Articles by Helena M. Henttonen

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

The tree stem volume models of Norway spruce, Scots pine and silver and downy birch currently used in Finland are based on data collected during 1968–1972. These models include four different formulations of a volume model, with three different combinations of independent variables: 1) diameter at height of 1.3 m above ground (dbh), 2) dbh and tree height (h) and 3) dbh, h and upper diameter at height of 6 m (d6). In recent National Forest Inventories of Finland, a difference in the mean volume prediction between the models with and without the upper diameter as predictor has been observed. To analyze the causes of this difference, terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) was used to acquire a large dataset in Finland during 2017–2018. Field-measured predictors and volumes predicted using spline functions fitted to the TLS data were used to re-calibrate the current volume models. The trunk form is different in these two datasets. The form height is larger in the new data for all diameter classes, which indicates that the tree trunks are more slender than they used to be. One probable reason for this change is the increase in stand densities, which is at least partly due to changed forest management. In models with both dbh and h as predictors, the volume is smaller a given h class in the data new data than in the old data, and vice versa for the diameter classes. The differences between the old and new models were largest with pine and smallest with birch.

• Kangas, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Yliopistokatu 6 B, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8637-5668 E-mail: annika.kangas@luke.fi
• Henttonen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: helena.henttonen@luke.fi
• Pitkänen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5389-8713 E-mail: timo.p.pitkanen@luke.fi
• Sarkkola, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: sakari.sarkkola@luke.fi
• Heikkinen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3527-774X E-mail: juha.heikkinen@luke.fi