Pores;~;ology

Management
ELSEVIER Forest Ecology and Management 71 ( 1995) 187-l 94

Evaluation of permanent sample surveys for growth

and yield studies: a Swiss example
Michael KiihP*, Charles T. Scottb, Andreas Zingg
Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Ziircherstrasse 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf; Switzerland
WSDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 359 Main Road, Delaware, OH 43015, USA
Accepted 24 January 1994

Abstract

This paper compares experimental growth and yield study plots with sample plots from forest inventories. The
difference in research objectives leads to a situation where sample plots are available that are representative of the
total population, but give only limited information on site conditions and management history. However, detailed
information on site condition and management history is available for growth and yield plots, but does not repre-
sent the total population. As an example, Swiss growth and yield plots are compared with survey plots in terms of
species distribution, stem form, slope class and elevation.
A critical review is given of the two most common sampling designs for regional forest surveys. Continuous
forest inventory is recommended over the more efficient but more complex sampling with partial replacement
design for use in conjunction with growth and yield studies.
The limitations of both growth and yield plots and sample plots are discussed. Recommendations for linking
both types of plots to close information gaps are given to improve both forest surveys and growth and yield studies.

Keyworuk Forest inventory; Continuous forest inventory; Sampling with partial replacement; Forest monitoring; Permanent
plot

1, Intmduction but to assessvarious treatments to the plots to

In Europe growth and yield studies based on
experimental growth and yield study plots have
a long tradition. The first plots of the Swiss Fed-
eral Institute were established as early as 1888.
Growth and yield models-in Europe almost ex-
clusively presented as tables or charts-were de-
rived primarily from growth and yield (G&Y)
plots. The plots were established not only to study
the growth of single tree speciesor provenances,
l Corresponding author.
0378-l 127/95/$09.50 0 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
SSDZO378-1127(94)06098-4
obtain information on the effect of distinct man-
agement methods. Regardless of the initial re-
search objectives, the data from these plots are
often used to develop growth and yield models
and management guidelines.
Permanent sample survey plots were intro-
duced into forestry by Stott in 1938 (Stott,
1947). Rather than based on experimental de-
sign, plots are located based on sample survey
design. The sample represents the treated and
untreated plots in proportion to their occur-
rence. In national forest surveys such as in the
188 h4. Kiihl et al. /Forest Ecologyand~Uanagement
USA, Scandinavia, Germany, Austria or Switz-
erland, the total area in these countries is repre-
sented by permanent sample (PS ) plots.
The objective of this paper is to compare the
use of growth and yield plots versus permanent
sample survey plots for the development of
growth and yield models. We will show that
growth and yield models are not fully represent-
ative for updating regional forest surveys. PS
plots may not provide the range of treatments of
interest, but are representative of all forest types
and conditions. Continuous forest sampling de-
signs for use in estimation and for the develop-
ment of growth and yield models are evaluated.
We give recommendations on combining both
methods for inventory assessment and yield
studies. The findings are equally applicable for
the design of monitoring programs and the selec-
tion of permanent observation plots in forest de-
cline studies.
2. Growth and yield @As
Growth and yield plots are typically installed
aspart of an experiment. The objective is to study
the effect of different planting methods, growth
patterns of distinct provenances, thinning re-
gimes and cutting practices. Plots are typically
large and surrounded by a buffer strip to ensure
uniform treatment and response across the plot.
Several plots are installed in each treatment both
within the site and across sites for replication.
Unfortunately, replication was very often ne-
glected in early growth and yield studies. Mea-
surements and assessmentsare very intensive,
particularly relating to site conditions and treat-
ment history.
Growth and yield plots are established on
treated and untreated stands in accessibleareas.
The focus is put on commercially valuable tim-
ber types; other timber types are rarely studied.
No e&ones or edge conditions are permitted.
Becauseit is expensive to establish and maintain
plots, few plots are taken, resulting in a low sam-
pling intensity. Samples are often confined to a
narrow geographic range, e.g. low elevations and
easily accessible sites in mountainous regions.
71(1995) 187-194
Concerns regarding the representativeness of
growth and yield plots arise. This becomes criti-
cal when small data sets are used to develop
growth and yield models which are then applied
to regional survey updates and to forest planning
and management.
3. coIliparisoll of growth aad @t&l versus
pemmt in %vi&akd
The study of growth and yield in Swiss forests
was one of the most important research objec-
tives right after the foundation of the Federal In-
stitute of Forestry Research in 1885. Growth and
yield plots were established in 1888 to study spe-
cific species or provenances. One of these-plots
is still monitored. The plot design and data ac-
cesshas changed over time, resulting in incon-
sistent data, particularly from old plots. Much
effort was necessary to convert the growth and
yield data into a database system.
A critical problem was the accessibihty of plots
in these early times when &id crews had to use
public transportation. Most of the growth and
yield plots established before the 1950sfollow the
main railroad lines. Hence, these plots are not
representative spatially.
The comparisons shown below are based on
data from growth and yield plots between 1977
and 1988. The total area covered was 98.2 ha and
was partitioned into 474 blocks with 184 ongo-
ing research projects. The total number of trees
registered on these plots was 90 735.
The first Swiss National Forest Inventory
(NFI ) was conducted in the mid- 1980s (EAFV,
1988). A uniform 1 kmx 1 km grid of perma-
nent sample plots was assessedacross all of
Switzerland. Of these, about 12 000 plots were
forested and measured by lieldgroups. The NPI
plots are representative of all forest conditions in
Switzerland. However, the plots are small and
treatment history or site data are more difficult
to determine.
Switzerland can be divided into~fave produc;
tive regions, which r&ct jmd site
conditions. The distribution of growth and yield
and permanent plots in the productive regions is
 IU. Kiihl et al. /Forest Ecology andManagement 71(1995) 187-194 189

shown in Table 1. The Jura, Prealps and south- slope (Table 3) of the plots. Approximately 80%
ern slopes of the Alps are sufficiently repre- of the growth and yield plots are located at ahi-
sented. Most growth and yield plots are located tudes below 1000 m. The results of the NFI in-
in the Plateau region; the Alpine region is under- dicate that more than 50% of the Swiss stands
represented. are above 1000 m. A similar situation can be
Other indicator variables for site and growth found for the slope of the plots. Roughly 20% of
conditions are the elevation (Table 2) and the the NFI plots are located in areas with slopes
larger than 60%, but only 5.3% of the G&Y plots
Table 1 were established on these steep slopes.
Distribution of plots in various productive regions of The comparison of the proportion of growth
Switzerland and yield plots and permanent plots by produc-
Region Growth and NPI plots tive region, elevation and slope indicate that the
yield plots (%I G&Y plots do not represent the growth and site
(%) conditions of Swissforests. The growth and yield
plots tend to be established in lower elevations
Jura 13.3 16.4 and relatively flat terrain. A large proportion of
Plateau region 35.7 19.2
Prealps 21.8 18.3 Swiss forests are located in the unique condi-
Alps 11.9 32.2 tions of higher elevations, but these conditions
Southern slopes of 17.2 13.9 are poorly represented by G&Y plots.
the Alps Almost 29% of the growth and yield plots were
establishedto study selectively cut forests, but the
NFI results show that only about 20% of the Swiss
Table 2 forest have been managed using this regime.
Proportion of plots in each elevation class The growth and yield plots do not reflect the
proportions of tree speciesin Switzerland. Table
Elevation Growth and NFI plots 4 showsthat regarding number of stemsand basal
(ml yield plots (%I area, fir, spruce, oak, and a few other speciesare
(%I
fairly well represented. Beech is one of the most
> 1800 3.0 7.8 frequent tree speciesin Switzerland, but is poorly
1601-1800 2.9 8.6 represented in growth and yield studies.
1401-1600 2.2 10.2 Stem form can be expressed as the ratio of tree
1201-1400 7.2 11.7
1001-1200 4.8 13.5 height (h ) to diameter at breast height (d). Trees
801-1000 23.8 13.3 with a high h/d ratio are slender and are more
601-800 13.1 16.0 desirable for timber production. The h/d ratios
< 600 42.9 19.0 were grouped into three classes and are pre-
sented in Table 5. On growth and yield plots, trees
Table 3
Proportion of plots in each slope class have higher h/d ratios than those on NFI plots,
which means that poor stem forms are under-
Slope Growth and NPI plots represented and good stem forms are over-rep-
(%I yield plot (Oh) resented. This can create problems, such as in the
WI development of taper and volume equations. Any
> 100 1.8 model deficiencies will be accentuated by the
81-100 0.1 4.6 differences in how well the G&Y plots represent
61-80 5.2 12.8 the entire population.
41-60 12.8 23.3 Data on growth and yield plots were used to
21-40 24.6 27.2 develop Swissgrowth and yield tables for spruce,
<21 40.8 30.5
fir, larch and beech (Badoux, 1983a,b,c,d). They
190 M. Kiihl et al. /Forest EcologyandManagement 71(1995) 187-194

Table 4
Representation of tree species in Switzerland in studies concerning number of stems and basal area

Tree species No. of stems Basal area

--_-_
Growth and NFI plots Growth and NFI plots
yield plots yield plots
(%) (96) (WI i%)

Spruce 30.0 39.4 28.0 28.6

Fir 11.0 11.8 22.6 i 3.6
Pine 5.0 4.2 3.4 1.7
Larch 19.4 4.2 17 3 6.2
Mountain pine 0.6 0.8 1.5 1.o
Other coniferous 9.9 0.4 1.1 9.8

Beech 4.6 19.2 8.1 ! 7.7

Maple 6.6 3.6 0.3 6.6
Ash 0.6 3.6 0.2 5.X
Oak 4.0 2.4 7.4 3.8
Chestnut 2.4 1.3
Other deciduous 8.4 8.0 3.4 9.9

Table 5 determined on NFI plots. The NFI sh-owedthat

Proportions of trees surveyed in Switzerland in three stem- even-aged pure stands occupy about 18% of the
form classes
total forested area of Switzerland (Table 6 ) . Only
h/d ratio Growth and NFJ plots in these stands can the growth and yield tables
yield plots (%) be applied.
(%I The comparisons shown above arrive at the
conch&on that growth and yield plots are not
<0.8 45.4 67.7
0.8-l .O 30.9 22.3 representative of Swiss forests. For the commer-
>l.O 23.7 10.0 cially important areas, especially in the Plateau
region and in the Prealps, sufficient infktion
a Ratio of height to diameter at breast height.
is available for some tree specieslike oak, spruce
and fir. Spruce stands in mountainous regions
are applicable for even-aged, pure stands with and chestnut stands on thesouthern slopes of the
heavy thinning. The thinning methods cannot be

Table 6
Forested area ( 1000 ha) where growth and yield tables can be applied

Species Jura Plateau Prealps Alps Southern Alps Switzerland

region

Spruce 12.6 22.0 42.2 67.8 10.3 154.9

Fir 2.7 3.7 3.3 0.6 0.4 10.7
Larch 0.2 0.4 11.3 4.8 ! 6.7
Beech 10.6 6.6 3.3 4.1 7.5 32.1
Total 26.1 32.7 48.8 83.8 23.0 214.4

Percent of total 13.4 14.3 22.5 22.0 14.0 18.1

forested area
 M. Kiihl et al. /Forest Ecology andManagement
Alps are not represented at all but are essential
forest types in those areas.
4. Sampling on successive occasions
In forest surveys, sampling on successive oc-
casions is commonly based on two sampling
methods: (i) continuous forest inventory (CFI);
(ii) sampling with partial replacement (SPR).
Other sampling procedures for monitoring pur-
poseshave been described, but are in most cases
derivatives of either CFI or SPR (Kohl, 1990).
4.1. Continuous forest inventory
CFI uses a set of permanent sample plots,
which are established at the first occasion and re-
measured at each successive occasion. CFI was
introduced into forestry by Stott ( 1947) . Krutsch
established the first permanent sample plots in
Germany in 1938, but did not present statistical
analysis procedures. Schmid-Haas ( 1983) de-
veloped a special application of CFI for forest
management planning, called control sampling.
This method combines survey sampling and the
control method (Biolley, 1921; Gumaud, 1878),
a traditional forest planning method widely used
in Switzerland and southern Germany.
CFI plots are selected either randomly or sys-
tematically to represent the entire forest popula-
tion. Plots are monumented, so that they can be
measured on future occasions. The spatial posi-
tion of each tree in a plot should be recorded, so
that analysis based on paired observations of
trees are possible. The plots should be marked
invisibly to ensure that their locations are not
known by local foresters and that no manage-
ment activities different from those of the entire
population are applied.
Estimates are easily obtained with CFI and are
particularly good for change estimation. The es-
timation procedures are simple and results are
intuitively understood. Additive tables are ob-
tained, where independent estimates of cell val-
ues sum up to the row and column totals. Even
for more than two occasions the estimation pro-
cedures are clear. A disadvantage of CFI is the
71(1995) 187-194 191
dependency on the permanent plots. Because
plots in distinct strata or regions may be lost,
samples may not be representative over time, or
the number of sample plots will become too low
for some units of reference. Visibly marked plots
may be treated differently from the rest of the
population and become unrepresentative.
4.2. Sampling with partial replacement
SPR was introduced into forestry by Ware and
Cunia ( 1962) based on former work by Patter-
son ( 1950). At the first occasion,assessmentand
estimation procedures are the same as with CFI.
At the second occasion only a portion of the plots
established at the first occasion are remeasured
and a set of new plots is added. The remeasured
plots are used to develop regression relation-
ships to update all unremeasured plots. A second
estimator is based on the new plots. Both esti-
mates are combined and result in more precise
estimatesof current values than does CFI (Scott,
1984). Cunia and Chevrou ( 1969) extended
SPR to multiple occasions and Newton et al.
( 1974) extended it to the multivariate case,but
problems emerged owing to the awkward esti-
mation procedures.
One advantage of SPR is that it reducesthe risk
of obtaining a poorly distributed sample. New
sample plots are added and help make a sample
more representative if the old plots were poorly
distributed initially or if they become poorly dis-
tributed. The dependence on maintaining the
permanent plots is lessthan with CFI. SPR also
offers the opportunity to place sample plots in
new areas where no permanent plots were estab-
lished initially. A second advantage is that SPR
is simultaneously cost effective for estimates of
current values and net change in those values.
Finally, SPR is very flexible. The emphasis can
be altered between the estimation of current val-
ues and change detection by changing the pro-
portion of new and remeasured plots. The esti-
mation of current values can be improved by
adding new plots; remeasuring more of the per-
manent plots can improve the estimation of
change.
Scott (1986a) described many of the prob-
192 M. Kiihl et al. /Forest Ecology andManagement
lems encountered. The first disadvantage is the
complexity of the design. The number of plot
types increases geometrically as the number of
occasions increases. At two occasions, sample
sizesfor three different types of plots (unremea-
sured, remeasured, and new) have to be deter-
mined. At three occasions, the number of plot
types increases to seven.
A second disadvantage is the complex estima-
tion procedures. The first step in the analysis is
to develop regression estimates. The regression
equations must be carefully monitored. When
stratification is used, the sample sizesare often
too small to develop reliable regression coeffi-
cients for individual strata. Often the strata must
be collapsed, as the number of plots in the strata
is too small to estimate regression coefficients
reliably. The estimation procedures become very
unwieldy for more than two occasions.Scott and
Kohl ( 1994) give estimators for SPR and strati-
fication and for up to three occasions and show
their complexity. It is difficult to apply those
complex procedures in practical applications.
These estimators can be applied to indepen-
dently estimate individual row and column cells,
as well as row and column totals. However, esti-
mates developed in this way are not additive;
cells will not sum to estimates of row and column
totals. For statisticians, non-additive tables are
acceptable, but forest resource analysts prefer to
use tables that are additive.
Different methods have been described to
handle the problem of table cells that do not add
to row and column totals. For example Li and
Schreuder (1985) suggested a cell adjustment
procedure, which adjusts cells inversely propor-
tional to their variances in order to make them
add to the total. However, in forest survey re-
ports more than one table are presented. Not only
is additivity within tables required but also be-
tween tables.
Experience has been gained with SPR from the
1960s (Bit&ford et al., 1963) through the pres-
ent. However, there are only a few practical ap-
plications of SPR for more than two occasions.
The tendency is to abandon SPR and move back
to CFI or to other techniques like updating tech-
niques hased on growth projection models (Hahn
71(1995) 187-194
and Hansen, 1983). If SPR is used at the third
occasion, change estimation could take only the
last two occasions into account. Scott f 1986b)
recommended simplification by returning to CFI
particularly now that change is at least as impor-
tant as current values.
5. Link between growth 888 yi&l ad pxmameat
sample plots
Permanent sample plots cover the whole area
of interest and give representative results. How-
ever, the sampling intensity in regional invento-
ries is typically too low and the plots are too small
to adequately character&e individual stands.
Treatment history is normally not known and
cannot be developed from the data assessedon
the plots.
On growth and yield plots, site conditions and
treatment history are carefuliy monitored. How-
ever, they are not representative of the total for-
est population. Low value species, non-fully
stocked conditions, and uneven-aged or mixed
stands are under-represented. In Swit-zerland,
growth and yield plots established before the
1950s were located in highIy accessibleareas with
only a few plots in higher elevations or in mixed
stands. It is likely that this situation is not unique
to Switzerland.
To overcome these information gaps, the two
types of plots can be linked. One use of growth
and yield models is to update forest inventories.
This approach is used in the north-central US
(Hahn and Hansen, 1983). The frequency of
forest surveys can be reduced and therefore the
cost of field assessments.Becausethe growth and
yield plots are not representative of the entire
forest area, models may not be available for all
conditions encountered.
Permanent sample plots can be used to com-
pare the forest characteristicson growth and yield
plots to those in the region of interest. Similarly,
they can be used to define the range wheregrowth
and yield models can be appropriately applied.
Growth and yield models can be cabbrat& using
permanent sample plots, thus increasing the ap
 M. Kijhl et al. /Forest Ecology and Management
plicability of the resulting models to new areas
and different stand conditions. Finally, the range
of forest characteristics can be used to identify
potential areas for the establishment of new G&Y
plots.
An alternative is to develop models from both
survey data and from growth and yield studies
for the primary purpose of inventory updating.
The resulting models would apply to all forest
conditions. An example of this type of model is
STEMS (Belcher et al., 1982) which is used
widely in the US. However, the ability of this type
of model to respond to forest management prac-
tices is limited unless treatment history is avail-
able for the sample plots and is accounted for in
the model development.
6. Conclusions
Some limitations of both permanent sample
plots and growth and yield plots have been dem-
onstrated. Growth and yield plots are not appli-
cable to all conditions encountered in forest sur-
veys and to all management situations. Although
representative of the forest populations, perma-
nent sample plots are not large enough to char-
acterise individual stands and do not have the
treatment histories needed to build growth and
yield models.
Permanent sample plots can be used to iden-
tify the range of applicability of growth and yield
models. They can also be used to identify condi-
tions and areas to establish new G&Y plots, thus
expanding the applicability of the models. This
also applies to establishing forest decline studies.
Alternatively, PS plots can be used to augment
growth and yield plots in model development. In
this case, PS plots should be larger, and better
treatment histories should be obtained.
Sampling with partial replacement should be
applied with great care. This holds especially
when surveys for more than two occasions are
planned. The number of different plots types in-
creasesgeometrically with the number of occa-
sions and thus the estimation procedures be-
come very complex. Non-additive tables are
obtained with SPR-type estimators and usually
71(1995) 187-194 193
have to be adjusted for the presentation of the
results. The Continuous Forest Inventory design
is lessefficient, but due to its simplicity, is more
appropriate for most practical applications and
continuous surveys with more than two
occasions.
It is well-known that caution should be used in
applying existing growth and yield models to
conditions other than those represented by the
plots upon which they are based. Unfortunately
only in very rare casesare the users of growth
and yield models aware of the underlying condi-
tions and assumptions.
When permanent sample plots are appropri-
ately modified, they can be used to augment
growth and yield plots to develop models which
are more generally applicable.
References
Badoux, E., 1983a. Ertragstafeln Buche. Eidg. Amt. Forstl.
Versuchswes., 3rd edn.
Badoux, E., 1983b. Ertragstafeln Fichte. Eidg. Anst. Forstl.
Versuchswes., 3rd edn.
Badoux, E., 1983~. Ertragstafeln Tanne. Eidg. Amt. Forstl.
Versuchswes., 3rd edn.
Badoux, E., 1983d. Ertragstafeln L.%rche. Eidg. Amt. Forstl.
Versuchswes., 3rd edn.
Belcher, D.W., Holdaway, M. and Brand, G., 1982. A de-
scription of STEMS: The stand and tree evaluation and
modeling system. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-79, USDA Forest
Service, St. Paul, 18 pp.
Bickford, C.A., Mayer, C.E. and Ware, K.D., 1963. An efft-
cient sampling design for forest inventory: The northeast-
em forest survey. J. For., 61: 826-833.
Biolley, H.E., 192 1. Lamenagement des for&s par la meth-
ode experimentale et spkcialment la methode du contfile.
Neuchatel, Paris, 90 pp.
Cunia, T. and Chevrou, R.B., 1969. Sampling with partial
replacement on three or more occasions. For. Sci., 15: 204-
224.
EAFV, 1988. Schweixerisches Landesforstinventar: Ergeb-
nisse der Erstaufnahme 1982-1986. Eidg. Amt. Forstl.
Versuchswes., Ber. 305,375 pp.
Gumaud, A., 1878. Cahier lamenagement pour lapplication
de1 al methode par contenance exposke sur la for& des
Eperous, Paris, 160 S.
Hahn, J.T. and Hansen, M.H., 1983. Estimation of sampling
error associated with timber change projection simula-
tors. In: J.F. Bell and T. Atterbury (Editors), Renewable
194 M. Kijhl et al. /Forest Ecology and Management
Resource Inventories for Monitoring Changes and Trend,
Proc., 15-19 August 1983, Corvalhs, OR, SAF 83-14, pp.
546-549.
Kohl, M., 1990. Stichprobenkonzepte fur das zweite
Schweizer Landesforstinventar. Schweiz. Z. Forstwes.,
141: 745-75s.
Li, H.G. and Schreuder, H.T., 1985. Adjusting estimates in
large two-way tables in surveys. For. Sci., 3 1: 366-372.
Newton, C., Cunia, T. and Bickford, C.A., 1974. Multivar-
iate estimators for sampling with partial replacement on
two occasions. For. Sci., 20: 106-I 16.
Patterson, H.D., 1950. Sampling on successive occasions with
partial replacement of units. J. R. Stat. Sot. B, 12: 241-
255.
Schmid-Haas, P., 1983. Swiss Continuous Forest Inventory:
Twenty years experience. In: J.F. Bell and T. Atterbury
(Editors), Renewable Resource Inventories for Mouitor-
ing Changes and Trend, Proc., 15- 19 August 1983, Cor-
vallis, OR, SAF 83-14, pp. 133-140.
71 (I 995) I8 7-194
Scott, C.T., 1984. A new look at sampling with partial re-
placement. For. Sci., 30( 1): 157-166.
Scott, C.T., 1986a. An evaluation of sampling with partial
replacement. In: Use of Auxiliary Information in Natural
Resource Inventories, Blacksburg, VA, October i985, SAF
86-01, Society of American Forestry, pp. 74-79.
Scott, C.T., 1986b. Proposed northeastern forest survey em-
phasizing disturbance detection. In: Use of Auxiliary In-
formation in Natural Resource Inventories, Rlacksburg,
VA, October 1985, SAF 86-O 1, Society of American Por-
estry, pp. 146-I 5 1.
Scott, C.T. and Kdhl, M., 1994. Sampling with partial re-
placement and stratification. For. Sci., 40: 30-46.
Stott, C.B., 1947. Permanent growth and mortality plots in
halfthe time. J. For., 45: 669-673.
Ware, K.D. and Cunia, T., 1962. Continuous forest inven-
tory with partial replacement of samples. FOT. Sci. Mon-
OgT., 3: 40.