Report - ICP Forests

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16 2. Large Scale Crown Condition Surveys Table 2.1.3.1-2: Number of sample plots assessed for crown condition and plots per site parameter. Country Number Number of plots per site parameter of plots Water Humus Altitude Aspect Age Belgium 26 26 26 26 26 26 Bulgaria 159 159 159 159 159 159 Cyprus 15 15 15 15 15 15 Czech Republic 133 133 54 133 133 133 Denmark 16 16 16 16 16 16 Estonia 92 92 92 92 92 92 Finland 886 886 882 886 886 886 France 500 499 500 500 500 500 Germany 412 371 349 412 412 412 Greece 97 97 97 97 97 97 Hungary 73 73 40 73 73 73 Ireland 32 32 19 32 32 32 Italy 252 252 252 252 252 252 Latvia 92 92 92 92 92 Lithuania 72 72 72 72 72 72 Netherlands 11 11 11 11 11 11 Poland 376 376 376 376 376 376 Romania 231 231 231 231 231 231 Slovak Republic 108 108 108 108 108 Slovenia 44 44 44 44 44 44 Spain 620 620 620 620 620 620 Sweden 857 857 829 857 857 857 EU 5104 4954 4792 5104 5104 5104 Percent of EU plot sample 97.1 93.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 Andorra 3 3 3 3 3 3 Belarus 410 410 410 410 410 410 Croatia 83 83 83 83 83 83 Norway 487 451 487 487 487 Russia 365 365 365 365 Serbia 130 130 40 130 130 130 Switzerland 48 47 46 48 48 48 Turkey 563 297 41 563 563 563 Total Europe 7193 5924 5866 7193 7193 7193 Percent of total plot sample 82.4% 81.6% 100.0 100.0 100.0 2.1.3.2 Defoliation On each sampling point of the national and transnational grids situated in forests, sample trees are selected according to national procedures. On 3 832 out of a total of 7 193 plots sample tree number per plot was between 20 and 24 trees. 1 719 plots had less than 10 sample trees. Due to harmonisation with plot designs of national forest inventories, the variation of numbers of trees per plot has been increasing in comparison to previous years. Predominant, dominant, and codominant trees (according to the system of Kraft) of all species qualify as sample trees, provided that they have a minimum height of 60 cm and that they do not show significant mechanical damage. The variation of crown condition is mainly the result of intrinsic factors, age and site conditions. Moreover, defoliation may be caused by a number of biotic and abiotic stressors. Defoliation assessment attempts to quantify foliage missing as an effect of stressors including air pollutants and not as an effect of long lasting site conditions. In order to compensate for site conditions, local reference trees are used, defined as the best tree with full foliage that could grow at the
2. Large Scale Crown Condition Surveys 17 particular site. Alternatively, absolute references are used, defined as the best possible tree of a genus or a species, regardless of site conditions, tree age etc. depicted on regionally applicable photos, e.g. photo guides. Changes in defoliation and discolouration attributable to air pollution cannot be differentiated from those caused by other factors. Consequently, defoliation due to factors other than air pollution is included in the assessment results. Trees showing mechanical damage are not included in the sample. Should mechanical damage occur to a sample tree, any resulting loss of foliage is not counted as defoliation. In 2009, the number of trees assessed was 137 209. Defoliation scores were available for 136 778 trees (Table 2.2.1-1). Table 2.1.3.2-1 shows the total numbers of trees assessed in each participating country since 1997. The figures in the table are not necessarily identical to those published in previous reports for the same reasons explained in Chapter 2.1.2.1. 73.4% of the plots assessed in 2009 were dominated by conifers and 26.6% by broadleaves (Annex I-1). Compared to previous years’ samples, the share of plots dominated by conifers increased. This is mainly due to the new plots in Finland, Sweden and Russia, which are nearly exclusively coniferous plots. Plots in mixed stands were assigned to the species group which comprised the majority of the sample trees. The number of species of the tree sample was 126. Most abundant were Pinus sylvestris with 24.3% followed by Picea abies with 14.4%, Fagus sylvatica with 8.4%, Betula pendula with 4.9%, and Pinus nigra with 3.9%. In the following evaluations Quercus robur and Q. petraea are grouped to one species group accounting together for 8.4% of the assessed trees (Annex I-2).
Page 1: W O R K R E P O R T Institute for W
Page 4 and 5: United Nations Economic Commission
Page 6 and 7: 4.18 REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ..........
Page 8 and 9: 8 Preface
Page 10 and 11: 10 Summary Ground vegetation was an
Page 12 and 13: 12 1. Introduction
Page 14 and 15: 14 2. Large Scale Crown Condition S
Page 46 and 47: 46 3. Intensive Monitoring in beech
Page 48 and 49: 48 3. Intensive Monitoring Figure 3
Page 50 and 51: 50 3. Intensive Monitoring 3.2.2.2
Page 52 and 53: 52 3. Intensive Monitoring Figure 3
Page 54 and 55: 54 3. Intensive Monitoring 3.3 Soil
Page 56 and 57: 56 3. Intensive Monitoring centrifu
Page 58 and 59: 58 3. Intensive Monitoring 3.3.3. R
Page 60 and 61: 60 3. Intensive Monitoring Figures
Page 62 and 63: 62 3. Intensive Monitoring 3.3.3.3
Page 64 and 65: 64 3. Intensive Monitoring Figures
Page 66 and 67:
66 3. Intensive Monitoring 0 - 20 c
Page 68 and 69:
68 3. Intensive Monitoring Hall, J.
Page 70 and 71:
70 3. Intensive Monitoring Country
Page 72 and 73:
72 3. Intensive Monitoring Table 3.
Page 74 and 75:
74 3. Intensive Monitoring The nomi
Page 76 and 77:
76 3. Intensive Monitoring the one
Page 78 and 79:
78 3. Intensive Monitoring Figure 3
Page 80 and 81:
80 3. Intensive Monitoring Temporal
Page 82 and 83:
82 3. Intensive Monitoring Table 3.
Page 84 and 85:
84 3. Intensive Monitoring should b
Page 86 and 87:
86 3. Intensive Monitoring code spe
Page 88 and 89:
88 3. Intensive Monitoring Helleboc
Page 90 and 91:
90 3. Intensive Monitoring Rumexscu
Page 92 and 93:
3. Intensive Monitoring 92 Annex 3.
Page 94 and 95:
94 Annex soil organic layer soil mi
Page 96 and 97:
96 Annex soil organic layer soil mi
Page 98 and 99:
98 4. National Survey Reports in 20
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
122 Annex Annex I-1 Broadleaves and
Page 124 and 125:
124 Annex Observed trees Observed p
Page 126 and 127:
126 Annex Annex I-3 Percentage of t
Page 128 and 129:
128 Annex Annex I-5 Changes in mean
Page 130 and 131:
130 Annex Period 1998 - 2009 Year M
Page 132 and 133:
132 Annex Annex II National Surveys
Page 134 and 135:
134 Annex Annex II-2 Percent of tre
Page 136 and 137:
136 Annex Annex II-4 Percent of bro
Page 138 and 139:
138 Annex Annex II-6 Percent of dam
Page 140 and 141:
140 Annex Annex II-8 Changes in def
Page 142 and 143:
142 Annex 100 Croatia all species c
Page 144 and 145:
144 Annex 100 France * all species
Page 146 and 147:
146 Annex 100 Latvia all species co
Page 148 and 149:
148 Annex 100 The Netherlands all s
Page 150 and 151:
150 Annex 100 Serbia all species co
Page 152 and 153:
152 Annex 100 Turkey all species co
Page 154 and 155:
154 Annex Annex IV Testing statisti
Page 156 and 157:
156 Annex 2. Expert Panels, WG and
Page 158 and 159:
158 Annex Expert Panel on Crown Con
Page 160 and 161:
160 Annex FFCC FSCC Bundesforschung
Page 162 and 163:
162 Annex BELGIUM Tel. +32 54 43 71
Page 164 and 165:
164 Annex DENMARK Phone: +45 39 47
Page 166 and 167:
166 Annex 1055 BUDAPEST HUNGARY Pho
Page 168 and 169:
168 Annex Republic of Moldova (Min)
Page 170 and 171:
170 Annex SERBIA Phone: +381 11 3 5
Page 172 and 173:
172 Annex Ukraine (NFC) (Min) Unite
Page 174 and 175:
174 Annex
show all

Report - ICP Forests

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?