We evaluated the Mixedwood Growth Model (MGM) at a whole model scale for pure and mixed species stands of aspen and white spruce in the western boreal forest. MGM is an individual tree-based, distance-independent growth model, designed to evaluate growth and yield implications relating to the management of white spruce, black spruce, aspen, lodgepole pine, and mixedwood stands in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Our validation compared stand-level model predictions against re-measured data (volume, basal area, diameter at breast height (DBH), average and top height and density) from permanent sample plots using combined analysis of residual plots, bias statistics, efficiency and an innovative application of the equivalence test. For state variables, the model effectively simulated juvenile and mature stages of stand development for both pure and mixed species stands of aspen and white spruce in Alberta. MGM overestimates increment in older stands likely due to age-related pathology and weather-related stand damage. We identified underestimates of deciduous density and volume in Saskatchewan. MGM performs well for increment in postharvest stands less than 30 years of age. These results illustrate the comprehensive application of validation metrics to evaluate a complex model, and provide support for the use of MGM in management planning.
References
[1]
Bokalo, M.; Stadt, K.J.; Comeau, P.G.; Titus, S.J. Mixedwood Growth Model (MGM) (version MGM2010.xls). University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2010. Available online: http://www.rr.ualberta.ca/Research/MixedwoodGrowthModel.aspx (accessed on 7 July 2011).
[2]
Pitt, D.G.; Mihajlovich, M.; Proudfoot, L.M. Juvenile stand responses and potential outcomes of conifer release efforts on Alberta’s spruce–aspen mixedwood sites. For. Chronicle 2004, 80, 583–597.
[3]
Comeau, P.G.; Kabzems, R.; McClarnon, J.; Heineman, J.L. Implications of selected approaches for regenerating and managing western boreal mixedwoods. For. Chronicle 2005, 81, 559–574.
[4]
Farnden, C. An analysis framework for linking regeneration standards to desired future forest conditions. For. Chronicle 2009, 85, 285–292.
[5]
Nunifu, T.K. Compatible diameter and height increment models for lodgepole pine, trembling aspen, and white spruce. Can. J. For. Res. 2009, 39, 180–192, doi:10.1139/X08-168.
[6]
Pretzsch, H.; Biber, P.; von Gadow, K.; Hasenauer, H.; K？ndler, G.; Kenk, G.; Kublin, E.; Nagel, J.; Pukkala, T.; Skovsgaard, J. Recommendations for standardized documentation and further development of forest growth simulators. Forstwiss. Centralbl. 2002, 121, 138–151, doi:10.1046/j.1439-0337.2002.00138.x.
[7]
Soares, P.; Tomé, M.; Skovsgaard, J.P.; Vanclay, J.K. Evaluating a growth model for forest management using continuous forest inventory data. For. Ecol. Manag. 1995, 71, 251–265, doi:10.1016/0378-1127(94)06105-R.
[8]
Schmid, S.; Zingg, A.; Biber, P.; Bugmann, H. Evaluation of the forest growth model SILVA along an elevational gradient in Switzerland. Eur. J. For. Res. 2006, 125, 43–55, doi:10.1007/s10342-005-0076-4.
[9]
Rykiel, E.J., Jr. Testing ecological models: The meaning of validation. Ecol. Model. 1996, 90, 229–244, doi:10.1016/0304-3800(95)00152-2.
[10]
Yang, Y.; Monserud, R.A.; Huang, S. An evaluation of diagnostic tests and their roles in validating forest biometric models. Can. J. For. Res. 2004, 34, 619–629, doi:10.1139/x03-230.
[11]
Pinjuv, G.; Mason, E.G.; Watt, M. Quantitative validation and comparison of a range of forest growth model types. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 236, 37–46, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.06.025.
Robinson, A.P.; Froese, R.E. Model validation using equivalence tests. Ecol. Model. 2004, 176, 349–358, doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.01.013.
[14]
Pretzsch, H. Application and evaluation of the growth simulator SILVA 2.2 for forest stands, forest estates and large regions. Forstwiss. Centralbl. 2002, 121, 28–51.
[15]
Marshall, P.; Parysow, P.; Akindele, S. Evaluating Growth Models: A Case Study Using Prognosis BC. In Proceedings of Third Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 13–15 February 2007; pp. 167–185.
[16]
McGaughey, R.J. Stand Visualization System (SVS) version 3.36; USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA. 2002. Available online: http://forsys.cfr.washington.edu (accessed on 12 December 2011).
[17]
Alberta Lands and Forest Service (ALFS). Permanent Sample Plot Field Procedures Manual; Alberta Lands and Forest Service, Forest Management Division, Resource Analysis Centre: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1998.
[18]
Huang, S. A Subregion-Based Compatible Height-Site Index-Age Model for Young and Mature White Spruce in Alberta; Forest Management Research Note; Alberta Environmental Protection Land and Forest Service: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1997. Publication NO. T/354.
[19]
Huang, S.; Titus, S.J.; Morgan, D.J. A Compatible Height-Site Index-Age Model for Young and Mature Aspen Based on Natural Subregions; Forest Management Research Note; Alberta Environmental Protection Land and Forest Service: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1997. Publication No. T/355.
[20]
Huang, S. Ecologically Based Individual Tree Volume Estimation for Major Alberta Tree Species. Report #1. Individual Tree Volume Estimation Procedures for Alberta: Methods of Formulation and Statistical Foundations; Alberta Environmental Protection, Land and Forest Services, Forest Management Division: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1994.
[21]
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). Stand Dynamics System (SDS) Field Remeasurement Manual; Alberta Land and Forest Division: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 2003.
[22]
Bokalo, M.; Comeau, P.G.; Humphries, S. Western Boreal Growth and Yield Association Long Term Study—Experimental Design, Data Collection and Database Maintenance Manual; University of Alberta: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 2012.
[23]
Bokalo, M.; Comeau, P.G.; Titus, S.J. Early development of tended mixtures of aspen and spruce in western Canadian boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 242, 175–184, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.038.
[24]
Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Ltd. Weyerhaeuser Permanent Sample Plot, State of the Data; Weyerhaeuser Saskatchewan Forestlands: Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Canada, 2005.
[25]
Tansanu, C.; Bokalo, M. Evaluating the Predictive Performance of Several Growth Models Calibrated for Saskatchewan; Final Report; Saskatchewan Forest Centre: Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Canada, 2006. Available online: http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=eb4897fd-0c2e-45c4-a548-6f2a290155a4 (accessed on 15 July 2011).
[26]
Cieszewski, C.J.; Bella, I.E.; Yeung, D.P. Preliminary Site-Index Height Growth Curves for Eleven Timber Species in Saskatchewan; draft unpublished report; Saskatchewan Forest Centre: Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Canada, 1993.
[27]
Gal, J.; Bella, I.E. New Stem Taper Functions for 12 Saskatchewan Timber SpeciesInformation report NOR–X– 338; CFS Northern Forestry Centre: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1994.
[28]
Pretzch, H. Forest Dynamics, Growth and Yield; Springer: Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 56–58.
[29]
Loague, K.; Green, R.E. Statistical and graphical methods for evaluating solute transport models: Overview and application. J. Contam. Hydrol. 1991, 7, 51–73, doi:10.1016/0169-7722(91)90038-3.
[30]
Sterba, H.; Monserud, R.A. Applicability of the forest stand growth simulator prognaus for the Austrian part of the Bohemian Massif. Ecol. Model. 1997, 98, 23–34, doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(96)01934-5.
Wellek, S. Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence and Noninferiority, 2nd ed.; Chapman and Hall: London, England, 2009.
[33]
Kozak, A.; Kozak, R. Does cross validation provide additional information in the evaluation of regression models? Can. J. For. Res. 2003, 33, 976–987, doi:10.1139/x03-022.
[34]
Delong, C. Dynamics of Boreal Mixedwood Ecosystems. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Northern Mixedwoods, Fort St. John, British Columbia, Canada, 12–14 September, 1989; pp. 30–31.
[35]
Lieffers, V.J.; Stewart, J.D.; Macmillan, R.B.; Macpherson, D.; Branter, K. Semi-natural and intensive silvicultural systems for the boreal mixedwood forest. For. Chronicle 1996, 72, 286–292.
[36]
Man, R.; Lieffers, V.J. Are mixtures of aspen and white spruce more productive than single species stands? For. Chronicle 1999, 75, 505–513.
[37]
Chen, H.Y.; Popadiouk, R.V. Dynamics of North American boreal mixedwoods. Environ. Rev. 2002, 10, 137–166, doi:10.1139/a02-007.
[38]
Kabzems, R.; Garcia, O. Structure and dynamics of trembling aspen ？—white spruce mixed stands near Fort Nelson, B.C. Can. J. For. Res. 2004, 34, 384–395, doi:10.1139/x03-254.
[39]
Mowrer, H.T.; Frayer, W.E. Variance propagation in growth and yield projections. Can. J. For. Res. 1986, 16, 1196–1200, doi:10.1139/x86-213.
[40]
Huang, S.; Meng, S.X.; Yand, Y. A Growth and Yield Projection System (GYPSY) for Natural and Post-Harvest Stands in Alberta; Technical Report Pub. No.: T/216; Alberta Sustainable Resource Development: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 2009.
[41]
Boateng, J.O.; Heineman, J.L.; Bedford, L.; Harper, G.J.; Linnell Nemec, A.F. Long-term effects of site preparation and postplanting vegetation control on Picea glauca survival, growth and predicted yield in boreal British Columbia. Scand. J. For. Res. 2009, 24, 111–129, doi:10.1080/02827580902759685.
[42]
Pitt, D.G.; Comeau, P.G.; Parker, W.C.; MacIsaac, D.; McPherson, S.; Hoepting, M.K.; Stinson, A.; Mihajlovich, M. Early vegetation control for the regeneration of a single-cohort, intimate mixture of white spruce and trembling aspen on upland boreal sites. Can. J. For. Res. 2010, 40, 549–564, doi:10.1139/X10-012.
[43]
Zimmerling, T.N.; Zimmerling, L.M. Effectiveness of a physical barrier in deterring vole and snowshoe hare feeding damage to Lodgepole pine seedlings. West. J. Appl. For. 1998, 13, 12–14.
[44]
Brandt, J.P.; Cerezke, H.F.; Mallett, K.I.; Volney, W.J.A.; Weber, J.D. Factors affecting trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) health in the boreal forest of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, Canada. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 178, 287–300, doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00479-6.
[45]
Sullivan, T.P.; Sullivan, D.S.; Lindgren, P.M.F.; Ransome, D.B. Long-term responses of ecosystem components to stand thinning in young lodgepole pine forest: IV. Relative habitat use by mammalian herbivores. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 240, 32–41, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.11.020.
[46]
Perala, D.A. How endemic injuries affect early growth of aspen suckers. Can. J. For. Res. 1984, 14, 755–762, doi:10.1139/x84-135.
[47]
Mallett, K.; Volney, W. The effect of Armillaria root disease on lodgepole pine tree growth. Can. J. For. Res. 1999, 29, 252–259, doi:10.1139/x98-203.
[48]
Blenis, P.V. Impact of simulated aspen shoot blight on trembling aspen. Can. J. For. Res. 2007, 37, 719–725, doi:10.1139/X06-270.
[49]
Pothier, D.; Mailly, D. Stand-level prediction of balsam fir mortality in relation to spruce budworm defoliation. Can. J. For. Res. 2006, 36, 1631–1640, doi:10.1139/x06-062.
[50]
Hogg, E.; Wein, R.W. Impacts of drought on forest growth and regeneration following fire in southwestern Yukon, Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 2005, 35, 2141–2150, doi:10.1139/x05-120.
[51]
Cortini, F.; Comeau, P.G.; Boateng, J.O.; Bedford, L.; McClarnon, J.; Powelson, A. Effects of climate on growth of lodgepole pine and white spruce following site preparation and its implications in a changing climate. Can. J. For. Res. 2011, 41, 180–194, doi:10.1139/X10-194.
[52]
Feng, Z.; Stadt, K.J.; Lieffers, V.J. Linking juvenile white spruce density, dispersion, stocking, and mortality to future yield. Can. J. For. Res. 2006, 36, 3173–3182, doi:10.1139/x06-192.
