Analysis and evaluation of the results of forecasting the dynamics of the Leningrad region forest fund using the EFISCEN model

The article analyzes and quantifies the results of forecasting the dynamics of the Leningrad Region forest fund using the EFISCEN model. A brief overview of the main simulation and other mathematical models used to predict the dynamics of the forest fund is given. The following five scenarios were used for modeling for the period from 1990 to 2020 using the EFISCEN model: ideal forest management, common forest management practices, a scenario aimed at achieving the highest possible sustainable level of forest management, a scenario involving the restoration of forestry production and timber harvesting in the late 1980s during the first 20 years and restoration scenario, but taking into account additional requirements of nature protection. The model's forecasting results were compared according to the following three indicators: the average growing stock of tree stands, the average wood stock increment of stands, and the volume of timber harvesting. The comparison was carried out with the actual values of these indicators according to the data of the State Forest Register on the state of forests of the Leningrad Region in 2021 in absolute and relative terms. To compare the quality of forecasting for 5 scenarios and determine the most accurate one, an index of discrepancy between the predicted modeling results and actual data was calculated for each scenario. The forecast turned out to be the most accurate according to scenario No. 2 – “Common forestry practice”. This result suggests that the most reliable forecasting method for a period of 30 years may be a simple extrapolation. The forecasts given by scenarios No. 1 – “Ideal forest management” and No. 3 – “The maximum possible sustainable level of forest management” – allow us to assess the potential of forestry in the Leningrad region. The simulation method, including the EFISCEN model, despite all its disadvantages, remains a useful tool for the scientific study of the dynamics of the forest sector in a changing environment

1. Alekseev A.S. Influence on the dynamics of the forest fund the change of species and the style of forest management in a number of regions of the North-West of the Russian Federation. Izvestia Sankt-Peterburgskoj Lesotehniceskoj Akademii, 2009, iss. 186, pp. 4-15. (In Russ.)

2. Chertov O.G., Komarov A.S., Karev G.P. Modern Approaches in Forest Ecosystem Modelling. European Forest Institute Research Reports, 1999a, vol. 8, 116 p. DOI: 10.1163/9789004612570.

3. Chertov O.G., Komarov A.S., Tsiplianovsky A.V. A combined simulation model of Scots pine, Norway spruce and Silver birch ecosystems in European boreal zone. Forest Ecology and Management, 1999b, no. 116, pp. 189-206. DOI: 10.1016/S0378- 1127(98)00456-3.

4. Chumachenko S.I. Basic model of the dynamics of a multi-species forest cenosis of different ages. Sci. works of MSUL, 1993, iss. 248, pp. 147-180. (In Russ.)

5. Chumachenko S.I., Syssouev V.V., Palenova M.M., Bredikhin M.A., Korotkov V.N. Imitation modeling of heterogeneous uneven-aged stands spatial dynamics taking into account silvicultural treatment. IUFRO Conf. Copenhagen, 1996, pp. 484–492.

6. Chumachenko S.I., Korotkov V.N., Palenova M.M., Politov D.V. Simulation modelling of long-term stand dynamics at different scenarios of forest management for conifer – broad-leaved forests. Ecol. Modeling, 2003, vol. 170, pp. 345–361. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00238-2.

7. Chumachenko S.I., Palenova M.M., Korotkov V.N. Forecast of the dynamics of taxation indicators of forest plantations under different scenarios of forestry. Eastern European forests: history in the Holocene and modernity. Moscow, 2004, pp. 492-507. (In Russ.)

8. Chumachenko S.I., Palenova M.M., Pochinkov S.V., Kukharkina E.V. Simulation modeling of FORRUS-S plantation dynamics is a tool for choosing forestry strategy and planning. Lesnoy Vestnik, 2007, no. 5, pp. 143-152. (In Russ.)

9. Computer applications in Sustainable Forest management. Springer, 2006. 278 p.

10. De Lara M., Doyen L. Sustainable management of natural resources. Mathematical models and methods. Springer, 2008. 266 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-79074-7.

11. EFISCEN model. The official website of the European Forest Institute. URL: https://efi.int/knowledge/models/efiscen (accessed April 28, 2025). Forests of Russia and climate change. European Forest Institute, 2020. 140 p. (In Russ.)

12. Forrester J. Dynamics of urban development. Moscow: Progress, 1974. 286 p. (In Russ.)

13. Forrester J. Fundamentals of enterprise Cybernetics (Industrial dynamics). Moscow: Progress, 1971. 340 p. (In Russ.)

14. Forrester J. World dynamics. Moscow: AST, 2003. 384 p. (In Russ.)

15. Karev G.P. Structural models of natural dynamics of forest cover. Reports to Russian Academy of Science, 1994, vol. 337, no. 2, pp. 354-356. (In Russ.)

16. Karev G.P. Structural models of forest ecosystems. Siberian Forest Journal, 1999, no. 4, pp. 381-396. (In Russ.)

17. Komarov A., Chertov O., Zudin S., Nadporozhskaya M., Mikhailov A., Bykhovets S., Zudina E., Zoubkova E. EFIMOD 2 – a model of growth and elements cycling in boreal forest ecosystems. Ecological Modelling, 2003, №170 (2-3), pp. 373-392. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00240-0.

18. Leslie P.H. On the use of matrices in certain population mathematics. Biometrika, 1945, vol. 33, iss. 3, pp. 183–212. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/33.3.183.

19. Liang J., Picard N. Matrix Model of Forest Dynamics: An Overview and Outlook. Forest Science, 2013, vol. 59, iss. 3, pp. 359-378. DOI: 10.5849/forsci.11-123.

20. Logofet D.O. Convexity in projection matrices: Projection to a calibration problem. Ecol. Model., 2008, vol. 216, iss. 2, pp. 217–228. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.03.004.

21. Logofet D.O., Lesnaya E.V. The mathematics of Markov models: What Markov chains can really predict in forest successions. Ecol. Model., 2000, vol. 126, iss. 2–3, pp. 285–298. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00269-6.

22. Meadows D.L., Meadows D.H., Randers J., Berens W. The Limits of growth. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1991. 208 p. (In Russ.)

23. Meadows D.H., Meadows D.L., Randers J. Limits of growth. 30 years later. Moscow: Akademkniga, 2007. 342 p. (In Russ.)

24. Modeling the dynamics of organic matter in forest ecosystems. Moscow: Nauka, 2007. 380 p. (In Russ.)

25. Nabuurs G.-I., Lioubimov A.V. Future development of the Leningrad region forests under nature-oriented forest management. Forest Ecology and Management, 2000, no. 130, pp. 235-251. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00179-6.

26. Pretzsch H. Forest Dynamics, Growth and Yield. From Measurement to Model. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2009. 655 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-88307-4.

27. Pretzsch H., Biber P., Dursky J. The single tree based stand simulator SILVA. Construction, application and evaluation. Forest Ecology and Management, 2002, vol. 162, pp. 3–21. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00047-6.

28. Sallnas O. A matrix growth model of the Swedish forest. Studia For. Suec., 1990, no. 183, 23 p.

29. Usher M.B. A matrix model for forest management. Biometrics, 1969, no. 25 (2), pp. 309 –315. DOI: 10.2307/2528791.

30. Usher M.B. Markovian approaches to ecological succession. Journal of Animal Ecology, 1979, no. 48 (2), pp. 413– 426. DOI: 10.2307/4170.

31. Usher M.B. Modelling ecological succession with particular reference to Markovian models. Vegetatio, 1981, no. 46-47, pp. 11–18. DOI: 10.1007/BF00118380.

32. Zubkova E.V., Zhukova L.A., Frolov P.V., Shanin V.N. A. S. Komarov's work on cellular automaton modeling of population-ontogenetic processes in plants. Computer research and modeling, 2016, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 285-295. DOI: 10.20537/2076-7633-2016-8-2-285-295. (In Russ.)