Abstract

Forest health is defined as the ability of forest to maintain ecosystem vitality and stability and the ability to provide the necessary ecological and forest product. In the study, the forest health status, which is the Jingouling Forest Farm of Changbai Mountain Poplar-Birch secondary forest, was assessed based on GIS and RS techniques. The forest health assessment index was filtered by the method of expert consultation. The forest health assessment index weight and value range were calculated by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The health status was divided into five grades: Disease, not health, sub-health, healthy and high quality. The results showed that there was 20 not health plots, 738 sub-healthy plots, 154 healthy plots and there was no disease and high quality plots. The conclusion was that most plots of Jingouling forest farm were in sub-healthy status. To improve the health situation, dominant factors should be determined to guide the further management of the stands.

Keywords:

Assessment system, forest health, poplar-birch, secondary forest,

References

1. Callieott, J.B. and B.D. Haskell, 1992. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environment Management. Island Press, Washington D.C.
   
2. Chen, G., Q. Wang, H. Deng and L. Dai, 2002. On forest ecosystem health and its connotations. J. Forest. Res., 13(2): 147-150.
   CrossRef    
3. Christine, S.C. and C.C. Nicholas, 2004. Assessment and monitoring of damage from insects in Australian eucalypt forests and commercial plantations. Aust. J. Entomol., 43(3): 283-292.
   CrossRef    
4. Costanza, R. and H. Daly, 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv. Biol., 6(1): 37-46.
   CrossRef    
5. Diane, M.S., H.C. Arthur, J.M. Luke and L.S. Greg, 2010a. Developing a land-cover classification to select indicators of forest ecosystem health in a rapidly urbanizing landscape. Landscape Urban Plan., 94(3-4): 158-165.
   CrossRef    
6. Diane, M.S., H.C. Arthur, J.M. Luke and L.S. Greg, 2010b. Scale matters: Indicators of ecological health along the urban-rural interface near Columbus, Georgia. Ecol. Indic., 10(2): 224-233.
   CrossRef    
7. Ferretti, M., 1997. Forest health assessment and monitoring-issues for consideration. Environ. Monit. Assess., 48(1): 45-72.
   CrossRef    
8. Frohlich, M. and H.D. Quednau, 1995. Statistical analysis of the distribution pattern of natural regeneration in forests. Forest Ecol. Manag., 73(1-3): 45-57.
   CrossRef    
9. Jeremy, E.D., 2002. Remote assessment of forest health in Southern Arizona, USA evidence for ozone-induced foliar injury. Environ. Manage., 29(3): 373-384.
   CrossRef    
10. John, W.C., J.A. Mark, K.H. Riitters and B.L. Conkling, 2005. Forest health monitoring: 2002 national technical report. General Technical Report SRS-84. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.
    
11. Jones, K.B., K.H. Riitters, J.D. Wickham, R.D. Jr. Tankersley, R.V. O''Neill and et al., 1997. An ecological assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic region: A landscape atlas. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development, Washington DC, EPA/600/R-97/130.
    
12. Lankford, L., 1994. Forest health on nonindustrial private lands: Ecosystem forestry from the ground up. J. Forest., 92(7): 26-29.
    
13. Larsen, J.B., 1995. Ecological stability of forests and sustainable silviculture. Forest Ecol. Manag., 73(1-3): 85-96.
    CrossRef    
14. Latham, P.A., H.R. Zuuring and D.W. Cobel, 1998. A method for quantifying vertical forest structure. Forest Ecol. Manag., 104(1-3): 157-170.
    CrossRef    
15. Laurent, R.B., 1999. A technique to identify changes in hemlock forest health over space and time using satellite image data. Biol. Invasions, 1: 269-279.
    CrossRef    
16. Laurent, R.B., S.S. Kathleen and C. Daniel, 1999. Using satellite images to classify and analyze the health of hemlock forests infested by the hemlock woolly Adelaide. Biol. Invasions, 1(2-3): 255-267.
    
17. Li, Y., J. Wang, Y. Lei and et al., 2005. Risk assessment of forest fire based on hazard bearing body (forest tree composition) in China. J. Beijing Normal Univ., Nat. Sci., 41(1): 92-96.
    
18. Lorenz, M. and V. Mues, 2007. Forest health status in Europe. Sci. World J., 7: 22-27.
    CrossRef    PMid:17450277 PMCid:PMC5901368    
19. Ma, L., H. Han, Q. Ma, H. Liu, W. Xia and X. Cheng, 2007. Evaluation of the forest ecosystem health in Beijing area. Forest Stud. China, 9(1): 157-163.
    CrossRef    
20. Mageau, M.T., R. Costanza and R.E. Ulanowicz, 1998. Quantifying the trends expected in developing ecosystems. Ecol. Model., 112(l): l-22.
    CrossRef    
21. McLaughlin, S. and K. Percy, 1999. Forest health in North America: Some perspectives on actual and potential roles of climate and air pollution. Water Air Soil Pollut., 116(1-2): 151-197.
    CrossRef    
22. Meyer, H.A., 1952. Structure, growth and drain in balanced uneven-aged forests. J. Forest Res., 50(2): 85-92.
    
23. Oszlányi, J., 1997. Forest health and environmental pollution in Slovakia. Environ. Pollut., 98(3): 389-392.
    CrossRef    
24. Suter, G.W., 1993. A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexes. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 12(9): 1533-1539.
    CrossRef    
25. Wang, Z., 2010. Forest health assessment at stand scale. Beijing Forestry University, China.
    
26. Xiao, F., Y. Ou, B. Fu and et al., 2003. Forest ecosystem health assessment indicators and application in China. Acta Geogr. Sinica, 58(6): 803-809.
    
27. Zhang, M., X.K. Zhang, W.J. Liang, Y. Jiang, G.H. Dai, X.G. Wang and S.J. Han, 2011. Distribution of soil organic carbon fractions along the altitudinal gradient in Changbai Mountain, China. Pedosphere, 21: 615-620.
    CrossRef    
28. Zheng, Y. and G. Zhou, 2000. A forest vegetation NPP model based on NDVI. Acta Phytoecol. Sin., 24(1): 9-12.
    

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Open Access Policy

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Copyright

The authors have no competing interests.