA) = 950 (lower to 650) –Growth multipliers for: Basal area growth (0.7x) Mortality (1.1x) Height growth (1.0x) Crown change (2.0x)

Model Comparisons – Part 1 “Models Modified”

Looked at only the default 10-year time step for FVS. Different time steps might have different properties (TIMEINT keyword).

Model Comparisons Part 2 “Plot Comparisons”

Model Comparisons – Part 2 12 Stands 12 Stands (Plantations) –5 Oregon –4 Washington –3 British Columbia Initial Tree List Site Index Start of Period 10-year net change

Model Comparisons – Part 2 12 Stands MeanMin.Max.SD Total Age Site Index TPA SDI CR

Model Comparisons – Part 2 12 Stands WARNING Because of the small number of plots, this should not be considered a validation of the models.

Model Comparisons – Part 2 12 Stands 10-Year Change (Actual – Predicted) TreesBasal Area (net) Crown Ratio Mean (/acre) SD (/acre) Mean (ft 2 /ac) SD (ft 2 /ac) MeanSD DFSIM TreeLab ORGANON V7 SMC ORGANON V8 SMC FVS PN FVS Modified PN TPA = under predict mortality- BA/AC = over predict net growth

Model Comparisons – Part 2 12 Stands Mortality –DFSIM and TreeLab over predicted –ORGANON and FVS under predicted Basal Area Growth –All over predicted but … –Heavily influenced by 3 youngest plots ORGANON tended to be the least variable FVS needed lots of tweaking Small Sample Size

Model Comparisons Part 3 “Density Regimes”

Model Comparisons – Part 3 Density Management Projections Models –DFSIM –TreeLab –ORGANON (SDImax=480) –FVS-PN –FVS-PN modified

Model Comparisons – Part 3 Density Management Projections 3 Planting Densities and PCT (220 tpa) Site Index = 121 feet Starting Age 14 years Project to 54 years Models –DFSIM –TreeLab –ORGANON (SDImax=480) –FVS-PN –FVS-PN modified StandTPABAQMDSDI A B C

Model Comparisons – Part 3 Density Management Projections

Decrease average tree size with increasing growing stock Thinning increased tree size Increasing merchantable volume with increasing growing stock SMALL increase from thinning in DFSIM and ORGANON V8 and small decrease in FVS

Model Comparisons – Part 3 Density Management Projections

How did they get there?

Model Comparisons – Part 3 Density Management Projections FVS may require different calibrations? ORGANON 8 may not need maximum size-density on (Monserud)

Model Comparisons – Part 3 Density Management Projections

Conclusions

The End