Relationship between forest management planning units and spatial distribution of forest habitat components in Koli National Park.

Abstract

This study examined the relationships between forest management planning units and patches formed by forest habitat components. The test area used was a part of Koli National Park in North Karelia, eastern Finland. Forest management planning units (i.e. forest compartments) were defined by using a traditional method of Finnish forestry which applies aerial photographs and compartmentwise field inventory. Patches of forest habitat components were divided according to subjective rules by using a chosen set of variables depicting the edaphic features and vegetation of a forest habitat. The spatial distribution of the habitat components was estimated with the kriging-interpolation based on systematically located sample plots. The comparisons of the two patch mosaics were made by using the standard tools of GIS.The results of the study show that forest compartment division does not correlate very strongly with the forest habitat pattern. On average, the mean patch size of the forest habitat components is greater and the number of these patches lower compared to forest compartment division. However, if the forest habitat component distribution had been considered, the number of the forest compartments would have at least doubled after intersection.

Building and evaluating predictive occupancy models for the Siberian flying squirrel using forest planning data

“…In these data, the size and shape of stands are first roughly defined from aerial photographs and base maps, and then adjusted and complemented with measurements in the field (Uuttera and Hyppänen, 1997). Measurements of each tree species are taken from several sample plots per stand and tree volumes are calculated on the basis of diameter or basal area and height of trees.…”

“…For example, stand borders may be delineated purely for forestry purposes (Uuttera and Hyppänen, 1997) and may not follow biologically meaningful borders in the landscape. Further, heterogeneity within the forest stand level may be more important to many species than among-stand variability, i.e.…”

“…In these data, forests are classified as homogenous stand units, if possible, based mainly on soil properties, tree species composition and age class (Uuttera and Hyppänen, 1997). It is possible that some parameters of stand characteristics measured for silvicultural purposes could serve as broad surrogates for certain habitat types.…”