Articles by Jaana Luoranen

We developed tree level biomass (dry weight) models for Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] H. Karst.), silver birch (Betula pendula Roth), rowan (Sorbus aucuparia L.) and aspen (Populus tremula L.) growing in young spruce dominated seedling stands with high mixture of broadleaves. The study material was collected from three planted Norway spruce seedling stands located on mineral soil in southern Finland. Biomass models were estimated by individual tree component (stem, living branches, foliage, stump, and roots with diameter of 2 mm) by using a multi-response approach (seemingly unrelated regression), which estimated the parameters of the sub-models (tree component) simultaneously. Even though the application and generalization of the developed models can be restricted by the limited material, they provide new information of seedling biomass allocation and more reliable biomass predictions for spruce and birch growing in young seedling stand compared with those of the commonly applied biomass models (Repola 2008, 2009) in Finland. Repola’s models (2008, 2009) tended to produce biased predictions for crown and below-ground biomasses of seedlings by allocating too much biomass to roots and too little to needle and branches. In addition, this study provides biomass models for aspen and rowan, which were not previously available.

• Repola, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Ounasjoentie 6, FI-96200 Rovaniemi, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7086-0549 E-mail: jaakko.repola@luke.fi
• Luoranen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6970-2030 E-mail: jaana.luoranen@luke.fi
• Huuskonen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8630-3982 E-mail: saija.huuskonen@luke.fi
• Peltoniemi, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2028-6969 E-mail: mikko.peltoniemi@luke.fi
• Väänänen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: paivi.vaananen@luke.fi
• Uotila, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: karri.uotila@luke.fi

Mechanical site preparation (MSP) is a common practice that precedes the planting of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.) in Nordic forests. Mounding has become the most used method in spruce planting in recent years. This study examined the effects of different mounding treatments (spot and ditch mounding, inversion, unprepared control with or without herbicide application) and a mechanical vegetation control (MVC) treatment done 3–4 years after planting on the post-planting growth of spruce container seedlings and their development to saplings during the first 11–13 years on two forest till soils in central Finland, one on flat terrain and other on a southwest slope. On these fine-textured soils the spot and ditch mounding methods favoured spruce saplings development. Inversion and unprepared plots showed weakest growth. On the site with flat terrain, 11 years post planting, spruce saplings were 78–144 cm (38–80%) taller and their breast height diameters were 11–13 mm (60–74%) thicker for ditch or spot mounding than for inversion or herbicide treatment. On the site with sloped terrain the differences were minor between the MSP treatments. MVC improved spruce height growth on sites which did not have intensive MSP, especially on control saplings planted on unprepared soil in herbicide and inversion treatments. On the flat terrain, MVC reduced the density of resprouts to be removed later in pre-commercial thinning. As a conclusion, spot or ditch mounding favoured the growth of spruce over inversion especially on flat terrain with fine-textured soil.

• Uotila, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Natural resources, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: karri.uotila@luke.fi
• Luoranen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Natural resources, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6970-2030 E-mail: jaana.luoranen@luke.fi
• Saksa, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Natural resources, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1776-2357 E-mail: timo.saksa@luke.fi
• Laine, Metsä Forest, Revontulenpuisto 2, FI-02100 Espoo, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6448-8274 E-mail: tiina.laine@metsagroup.com
• Heiskanen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Natural resources, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0549-835X E-mail: juha.heiskanen@luke.fi

Over 20% of regeneration operations will be on drained peatland in the next decade in Finland. There are only a few studies comparing the planting success and the risk of pine weevil (Hylobius abetis (L.) feeding damage on mineral soil and drained peatland. Thirty sites planted with Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.) container seedlings in 2009 in Southern and Central Finland were inventoried three growing seasons after planting. Prediction models for the probability of survival, pine weevil damage and the presence of ground vegetation cover were done separately for peatland and mineral soil sites. The planting success was 17% lower on peatland sites (1379 surviving seedlings ha^–1) than on mineral soil (1654 seedlings ha^–1). The factors explaining the survival were the ground vegetation cover and type of the planting spot on the peatland, and the ground vegetation cover on mineral soil. On mineral soil, 76% of the planting spots were on cultivated mineral soil while on peatland only 28% of the seedlings were planted on similar spots. There were also fewer seedlings that were surrounded by dense ground vegetation on mineral soil (4%) than on peatland (14%). Pine weevil feeding damage did not differ significantly on peatland (23%) or mineral soil (18%). The more time there was from clear-cutting, the more the probability of pine weevil feeding damage was reduced on both soil classes. Additionally, cover vegetation in the vicinity of the seedlings increased on mineral soil. Cultivated planting spots, especially those covered by mineral soil, prevented pine weevil feeding and reduced the harmful effects of vegetation on the seedlings both on mineral soil and peatland.

• Luoranen, Natural Recourses Institute Finland (Luke), Production systems, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6970-2030 E-mail: jaana.luoranen@luke.fi
• Viiri, UPM Forest, Peltokatu 26 C, P.O. Box 85, FI-33100 Tampere, Finland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3952-9481 E-mail: heli.viiri@upm.com

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

There is a need to extend the planting season of conifer regeneration into periods where the soil remains unfrozen due to a lack of available labor and the mechanization of planting. This study investigated how the summer- (August) and autumn-, especially late autumn (mid-September to mid-October) plantings affect the field performance of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) container seedlings. This study examined the timing of root growth just after planting, shoot flush and the start of root growth the following spring, and subsequent field performance. Seedlings of both species were planted in a nursery field trial, and in a clearcut reforestation site from August to October and the following May. The root growth of planted seedlings declined in September and ceased after mid-September. In the following spring, seedlings which were planted in early-autumn started their root growth faster than late-autumn-planted seedlings in both species. There was no difference in the timing of shoot flush for various planting dates. During the initial two years after planting, the shoot growth of spring-planted seedlings was lower, compared to autumn-planted seedlings. In conclusion, it is possible to plant conifer seedlings in the boreal forest zone up to October under non-limiting field conditions.

• Luoranen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Production systems, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jaana.luoranen@luke.fi

Short day (SD) treatment is used as a dormancy induction in forest tree seedling nurseries in the boreal forest zone. However, SD treatment has caused early bud burst in the following spring, which may expose the seedlings to spring frosts. Because the mechanisms affecting earlier bud burst in SD treated seedlings are not fully understood yet, here we have studied the effect of SD treatment on the structure of buds in Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.] seedlings. Seedlings were exposed to SD treatments or natural (CTRL) light and photoperiod in July in a nursery in Central Finland. The experiments included two lots of seedlings over two summers and the analyses were done under a stereo microscope. SD treatment advanced initiation of bud scales and formation of needle primordia, and thus the formation period was shorter in CTRL seedlings. In mature buds, no differences in primordial shoots were found between the treatments, whereas notable differences were found in bud scales. The SD buds had fewer and shorter bud scales than the CTRL buds. This led to significantly shorter bud scale complex and, consequently, to shorter buds in SD than in CTRL seedlings. Buds and needles matured earlier in SD treated seedlings. In the following spring, the primordial shoots started to elongate in both treatments around mid-May, when the SD buds started to break down, whereas CTRL buds started to break down in late May. The fewer number and shorter height of protective bud scales may expose buds to harsh winter temperatures and early loss of scales may predispose the SD buds to spring frosts.

• Luoranen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Management and Production of Renewable Resources, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jaana.luoranen@luke.fi
• Sutinen, E-mail: sirusuti@gmail.com

• Luoranen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Natural resources and bioproduction, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jaana.luoranen@luke.fi
• Rikala, The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Unit, Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: rikala@dnainternet.fi

• Heiskanen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600, Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: juha.heiskanen@metla.fi
• Saksa, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600, Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: timo.saksa@metla.fi
• Luoranen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600, Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jaana.luoranen@metla.fi

• Luoranen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jaana.luoranen@metla.fi
• Rikala, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: rr@nn.fi
• Smolander, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: hs@nn.fi

• Luoranen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600, Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jaana.luoranen@metla.fi
• Rikala, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600, Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: rr@nn.fi

• Hänninen, Plant Ecophysiology and Climate Change Group (PECC), Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Box 65, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland E-mail: heikki.hanninen@helsinki.fi
• Luoranen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jl@nn.fi
• Rikala, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: rr@nn.fi
• Smolander, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: hs@nn.fi

• Heiskanen, The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: juha.heiskanen@metla.fi
• Lahti, The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: ml@nn.fi
• Luoranen, The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jl@nn.fi
• Rikala, The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: rr@nn.fi

• Luoranen, The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jaana.luoranen@metla.fi
• Konttinen, The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: kk@nn.fi
• Rikala, The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: rr@nn.fi

• Luoranen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jaana.luoranen@metla.fi
• Lappi, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: lj@nn.fi
• Zhang, College of Horticulture, Agricultural University of Hebei, Baoding, Hebei, China E-mail: gz@nn.cn
• Smolander, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: hs@nn.fi

• Luoranen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jaana.luoranen@metla.fi
• Rikala, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: rr@nn.fi
• Konttinen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: kk@nn.fi
• Smolander, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: hs@nn.fi

The objective of the study is to derive a method by which one can analyze how the probability of damage made by pine weevils on seedlings treated with insecticides depends on the probability of damage on untreated control seedlings, called feeding pressure. Because the probabilities vary from stand to stand and from block to block, the analysis is done using a generalized linear mixed model. The dependency of probability of damage on the feeding pressure cannot be properly analyzed using observed relative frequency of damage of control seedlings as a covariate, but it can be analyzed using a bivariate model. One equation describes damage of control seedlings and another equation damage of treated seedlings. The random stand and block effects of different equations are correlated. For a given probability of stand level control seedling damage, the random stand effect for control seedlings can be computed using a link function, then random stand effects for treated seedlings can be predicted using the best linear predictor from the random effect for control seedlings. Using an inverse link the prediction can again be presented in the probability scale which is of interest to the user. Using these three steps the probability of damage of treated seedlings can be predicted from the control damage probability. The probability of damage of treated seedlings can also be predicted from the observed relative frequency of damaged control seedlings using simulation. The complementary log-log link was used for control seedlings and the log-log link for treated seedlings.

• Lappi, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Economics and society, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: juha.lappi@luke.fi
• Luoranen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Management and Production of Renewable Resources, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jaana.luoranen@luke.fi

• Luoranen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jaana.luoranen@metla.fi
• Viiri, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Unit, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: hv@nn.fi

• Helenius, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Station, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: pekka.helenius@metla.fi
• Luoranen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Station, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: jl@nn.fi
• Rikala, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Station, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: rr@nn.fi