Strengths | Weaknesses |
---|---|
Large number of inventory plots for different strata such as jurisdictions or biogeographical regions and broad forest types | Sampling based on angle count method; only a selection of trees are sampled, which leads to a loss of information at the plot-level (probability proportional to size) |
Approach applicable to NFIs of other countries | The large-scale design (2 km × 2 km grid) does not capture effectively small areas like forest reserves |
Adequate number of sampling plots per forest type available (for main forest types, see Additional file 5) | Biodiversity-relevant variables were originally not included in inventory-samplings; increasing integration of biodiversity-relevant variables only in recent inventories (NFI2002 and NFI2012) |
Low costs for acquisition of data that are attached to or can be derived from classical inventory variables | No precise information about harvesting and other management activities at the plot-level |
Dynamic changes over inventory periods can be considered (ongoing process) | Changes in sampled variables and sampling thresholds between NFIs (e.g. threshold-value for the minimal diameter for downed deadwood or the presence of hollows) |
Same plots are re-sampled → Analysis on changes of structural elements and development of individual trees (over periods of 10 years) | While broad forest types can be analysed, local (regional) aspects may not be sufficiently well represented |
A large number and variety of structural variables can be derived from inventory data | Owing to the sampling method and related small radius of sampling circles, plot measures are not representative of the stand in which they were collected; therefore extrapolation to hectare values is problematic |
 | Some important variables of forest structure are not quantified directly. They can only be addresses through surrogates (e.g. the occurrence of large living trees as surrogate for habitat-tree characteristics) |