Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. For. Glob. Change

Sec. Forest Management

Volume 8 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2025.1650547

Application of Stand Biomass in the Evaluation of Site Quality for Broadleaf Forests in China

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Southwest Survey and Planning Institute, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Kunming, China
  • 2Northwest A&F University, Yangling, China
  • 3Yucatrote, Forest modelling, Lagos, Portugal
  • 4Helsingin yliopiston Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research, Helsinki, Finland

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

A scientific evaluation of site quality is essential for the sustainable management of forest ecosystems. However, the absence of a standardized evaluation framework has resulted in site quality assessments that are not comparable across different broadleaf forest types on large spatial scales, impacting forest management decisions related to afforestation, thinning, and carbon sink management. Therefore, establishing a methodological framework for evaluating the site quality of various broadleaf stands could provide practical implications for forestry. Using the data from four cycles of the National Forest Inventory (NFIs) of China, the Richards, Logistic, and Korf models were applied to simulating the growth of 18 major groups of broadleaf trees. We fitted guide curves using the models and constructed site productivity index models for each group. A generalized site productivity index model for broadleaf stands was developed using conversion coefficients between species, with subsequent applicability testing and spatial analysis to assess dynamic changes in site productivity. Results indicate that the Richards model, with an average coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.91, performed better than the Logistic and Korf models. Statistical tests show that the site productivity index models of major broadleaf stands achieve accuracy rates exceeding 90%. The Spearman correlation coefficient is greater than 0.99 between the productivity index classes based on generalized and specific models, demonstrating both the reliability and applicability of the generalized model. Proportional and spatial analyses indicate a continuous trend of improvement in the site productivity of broadleaf stands from 2003 to 2018. The generalized productivity index model based on the relationship between age and biomass was validated by feasibility tests, making it suitable for application in forestry management and prediction. A continuous improvement trend in the site productivity of broadleaf forest was demonstrated, despite fluctuations during short intervals related to uncertainties in our models, which provided a robust, large-scale tool for evaluating forest productivity, offering critical support for sustainable forest management, policy-making, and carbon sequestration strategies in China.

Keywords: site quality, general productivity index, Dynamic change, broadleaf forest stands, Sustainable management

Received: 20 Jun 2025; Accepted: 10 Sep 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Wu, Tian, Minunno, Liu, Luo, Xu, Sun and Mäkelä. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence:
Xianglin Tian, forestry_tian@foxmail.com
Annikki Mäkelä, annikki.makela@helsinki.fi

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.