Open Access
Open access
volume 73 issue 4 pages 807-821

Comparison of methods used in European National Forest Inventories for the estimation of volume increment: towards harmonisation

Thomas Gschwantner 1
Adrian Lanz 2
Claude Vidal 3
Michal Bošeľa 4, 5
Lucio Di Cosmo 6
Jonas Fridman 7
Patrizia Gasparini 6
Andrius Kuliešis 8
Stein Tomter 9
Klemens Schadauer 1
1
 
Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape (BFW), Vienna, Austria
3
 
Joint Research Centre (JRC), Unit Forest Resources and Climate, European Commission, Ispra, Italy
4
 
National Forest Centre, Zvolen, Slovakia
8
 
Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Akademija, Lithuania
9
 
Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute, Ås, Norway
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2016-05-02
scimago Q1
wos Q1
SJR0.698
CiteScore5.5
Impact factor2.7
ISSN12864560, 1297966X
Ecology
Forestry
Abstract
The increment estimation methods of European NFIs were explored by means of 12 essential NFI features. The results indicate various differences among NFIs within the commonly acknowledged methodological frame. The perspectives for harmonisation at the European level are promising. The estimation of increment is implemented differently in European National Forest Inventories (NFIs) due to different historical origins of NFIs and sampling designs and field assessments accommodated to country-specific conditions. The aspired harmonisation of increment estimation requires a comparison and an analysis of NFI methods. The objective was to investigate the differences in volume increment estimation methods used in European NFIs. The conducted work shall set a basis for harmonisation at the European level which is needed to improve information on forest resources for various strategic processes. A comprehensive enquiry was conducted during Cost Action FP1001 to explore the methods of increment estimation of 29 European NFIs. The enquiry built upon the preceding Cost Action E43 and was complemented by an analysis of literature to demonstrate the methodological backgrounds. The comparison of methods revealed differences concerning the NFI features such as sampling grids, periodicity of assessments, permanent and temporary plots, use of remote sensing, sample tree selection, components of forest growth, forest area changes, sampling thresholds, field measurements, drain assessment, involved models and tree parts included in estimates. Increment estimation methods differ considerably among European NFIs. Their harmonisation introduces new issues into the harmonisation process. Recent accomplishments and the increased use of sample-based inventories in Europe make perspectives for harmonised reporting of increment estimation promising.
Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

1
2
3
4
5
Annals of Forest Science
5 publications, 9.8%
Forests
4 publications, 7.84%
Science of the Total Environment
3 publications, 5.88%
Forest Ecology and Management
3 publications, 5.88%
Forestry
3 publications, 5.88%
Remote Sensing
2 publications, 3.92%
Ecological Indicators
2 publications, 3.92%
Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering
2 publications, 3.92%
Facets
1 publication, 1.96%
Water (Switzerland)
1 publication, 1.96%
Frontiers in Plant Science
1 publication, 1.96%
Ecosystems
1 publication, 1.96%
Scientific Reports
1 publication, 1.96%
Forest Ecosystems
1 publication, 1.96%
Forest Policy and Economics
1 publication, 1.96%
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
1 publication, 1.96%
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation
1 publication, 1.96%
Journal of Ecology
1 publication, 1.96%
International Journal of Remote Sensing
1 publication, 1.96%
Risk Analysis in Forest Management
1 publication, 1.96%
Forest Systems
1 publication, 1.96%
E3S Web of Conferences
1 publication, 1.96%
European Journal of Forest Research
1 publication, 1.96%
Remote Sensing of Environment
1 publication, 1.96%
Scientific data
1 publication, 1.96%
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
1 publication, 1.96%
Forest Science
1 publication, 1.96%
Ecological Informatics
1 publication, 1.96%
Ecography
1 publication, 1.96%
1
2
3
4
5

Publishers

2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Elsevier
14 publications, 27.45%
Springer Nature
12 publications, 23.53%
MDPI
7 publications, 13.73%
Oxford University Press
4 publications, 7.84%
Taylor & Francis
3 publications, 5.88%
Frontiers Media S.A.
2 publications, 3.92%
Wiley
2 publications, 3.92%
Canadian Science Publishing
1 publication, 1.96%
Instituto Nacional de Investigacion y Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria
1 publication, 1.96%
EDP Sciences
1 publication, 1.96%
Italian Society of Sivilculture and Forest Ecology (SISEF)
1 publication, 1.96%
Walter de Gruyter
1 publication, 1.96%
Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Florestas
1 publication, 1.96%
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
51
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Gschwantner T. et al. Comparison of methods used in European National Forest Inventories for the estimation of volume increment: towards harmonisation // Annals of Forest Science. 2016. Vol. 73. No. 4. pp. 807-821.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Gschwantner T., Lanz A., Vidal C., Bošeľa M., Di Cosmo L., Fridman J., Gasparini P., Kuliešis A., Tomter S., Schadauer K. Comparison of methods used in European National Forest Inventories for the estimation of volume increment: towards harmonisation // Annals of Forest Science. 2016. Vol. 73. No. 4. pp. 807-821.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1007/s13595-016-0554-5
UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-016-0554-5
TI - Comparison of methods used in European National Forest Inventories for the estimation of volume increment: towards harmonisation
T2 - Annals of Forest Science
AU - Gschwantner, Thomas
AU - Lanz, Adrian
AU - Vidal, Claude
AU - Bošeľa, Michal
AU - Di Cosmo, Lucio
AU - Fridman, Jonas
AU - Gasparini, Patrizia
AU - Kuliešis, Andrius
AU - Tomter, Stein
AU - Schadauer, Klemens
PY - 2016
DA - 2016/05/02
PB - Springer Nature
SP - 807-821
IS - 4
VL - 73
SN - 1286-4560
SN - 1297-966X
ER -
BibTex |
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2016_Gschwantner,
author = {Thomas Gschwantner and Adrian Lanz and Claude Vidal and Michal Bošeľa and Lucio Di Cosmo and Jonas Fridman and Patrizia Gasparini and Andrius Kuliešis and Stein Tomter and Klemens Schadauer},
title = {Comparison of methods used in European National Forest Inventories for the estimation of volume increment: towards harmonisation},
journal = {Annals of Forest Science},
year = {2016},
volume = {73},
publisher = {Springer Nature},
month = {may},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-016-0554-5},
number = {4},
pages = {807--821},
doi = {10.1007/s13595-016-0554-5}
}
MLA
Cite this
MLA Copy
Gschwantner, Thomas, et al. “Comparison of methods used in European National Forest Inventories for the estimation of volume increment: towards harmonisation.” Annals of Forest Science, vol. 73, no. 4, May. 2016, pp. 807-821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-016-0554-5.