Kari T. Korhonen, Arto Ahola, Juha Heikkinen, Helena M. Henttonen, Juha-Pekka Hotanen, Antti Ihalainen, Markus Melin, Juho Pitkänen, Minna Räty, Maria Sirviö, Mikael Strandström. (2021). Forests of Finland 2014–2018 and their development 1921–2018. Silva Fennica vol. 55 no. 5 article id 10662. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.10662

Keywords: biodiversity; National Forest Inventory; growing stock; forest resources; forest damage

Highlights: Current volume of growing stock, 2500 M m³, is 1.7 times the volume in the 1920s; Annual volume increment is 107.8 M m³, which is double the increment estimated in the 1930s; Serious damage is observed on 2% of the forests available for wood supply; The amount of dead wood is on average 5.8 m³ per ha on productive forest.

Abstract | Full text in HTML | Full text in PDF | Author Info

We describe the methodology applied in the 12th national forest inventory of Finland (NFI12) and describe the state of Finland’s forests as well as the development of some key parameters since 1920s. According to the NFI12, the area of forestry land (consisting of productive and poorly productive forest, unproductive land, and other forestry land) is 26.2 M ha. The area of forestry land has decreased from 1920s to 1960s due to expansion of agriculture and built-up land. 20% of the forestry land is not available for wood supply and 13% is only partly available for wood supply. The area of peatlands is 8.8 M ha, which is one third of the forestry land. 53% of the current area of peatlands is drained. The volume of growing stock, 2500 M m³, is 1.7 times the volume estimated in NFI1 in the 1920s for the current territory of Finland. The estimated annual volume increment is 107.8 M m³. The increment estimate has doubled since the estimate of NFI2 implemented in late 1930s. The annual mortality is estimated to 7 M m³, which is 0.5 M m³ more than according to the previous inventory. Serious or complete damage was observed on 2% of the productive forest available for wood supply. The amount of dead wood is on average 5.8 m³ ha^–1 in productive forests. Since the NFI9 (1996–2003) the amount of dead wood has increased in South Finland and decreased in North Finland both in protected forests and forests available for wood supply (FAWS). The area of natural or almost natural forests on productive forest is 380 000 ha, out of this, 42 000 ha are in FAWS and 340 000 ha in protected forests.

Korhonen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 68, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: kari.t.korhonen@luke.fi
Ahola, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 2, FI-00790, Helsinki, Finland E-mail: arto.ahola@luke.fi
Heikkinen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 2, FI-00790, Helsinki, Finland E-mail: juha.heikkinen@luke.fi
Henttonen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 2, FI-00790, Helsinki, Finland E-mail: helena.henttonen@luke.fi
Hotanen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 68, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: juha-pekka.hotanen@luke.fi
Ihalainen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 2, FI-00790, Helsinki, Finland E-mail: anttivj.ihalainen@elisanet.fi
Melin, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 68, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: markus.melin@luke.fi
Pitkänen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 68, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: juho.pitkanen@luke.fi
Räty, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 2, FI-00790, Helsinki, Finland E-mail: minna.raty@luke.fi
Sirviö, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 2, FI-00790, Helsinki, Finland E-mail: maria.sirvio@uudenmaanliitto.fi
Strandström, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 2, FI-00790, Helsinki, Finland E-mail: mikael.strandstrom@luke.fi

article id 983, category Research article

Sakari Tuominen, Juho Pitkänen, Andras Balazs, Kari T. Korhonen, Pekka Hyvönen, Eero Muinonen. (2014). NFI plots as complementary reference data in forest inventory based on airborne laser scanning and aerial photography in Finland. Silva Fennica vol. 48 no. 2 article id 983. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.983

Keywords: airborne laser scanning; National Forest Inventory; aerial imagery; plot sampling

Highlights: Using NFI plots in forest management inventories could provide a way for rationalising forest inventory data acquisition; NFI plots were used as additional reference data in laser scanning and aerial image based forest inventory; NFI plots improved the estimates of some forest variables; There are differences between the two inventory types that cause difficulties in combining the data.

Abstract | Full text in HTML | Full text in PDF | Author Info

In Finland, there are currently two, parallel sample-plot-based forest inventory systems, which differ in their methodologies, sampling designs, and objectives. One is the National Forest Inventory (NFI), aimed at unbiased inventory results at national and regional level. The other is the Forest Centre’s management-oriented forest inventory based on interpretation of airborne laser scanning and aerial images, with the aim of locally accurate stand-level forest estimates. The National Forest Inventory utilises relascope sample plots with systematic cluster sampling. This inventory method is optimised for accuracy of regional volume estimates. In contrast, the management-oriented forest inventory utilises circular sample plots with an allocation system covering certain pre-defined forest classes in the inventory area. This method is optimised to produce reference data for interpretation of the remote-sensing materials in use. In this study, we tested the feasibility of the National Forest Inventory sample plots in provision of additional reference data for the management-oriented inventory. Various combinations of NFI plots and management inventory plots were tested in the interpretation of the laser and aerial-image data. Adding NFI plots in the reference data generally improved the accuracy of the volume estimates by tree species but not the estimates of total volume or stand mean height and diameter. The difference between the plot types in the NFI and management inventories causes difficulties in combination of the two datasets.

Tuominen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 18, FI-01301 Vantaa, Finland E-mail: sakari.tuominen@metla.fi
Pitkänen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 68, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: juho.pitkanen@metla.fi
Balazs, Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 18, FI-01301 Vantaa, Finland E-mail: andras.balazs@metla.fi
Korhonen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 68, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: kari.t.korhonen@metla.fi
Hyvönen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 68, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: pekka.hyvonen@metla.fi
Muinonen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 68, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: eero.muinonen@metla.fi

Click this link to register to Silva Fennica.

If you are a registered user, log in to save your selected articles for later access.

Contents alert

Your selected articles

Follow @SilvaFennica