The Use of Deterministic Models in National Forest Inventories: A Comprehensive Analysis of Architectures, Applications, and Strategic Utility

Section 1: The Symbiotic Relationship Between National Forest Inventories and Predictive Modeling

1.1 The Mandate and Evolution of National Forest Inventories (NFIs)

A National Forest Inventory (NFI) is a comprehensive, large-scale program designed to systematically collect data and information regarding a nation's forest resources.1 The fundamental purpose of an NFI is to provide accurate, consistent, and up-to-date information about the size, geographic distribution, species composition, and physical condition of forests and woodlands, as well as the dynamic changes occurring within them over time.3 This information forms the bedrock for the development and monitoring of policies that support sustainable forest management, providing critical data for strategic planning at national and regional levels.3
The historical roots of forest inventories trace back to late 18th-century Europe, born from a strategic fear that wood—the primary source of fuel and industrial raw material—was being depleted unsustainably.1 These early efforts, such as the first systematic NFIs initiated in the Nordic countries around 1920, were almost exclusively focused on quantifying timber resources to ensure a continuous supply.4 The primary outputs were estimates of standing timber volume, species composition relevant to commercial use, and calculations of sustainable yield.4 However, the mandate of modern NFIs has expanded dramatically. Today, they are multi-objective information systems tasked with reporting on a wide spectrum of ecological and social values. These include quantifying forest carbon stocks for climate change reporting (e.g., to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), assessing biodiversity for conservation planning (e.g., for the Convention on Biological Diversity), monitoring forest health, soil conditions, and a host of other ecosystem services that forests provide.4
This evolution in purpose has been matched by an evolution in methodology. While early inventories relied on various techniques, modern NFIs are predominantly sample-based statistical surveys.5 The standard approach involves establishing a systematic grid of sample plots across all land, regardless of ownership.1 A crucial methodological development has been the widespread adoption of permanent sample plots, which are revisited and re-measured at regular intervals, typically every 5 to 10 years.3 This practice of re-measurement is a paradigm shift from older methods that used temporary plots. Permanent plots allow for the direct and precise calculation of the core components of forest dynamics: tree growth (increment), mortality, and recruitment (ingrowth), as well as tracking changes in land use over time.3 This provision of longitudinal data on individual trees and plots is the foundational element that enables the development and validation of sophisticated dynamic models. Field data collection is meticulous, recording key variables such as tree species, diameter at breast height (DBH), height, age, and health defects.1 This ground-truthing is increasingly integrated with and supplemented by remote sensing technologies, including aerial photography and, more recently, airborne laser scanning (LiDAR), which can provide wall-to-wall spatial information and improve the efficiency and precision of inventory estimates.4
The data and analyses generated by NFIs serve a diverse array of stakeholders. Government agencies rely on NFI outputs to formulate and monitor forest policy, from national strategies to regional management plans.5 The forest industry uses the information for strategic planning regarding wood supply, investment, and infrastructure development.5 Researchers utilize the vast, long-term datasets to advance scientific understanding of forest ecosystems.5 Finally, NFI data is essential for fulfilling international reporting obligations, providing the official statistics on forest resources, carbon sequestration, and indicators of sustainable management to bodies like the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the UNFCCC.6

1.2 From Static Snapshots to Dynamic Forecasting: The Imperative for Modeling

An NFI, at its core, provides a series of high-precision "snapshots" of the forest resource at discrete points in time.3 While the re-measurement of permanent plots provides invaluable data on the changes that have occurred between inventory cycles, the raw data itself does not inherently predict future conditions. Forest managers and policymakers, however, are constantly faced with questions that require looking forward. For instance, calculating a regulated annual cut (RAC) to ensure sustainable harvesting, forecasting the long-term impact of climate change on species distribution, or evaluating the potential effects of a new invasive pest on forest health all demand projections of future forest states.6
This is where forest models become indispensable. Mathematical models are the analytical engines that transform the static inventory data into dynamic forecasts.9 They are quantitative descriptions of the forest system, typically composed of one or more mathematical relationships that simulate key ecological processes like tree growth, mortality, and regeneration.15 By applying these process rules to the initial conditions provided by NFI data, models can project how forest stands and entire landscapes will evolve over time.18 This allows managers to conduct "what-if" scenario analyses, comparing the likely outcomes of different management strategies (e.g., thinning vs. clearcutting), disturbance events (e.g., wildfire vs. insect outbreak), or climate futures.14 The ability to generate these projections is no longer an auxiliary activity but a core function of modern NFI programs, essential for providing prognoses on the evolution of forest resources.3
The relationship between NFIs and forest models is deeply symbiotic and constitutes a critical feedback loop. The NFI provides the essential, high-quality input data—the initial state of the forest, including species composition, size distributions, and density—that models require to be initialized.22 Without this empirical grounding, model projections would be purely theoretical. Furthermore, the rich, longitudinal data from permanent NFI plots are the primary source for calibrating and validating the statistical equations that drive empirical growth and yield models.22 The models, in turn, provide the analytical power to transform the inventory data into actionable intelligence. They generate the forecasts of future timber availability, carbon stock changes, wildlife habitat conditions, and overall forest structure that are required to meet the broad mandates of modern NFIs.3
The expansion of NFI objectives beyond simple timber accounting has been a primary driver for the development of more complex and ecologically sophisticated models. While traditional yield tables were sufficient for a timber-focused inventory, they are inadequate for answering contemporary questions posed by policymakers. For example, reporting requirements for the UNFCCC demand projections of carbon stock changes under novel future climates.5 Answering such a question is beyond the capability of simple empirical models based solely on historical growth patterns, as these models cannot reliably extrapolate to conditions they have never observed.18 This creates a direct and powerful demand for the development and application of mechanistic or hybrid models that can simulate forest responses to changing environmental drivers like temperature, precipitation, and atmospheric
CO2​. The evolving questions asked of NFIs are, in effect, the problem sets that fuel the ongoing evolution of forest modeling science.

Section 2: A Foundational Framework for Forest Modeling

2.1 The Deterministic-Stochastic Spectrum: From Predictable Averages to Probabilistic Risk

The classification of forest models often begins with the distinction between deterministic and stochastic approaches. A deterministic model is one in which the outcomes are entirely determined by the initial conditions and the model's parameter values; there is no element of random variation.15 Given the same set of inputs, a purely deterministic model will produce the exact same output every time it is run.15 These models are computationally efficient and are typically used to represent the average, or expected, behavior of a system.27 For example, a deterministic equation for tree growth might predict that a tree of a certain size, species, and competitive status will always add exactly 0.5 cm to its diameter in a year.
In contrast, a stochastic model incorporates randomness or probability into its framework.25 For the same set of initial conditions, a stochastic model can produce a range of different outcomes, often summarized as a probability distribution.27 These models are essential for representing processes that are inherently probabilistic, such as whether a specific tree will die in a given year, whether a lightning strike will ignite a wildfire, or whether a seed will successfully germinate.28 They are indispensable for conducting risk analysis and for quantifying the uncertainty associated with future projections.27
In practice, however, very few modern forest simulation models are purely deterministic or purely stochastic. It is more accurate and useful to view this distinction not as a rigid classification of entire models, but as a description of their individual components. Most sophisticated simulators exist on a spectrum, strategically combining deterministic and stochastic elements to capture both average trends and realistic variability.27 A common and powerful architecture involves modeling continuous growth processes deterministically while treating discrete, chance-based events stochastically. For example, a model like the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) first calculates a potential diameter increment for a tree using a deterministic equation, representing the average expected growth under ideal conditions.30 This potential is then reduced by deterministic modifiers for competition and site quality. However, the model then uses a stochastic logistic regression equation to calculate the
probability of that tree dying during the simulation cycle. A random number is generated and compared to this probability (a process known as a Bernoulli trial) to decide if the tree lives or dies.27 Similarly, a State Transition Simulation Model (STSM) may use deterministic rules for aging (e.g., a "Young Forest" state transitions to "Mature Forest" after 80 years) but uses stochastic probabilities for disturbances (e.g., a "Mature Forest" state has a 1% annual probability of transitioning to a "Burned" state).29 This hybrid approach allows a single model to provide both a deterministic forecast of the average outcome (the expected value) and a stochastic simulation of the range of possible outcomes, which is crucial for comprehensive planning.27

2.2 The Core Modeling Philosophies: Empirical, Mechanistic, and Hybrid Approaches

Beyond the deterministic-stochastic spectrum, forest models can be categorized by their underlying scientific philosophy into three main types: empirical, mechanistic, and hybrid.
Empirical Models: These are "top-down" or correlational models built upon statistical relationships derived from large sets of observed data, most often from NFI permanent plots.15 They excel at describing
what happens in a forest—for example, how diameter growth relates to tree size and stand density—without necessarily simulating the fundamental biological mechanisms that cause these relationships.18 Their great strength is their accuracy and reliability when used to make predictions for forest conditions that are similar to those represented in the data used for their calibration.18 The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) is a quintessential example of an empirical modeling system, with its growth and mortality equations fitted to decades of NFI data from across the United States.22 The primary weakness of empirical models is their limited ability to generalize. They perform poorly when asked to extrapolate to novel conditions not present in their calibration dataset, such as projecting growth under a future climate that is significantly warmer or drier than any period in the historical record.24
Mechanistic Models: Also known as process-based or biogeochemical models, these are "bottom-up" systems that attempt to simulate the underlying physiological and physical processes that govern forest dynamics.18 Instead of a statistical relationship, they use equations to represent fundamental processes like photosynthesis (carbon uptake), respiration (carbon loss), transpiration (water use), and nutrient cycling.33 A classic example is the BIOME-BGC model, which requires inputs like daily weather data, soil properties, and plant physiological parameters to simulate the flow of carbon, water, and nitrogen through the ecosystem.33 The principal advantage of mechanistic models is their potential for greater generalizability. Because they are based on first principles of biology and physics, they can theoretically predict how forests will respond to entirely novel environmental conditions, such as elevated atmospheric
CO2​ concentrations or unprecedented drought, making them essential tools for climate change impact assessment.18 Their main disadvantages are their immense complexity, their large number of parameters (many of which are difficult to measure), and the potential for uncertainty to accumulate and propagate through their many interacting sub-models.18
Hybrid Models: These models represent an effort to combine the strengths of the empirical and mechanistic approaches, seeking to create a tool that is both accurate and robust.18 They aim to achieve a balance between the simplicity and data-driven accuracy of empirical models and the explanatory power and generalizability of process-based models.34 A common hybrid strategy is to use an empirical growth model as the core engine but to modify its predictions using constraints derived from mechanistic sub-models. For example, a model might calculate a tree's growth using a standard empirical equation but then reduce that growth based on a mechanistically calculated index of water stress or light availability.35 This approach seeks to ground the model in the observed reality of NFI data while providing a pathway for it to respond realistically to changing environmental drivers.
The choice between these philosophies represents a fundamental trade-off between predictive accuracy for the present and predictive robustness for the future. For a short-term (e.g., 10-year) timber supply forecast under stable climate conditions, a well-calibrated empirical model like FVS is likely to be more accurate and reliable. For a long-term (e.g., 100-year) forecast of carbon sequestration under a +3°C warming scenario, a mechanistic or hybrid model is necessary, as the historical data underlying the empirical model no longer represents the future environment. This tension is a central challenge for NFI agencies and is the primary driver for the development of climate-sensitive versions of empirical models, such as Climate-FVS, which attempt to bridge this critical gap.30

2.3 Scaling in Forest Models: From Individual Trees to Entire Landscapes

A final, crucial dimension for classifying forest models is the scale or fundamental unit of simulation. This choice represents a trade-off between the level of detail, computational requirements, and the types of questions the model is designed to answer.15 The primary scales, which will be explored in detail in the following sections, form a hierarchy of increasing aggregation:
1.	Individual-Tree Models: Simulate each tree as a unique entity. This is the most detailed level, ideal for complex stands and specific silvicultural questions.
2.	Cohort/Size-Class Models: Group similar trees into classes and simulate the average individual. This approach balances detail with computational efficiency.
3.	Stand Models: Treat the entire forest stand as the basic unit, using aggregate variables like basal area and average diameter. This is the least detailed but most computationally efficient approach.
4.	Landscape Models: Operate on a collection of stands or grid cells, simulating spatial interactions like fire spread and seed dispersal over large areas.
This hierarchy provides forest managers and analysts with a toolkit of models, allowing them to select the appropriate level of resolution for the task at hand, from detailed operational planning for a single stand to broad strategic policy analysis for an entire nation.

Section 3: Modeling at the Individual Tree Level: Granularity and Precision

3.1 Principles of Individual-Tree Models

Individual-tree models represent the highest level of biological detail in operational forest growth and yield modeling. The fundamental unit of simulation in these models is the single tree.15 They explicitly simulate the key demographic processes—establishment, growth, and mortality—for each individual tree recorded in an inventory list or on a simulated plot.37 Stand-level outputs, such as total volume per hectare or species composition, are not predicted directly but are emergent properties derived by aggregating the projections for all the individual trees within the stand.37
The paramount advantage of this approach is its ability to capture and project the dynamics of heterogeneous and structurally complex forests.39 In mixed-species or uneven-aged stands, where trees of different sizes, ages, and species compete directly, stand-level averages can be misleading and obscure critical interactions.40 By tracking each tree, these models can more realistically simulate competition and growth in these complex environments. This granularity also makes them exceptionally well-suited for simulating the effects of complex silvicultural treatments. For example, they can precisely model a selective thinning that removes trees of specific species within a narrow diameter range, a task that is impossible for a whole-stand model.23
Within the category of individual-tree models, a critical distinction is made between distance-dependent and distance-independent approaches.
●	Distance-dependent models require the spatial (x,y) coordinates of every tree in the simulation.31 They calculate a competition index for each subject tree based on the size, species, and proximity of its specific neighbors.31 This is a more biologically realistic representation of competition but comes at a high cost: it is computationally intensive and requires detailed stem-mapped inventory data, which is rarely collected in large-scale NFIs.31
●	Distance-independent models do not require tree coordinates.30 Instead, they calculate competition using a more generalized approach. The competitive pressure on a subject tree is typically modeled as a function of overall stand-level variables (like total basal area or number of trees per hectare) and the subject tree's size relative to the average tree in the stand.22 This simplification is a crucial, pragmatic compromise. While less precise in modeling neighbor-to-neighbor interactions, it allows the models to be applied to the vast archives of standard NFI plot data, making large-scale, individual-tree-based analysis feasible.23 The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) is the most prominent example of a distance-independent model.

3.2 Deep Dive: The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS)

The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) is the flagship growth and yield modeling system of the USDA Forest Service and serves as the national standard for projecting forest dynamics on National Forest System lands.30 It is a powerful embodiment of the symbiotic relationship between a national inventory program and its analytical tools. FVS is fundamentally an empirical, individual-tree, distance-independent growth model.22 Its development, calibration, and validation are inextricably linked to the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, the NFI of the United States. The core mathematical relationships that predict tree growth and mortality within FVS were statistically derived from the massive, long-term database of permanent FIA plots, which contains millions of tree measurements spanning decades of observation.22 This direct linkage means that FVS is not an abstract academic model but an institutionalized analytical extension of the NFI program itself, designed specifically to process and project FIA data to meet the management and planning needs of the Forest Service.
A key feature of FVS is its architecture as a "family of models" rather than a single, monolithic entity. The system is composed of over 20 geographic "variants," each calibrated for a specific region of the United States (e.g., the Pacific Northwest Coast variant, the Southern variant).22 Each variant contains unique growth and mortality equations tailored to the specific tree species and ecological conditions of its region, all derived from local FIA plot data. This regional calibration significantly enhances the model's predictive accuracy. Furthermore, the FVS framework is extensible. A suite of "extensions" can be linked to the base variants to simulate the effects of specific ecological processes and disturbances. Prominent examples include the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE), which models fire behavior and its effects on vegetation and fuels; various insect and disease extensions that simulate the impacts of specific pathogens; and Climate-FVS, a climate-sensitive version that modifies the core growth and mortality functions based on projections from selected general circulation models (GCMs).20
The mechanics of an FVS simulation begin with a standard forest inventory tree list as input, which includes species, DBH, and often height and crown ratio for each sample tree.22 The model then projects the forest forward in discrete time steps, typically 5 or 10 years long.41 Within each cycle, the following core processes are simulated for each tree in the list:
●	Growth: A large-tree diameter growth model calculates the potential 10-year diameter increment based on a deterministic function of the tree's current size. This potential is then reduced by a multiplier that accounts for competition, which is a function of stand-level density (e.g., basal area) and the tree's size relative to the stand average. A similar process models height growth.30
●	Mortality: The probability of a tree dying during the cycle is estimated using a stochastic logistic regression equation. Predictor variables typically include the tree's size, vigor (e.g., crown ratio), and the level of competition it faces. A random number is then drawn to determine stochastically whether the tree lives or dies.27
●	Management: FVS includes a powerful and flexible event monitor system that uses a keyword-based language. This allows users to schedule and simulate an almost unlimited range of silvicultural activities. For example, a user can specify a thinning from below to a target residual basal area, a clearcut harvest, planting of specific species, or prescribed burning, with these actions triggered at specific years or when certain stand conditions are met.41
For NFI applications, FVS offers several profound advantages:
●	Direct Data Compatibility: It is purpose-built to use the standard data collected by NFIs, making the data-to-model pipeline seamless.22
●	Management Flexibility: The ability to simulate nearly any conceivable silvicultural prescription makes it an invaluable tool for comparing the long-term consequences of different management alternatives, a core task in forest planning.20
●	Self-Calibration: FVS has a feature that can use measured tree growth increments from the input inventory data to locally adjust its predictions, which can improve accuracy for specific sites or stands that may deviate from the regional average.43
●	Comprehensive Outputs: It generates a wide array of outputs that are directly relevant to NFI reporting and management objectives, including timber volume and yield, biomass and carbon stocks, canopy cover, snag dynamics, and potential fire behavior.20

3.3 Ecological Applications: An Analysis of Forest GAP Models

Forest GAP models are a distinct lineage of individual-tree-based models developed primarily by ecologists to study long-term forest succession and the mechanisms driving changes in community composition.45 The central concept of these models, originating with the JABOWA model in 1969, is "gap dynamics".45 A "gap" is a localized opening in the forest canopy created by the death or fall of one or more large trees.48 These gaps create patches of high light and altered microclimates on the forest floor, becoming hotspots for tree regeneration and driving the successional process.48
GAP models abstract the forest as a mosaic of many small, independent patches, with the size of a patch (typically 100–1000 m²) corresponding to the zone of influence of a single large canopy tree.45 Within each patch, the model simulates the establishment, growth, and death of individual trees. While they are individual-tree models, their internal mechanics often differ from purely empirical models like FVS, giving them a more mechanistic or process-oriented flavor. Key assumptions and mechanics include:
●	Competition for Light: Unlike FVS, where competition is a generalized function of stand density, competition in classic GAP models is primarily for light and is explicitly modeled based on the relative heights of trees in the patch. Taller trees intercept light, casting shade on shorter trees and reducing their growth.45
●	Environmentally-Mediated Growth: Tree growth is typically modeled as starting from a species-specific maximum potential growth rate. This maximum rate is then reduced by a series of multiplicative environmental response functions, often scaled from 0 to 1. These functions represent the limiting effects of factors such as available light, growing season temperature (degree-days), soil moisture, and sometimes soil nutrients.45
●	Stochastic Establishment and Mortality: The establishment of new seedlings and the mortality of existing trees are typically modeled as stochastic processes, reflecting the roles of chance and environmental stress in these demographic events.46
For NFI applications, GAP models offer several distinct advantages, particularly for addressing ecological questions that go beyond traditional timber yield:
●	Simulating Succession and Climate Change: Because their growth functions often include explicit responses to climatic variables like temperature and water availability, GAP models are powerful tools for simulating long-term (centuries-scale) forest succession and for exploring the potential impacts of climate change on species composition, forest structure, and biomass accumulation.45
●	Understanding Ecological Processes: They provide a formal framework for testing hypotheses about the ecological processes that drive forest dynamics. For an NFI with a modern mandate to report on biodiversity and ecosystem health, GAP models can help explain the role of small-scale disturbances (gap dynamics) in maintaining species diversity and creating structural complexity.46
●	Bridging Modeling Scales: The detailed patch-level simulations from a GAP model can be used to inform larger-scale models. By classifying the output of many GAP model runs, one can derive the probabilities of transition between different forest states (e.g., from a pioneer-dominated state to a shade-tolerant-dominated state). These probabilities can then be used to parameterize a landscape-scale state-and-transition model, providing a robust, process-based link between tree-level dynamics and landscape-level patterns.53

Section 4: Modeling at the Stand and Cohort Level: Aggregation for Management Efficiency

4.1 Whole-Stand Models: The Foundation of Yield Prediction

Whole-stand models represent the highest level of aggregation in forest growth modeling. Instead of tracking individual trees, these models treat the entire forest stand as the fundamental unit of simulation.17 They project future forest conditions using aggregate, stand-level variables such as stand age, site quality (often represented by site index), and a measure of stand density like basal area or the number of trees per hectare.15
The mechanics of whole-stand models typically involve a system of mathematical equations that predict the future values of these stand-level attributes. The simplest and most traditional form is the yield table or yield function, which directly predicts the total stand volume or biomass at a future age based on the initial site and density conditions (e.g., Volume=f(Age,SiteIndex,Density)).17 These models were the historical foundation of scientific forest management and are still highly effective for predicting yields in simple, even-aged, single-species plantations.15 A more advanced variant is the
diameter distribution model. This type of stand model does not predict a single volume value, but instead predicts the parameters of a statistical probability density function (PDF), such as the Weibull function.17 This function then describes the full distribution of tree diameters within the stand at a future point in time. By applying the predicted distribution to the stand's total number of trees, a detailed stand table (trees per hectare by diameter class) can be generated, providing more structural detail than a simple yield function.15
The primary advantages of whole-stand models for NFI applications stem from their simplicity and efficiency:
●	Low Data Requirements: They can be developed and applied using only stand-level summary data from an inventory. This makes them particularly useful for situations where detailed tree lists are unavailable, such as with historical inventory data, very large ownerships where only stand averages are tracked, or in rapid, low-cost assessments.57
●	Computational Efficiency: Because they do not involve calculations for every single tree, whole-stand models are computationally very fast. This makes them highly suitable for strategic, long-range planning exercises that may involve projecting the growth of tens of thousands of stands across an entire region or nation.57
●	Robustness for Simple Structures: For the specific case of even-aged, single-species stands with a known management history (e.g., plantations), stand-level models can be extremely accurate and are often the preferred tool for yield forecasting.55

4.2 Cohort and Size-Class Models: A Balance of Detail and Efficiency

Cohort models, also known as size-class or stand table projection models, occupy a crucial middle ground between the high detail of individual-tree models and the high aggregation of whole-stand models. These models begin with a list of inventory trees but group them into "cohorts" or "classes" based on shared characteristics.58 A cohort is typically defined as a group of trees of the same species and within a similar age or size (e.g., diameter) class.1 The model then simulates the growth of an average or representative tree for each cohort and applies that growth to all trees within the group, while also modeling the transfer of trees between cohorts as they grow, and their removal through mortality or harvest.58
For example, a classic stand table projection model, a type of size-class model, summarizes inventory data into a table of trees per hectare by species and diameter class (e.g., 10-cm classes).58 The model then uses "movement ratios" or transition probabilities to project how many trees from one class will grow into the next larger class over a time step, and how many will be lost to mortality.42 More sophisticated cohort models, often used in landscape simulators, may define cohorts by species and age, and can "tag" these cohorts with additional attributes like health status or wood quality, thus retaining a significant amount of detail from the original inventory.58
The cohort approach is a powerful abstraction that provides several key advantages for NFI analysis:
●	The Bridge to Landscape Scale: The concept of the cohort is the fundamental mechanism that enables the scaling of detailed, tree-level ecological dynamics to large landscapes. It is computationally infeasible to simulate every individual tree across millions of hectares. Instead, many of the most prominent and powerful forest landscape models (FLMs), such as LANDIS-II, are built upon a cohort structure.60 They simulate the dynamics of species-age cohorts within each grid cell of the landscape, providing a computationally tractable way to incorporate essential biological detail (species, age structure) into large-scale simulations. The cohort is, in effect, the "universal translator" that connects detailed NFI plot data to strategic landscape models.
●	Efficiency for Complex Stands: For naturally regenerated, multi-cohort, or structurally complex stands, cohort models offer a much more efficient simulation method than full individual-tree models while still capturing the essential structural dynamics that whole-stand models would miss.61
●	Flexibility: The cohort concept is highly flexible. It can be implemented simply as diameter classes for basic yield projections or as highly specified species-age-plant functional type (PFT) cohorts within complex Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) used for global climate studies.60

4.3 Functional Applications: Harvest Simulation Models

Harvest simulation models are a specialized class of tool designed to simulate, analyze, and optimize the operational and economic aspects of timber harvesting.64 They are often used in tandem with the growth and yield models described above. While growth models project the biological development of the forest, harvest models address the logistics, productivity, and cost of extracting timber from that forest. Their inputs are typically a combination of stand structure data (derived from NFI data and projected by a growth model), terrain characteristics (e.g., slope, ground conditions, extraction distance), and the specifications of the harvesting machinery or system being used.65
These models exist in several forms. At the strategic planning level, they often take the form of optimization models, frequently using linear programming, that schedule harvests across numerous stands over a long planning horizon to achieve a specific objective, such as maximizing the net present value (NPV) of the forest or ensuring a stable, even flow of timber over time.67 These are often referred to by their formulation type (e.g., Model I, Model II).67 At the operational level, they can be detailed, discrete-event or system dynamics simulation models that imitate the passage of specific machines (feller-bunchers, skidders, forwarders) through a stand, predicting productivity in units like cubic meters per hour and cost per cubic meter.64
Harvest simulation models are critically important for translating NFI data into practical outcomes:
●	Connecting Biology to Economics: They provide the indispensable link between the biological resource quantified by the NFI and the economic realities of forest management and the forest products industry. They allow managers to assess the financial viability of harvesting specific stands identified in the inventory.68
●	Operational Planning and System Selection: They enable managers to test and compare the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of different harvesting systems (e.g., manual felling vs. mechanized cut-to-length) for the specific stand and terrain conditions found in the inventory, leading to better operational decisions.64
●	Quantifying the Value of Information (VoI): These models provide a powerful framework for assessing the economic value of NFI data quality. Errors and uncertainty in the initial inventory data propagate through the growth and harvest models, leading to sub-optimal management plans and quantifiable economic losses.70 By comparing the economic outcomes of plans based on high- versus low-quality inventory data, a "cost-plus-loss" analysis can determine the optimal level of investment in inventory activities. This demonstrates that NFI accuracy is not merely a scientific concern but a critical factor in the financial performance of forest enterprises.68

Section 5: Modeling at the Landscape Scale: Integrating Spatial Dynamics and Disturbance

5.1 Principles of Spatially Explicit Landscape Models

Forest landscape models (FLMs) represent a significant step up in scale and complexity, designed to simulate forest dynamics over vast spatial extents—from thousands to millions of hectares—and across long time frames, often spanning decades to centuries.14 The defining characteristic that distinguishes them from the models previously discussed is their
spatial explicitness. They operate on a landscape represented as a grid of cells (pixels) or a collection of polygons (stands), where the location of each unit is known.36
This spatial referencing is not merely for mapping; it is fundamental to the model's mechanics. FLMs are designed to simulate spatial processes—ecological interactions that depend on the location of an object and its relationship to its neighbors. Key spatial processes modeled include wildfire spread (the probability of a cell burning is influenced by whether its neighbors are on fire), seed dispersal (a cell's regeneration is influenced by its proximity to seed-producing trees), pest and disease outbreaks that spread from stand to stand, and the effects of spatially-patterned harvesting.62
The primary power of landscape models lies in their ability to simulate emergent properties—patterns and behaviors that arise from local interactions but are only visible at the landscape scale.73 For example, by simulating harvesting in some stands, a landscape model can quantify the resulting habitat fragmentation, a property that has no meaning at the level of a single stand but is critical for wildlife populations. Similarly, they can project how changes in climate and management might alter the overall fire regime (e.g., average fire size and frequency) of an entire region. This capability is essential for modern ecosystem-based management, assessing the cumulative effects of multiple actions, and addressing landscape-level conservation challenges.36 A prominent example of a process-oriented, cohort-based FLM is LANDIS-II, which simulates succession, disturbance, and management across large landscapes.62

5.2 Deep Dive: State Transition Simulation Models (STSM)

State Transition Simulation Models (STSMs) are a widely used and powerful type of landscape model that simplifies the immense complexity of ecosystem dynamics into a more manageable framework.28 The core of the STSM approach is the
state-and-transition paradigm. The model represents the landscape as being composed of a finite number of discrete "states," and it simulates changes over time as "transitions" between these states.29 A state is a recognizable and ecologically distinct condition, often defined by vegetation structure and composition, such as "Early Seral, Open Canopy," "Mid-Seral, Closed Canopy," or "Old Growth, Multi-strata".72
The mechanics of an STSM involve dividing the landscape into a set of spatial units (typically grid cells), with each cell assigned an initial state based on inventory data.28 The model then simulates forward in discrete time steps, and in each step, cells can change their state according to a defined set of transition pathways. These pathways fall into two categories:
●	Deterministic Transitions: These represent predictable, age-related changes and occur with certainty after a specified duration. The most common example is succession. A cell in a "Young Pine Forest" state might be programmed to deterministically transition to a "Mature Pine Forest" state after residing in the young state for 60 years.29
●	Probabilistic Transitions: These represent stochastic events, primarily disturbances. A cell in a "Mature Pine Forest" state is assigned an annual probability of experiencing a disturbance that would cause it to transition to another state. For example, it might have a 0.5% annual probability of a stand-replacing fire, which would transition it to a "Recently Burned" state.29 These probabilities are the key "levers" that can be manipulated to simulate different scenarios.
The STSM framework is highly flexible and has been implemented in powerful software platforms like ST-Sim, which is part of the SyncroSim modeling environment.28 A major application in the United States is the LANDFIRE program, a collaborative effort by federal agencies that has developed over 1,000 STSMs describing the reference conditions and disturbance dynamics for Biophysical Settings (BpS) across the country.29 These models are widely used to assess ecosystem health by comparing current landscape conditions (initialized using NFI and other data) to the historical range of variability (HRV) simulated by the model.29
STSMs offer profound advantages for using NFI data in strategic planning and policy analysis:
●	Intuitive Scenario Analysis: The state-and-transition framework is an effective tool for translating complex ecological dynamics into a language that policymakers and managers can readily understand and manipulate. It abstracts the system into a set of managerially relevant states (e.g., "high-quality habitat," "high fire risk") and controllable levers (transition probabilities that can be altered by management actions).79 This allows for direct, quantitative answers to "what-if" questions, such as, "How will increasing the rate of prescribed burning affect the amount of old-growth forest on the landscape over the next 50 years?".28 This makes them ideal tools for developing and analyzing alternatives in environmental impact statements and forest plan revisions.79
●	Flexibility and Broad Applicability: The conceptual framework is not limited to forests. STSMs have been successfully applied to a wide range of ecosystems, including rangelands, grasslands, and wetlands, making them a versatile tool for integrated landscape management.28
●	Robust Uncertainty Characterization: Because the models are inherently stochastic, they are perfectly suited for Monte Carlo simulation. By running a simulation hundreds or thousands of times, analysts can generate a probability distribution of future outcomes, rather than a single deterministic prediction. This allows for a robust characterization of uncertainty and provides decision-makers with an understanding of the range of possible futures and the associated risks.28
The power of landscape models, whether cohort-based like LANDIS-II or state-based like STSMs, lies in their ability to reveal the critical importance of spatial context. Unlike non-spatial models that treat each stand as an isolated island, landscape models recognize that the fate of any given location is deeply influenced by its position and its neighbors. They add the crucial dimension of "where" to the "what" and "when" of forest forecasting, enabling analysis of inherently spatial issues like wildlife corridor viability, cumulative watershed effects, and regional fire risk, which are central to the modern mandate of NFIs.

Section 6: Synthesis and Strategic Application: Selecting the Appropriate Model for NFI Objectives

6.1 Comparative Analysis of Model Architectures and Their Utility

The preceding sections have detailed a diverse array of modeling approaches used to analyze and project NFI data. The choice of which model to use is not arbitrary; it is a strategic decision dictated by the specific question being asked, the data available, and the required scale of analysis. Each model architecture embodies a different set of trade-offs between detail, scale, data requirements, and predictive philosophy. There is no single "best" model, only the "right tool for the job." The key skill for a modern forest analyst is understanding this toolkit and selecting the appropriate model to meet a specific objective.
The fundamental trade-offs can be summarized as follows:
●	Detail vs. Scale: There is an inverse relationship between the level of biological detail a model simulates and the spatial scale at which it can be feasibly applied. Individual-tree models provide immense detail for stand-level silvicultural analysis but are computationally prohibitive for national-scale projections. Landscape models cover vast areas but must aggregate detail, typically at the cohort or state level, to remain computationally tractable.
●	Data Requirements vs. Cost: Model complexity is directly related to data requirements and, therefore, cost. Mechanistic and distance-dependent individual-tree models require extensive parameterization and detailed spatial data that are expensive and often unavailable from standard NFI protocols. Simpler empirical and whole-stand models have lower data needs and can be readily applied to existing NFI datasets, making them more cost-effective for broad applications.57
●	Accuracy vs. Generality: This is the core dilemma of the empirical versus mechanistic debate, particularly relevant in the context of climate change. Empirical models, grounded in historical NFI data, offer high predictive accuracy for conditions within their calibration domain. Mechanistic models, based on first principles, offer greater theoretical generality for projecting responses to novel future conditions, but often with higher uncertainty in their specific predictions.
The following table synthesizes these characteristics, providing a comparative framework to guide model selection for various NFI applications.
Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Forest Growth and Yield Models for NFI Applications

Model Category / Example	Primary Scale	Core Approach	Key Deterministic Processes	Common Stochastic Elements	Typical NFI Data Inputs	Key Advantages for NFI Applications	Primary Limitations	
Individual-Tree (Distance-Independent) / FVS	Tree, Stand	Empirical	Potential growth equations (diameter, height)	Mortality probability, regeneration, disturbance effects	Tree list (species, DBH, height, etc.), stand attributes, site index	High-fidelity simulation of complex silviculture; direct compatibility with NFI data; robust for heterogeneous stands 41	Computationally intensive for large landscapes; poor extrapolation to novel climates without extensions (e.g., Climate-FVS) 24	
GAP Model / JABOWA, FORCLIM	Tree, Patch	Hybrid (Empirical-Mechanistic)	Maximum growth rate, allometric relationships	Establishment, mortality, environmental stress multipliers	Species-specific physiological traits, site climate/soil data, initial tree list	Excellent for simulating long-term succession and species composition change; good for climate change impact analysis 45	High data requirements for species parameters; patch-level focus may not scale perfectly to stands; some simplifying assumptions (e.g., light competition) 45	
Harvest Simulation / SiMS, HSA Model	Stand, Operation	Optimization or Process Simulation	Machine productivity functions, economic calculations (NPV)	Machine delay times, market price fluctuations	Projected stand inventories (from growth models), terrain data (slope), machine specs	Links biological inventory to economic outcomes; optimizes harvest schedules; allows operational planning; quantifies value of inventory data 65	Requires integration with a growth model; can be complex to parameterize; optimization models may oversimplify operational constraints 65	
Cohort/Size-Class Model / LANDIS-II Cohorts	Cohort, Stand, Landscape	Various (Empirical to Process-based)	Growth of the average cohort member	Mortality, recruitment, transition between classes	Tree list aggregated into cohorts (species, age/size)	Computationally efficient bridge between tree-level detail and landscape scale; flexible and widely used in FLMs 60	Loss of individual tree variance; behavior depends on how cohorts are defined and aggregated 60	
Whole-Stand Model / Yield Tables	Stand	Empirical	Yield as a function of age, site, density	Often purely deterministic, but can have stochastic mortality components	Stand-level summaries (age, site index, basal area)	Computationally very fast; low data requirements; accurate for simple, even-aged stands 17	Inaccurate for complex, mixed, or uneven-aged stands; provides no within-stand structural detail 40	
Landscape Model (State-Transition) / STSM, ST-Sim	Landscape	State-and-Transition	Age-based (successional) state changes	Disturbance events (fire, harvest, insects), management actions	Initial landscape map of vegetation states (derived from NFI/remote sensing), transition probabilities	Excellent for landscape-level policy/management scenario analysis; intuitive framework; robustly handles uncertainty and risk 28	Abstract representation of ecological processes; state definitions can be subjective; non-spatial versions miss key interactions 28	
Landscape Model (Process-based) / LANDIS-II, iLand	Landscape	Mechanistic / Cohort-based	Cohort growth, competition for resources (light, water, N)	Seed dispersal, disturbance ignition and spread, establishment	Initial species-age cohort maps, climate/soil grids, species life history traits	Simulates emergent spatial patterns (fragmentation, fire regimes); mechanistically links climate, disturbance, and succession 62	Very high data requirements and computational load; complexity can lead to uncertainty propagation 14	
Mechanistic Model / BIOME-BGC	Patch, Stand	Mechanistic	Photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration, nutrient cycling	Can be run deterministically or with stochastic weather inputs	Daily weather data, soil physics, detailed plant physiological parameters	Highest potential for predicting response to novel environmental conditions (e.g., elevated CO2​); provides deep process understanding 18	Extremely data-intensive and complex; difficult to parameterize for many species; often too uncertain for precise yield forecasting 18	
Hybrid Model / FORECAST	Tree, Stand	Hybrid (Empirical-Mechanistic)	Empirical growth functions constrained by mechanistic processes (e.g., light, water balance)	Varies by model; often includes stochastic mortality and establishment	A mix of inventory data and process-related parameters	Aims to balance empirical accuracy with mechanistic robustness; better extrapolation than pure empirical models 18	Can be complex to develop and parameterize; may inherit limitations from both parent approaches 35	

6.2 Matching Model Capabilities to NFI Information Requirements

The practical utility of this modeling toolkit is realized when a specific information requirement from an NFI stakeholder is matched with the most appropriate model. The following outlines common NFI-related objectives and the recommended modeling approaches.
●	For Timber Supply and Harvest Scheduling: When the primary goal is to forecast timber volume, predict product yields, and develop detailed operational harvest plans, individual-tree models like FVS are the superior choice.43 Their ability to simulate specific silvicultural treatments (e.g., thinning to a certain basal area with species preferences) and track the growth of individual trees provides the necessary detail for tactical and operational planning. These are often paired with
harvest simulation models to optimize schedules and evaluate economic returns.69 For simpler, even-aged plantation systems,
whole-stand models can provide efficient and accurate yield forecasts.55
●	For Carbon Accounting and Climate Change Impacts: This is a domain where single models are often insufficient. To project carbon stocks under future climates, models must be sensitive to environmental drivers. Mechanistic models offer the most robust theoretical basis for this, as they simulate the core processes of carbon flux.33 However, given their complexity,
hybrid models or climate-enabled empirical models like Climate-FVS are often used as a practical alternative.30 To assess how carbon dynamics will be affected by changing disturbance regimes (e.g., more frequent wildfires), these growth models must be embedded within
spatially explicit landscape models (STSMs or process-based FLMs) that can simulate the spatial spread of disturbances and their impact on landscape-wide carbon storage.62
●	For Biodiversity and Wildlife Habitat Analysis: Questions related to biodiversity and habitat are inherently spatial. Therefore, spatially explicit landscape models are essential. They are the only tools that can analyze critical spatial metrics like habitat patch size, edge effects, connectivity, and fragmentation, which are often more important for species viability than the conditions within a single stand.73 STSMs are particularly useful here, as states can be defined directly in terms of habitat suitability for key species, allowing managers to directly simulate the impact of management on habitat availability.79
●	For Fire Risk and Behavior Assessment: Assessing fire risk and projecting the effects of fuel treatments requires models that can simulate fire dynamics. At the stand level, the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE) for FVS can predict potential fire behavior (e.g., flame length, rate of spread) and effects (e.g., tree mortality) based on the stand's structure and fuel loading.20 For landscape-level risk assessment, which involves fire spread,
spatially explicit landscape models are required. This can be accomplished through the probabilistic fire transitions in an STSM or the more mechanistic fire spread algorithms found in LANDIS-II.29

6.3 Future Trajectories: The Integration of New Technologies and Methods

The field of forest modeling is not static; it is continually evolving through the integration of new data sources and analytical techniques. The future of NFI-based modeling lies not in the replacement of existing models, but in their enhancement and integration into more powerful, multi-component systems.
●	Integration with Remote Sensing: The proliferation of high-resolution remote sensing data, especially LiDAR, is transforming forest inventory and modeling.11 LiDAR can provide highly accurate, "wall-to-wall" maps of key forest structure variables like canopy height and cover.32 This data serves two critical functions. First, it can be used to create vastly improved initial condition maps for landscape models, reducing a major source of uncertainty.12 Second, statistical models can link field plot data to LiDAR metrics, allowing for the accurate prediction of inventory attributes (like volume or biomass) across the entire landscape, a process known as model-assisted estimation.32 This integration improves precision and can reduce the costs associated with purely field-based inventories.
●	The Rise of Machine Learning: Non-parametric machine learning algorithms, such as Random Forest (RF), Boosted Regression Trees (BRT), and Cubist, are increasingly being used as powerful alternatives to traditional regression for developing empirical models.39 These methods are exceptionally adept at identifying complex, non-linear patterns and interactions within large NFI datasets.39 They have been shown to improve the accuracy of predictions for a wide range of variables, from individual tree diameter growth to regional harvest probability and downed woody material carbon stocks.39 These more accurate machine learning models can be used as improved components within larger simulation frameworks.
●	The Future is Integrated and Hybrid: The trajectory of development is toward more deeply integrated, hybrid systems. A future state-of-the-art NFI analysis system might look like this: LiDAR data provides the spatially continuous map of current forest structure. The NFI's permanent plots provide the essential ground-truth for calibrating the LiDAR interpretations and, crucially, the longitudinal data on change needed to model dynamics. Machine learning algorithms are used to mine this combined dataset, building highly accurate empirical sub-models for growth, mortality, and recruitment. These improved empirical components are then integrated into a hybrid simulation framework that uses mechanistic principles (e.g., water balance, climate constraints) to ensure the model is robust for projecting future scenarios. The result is a system of systems that leverages the respective strengths of remote sensing, field data, machine learning, and process-based simulation to produce the most accurate and robust forecasts possible.34 In this future, the NFI's role as the provider of indispensable, long-term ground-truth data becomes more critical than ever.
Literature cited
1.	Forest inventory - Wikipedia, accessed July 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_inventory
2.	en.wikipedia.org, accessed July 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_inventory#:~:text=Forest%20inventory%20is%20the%20systematic,information%20required%20to%20sustain%20ecosystems.
3.	About the NFI - Forest Research, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/about-the-nfi/
4.	National Forest Inventory - Norwegian Forestry Group, accessed July 24, 2025, https://nfg.no/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Fact-sheet-5-National-Forest-Inventory.pdf
5.	National Forest Inventory - Nibio, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.nibio.no/en/subjects/forest/national-forest-inventory
6.	What is the NFI? | National Forest Inventory, accessed July 24, 2025, https://roifn.ro/site/what-is-the-nfi/
7.	National Forest Inventory → Area → Sustainability Directory, accessed July 24, 2025, https://sustainability-directory.com/area/national-forest-inventory/
8.	Forest Inventory and Analysis | CAL FIRE - CA.gov, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/fire-resource-assessment-program/forest-inventory-and-analysis
9.	National Forest Inventory - Nibio, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.nibio.no/en/about-eng/our-divisions/division-of-forest-and-forest-resources/national-forest-inventory
10.	What is the NFI? - INVENTAIRE FORESTIER - IGN, accessed July 24, 2025, https://inventaire-forestier.ign.fr/spip.php?rubrique74
11.	Forest inventory provides foundation of good forest stewardship | Minnesota DNR, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/resource-assessment/forest-inventory.html
12.	New technologies and methodologies for national forest inventories, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.fao.org/4/y4001e/Y4001E03.htm
13.	Forest Inventory Services | Indian Affairs - BIA.gov, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.bia.gov/service/forest-inventory-services
14.	Forest Landscape Model Initialization with Remotely Sensed-Based Open-Source Databases in the Absence of Inventory Data - MDPI, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/14/10/1995
15.	Chapter 9: Modeling Growth, Yield, and Site Index – Natural Resources Biometrics, accessed July 24, 2025, https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/natural-resources-biometrics/chapter/chapter-9-modeling-growth-yield-and-site-index/
16.	topics.forestry.ubc.ca, accessed July 24, 2025, https://topics.forestry.ubc.ca/module-summaries/forest-stand-dynamics-and-modeling/#:~:text=Forest%20Stand%20Modeling&text=Peter%20Marshall%20describes%20the%20quantitative,the%20productivity%20of%20a%20stand.
17.	Forest Stand Growth Models: What For? - The Forestry Chronicle, accessed July 24, 2025, https://pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/pdf/10.5558/tfc61019-1
18.	Forestry Models: A Comprehensive Guide - Number Analytics, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-forestry-models-mathematical-modeling
19.	Forest Dynamics Models for Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Small Forests - MDPI, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/13/4/515
20.	USFS Forest Vegetation Simulator Online - United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc., accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.usetinc.org/community-resilience-tools-resources-and-publications/usfs-forest-vegetation-simulator-online/
21.	Forest Vegetation Simulator | US Forest Service, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/forest-management/fvs
22.	Forest Vegetation Simulator - Wikipedia, accessed July 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Vegetation_Simulator
23.	SIMREG, a tree-level distance-independent model to simulate forest dynamics and management from national forest inventory (NFI) data - Bohrium, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.bohrium.com/paper-details/simreg-a-tree-level-distance-independent-model-to-simulate-forest-dynamics-and-management-from-national-forest-inventory-nfi-data/812534468362371075-3082
24.	Modelling in Forest Management, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/ne/burlington/research/ne4454/pdf_pubs/forest_mgmt_modelling.pdf
25.	The influence of forestry resources on rainfall: A deterministic and stochastic model, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338613241_The_influence_of_forestry_resources_on_rainfall_A_deterministic_and_stochastic_model
26.	Deterministic vs Stochastic - Machine Learning Fundamentals - Analytics Vidhya, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2023/12/deterministic-vs-stochastic/
27.	Compatible Deterministic and Stochastic Predictions by Probabilistic Modeling of Individual Trees Jerome K. Vanclay - UQ eSpace, accessed July 24, 2025, https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:8269/R027_fs_pp.pdf
28.	State-and-transition simulation models:A framework for forecasting landscape change, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303634590_State-and-transition_simulation_modelsA_framework_for_forecasting_landscape_change
29.	A state-and-transition simulation modeling approach for estimating the historical range of variability - AIMS Press, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.aimspress.com/article/10.3934/environsci.2015.2.253
30.	What is the Forest Vegetation Simulator? | US Forest Service, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/fvs/whatis/index.shtml
31.	INDIVIDUAL-TREE GROWTH MODEL FOR PINUS RADIATA - Scion Research, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.scionresearch.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/59432/NZJFS1211982TENNENT62-70.pdf
32.	Effects of model-overfit on model-assisted forest inventory in boreal forests with remote sensing data - Oxford Academic, accessed July 24, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/forestry/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/forestry/cpae055/60290235/cpae055.pdf
33.	Using mechanistic modeling within forest ecosystem restoration - ResearchGate, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223602961_Using_mechanistic_modeling_within_forest_ecosystem_restoration
34.	www.numberanalytics.com, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-forestry-models-mathematical-modeling#:~:text=Hybrid%20models%3A%20These%20models%20combine,complexity%20of%20process%2Dbased%20models.
35.	Hybrid models of forest production - Wikipedia, accessed July 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_models_of_forest_production
36.	Forest landscape models: Definitions, characterization, and classification - ResearchGate, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222559790_Forest_landscape_models_Definitions_characterization_and_classification
37.	Possibilities and limitations of individual-tree growth models – A review on model evaluations - ResearchGate, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320861919_Possibilities_and_limitations_of_individual-tree_growth_models_-_A_review_on_model_evaluations
38.	Individual-based simulation models for forest succession and management - MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.canr.msu.edu/csis/archive/Individual-based_simulation_models.pdf
39.	Individual Tree Diameter Growth Models of Larch–Spruce–Fir Mixed Forests Based on Machine Learning Algorithms - MDPI, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/10/2/187
40.	(PDF) Stand Structure Impacts on Forest Modelling - ResearchGate, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361910386_Stand_Structure_Impacts_on_Forest_Modelling
41.	Forest Vegetation Simulator - ESSA Technologies, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.essa.com/explore-essa/tools/fvsprognosis/
42.	Forest Inventory & Management_Manual.pdf, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/fcp-docs/2015/October/Forest%20Inventory%20%26%20Management_Manual.pdf
43.	The forest vegetation simulator: A review of its structure, content, and applications, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222013316_The_forest_vegetation_simulator_A_review_of_its_structure_content_and_applications
44.	Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) Self-Paced Training, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/fvs/training/selfpaced.shtml
45.	(PDF) A Review of Forest Gap Models - ResearchGate, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226873874_A_Review_of_Forest_Gap_Models
46.	Forest Gap Models- Silviculture | PPTX - SlideShare, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/forest-gap-models-silviculture/44766112
47.	a review of forest gap models - harald bugmann - Rausser College of Natural Resources, accessed July 24, 2025, https://nature.berkeley.edu/biometlab/espm298/buggmann%20climate%20change.pdf
48.	Gap dynamics - Wikipedia, accessed July 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_dynamics
49.	Research History of Forest Gap as Small-Scale Disturbances in Forest Ecosystems, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376721743_Research_History_of_Forest_Gap_as_Small-Scale_Disturbances_in_Forest_Ecosystems
50.	Research History of Forest Gap as Small-Scale Disturbances in Forest Ecosystems - MDPI, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/15/1/21
51.	EMF Web | Forest Gap Model, accessed July 24, 2025, https://emf.creaf.cat/tags/forest-gap-model/
52.	The concept of forest gap models is usually depicted as shown in (a) - ResearchGate, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-concept-of-forest-gap-models-is-usually-depicted-as-shown-in-a-which-masks-the_fig1_226873874
53.	TRANSITION AND GAP MODELS OF FOREST DYNAMICS!, accessed July 24, 2025, https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/lter/pubs/pdf/pub2222.pdf
54.	Forest Stand Dynamics and Modeling | Asia Pacific Forestry Educational Program, accessed July 24, 2025, https://topics.forestry.ubc.ca/module-summaries/forest-stand-dynamics-and-modeling/
55.	Stand-level growth models for long-term projections of the main species groups in Norway, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02827581.2022.2056632
56.	Conceptual forest model of cohorts and fluxes. See Fig. 1 for forest... - ResearchGate, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Conceptual-forest-model-of-cohorts-and-fluxes-See-Fig-1-for-forest-types-included-in_fig2_223834520
57.	Comprehensive review and evaluation of whole stand volume yield models for the aspen forest type in Minnesota, USA | Forestry - Oxford Academic, accessed July 24, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/96/4/561/6969143
58.	A simple cohort modelling method with applications to practical forest management - Denis Alder, accessed July 24, 2025, http://www.denisalder.net/pdf/an930.pdf
59.	4C: a cohort model for forest growth - 3DForEcoTech, accessed July 24, 2025, https://3dforecotech.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/4C-Cohort-Model-for-Forest-Growth-Thirza-van-Laar.pdf
60.	Overcoming conceptual hurdles to accurately represent trees as cohorts in forest landscape models, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2024/nrs_2024_gustafson_001.pdf
61.	Multi-cohort Stand Structural Classification - Dissertation.com, accessed July 24, 2025, https://dissertation.com/abstract/1920386
62.	Forest Landscape Modeling - ForCAST, accessed July 24, 2025, https://mnforcast.org/landscape-modeling
63.	Illustration of the multi-cohort model of forest dynamics, where... - ResearchGate, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/llustration-of-the-multi-cohort-model-of-forest-dynamics-where-directional-forest_fig3_305925536
64.	Simulation Models in Forest Management and Harvesting - The Forestry Chronicle, accessed July 24, 2025, https://pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/abs/10.5558/tfc44007-1
65.	(PDF) Systems Dynamics Simulation To Improve Timber Harvesting System Management, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277291990_Systems_Dynamics_Simulation_To_Improve_Timber_Harvesting_System_Management
66.	Application of System Dynamics Simulation to Assess System Productivity of Forest Harvesting Systems: A Case Study from Japan - MDPI, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/16/5/734
67.	Reframing Forest Harvest Scheduling Models for Ecosystem Services Management - MDPI, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/15/12/2236
68.	Assessing the importance of detailed forest inventory information using stochastic programming | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383144151_Assessing_the_importance_of_detailed_forest_inventory_information_using_stochastic_programming
69.	Forestech > Services > Forest Planning & Financial Analysis, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.forestech.us/services/forest-planning-financial-analysis
70.	Assessing the importance of detailed forest inventory information using stochastic programming - Canadian Science Publishing, accessed July 24, 2025, https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjfr-2023-0218
71.	Assessing the importance of detailed forest inventory information using stochastic programming - University of California Riverside, accessed July 24, 2025, https://search.library.ucr.edu/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=cdi_proquest_journals_3134460594&context=PC&vid=01CDL_RIV_INST:UCR&lang=en&adaptor=Primo%20Central&tab=Everything&query=creator%2Cexact%2C%20Gobakken%2C%20Terje%20%2CAND&mode=advanced&offset=0
72.	Landscape Modeling | Institute for Natural Resources | Oregon State University, accessed July 24, 2025, https://inr.oregonstate.edu/forest-landscapes/landscape-modeling
73.	LANDSCAPE MODELS, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/SERDP/EcoModels/landscap.html
74.	Spatial simulation of forest succession and timber harvesting using LANDIS, accessed July 24, 2025, https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/x99-188
75.	State-and-transition simulation models: a framework for forecasting landscape change, accessed July 24, 2025, https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70191919
76.	LANDFIRE / ST-Sim Tutorials - Conservation Gateway, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/FireLandscapes/LANDFIRE/Pages/STSimTutorials.aspx
77.	Landscape Change - ApexRMS, accessed July 24, 2025, https://apexrms.com/landscape-change/
78.	Home | landfirevegmodels, accessed July 24, 2025, https://apexrms.github.io/landfirevegmodels/
79.	Use of State-and-Transition Simulation Modeling in National Forest Planning in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. - CiteSeerX, accessed July 24, 2025, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=2a2e5c6d31ac1b603e6031dca99377b4ff5f0148
80.	iLand | startpage, accessed July 24, 2025, https://iland-model.org/
81.	A simple state-and-transition simulation model with stocks and flows... | Download Scientific Diagram - ResearchGate, accessed July 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-simple-state-and-transition-simulation-model-with-stocks-and-flows-STSM-SF-for_fig1_321729816
82.	Individual tree approach to forest inventory - Natural Resources Canada, accessed July 24, 2025, https://natural-resources.canada.ca/forest-forestry/sustainable-forest-management/individual-tree-approach-forest-inventory
83.	Predicting downed woody material carbon stocks in forests of the conterminous United States - ifgtb envis, accessed July 24, 2025, http://ifgtbenvis.in/build/bibilography/Predicting%20downed%20woody%20material%20carbon%20stocks%20in%20forests%20of%20the%20conterminous%20United%20States.pdf
84.	"Predicting Harvest Activities in Mixed-species Forests using a Random " by Dinuka Madhushan Senevirathne - TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange, accessed July 24, 2025, https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/10133/