EFIMOD – a system of models EFIMOD – a system of models for for Forest Management Forest Management EFIMOD – a system of models EFIMOD – a system of models for for Forest Management Forest Management

A.S. Komarov, A.V. Mikhailov, S.S. Bykhovets, M.V.Bobrovsky, E.V.ZubkovaInstitute of Physicochemical and Biological Problems in Soil Science of Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, Russia

A.S. Komarov, A.V. Mikhailov, S.S. Bykhovets, M.V.Bobrovsky, E.V.ZubkovaInstitute of Physicochemical and Biological Problems in Soil Science of Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, Russia O.G. Chertov, M.A.NadporozhskayaBiological Institute of St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg-Peterhoff, Russia

L.G.Khanina, V.E.SmirnovInstitute of Mathematical Problems in Biology,Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, Russia

Short description of the EFIMOD

model

Short description of the EFIMOD

model EFIMOD is spatially explicit individual

based model of forest ecosystem

The system consists of 3 main parts: tree sub model, soil sub model (ROMUL) and statistical climate generator (SCLISS)

Tree sub model is an individual growth simulator in dependence on light and soil nitrogen

ROMUL is the model of forest soil organic matter dynamics

SCLISS allows us to estimate soil temperature and moisture using measured standard meteorological data (statistical and long-term measured series )

EFIMOD is spatially explicit individual based model of forest ecosystem

The system consists of 3 main parts: tree sub model, soil sub model (ROMUL) and statistical climate generator (SCLISS)

Tree sub model is an individual growth simulator in dependence on light and soil nitrogen

ROMUL is the model of forest soil organic matter dynamics

SCLISS allows us to estimate soil temperature and moisture using measured standard meteorological data (statistical and long-term measured series )

EFIMOD 2 flow chartEFIMOD 2 flow chart

T R E E S

EFIMOD 2 flow-chart

Climate

PAR

Initialisation

Available PAR for trees, groundvegetation and natural regeneration

Redistribution of soil available nitrogen

1 2 3 n Groundvegetation

Naturalregeneration

Model of soil organic matter ROMUL

Forest manager

Data viewer Graph interface3D visualisation

T R E E S

EFIMOD 2 flow-chart

Climate

PAR

Initialisation

Available PAR for trees, groundvegetation and natural regeneration

Redistribution of soil available nitrogen

1 2 3 n Groundvegetation

Naturalregeneration

Model of soil organic matter ROMUL

Forest manager

Data viewer Graph interface3D visualisation

EFIMOD 2.lnk

EFIMOD 2: Tree sub model

EFIMOD 2: Tree sub model

Full PAR

Initial tree biomass

Soil available NitrogenSOIL

Available PAR aftershadowing

Portion of availableNitrogen for the tree

LeafBiomass

Fine rootbiomass

max

nT

Tree biomassincrement due

to light, Ipe

Tree biomassincrementdue to soil

Nitrogen, Ipn

Annual tree biomassincrement

Ip = min { Ipe , Ipe }

Tree biomass,D, H, stem

volumeat the end of

time stepTree (leaf, branch

and root) litter

Reallocation ofincrement by tree

organs

EFIMOD 2: Soil sub model ROMUL

EFIMOD 2: Soil sub model ROMUL

Li - Undecomposedlitter on soil surface

F.i - complex of humussubstances with

undecomposed debris(humified organic layer)

Lju -

undecomposedlitter in mineral

topsoil

F ju - complex of humus

substances withundecomposed debris in

mineral topsoil (“labil humus”)

H - humusbonded withclay minerals

Lju0 -

Belowgroundlitter fall

ki1L ki

2L

ki3L

K j4L K j

5S

K6

K j1S

K j3S

K j2S K j

4S

K j5S

Soil surface

Li0 -

Abovegroundlitter fall

ROMUL sub model (soil)

EFIMOD modelinterconnectionsEFIMOD model

interconnections

Fine roots

Coarse roots

Stem

Branches

Foliages

Tree species3

Fine roots

Coarse roots

Stem

Branches

Foliages

Tree species2

Fine roots

Coarse roots

Stem

Branches

Foliage

Tree species1

Litter &

deadwood

EFIMOD stand sub model

Nav

The EFIMOD Input The EFIMOD Input DataData

Standard monthly climatic data

Monthly nitrogen input from the atmosphere

Standard inventory characteristics of the stand

Main soil hydrological characteristics

Pools of soil organic matter and nitrogen in organic and mineral soil

ROMUL validation: Measured and ROMUL validation: Measured and simulated COsimulated CO22 emission from a emission from a

soil in dependence on soil in dependence on temperaturetemperature

Mekrijarvi

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature, degree C at soil surface

CO

2 m

g m

-2 h

-1

Measured flow min

Measured flow max

Total CO2 production ROMUL

Waldstein

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature, degree C, at 5 cm depth

CO

2 m

g m

-2 h

-1

Measured flow

Total production, ROMUL

Pajari, 1995Pajari, 1995 Matteucci et al Matteucci et al.., 2000 , 2000 (in Schultze, 2000)(in Schultze, 2000)

Model validation Jadråås, Sweden, Scots pine

Model validation Jadråås, Sweden, Scots pine

JadrååsMean stand height

Years

Pine Mean H(m) Measured height Jadraas

1817161514131211109876543210

Heig

ht, m

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

JadrååsMean diameter

Years

Pine Mean DBH(cm) Measured diameter Jadraas

1817161514131211109876543210

Mean

stan

d di

amet

er, c

m17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

JadrååsBasal area

Years

Pine Basal area(sq.m/ha) Measured Basal Area Jadraas

1817161514131211109876543210Ba

sal a

rea,

sq. m

per

ha

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

EFIMOD validation: stem biomass for BFTCS Black spruce sites, Central

Canada

EFIMOD validation: stem biomass for BFTCS Black spruce sites, Central

CanadaCandle Lake

Black spruce1 Stem (kg/m2)Measured Stem Biomass, kg/m2

Years1501401301201101009080706050403020100

Ste

m b

iom

ass

, kg m

-2

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Candle Lake

Black spruce1 Stem (kg/m2)Measured Stem Biomass, kg/m2

Years1501401301201101009080706050403020100

Ste

m b

iom

ass

, kg m

-2

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Area of applicabilityArea of applicability

• Evaluation of carbon and nitrogen dynamics in boreal forest ecosystems

• Analysis of consequences of the different types of cuttings

• Restoring of unmeasured data in the ecosystem (CO2 emission, mineral nitrogen).

• Analysis of silvicultural operations (fertilizers, soil amendments, burning of cutting residuals etc.)

• Analysis of carbon and nitrogen dynamics at fires and insect attacks

Case studyCase studyThe State Forest “Russky Les” is situated at 100 km South of Moscow (Russia) on Central East European Plain at the border between coniferous and broad-leaved forest zones with continental climate. 104 stands were selected (Total area is 273.4 ha)

Climate

0

20

40

60

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112month

mm

-15

-5

5

15

25

T º

C

mean monthly precipitations mean monthly temperature

Site classes

12

34

A B C

0

10

20

30

40

50

moisture

fertility

Stand composition

PineSpruceBirchLimeOak

36%64%

Mono species forest

Mixed forest

Effects on forest ecosystems of climate

change

Effects on forest ecosystems of climate

change

Spread of disease?

the availability of water?

Global warming

?

Climate change scenarios Climate change scenarios

0

5

10

15

1955

1975

1995

2015

2035

2055

2075

2095

years

T°C

StableClimate change

Climate change scenario

HadCM3 +(UK, Hulme et al., 1999)Hadley Centre Coupled Model, v. 3

General circulation model GCMGISS, PCM, HadCM3, ECHAM4, CGCM, CSIRO et al.

Emissions Scenarios

A1Fi

A1: Rapid convergent growth: • A1Fi: Fossil-fuel Intensive • A1B: Balance • A1T: emphasis on new Technology

A2: Fragmented world B1: Convergence with global environmental emphasis B2: Local sustainability

Influence of Climate change on Carbon (C) dynamics

Influence of Climate change on Carbon (C) dynamics

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91101111121131141151years

tC/h

a

C in Trees (Stable)C in Trees (Climate change)C in Soil (Stable)C in Soil (Climate change)

Climate C

hange

IncreasingOf Biomass

DecreasingOf SOM

What is impact of silvicultural activities on forest ecosystem development?

What is impact of silvicultural activities on forest ecosystem development?

Silvicultural regimes selected for 200-year simulationSilvicultural regimes selected for 200-year simulation

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Naturaldevelopment

Selective Cuttingsystem

Illegal practice

Legal practice

age of forest

OakPineSpruceBirch

- regeneration; - thinning; - Main cutting

NAT

SCU

LRU

ILL

Silvicultural regimes selected for 200-year simulation

Silvicultural regimes selected for 200-year simulation

Natural development (Nat). This scenario is a full protection of the forest in all forest compartments without cutting

Legal practice (LRU). The scenario describes managed forest with 4 thinnings (at 5, 10, 25 and 50 years), time of the final clear cutting depends on target species, with successful natural regeneration

Selective cutting system (SCU). Managed forest with 2 thinnings and then selective cuttings each 30 years (30% of basal area from above)

Illegal practice (ILL). It is a heavy upper thinning and removing of the best trees, clear cutting without conservation of natural regeneration

Natural development (Nat). This scenario is a full protection of the forest in all forest compartments without cutting

Legal practice (LRU). The scenario describes managed forest with 4 thinnings (at 5, 10, 25 and 50 years), time of the final clear cutting depends on target species, with successful natural regeneration

Selective cutting system (SCU). Managed forest with 2 thinnings and then selective cuttings each 30 years (30% of basal area from above)

Illegal practice (ILL). It is a heavy upper thinning and removing of the best trees, clear cutting without conservation of natural regeneration

A case study experimental forestry

“Russkii Les” (Moscow region)

A case study experimental forestry

“Russkii Les” (Moscow region)

273 ha 104 units

Difference of carbon in trees between last (200) and first time step of

simulation

Difference of carbon in trees between last (200) and first time step of

simulation

NAT SCU

LRU ILL

NAT – natural development

SCU – selective cuttingLRU – legal practiceILL – illegal practice

Soil Carbon Maps (Organic Layer+Mineral Soil) kg/m2

Soil Carbon Maps (Organic Layer+Mineral Soil) kg/m2

NAT

SCU

LRU

ILL

Initial

Soil Carbon dynamics at different silvicultural regimes

Soil Carbon dynamics at different silvicultural regimes

0

2

4

6

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

year

C k

g/m

2

0

2

4

6

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

year

C k

g/m

2

0

2

4

6

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

year

C k

g/m

2

0

2

4

6

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

year

C k

g/m

2

0

2

4

6

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

year

C k

g/m

2

0

2

4

6

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

year

C k

g/m

2

0

2

4

6

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

year

C k

g/m

2

C in Mineral Soil C in Organic Layer

NAT

SCU

LRU

ILL

Dynamics of Deadwood Carbon is produced with

EFIMOD

Dynamics of Deadwood Carbon is produced with

EFIMOD

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

0 50 100 150 200

year

kg C

/m2

NAT

LRU

SCU

ILL

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

0 50 100 150 200

year

kg C

/m2

NAT

LRU

SCU

ILL

Difference of soil carbon between last and first time step of simulation

NAT

SCU

LRU

ILL

30

50

70

90

110

0 50 100 150 200year

t/ha

NATSCULRUILL

Mean carbon value in soil

Dynamics of soil carbon

NAT – natural developmentSCU – selective cuttingLRU – legal practiceILL – illegal practice

Frequency distribution dynamics of stands with different Carbon

stocks

Frequency distribution dynamics of stands with different Carbon

stocks

SCU

ILLLRU

Nat

Brown: from 0 to 100 t/ha; White from 101 to 200 t/ha; Green from 201

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

NAT SCU LRU ILL

Car

bon

t/ha

per

yea

r

NPPCO2CuttingsBurned of felling debris

-0.30

-0.10

0.10

0.30

0.50

0.70

0.90

NAT SCU LRU ILLCar

bon

t/ha

per

yea

r

Carbon flows Carbon changes

Total Carbon balanceTotal Carbon balance

Differences between C stock under stable climate and

climate change

Differences between C stock under stable climate and

climate change

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1 51 101 151

Years

тС/h

a

NATSCULRUILL

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 51 101 151

YearsтС

/ha

NATSCULRUILL

Soil Carbon Tree Carbon

NAT – natural development SCU – selective cutting LRU – legal practice ILL – illegal practice

Biodiversity assessment

Initial LRU

NATSCU

ILL

Tree dominant dynamics

Biodiversity assessment

InitialLRU

NAT SCU

ILL

Dynamics of functional groups in ground vegetation

Initial

LRU

NAT SCU

ILL

Dynamics of species diversity ranks in ground vegetation

Biodiversity assessment

Biodiversity assessment

Total number of forest types is higher in all scenarios with cuttings relative to the NAT scenario

The NAT strategy leads to the growth of coniferous-broad-leaved forests close to the climax forest type of the study area

The NAT strategy leads to the highest species diversity in ground vegetation if a free forest development has taken place for rather long time

The SCU scenario lead to a simplification of ground vegetation together with a conservation of nemoral and boreal species

Scenarios with clear cuttings (LRU and ILL) maintain piny and meadow groups in ground vegetation

The simulation results showed