Articles by Heli Peltola

Within the European Community snow damage affects an estimated 4 million m³ of timber every year, causing significant economic losses to forest owners. In Northern Europe, for example, the occurrence of snow damage has increased over the last few decades mainly due to the increase in total growing stock. The most common form of damage is stem breakage, but trees can also be bent or uprooted. Trees suffering snow damage are also more prone to consequential damage through insect or fungal attacks.

Snow accumulation on trees is strongly dependent upon weather and climatological conditions. Temperature influences the moisture content of snow and therefore the degree to which it can accumulate on branches. Wind can cause snow to be shed, but can also lead to large accumulations of wet snow, rime or freezing rain. Wet snow is most likely in late autumn or early spring. Geographic location and topography influence the occurrence of damaging forms of snow, and coastal locations and moderate to high elevations experience large accumulations. Slope plays a less important role and the evidence on the role of aspect is contradictory. The occurrence of damaging events can vary from every winter to once every 10 years or so depending upon regional climatology. In the future, assuming global warming in northern latitudes, the risk of snow damage could increase, because the relative occurrence of snowfall near temperatures of zero could increase.

The severity of snow damage is related to tree characteristics. Stem taper and crown characteristics are the most important factors controlling the stability of trees. Slightly tapering stems, asymmetric crowns, and rigid horizontal branching are all associated with high risk. However, the evidence on species differences is less clear due to the interaction with location. Management of forests can alter risk through choice of regeneration, tending, thinning and rotation. However, quantification and comparison of the absolute effect of these measures is not yet possible. An integrated risk model is required to allow the various locational and silvicultural factors to be assessed. Plans are presented to construct such a model, and gaps in knowledge are highlighted.

• Nykänen, E-mail: mn@mm.unknown
• Broadgate, E-mail: mb@mm.unknown
• Kellomäki, E-mail: sk@mm.unknown
• Peltola, E-mail: hp@mm.unknown
• Quine, E-mail: cq@mm.unknown

Measurements of wind and subsequent swaying of two Scots pines (Pinus sylvestris L.) were made at stand edge conditions. The horizontal windspeed was measured ten meters outside of the stand edge for four heights using cup anemometers. The compass directions were determined using a directional vane placed above the canopy. Tree swaying was measured by accelerometers at xy-coordinates. The shape of the wind profile at the stand edge varied to some degree depending on windspeed, but the form was a logarithmic one. Swaying of trees increased along with increasing windspeed. Furthermore, swaying was more or less irregular in relation to xy-coordinates, but it occurred, however, mainly perpendicularly to the direction of mean windspeed. The maximum bending of trees to the direction of mean windspeed varied also only little for various gusting windspeeds (average windspeed of 20 seconds) and dynamic wind loads. The maximum bending of trees was also in most cases less or equal to those predicted on the basis of static wind loads, when the mean windspeed for static load is taken as equal to the gusting windspeed.

The PDF includes an abstract in Finnish.

• Peltola, E-mail: hp@mm.unknown
• Aho, E-mail: ja@mm.unknown
• Hassinen, E-mail: ah@mm.unknown
• Kellomäki, E-mail: sk@mm.unknown
• Lemettinen, E-mail: ml@mm.unknown

A model for the mechanism of windfall and stem breakage was constructed for single Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) at the stand edge. The total turning moment arising from the wind drag and from the bending of stem and crown was calculated along with the breaking stress of the stem. Similarly, the support given by the root -soil plate anchorage was calculated. Windspeed variation within the crown and the vertical distribution of stem and crown weight were taken into account. Model computations showed that trees having a large height to diameter ratio were subjected to greater risk of falling down or breaking than trees with a small height to diameter ratio. The windspeed required to blow down a tree or break the stem of a tree decreased if the height to diameter ratio or the crown to stem ratio of trees increased.
The PDF includes an abstract in Finnish.

• Peltola, E-mail: hp@mm.unknown
• Kellomäki, E-mail: sk@mm.unknown

Disturbances caused by the European spruce bark beetle (SBB; Ips typographus L.) on Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.), have increased immensely across Central and Northern Europe, and are expected to increase further as a result of climate change. While this trend has been noted in Finland, so far limited research has been published. To support proper SBB risk management in Finland, we compared stand properties between salvage loggings due to SBB damage during 2012–2020 (4691 cases) and spruce stands free of SBB damage. Also, we explored the role of landscape attributes as drivers of SBB damage. We considered the forest stand attributes of site fertility class, stand development class, soil type, stand mean diameter at breast height and mean stand age. Considered forest landscape attributes were the distance from SBB-damaged stands to the closest clear-cut, to previous-year SBB-damaged stands and to the previous-year wind-damaged stand. We used nationwide forest logging and forest stock data, and analysed forest stand attributes using chi-squared and Mann-Whitney U tests and landscape attributes using generalised linear mixed models. Based on our findings, the SBB didn’t damage stands randomly, but prevailed in mature stands (high age and high mean diameter at breast height), in herb-rich heath forest site types and in semi-coarse or coarse heath forest soil soils. We found correlation between the landscape variables and the number of salvage loggings, with a higher number of loggings due to SBB damage close to clear-cuts. Our results help to find risk areas of SBB damage.

• Pulgarin Diaz, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0554-8254 E-mail: alexander.pulgarin.diaz@uef.fi
• Melin, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), P.O. Box 68, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7290-9203 E-mail: markus.melin@luke.fi
• Ylioja, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-0079 Helsinki, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8840-7504 E-mail: tiina.ylioja@luke.fi
• Lyytikäinen-Saarenmaa, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1884-3084 E-mail: paivi.lyytikainen-saarenmaa@ef.fi
• Peltola, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: heli.peltola@uef.fi
• Tikkanen, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3875-2772 E-mail: olli-pekka.tikkanen@uef.fi

The poor cost-effectiveness of mechanized planting (MECP) is the main reason for the low mechanization rate of planting. In this study, we investigated the productivity of the mechanized excavator-based planting of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] H. Karst.) seedlings based on data collected by the Risutec Asta documentation system. We also compared the costs of a MECP chain with two different manual planting (MAP) chains, where mounding was carried out by a crawler excavator (EXC) or a continuously advancing mounder (CONT). The MECP of seedlings was carried out using an EXC equipped with a Risutec PM-160 planting device. Generally, the nine study sites in western Finland contained few surface obstacles (e.g., the logging residues had mainly been harvested), which made the conditions very suitable for MECP. The average production time taken by the MECP was 9 h ha^-1. The operating hour (G₁₅-h) productivity averaged 215 seedlings G₁₅-h^-1 , with the mean planting time being 13.8 s seedling^-1. Loading 160 seedlings into the seedling cassette took approximately 10 min (3.8 s seedling^-1). Overall, the cost of the MECP was about 5% lower than for the EXC + MAP. However, when productivity was set at <200 seedlings G₁₅-h^-1 , the cost of the MECP was higher than that of the EXC + MAP. Based on our findings, the most cost-efficient planting chain was CONT + MAP. However, based on our results, the required level of productivity can be achieved if the sites are suitable for MECP and the machine operators are skilled.

• Kemppainen, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland (UEF), P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland; Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Yliopistokatu 6, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6184-8812 E-mail: kalle.kemppainen@uef.fi
• Kärhä, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland (UEF), P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8455-2974 E-mail: kalle.karha@uef.fi
• Laitila, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Yliopistokatu 6, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4431-3319 E-mail: juha.laitila@luke.fi
• Sairanen, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland (UEF), P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8632-3797 E-mail: anttsair@student.uef.fi
• Kankaanhuhta, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Yliopistokatu 6, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5785-5972 E-mail: ville.kankaanhuhta@luke.fi
• Viiri, UPM-Kymmene Plc, UPM Forest, Peltokatu 26 C 4, FI-33100 Tampere, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3952-9481 E-mail: heli.viiri@upm.com
• Peltola, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland (UEF), P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1384-9153 E-mail: heli.peltola@uef.fi

We evaluated the consistency of video, ordinary photo, and panoramic photo surveys in measuring the attractiveness (recreational use, scenic values etc.) of forest stands managed with varying intensities. We also evaluated possible effects on the results caused by the personal background of citizen respondents and how the respondents experienced the evaluation events. Our experimental sites were in mature Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) forests in eastern Finland and included two replicate sites which were unharvested (control, basal area 26 m² ha^–1), a selective cutting site (basal area 18 m² ha^–1), small openings sites (gap cut) with 5 and 20% retained trees, respectively, and one site which was clear cut with 3% retained trees. In our study, 71 volunteer forestry students evaluated the attractiveness of these sites from an ordinary photo, a panoramic photo, and a video, with a 0–10 scale. Based on this study, the unharvested forest was the most attractive and clear cutting was the least attractive, regardless of the evaluation method. This result was in line with a previous study using on-site evaluations of the same sites. The differences of respondents considering in how easy they felt to assess the attractiveness of the environment as a whole and in using different visualisation methods affected the result, unlike background variables of the respondents. The results of forest attractiveness were consistent between panoramic and ordinary photos, and the attractiveness scoring was slightly higher for them than for the video. We conclude that all the compared visualisation methods seem to be suitable for assessment of the attractiveness of forest views.

• Silvennoinen, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9095-7986 E-mail: harri.silvennoinen@uef.fi
• Pikkarainen, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5301-3639 E-mail: laura.pikkarainen@uef.fi
• Nakola, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: heini.nakola@gmail.com
• Koivula, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6415-4904 E-mail: matti.koivula@luke.fi
• Tyrväinen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5144-7150 E-mail: liisa.tyrvainen@luke.fi
• Tikkanen, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9693-8209 E-mail: jukka.tikkanen@uef.fi
• Chambers, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0586-3142 E-mail: philip.chambers@uef.fi
• Peltola, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1384-9153 E-mail: heli.peltola@uef.fi

We used forest ecosystem model simulations to study how forest conservation and management intensity affected timber yield, ecosystem carbon stocks, amount of dead wood, and habitat suitability area in a middle boreal forest region of Finland under changing climate over a 90-year simulation period. We used the following forest conservation and management scenarios: baseline forest management (BM), BM with 10 or 20% increase of conservation area with or without intensified forest management (i.e. improved forest regeneration material and forest fertilization). The simulations were done under current climate (reference period of 1981–2010), and Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) climate change projections under the RCP2.6 and RCP4.5 forcing scenarios. Overall, increasing the forest conservation area decreased timber yield and increased the ecosystem carbon stock, the amount of dead wood and consequently the area of suitable habitat for saproxylic species. The use of intensified forest management reduced the loss of timber yield, increased ecosystem carbon stock, the amount of dead wood and area of suitable habitat for saproxylic species. At the end of simulation period, the use of intensified forest management even overcompensated (4–6% higher) the timber loss from 10% increase of conservation area. Under changing climate, timber yield, the amount of dead wood and the area of suitable habitats for saproxylic species increased. To conclude, with intensified forest management it is possible, in the short term, to decrease the loss of timber yield through increased forest conservation area and in the long term maintain or even increase it compared to baseline forest management.

• Pikkarainen, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistokatu 7, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5301-3639 E-mail: laura.pikkarainen@uef.fi
• Strandman, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistokatu 7, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9400-6424 E-mail: harri.strandman@uef.fi
• Vento, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistokatu 7, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: eerik.vento@gmail.com
• Petty, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistokatu 7, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6595-1386 E-mail: aaron.petty@uef.fi
• Tikkanen, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistokatu 7, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3875-2772 E-mail: olli-pekka.tikkanen@uef.fi
• Kilpeläinen, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistokatu 7, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4299-0578 E-mail: antti.kilpelainen@uef.fi
• Peltola, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistokatu 7, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: heli.peltola@uef.fi

• Jetsonen, Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland E-mail: johanna.jetsonen@helsinki.fi
• Laurén, Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland; Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6835-9568 E-mail: annamari.lauren@helsinki.fi
• Peltola, Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: heli.peltola@uef.fi
• Muhonen, Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4051-8567 E-mail: olli.muhonen@forestvital.com
• Nevalainen, Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2972-4385 E-mail: juha.hs.nevalainen@gmail.com
• Ikonen, Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1732-2922 E-mail: veli-pekka.ikonen@uef.fi
• Kilpeläinen, Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4299-0578 E-mail: antti.kilpelainen@uef.fi
• Tuittila, Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: eeva-stiina.tuittila@uef.fi
• Männistö, Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3869-6739 E-mail: elisa.mannisto@uef.fi
• Kokkonen, Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0197-2672 E-mail: nicola.kokkonen@uef.fi
• Palviainen, Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland E-mail: marjo.palviainen@helsinki.fi

In Nordic countries, tree planting of seedlings is mainly performed during spring and early summer. Interest has increased in extending the planting window throughout the unfrozen growing season. This study compared the success of one-year-old spring, summer and autumn plantings in practical forestry in Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in southern and central Finland. Planting success was based on the number of viable seedlings per hectare relative to a species-specific target density. The influence of different factors to poor planting results were determined, including quality of site preparation and planting, and sources of natural damage. Overall, in Norway spruce, 85, 69 and 84% and in Scots pine 53, 55 and 40% of spring, summer and autumn plantings succeeded. In Norway spruce, the planting results were consistent between the southern and central regions, whereas in Scots pine, the success was slightly lower in the south. The poor work quality and a low density of appropriate planting spots, contributed to poor planting results, regardless of planting season, region or tree species. Considering different damages, especially mammal damage contributed to the failure of Scots pine spring plantings, whereas in summer plantings, corresponding single failure reason could not be identified. Based on our findings, extending the planting season of Norway spruce could be recommended in both regions. For Scots pine, there is still significant uncertainty about the success of summer and autumn plantings, partially due to the limited number of plantings available for analyses.

• Pikkarainen, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonkatu 7, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: laura.pikkarainen@uef.fi
• Luoranen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Production Systems, Neulaniementie 5, FI-70210 Kuopio, Finland E-mail: jaana.luoranen@luke.fi
• Kilpeläinen, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonkatu 7, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: antti.kilpelainen@uef.fi
• Oijala, Metsä Group, Metsä Forest, Kuormaajantie 7, FI-40320 Jyväskylä, Finland E-mail: teppo.oijala@metsagroup.com
• Peltola, School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonkatu 7, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: heli.peltola@uef.fi

The mean temperature during the potential growing season (April–September) may increase by 1 °C by 2030, and by 4 °C, or even more, by 2100, accompanied by an increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations of 536–807 ppm, compared to the current climate of 1981–2010, in which atmospheric CO₂ is at about 350 ppm. This may affect both the growth and frost hardiness of boreal trees. In this work, we studied the responses of height and autumn frost hardiness development in 22 half-sib genotypes of one-year-old Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) seedlings to elevated temperatures and atmospheric CO₂ concentration under greenhouse conditions. The three climate treatments used were: T+1 °C above ambient and ambient CO₂; T+4 °C above ambient and ambient CO₂; and T+4 °C above ambient and elevated CO₂ (700 ppm). The height growth rate and final height were both higher under T+4 °C compared to T+1 °C. Temperature increase also delayed the onset, and shortened the duration, of autumn frost hardiness development. Elevated CO₂ did not affect the development of height or frost hardiness, when compared to the results without CO₂ elevation under the same temperature treatment. Higher temperatures resulted in greater variation in height and frost hardiness development among genotypes. Three genotypes with different genetic backgrounds showed superior height growth, regardless of climate treatment; however, none showed a superior development of autumn frost hardiness. In future studies, clonal or full-sib genetic material should be used to study the details of autumn frost hardiness development among different genotypes.

• Levkoev, University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Science and Forestry, School of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: eino.levkoev@uef.fi
• Mehtätalo, University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Science and Forestry, School of Computing, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: lauri.mehtatalo@uef.fi
• Luostarinen, University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Science and Forestry, School of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: katri.luostarinen@uef.fi
• Pulkkinen,  Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Production systems, Haapastensyrjä Breeding Station, FI-16200 Läyliäinen, Finland E-mail: pertti.pulkkinen@luke.fi
• Zhigunov, Saint-Petersburg State Forest Technical University, Forestry Faculty, RU-194021, Institutskiy per. 5, Saint-Petersburg, Russia E-mail: a.zhigunov@bk.ru
• Peltola, University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Science and Forestry, School of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: heli.peltola@uef.fi

• Zubizarreta-Gerendiain, Technical University of Lisbon, School of Agriculture, Forest Research Centre, Lisbon, Portugal E-mail: azg@nn.po
• Pellikka, University of Helsinki, Dept. of Geosciences and Geography, Helsinki, Finland E-mail: pp@nn.fi
• Garcia-Gonzalo, Technical University of Lisbon, School of Agriculture, Forest Research Centre, Lisbon, Portugal E-mail: jgg@nn.po
• Ikonen, University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: vpi@nn.fi
• Peltola, University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: heli.peltola@uef.fi

• Gregow, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland E-mail: hilppa.gregow@fmi.fi
• Peltola, University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: heli.peltola@uef.fi
• Laapas, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland E-mail: ml@nn.fi
• Saku, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland E-mail: ss@nn.fi
• Venäläinen, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland E-mail: av@nn.fi

• Lukkarinen, University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: antti.lukkarinen@pp.inet.fi
• Ruotsalainen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, FI-58450 Punkaharju, Finland E-mail: sn@nn.fi
• Nikkanen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, FI-58450 Punkaharju, Finland E-mail: tn@nn.fi
• Peltola, University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: hp@nn.fi

• Kellomäki, University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: seppo.kellomaki@uef.fi
• Maajärvi, University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: mm@nn.fi
• Strandman, University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: hs@nn.fi
• Kilpeläinen, University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: ak@nn.fi
• Peltola, University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: hp@nn.fi

• Nuutinen, European Forest Institute, Torikatu 34, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: tuula.nuutinen@efi.int
• Kilpeläinen, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: ak@nn.fi
• Hirvelä, Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 18, FI-01301 Vantaa, Finland E-mail: hh@nn.fi
• Härkönen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 18, FI-01301 Vantaa, Finland E-mail: kh@nn.fi
• Ikonen, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: vpi@nn.fi
• Lempinen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 68, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: rl@nn.fi
• Peltola, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: hp@nn.fi
• Wilhelmsson, Skogforsk, Uppsala Science Park, SE-751 83 Uppsala, Sweden E-mail: lw@nn.fi
• Kellomäki, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: sk@nn.fi

• Ikonen, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: veli-pekka.ikonen@joensuu.fi
• Kellomäki, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: sk@nn.fi
• Peltola, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: hp@nn.fi

• Zubizarreta Gerendiain, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: ane.zubizarreta@joensuu.fi
• Peltola, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: hp@nn.fi
• Pulkkinen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Haapastensyrjä Breeding Station, FI-12600 Läyliäinen, Finland E-mail: pp@nn.fi

• Gort, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: jaume.gort@joensuu.fi
• Zubizarreta Gerendiain, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: azg@nn.fi
• Peltola, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: hp@nn.fi
• Pulkkinen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Haapastensyrjä Breeding Station, Karkkilantie E-mail: pp@nn.fi
• Routa, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: jr@nn.fi
• Jaatinen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Haapastensyrjä Breeding Station, Karkkilantie E-mail: rj@nn.fi

• Peltola, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: heli.peltola@joensuu.fi
• Gort, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: jg@nn.fi
• Pulkkinen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Haapastensyrjä Breeding Station, Karkkilantie 247, FI-12600 Läyliäinen, Finland E-mail: pp@nn.fi
• Zubizarreta Gerendiain, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: azg@nn.fi
• Karppinen, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: jk@nn.fi
• Ikonen, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: vpi@nn.fi

• Lukkarinen, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: antti.lukkarinen@pp.inet.fi
• Ruotsalainen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Punkaharju Research Unit, Finlandiantie 18, FI-58450 Punkaharju, Finland E-mail: sr@nn.fi
• Nikkanen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Punkaharju Research Unit, Finlandiantie 18, FI-58450 Punkaharju, Finland E-mail: tn@nn.fi
• Peltola, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: hp@nn.fi

• Gregow, Finnish Meteorological Institute, P.O. Box 503, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: hilppa.gregow@fmi.fi
• Puranen, Finnish Meteorological Institute, P.O. Box 503, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: up@nn.fi
• Venäläinen, Finnish Meteorological Institute, P.O. Box 503, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: av@nn.fi
• Peltola, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: heli.peltola@uef.fi
• Kellomäki, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: seppo.kellomaki@uef.fi
• Schultz, Finnish Meteorological Institute, P.O. Box 503, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: ds@nn.fi

• Zubizarreta Gerendiain, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: ane.zubizarreta@joensuu.fi
• Peltola, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: hp@nn.fi
• Pulkkinen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Haapastensyrjä Breeding Station, Läyliäinen, Finland E-mail: pp@nn.fi
• Ikonen, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: vpi@nn.fi
• Jaatinen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Haapastensyrjä Breeding Station, Läyliäinen, Finland E-mail: rj@nn.fi

• Peltola, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: heli.peltola@joensuu.fi
• Kilpeläinen, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: ak@nn.fi
• Sauvala, Finnish Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 18, FI-01301 Vantaa, Finland E-mail: ks@nn.fi
• Räisänen, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: tr@nn.fi
• Ikonen, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: vpi@nn.fi

• Zeng, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P. O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: hongcheng.zeng@joensuu.fi
• Pukkala, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P. O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: tp@nn.fi
• Peltola, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P. O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: hp@nn.fi
• Kellomäki, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forest Sciences, P. O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: sk@nn.fi

• Peltola, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry, P.O. Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: heli.peltola@forest.joensuu.fi
• Miina, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Centre, P.O. Box 68, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: jm@nn.fi
• Rouvinen, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry, P.O. Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: ir@nn.fi
• Kellomäki, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry, P.O. Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: sk@nn.fi

• Leban, E-mail: jml@nn.fr
• Peltola, University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: heli.peltola@uef.fi
• Leinonen, E-mail: sl@nn.fi
• Todoroki, E-mail: ct@nn.nz
• D'Amours, E-mail: sda@nn.ca
• Gardiner, E-mail: bg@nn.uk
• Goudie, E-mail: jg@nn.ca
• Lowell, E-mail: el@nn.us
• Seifert, E-mail: ts@nn.de
• Verkasalo, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Unit, P.O. Box 68, FI-80101, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: erkki.verkasalo@metla.fi
• Wilhelmsson, E-mail: lw@nn.se
• Nuutinen, European Forest Institute, Torikatu 34, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: tuula.nuutinen@efi.int