Effects of diameter distribution errors on stand management decisions according to a simulated individual tree detection

Key Message Tree-level forest inventory data are becoming increasingly available, which motivates the use of these data for decision-making. However, airborne inventories carried out tree-by-tree typically include systematic errors, which can propagate to objective function variables used to determine optimal forest management. Effects of under-detection focused on the smallest trees on predicted immediate harvest profits and future expectation values were assessed assuming different sites and interest rates. Management decisions based on the erroneous information caused losses of 0-17% of the total immediate and future expected income of Scots pine stands. Context Optimal decisions on how to manage forest stands can depend on the absence or presence of intermediate and understory trees. Yet, these tree strata are likely prone to inventory errors. Aims The aim of this study is to examine implications of making stand management decisions based on data that include systematic errors resembling those typically observed in airborne inventories carried out tree-by-tree. Methods Stand management instructions were developed based on theoretical diameter distribution functions simulated to have different shape, scale, and frequency parameters corresponding to various degrees of under-detection focused on the smallest trees. Immediate harvest income and future expectation value were derived based on various management alternatives simulated. Results Errors in diameter distributions affected the predicted harvest profits and future expectation values differently between the simulated alternatives and depending on site type and interest rate assumptions. As a result, different alternatives were considered as optimal management compared to the use of the error-free reference distributions. In particular, the use of no management or most intensive management alternatives became preferred over alternatives with intermediate harvesting intensities. Certain harvesting types such as thinning from below became preferred more often than what was optimal. The errors did not affect the selection of the management alternative in 71% of the simulations, whereas in the remaining proportion, relying on the erroneous information would have caused losing 2%, on average, and 17% at maximum, of the total immediate and future expected income. Conclusion The effects above might not have been discovered, if the results were validated for inventory totals instead of separately considering the immediate and future income and losses produced by the erroneous decisions. It is recommended not to separate but to integrate the inventory and planning systems for well-informed decisions.