This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Seeing the Trees, Forests, and the Earth 1
H. Gyde Lund 2
Abstract-There is an old adage, we can't see the forest for the
trees-meaning that we often get too wrapped up in details to see the
overall picture. In our forest inventories, we often spend too much
effort measuring trees and not enough time trying to get an overall
view of the total resources and functions of the forests. Similarly, we
often spend a lot oftime measuring, monitoring and reporting on the
status forests. Yet, in spite of all our forest monitoring efforts, we
fmd that we are constantly loosing forest lands. This may be because
we fail to look at the forests in relation to human needs and in
relation to the Earth's other land resources. We can't see the Earth
for the forests! This paper explores some ofthe technical and political
problems with current forest inventory and monitoring methods at
the national and global level and presents some politically and
scientifically-correct recommendations for solving them.
inventories, do we all agree what is a tree and do we have all
the information we need?
What Do We See?
Many countries have different definitions of what they
consider a tree. Nations often base their definition of a tree
on life form and a minimum height. The height threshold
varies country to country (Lund 1998b). In the U.S. alone,
there are at least four national definitions used by various
federal agencies. There is no single tree definition for North
America as a whole. A common North American definition is
fundamental for having comparable forest data.
How Do We View Our Trees?
Buenos dias! The goal for this Symposium is to assure that
the data and information produced in future inventory and
monitoring programs are comparable, quality assured,
available, and adequate for their intended purposes, thereby
providing a reliable framework for characterization,
assessment, and management offorest ecosystems in North
America. In order to have comparable data we need to know
what we see, see all that we need to know and to have
common definitions, objectives and efficient approaches in
our inventories.
There is an old saying "We cannot see the forest for the
trees"-meaning, for this paper, that we place a lot of
emphasis in our timber inventories without understanding
how the other forest resources may be affected by
management decisions. A ~ompanion saying may be "We
cannot see the Earth for the Forests." As with trees, we often
pay attention to the roles forests play in society, but often
overlook the roles and functions other lands serve.
Data collection is expensive and time consuming. What
can we do to ensure we have adequate and comparable
information? This paper reviews explores some of the
technical and political problems with current forest inventory
and monitoring methods at the national and global level and
presents some politically and scientifically correct
recommendations for solving them.
Seeing the Trees
Knowledge of trees is for forest management. While we
have excellent information on trees through our national
Forest inventories typically involve the use of sample plots
unbiasedly located on forested lands but maximized to
collect tree data. On those plots, we generally collect data on
the species, d.b.h., height, crown characteristics, age, bark
thickness, growth, volume, defects, etc.
During our inventories, however, we may ignore noncommercial species. For example, consider our experience in
the western United States. We had very good inventories of
our timber resources on our National Forests. However, we
only collected data on trees that were of a commercial species
at that time and on trees that were of a certain minimum
size. In the early 1990s, researchers found that Pacific yew
(Tax us brevifolia) was a good source ofTaxol, a drug that has
proven effective against ovarian cancer. Almost overnight,
interest in and the demand for Pacific yew mushroomed.
Because Pacific yew is generally a very small tree and was
not considered a commercial species at the time of the forest
surveys, the Forest Service did not inventory it. Consequently
the inventory records contained little or no information
about the abundance and distribution ofthe species. Because
inventory data were lacking, some people assumed that the
species was rare. Some moves were made to list the species
as "threatened." If that were the case, then the species would
have to be protected. In other words iflisted as threatened,
the plant could not be harvested. So here we have an
example of a resource having a definite market, but federal
laws restricting its harvest. Fortunately subsequent
inventories have shown that the plant is widely distributed
and fairly common throughout the Pacific Northwest. The
development of its use continues.
How Can We Improve Our View?
lpaper presented at the North American Science Symposium: Toward a
Unified Framework for Inventorying and Monitoring Forest Ecosystem
Resources, Guadalajara, Mexico, November 1-6, 1998.
2H. Gyde Lund is a Forestry Consultant, Integrated Resource Inventories
and Assessments, Manassas, Virginia, USA.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
One way to get around this problem to collect data on all
tree species on the sample plots. This, however, only solves
only one part of the much larger problem of seeing the forest
as well as the trees.
493
Seeing the Forests
Forests provide a variety of goods and services in addition
to timber. Forests are sources of non-wood forest products,
water, fisheries, minerals, biodiversity, and recreational
opportunities. Forests filter the air, store water, accumulate
carbon, and stabilize soils. These other functions are
especially important at the national and global levels. We
need common definitions in these subject areas as well or the
ability to crosswalk, if we are to have comparable data in
these subject areas. The Interim Resource Inventory Glossary
(USDA Forest Service 1989) may be a good starting point in
defining needed terms.
What Do We See?
As with "tree" a challenge in seeing the "forest" is to have
a shared understanding of what is a "forest." In a recent
survey, the International Union of Forestry Research
Organization (IUFRO) identified over 90 different definitions
offorest land (Lund 1998b). Mexico's definition differs from
Canada's which differs from the USA's. In the US alone we
have at least five different "official" definitions offorest land.
We can group the various forest land definitions into three
broad categories-those describing an administrative unit,
a type ofland cover, or a land use. An administrative unit a
designated area like a National Forest. Land cover is
something that covers the ground (WWWebster 1998). Land
use is the predominant purpose for which an area is employed
(USDA Forest Service 1989). A given land use may take
place on one, or more than one, piece ofland and several land
uses may occur on the same piece of land.
Identifying the population (administrative unit, land cover
or land use) we wish to sample is key for land and resource
management decisions. Ifwe are going to have comparable
data in North America, then as a minimum we should have
a common definition of forest land.
How Do We View Our Forests?
As indicated above, we have very efficient inventory
procedures for gathering tree information. Unfortunately
the inventory designs we use to capture tree information
may not be effective for gathering data about the other good
and services offered from forest lands. Consequently, we
often must use separate, less "tree efficient" systems to
gather this additional information.
Inventories of biodiversity are essential when surveying
new areas and wanting to seek out new non-wood forest
products. They do require the employment of specialists in
identifying plants and animals. They are most successful
when done in small areas, limited to either plants or animals,
and where one does not anticipate a great variety of species.
For more information on how to inventory biodiversity, see
Boyle and Boontawee (1995), Heywood and Watson (1995),
and Yorks and Dabydeen (1998). While biodiversity
inventories tell us what species may be available in a given
area, they do not tell us what are used and what the
abundance and distribution of the resource are.
Guidance on how to sample for wildlife is contained in
Cooperider et al. (1983), for soils in Carter (1993), water
(Chapman 1996), vegetation (Francis 1982), .rangeland
(National Research Council 1994), forests (Paivinen et
al.1994), agroforestry (Kohli et al.1996 and Leakey et al.1996),
and recreation CYuan et al. 1995). Readers may find techniques
for conducting cultural surveys in Carter (1996) and Leakey
et al. (1996).
Some inventory systems require direct observation in the
field, others may be done indirectly by remote sensing, and
yet others by a combination (Table 1). The use of remote
sensing is especially good for inventorying and monitoring
some of the functions and services of the forest, such as
watershed protection, soil stabilization, and carbon
sequestration. The amount and extent of vegetation cover
which interpreters can generally extract from imagery reflect
many of these activities. Some ecological functions may also
be derived from remote sensing such as biodiversity. This
depends on the type, resolution, and scale of the imagery
being used. For a good review of how to use imagery for
mapping vegetation, see Maus (1995).
A shortcoming of all these various inventory techniques is
that they are often independent of one another - some times
duplicating work and at other times leaving gaps. In addition,
the gathering of resource information is not free - it demands
resources (labor, technology, energy, transport, etc.) and
therefore implies costs (Paivinen and Solberg 1996).
Therefore, we need to carefully plan and maximize our data
gathering activities.
How Can We Improve Our View?
To maximize data collection and to minimize costs consider
using integrated or multipurpose resource inventories (MRIs).
Multipurpose resource inventories are data collection efforts
designed to meet all or part ofthe information requiremen ts
Table 1.-Direct and indirect methods of gathering field data (Correll et aI.1997).
Direct methods include
Mark-recapture (banding/tagging)
Dimensional plots (circular, rectangular, etc.)
Point sampling (horizontal and vertical)
Transect/traverse sampling
Profile/content sampling (soils)
Volume/content/flow sampling (air and water)
494
Indirect sampling includes
Visual observation (counts of wildlife)
Fixed-point/ground based photography
Aerial photography and videography
Satellite imagery
Laser profiling
Radio telemetry
Radar/sonar and other remote sensing systems
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
Table 2.- Minimum data for modeling the extent of forest resources (Paivinen et al.1994 and Lund
1998c).
Source of information
Desired resource attribute
Type of vegetation cover (overstory and understory)
Vegetation height (overstory and understory)
Percent vegetation cover
Soil type
Climatic data
Topography (aspect, slope, elevation)
Geographic co-ordinates
Past treatment, uses
Planned treatment, use
What Do We See?
for two or more resources, goods, products, services (such as
timber production and watershed protection) and/or sectors
(such as agriculture and forestry). Table 2 lists a minimum
set of data to have on hand to help model the extent of forest
resources and services.
Many ofthe papers presented in this Symposium addressed
techniques for developing integrated inventories. Integrated
or MRIs are technically possible. However, their design and
implementation do require a considerable amount of
negotiating and politicking. See Lund (1998c) for assistance.
The title of this Symposium was "Toward a Unified
Framework for Inventorying and Monitoring Forest
Ecosystem Resources" and I believed it accomplished its
goals. To meet the needs from UNCED, future inventories
and management strategies, however, must look beyond the
trees and forests. To understand how to best manage trees
and forests, we need to understand how forests relate to
other land uses and covers and vice-versa. Agricultural
lands are essential for providing food and forage for
maintaining a healthy environment. Growing human
populations are placing increasing demands for new lands
for agriculture production. Increasing human populations
drive a need for more agricultural lands which, in turn,
affects how much forest land we may have. Figure 1 shows
the trends in human population, agricultural lands and
forest lands from 1961 projected to 2019. Note that with an
increase in human population there is an increase in
agricultural lands and a similar decrease in forest lands.
From such a graph, one can see that if we want to maintain
or increase forest cover, we need to address human population
growth and the need for increased productivity from all
lands. Thus to maintain or increase forest cover in the
future, we have to look beyond the trees and the forests.
Seeing the Earth
I believe we can all agree on the definition of"Earth"-our
home planet and the source of all our needs and resources.
However, do we agree on what kind of world we would like
to have? Parties to the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992, identified and agreed to common global
goals including improving the quality of life and the
environment, maintaining biodiversity, reducing
deforestation, mitigating climate change and promoting
sustainable resource management. Thus, we all have some
common objectives for our resource management activities.
It is these objectives that makes the need for comparable
data between nations necessary.
---=
Remote sensing, field surveys
Field surveys
Field surveys
Field surveys, existing maps
Weather Service
Digital elevation models, field surveys
Field surveys (global positioning systems)
Historical records, interviews, field surveys
Interviews
8
~
Q.
~
6
-e- Agriculture
Q.
=-
---&- Forest
f'-)
___ Population
..c 4
---== 2
.,.
. ,.
=0
"fIIII4
\C
C7\
"fIIII4
III
\C
C7\
"fIIII4
C7\
\C
C7\
..-4
~
r-
C7\
..-4
rr-
oo
"fIIII4
,..-4
C7\
"fIIII4
C7\
III
QC)
C7\
"fIIII4
C7\
00
C7\
..-4
~
C7\
C7\
..-4
r-
C7\
C7\
,..-4
"fIIII4
=>
=>
N
III
=>
=>
N
C7\
=>
=>
N
Year
Figure 1.-Trends in land use 1961-2010. (Source: http://apps.fao.org/lim500/nph-wrap.pl?LandUse&Domain for LUI to
1994 and Lund and Iremonger 1998 for beyond.
USDA Forest Service ProceedinQs RMRS-P-12. 1999
495
How Do We View Our Earth?
most objective and easiest to determine from remote sensing.
However, as shown in Figure 2, there is a variety of different
land cover systems available and each can lead to different
estimates and conclusions. The Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has developed an
outstanding land cover classification system for its
AFRICOVER program (Di Gregorio and Jansen 1998). FAO
has coordinated and linked their system with other land
cover and vegetation classification systems developed
elsewhere including the U.S. This system has global utility,
is very objective, and eliminates most of the Land Use
classification problems.
Nations usually carry out assessments of agriculture and
forested lands by separate entities. Often there is duplication
of data collection, information gaps, etc. The bottom line is
that we do not really know how much land currently serves
the needs of agriculture and forestry, which lands are best
suited for conversion to the alternate use, and where they
are located. In order for decision makers to make more
informed decisions, we need complete and up-to-date georeferenced inventories.
Effective resource and ecosystem management to meet
the needs of future populations, whether it is atthe local or
global level, must be underpinned by a sound knowledge
base. Resource inventories provide the informa tion necessary
to create a picture of the current resources, and from these
estimates of future supplies and shortages can be developed.
Currently our global estimates of forest and agricultural
lands are questionable (Figure 2). With the increasing need
for agricultural and forest lands, accurate estimates of
current land cover and land use, and the rate at which the
areas are changing, are all-important.
Seeing It All
We gather information to improve decisions and, thus, to
get a better use of our natural resources. The benefit of
increased information is the wiser use of the resource base
over time.
What Do We See?
Nearly all natural resource issues, whether they are
environmental, social, economic, ecological or political, are
national as well as global issues. For these reasons, there is
an increasing need for the inventory and monitoring of all
lands and waters and the sharing of the resulting information
with the international community especially through the
United Nations.
How Can We Improve Our View?
In order to plan for the living standards of the world's
population in the future, we need to know (Lund and
Iremonger 1998):
• The area and geographical location of land used for
agricul ture,
• The area and geographical location of land used for
forest goods and services,
• The current and forecasted ratio of each to the world's
population (an estimate ofthe amount needed per person),
and
• The rate of change and distribution of change patterns in
the population, agricultural lands and forest lands.
To look at the forests and beyond we have to have an
objective, land classification system. Such a system should
be based upon either land use or land cover. Mixing the two
leads to confusion. Of the two systems, land cover is the
...
e
=
60
Cift
~
How Do We View Our Resources?
Current National and Global Assessments are sectorially
oriented resulting in omissions and commission errors. The
results of UNCED and the need to integrate our data
collection and reporting should change the way we approach
global assessments in the next century. Nearly every nation
agreed to the documents resulting from UNCED. Therefore
they have some responsibility for gathering and providing
the necessary data. Currently, however, there is no agreed
~
50
~
40
2!
30
; J Agreement
....
20
~Wilson+
Cift
10
"::s
0"
Cift
=
=
===
~
~Olsen
!;l Mathews
+
0
"I
"...
~
Figure 2.-Estimates ofland cover by various sources. (Source: DeFires
and Townshend 1994.)
496
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
system in place that gives the necessary truly integrated
picture of the world's resources. Without such a system,
developing an effective strategy for planning for future
needs is not possible.
In 1997, the International Union of Forestry Research
Organizations (lUFRO) Subject Group 4.02, with the support
of the European Forest Institute (EFI) and the U.S.
Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service (USFS) conducted
a literature review and survey of countries using
multipurpose resource inventories. Lund (1998a) found:
L There is considerable interest in developing MRIs
throughout the world. As nations implement the various
agreements from UNCED, the need for MRIs will increase.
• Most existing MRIs focus on the environmental and
economic needs.
• Most reported had a national scope.
• Most MRIs had foresters involved in the design. However,
a surprisingly large number had other disciplines
involved in the development of the inventory.
• Inventory designers made most decisions through an
interdisciplinary team effort.
• National level inventories are collecting some of the data
because ofUNCED and other international obligations.
None were collecting all the informa tion needed through
the inventory reported. The countries may be gathering
the remaining information through additional surveys.
• Most MRIs used a systematic sample design, probably
with some form of stratification. This design should have
use outside the 'forests' as well.
• Most surveys used remote sensing. Airborne (aerial
photography, videography) remote sensing was the most
common.
• Most surveys employed a circular (including the variable
radius or Bitterlich plot design) configuration. Many of
these were nested to gather a variety of vegetation data.
• Nearly all those surveyed reported that the MRIs met
most of their needs. The biggest problems were costs and
time. These problems are common to any types of
inven tories.
How Can We Improve Our View?
To properly manage our limited natural resources, we
have to see more than the trees and more than the forests.
We need to see how our trees and forests fit in with the rest
of the Earth's land cover and uses. We can improve future
assessments by:
• Integrating data collection efforts to cover all lands and
resources.
• To keep costs low, using latest technologies and sharing
assets (imagery, personnel, equipment, and facilities) to
get the work done.
• Using remote sensing to map land cover according to an
internationally acceptable classification scheme like that
used in the United Nations' AFRICOVER project.
• Using statistical sampling to determine vegetation and
its condition and a sub-sample offield plots to determine
land use.
• Establishing a network of permanent plots across all
lands. Plots may be field plots or large scale, high
resolution imagery.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
• Collecting and storing basic (uninterpreted) data
according to international definitions and standards
including:
• Name/address of land owner, location of tract, and
site information
• Vegetation species grown or present, height, and
percent cover
• Identification of person collecting data and date of
collection
• Coordinates of plots
• Land cover type from remote sensing
• Topographic information from digital elevation
models (DEMs).
• Merging field data with remote sensing/ancillary data
and where correlations exist, building necessary models.
• Using remote sensing and ancillary data to expand field
plot data to entire inventory unit.
• Combining all data in a common GIS.
• Collecting and reporting results in conformity with the
guidelines and recommendations given by the
international bodies including timing, concepts,
standards, definitions, and coverage of data.
• Using remote sensing to monitor changes in land cover.
Where changes occur, sub sample to determine the affect
of the change and the cause.
By following these suggestions, we should be able to see the
trees, forests and the Earth. Muchas gracias!
Acknowledgements
My thanks to Dr. Carlos Rodriquez Franco for his kind
invitation to participate in this historic meeting and to Dr.
Celedonio Aguirre-Bravo for his assistance with logistical
support.
References --------------------------------Boyle, TimothyJ.B.; Boontawee, Boonchoob (eds.) 1995. Measuring
and monitoring biodiversity in tropical and temperate forests.
Proceedings of an IUFRO Symposium. 27 August - 2 September
1994. Chiang Mai, Thailand. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for
International Forestry Research. 395 p.
Carter, Jane. 1996. Recent approaches to participatory forest resource
assessment. Rural Development Forestry Study Guide 2. London,
UK: Overseas Development Institute. 322 p.
Carter, M.R. (ed.) 1993. Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Boca
Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. 864 p.
Chapman, D. 1996. Water quality assessment. 2nd edition. New
York, NY: Chapman & Hall. 640 p.
Cooperider, Allen Y.; Boyd, Raymond J.; Stuart, Hanson R (eds.)
1986. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Service Centre. 858 p.
Correll, Cynthia S.; Askren, Catherine A.; Smith, W. Brad; Holmes,
Rob; Lachwoski, Henry M.; Panos, Gust C., Fincher, James M.
1997. MT30 - Data management, collection, and inventory. Draft
report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. 29 p.
DeFries, RS.; Townshend, J. 1994, Global land cover: Comparison
of ground-based data sets to classifications with AVHRR data. In:
Foody, G.; Curran, P. (eds.) Environmental Remote Sensing from
Regional to Global Scales. New York: John Wiley and Sons, U.K:
84-110.
Di Gregorio, A.; Jansen, L.J.M. 1998. Land cover classification
system: classification concepts and user manual. FAO GCPIRAFI
497
28711TA Africover East Africa ProjectlAGLS/SDRN, Nairobi!
Rome.
Francis, Richard E. 1982. Vegetation measurements for
multiresource inventories ... an ecological concept. In: Brann,
Thomas B.; House, Louis 0.; Lund, H. Gyde (eds.) In-place
resource inventories: principles and practices: Proceedings of a
national workshop; 9-14 August 1981; Orono, ME. SAF 82-02.
Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 339-344.
Heywood, V.H.; Watson, RT. (eds.) 1995. Global biodiversity
assessment. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.
1140 p.
Kohli, RK.; Arya, K.S.; Atul (eds.) 1996. Proceedings of the IUFRODNAES International meeting on resource inventory techniques
to support agroforestry and environment. 1-3 October 1996,
Chandigarh, India. Chandigarh, India: HKT Publications. 387 p.
Leakey, RRB.; Temu, A.B.; Melnyk, M; Vantomme, P. (eds.) 1996.
Domestication and commercialization of non-timber forest
products in agroforestry systems. Proceedings of an international
conference; 19-23 February 1996; Nairobi, Kenya. Non-wood
forest products 9. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations. 297 p.
Lund, H. Gyde. 1998a. A comparison study ofmultipurpose resource
inventories (MRIs) throughout the world. Working Paper No. 14.
Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute. 46 p.
Lund, H. Gyde (ed.) 1998b. Defmitions ofdeforestation, afforestation,
and reforestation. Report prepared for IUFRO Working Unit
6.03.02. Misc. pagination. http://home.att.net/-gklund/
DEFpaper.html.
Lund, H. Gyde (ed.) 1998c. IUFRO Guidelines for designing
multipurpose resource inventories. World Series Vol. 8. Vienna,
Austria: International Union ofForestry Research Organizations.
216p.
Lund, H. Gyde; Iremonger, Susan. 1998 Omissions, commissions,
and decisions: the need for integrated resource assessments. In:
498
Proceedings First International Conference on Geospatial
Information in Agriculture and Forestry. Decision Support,
Technology, and Applications. 1-3 June 1998. Lake Buena Vista,
FL. Ann Arbor, MI: ERIM International, Inc. Volume I: 182-189.
Maus, Paul (ed.) 1995. Guidelines for the use of digital imagery for
vegetation mapping. EM-7140-25. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 125 p. + appendices.
National Research Council. 1994. Rangeland health - new methods
to classify, inventory and monitor rangelands. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press. 180 p.
Paivinen, Risto; Lund, H. Gyde; Poso, Simo; Zawila-Niedzwiecki,
Tomasz. (eds.) 1994. IUFRO international guidelines for forest
monitoring. IUFRO World Series Report 5. Vienna, Austria.
International Union of Forestry Research Organizations. 102 p.
Paivinen, Risto; Solberg, Birger. 1996. From raw data to valueadded forest inventory information. In: Korpilah ti, Eeva: Mikkela,
Heli; Salonen, Tommi (eds.) Caring for the Forest: Research in a
Changing World. Congress Report Volume II. IUFRO XX World
Congress; 6-12 August 1995; Tampere, Finland. Jyvaskyla,
Finland: Gummerus Printing: 410-414.
USDA Forest Service. 1989. Interim resource inventory glossary.
File 1900. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. 96 p. http://forestry.miningco.comlblforgls.htm
WWWebster. 1998. Dictionary. http://www.m-w.comlcgi-binl
dictionary
York, Thad E.; Dabydeen, Simon. 1998. Modification ofthe Whittaker
sampling technique to assess plant diversity in forested natural
areas. Natural Areas Journal 18(2):185-189.
Yuan, Susan, et al.1995. Techniques and equipment for gathering
visitor use data on recreation sites. 2300 Recreation. 9523-2838
MTDC. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Technology and Development Center. 78 p.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999