Table 1. Description of the operational chains in Finnish forestry used in the expert survey. Please not that not all the alternatives within a chain are shown. For instance, the possible mixed tree species, usage of of nursery seedlings, need for weeding, possible fertilization or cuttings for seed tree removal are not listed here.
Chain Strategy Part of
Finland 		Tree species Cutting method Site type Soil preparation Regeneration
1 even aged south pine clearcut xeric/sub-xeric harrowing/scalping sowing
2 even-aged south pine clearcut sub-xeric mounding planting
3 even-aged south pine seedling tree felling sub-xeric harrowing natural
4 even-aged south pine clearcut mesic harrowing/scalping planting
5 even-aged south spruce clearcut herb-rich no planting
6 even-aged south spruce clearcut herb-rich mounding planting
7 even-aged south spruce strip felling herb-rich no natural
8 even-aged south spruce strip felling herb-rich harrowing natural
9 even-aged south spruce shelterwood felling herb-rich no natural
14 even-aged north pine clearcut xeric harrowing sowing
15 even-aged north pine seedling tree felling xeric no natural
16 even-aged north pine seedling tree felling xeric harrowing natural
17 even-aged north pine clearcut mesic/ sub-xeric mounding planting
18 even-aged north pine clearcut mesic/sub-xeric harrowing sowing
19 even-aged north pine clearcut mesic harrowing planting
20 even-aged north pine seedling tree felling sub-xeric harrowing natural
21 even-aged north spruce clearcut herb-rich rich/mesic mounding planting
22 even-aged north spruce strip felling herb-rich no natural
23 even-aged north spruce strip felling herb-rich harrowing natural
24 uneven-aged south pine patch felling xeric no/light scalping natural
25 uneven-aged south pine patch felling sub-xeric no/light scalping natural
26 uneven-aged south pine selection felling mesic no undergrowth
27 uneven-aged south pine selection felling mesic no natural
28 uneven-aged south spruce patch felling herb-rich rich/mesic no/light scalping natural
29 uneven-aged south spruce selection felling herb-rich rich/mesic no undergrowth
30 uneven-aged north pine selection felling sub-xeric no natural
31 uneven-aged north pine patch felling mesic no/light scalping natural
32 uneven-aged north spruce patch felling herb-rich no/light scalping natural
33 uneven-aged north spruce selection felling herb-rich no undergrowth
34 uneven-aged north spruce selection felling mesic no undergrowth
35 uneven-aged north spruce patch felling mesic no/light scalping natural
36 uneven-aged south pine selection felling sub-xeric no natural

Fig. 1. Scaled damage risks in the management regimes by main tree species. All damage causes combined. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals, but the actual scale of the arbitrary y-axis is not shown.

Fig. 2. The risks (scaled damage risks) by damage causes by management regimes and by main tree species: A) Scots pine B) Norway spruce. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals, but the actual scale of the arbitrary x-axis is not shown.

Fig. 3. Scaled damage risks by the operational chains used in the expert survey. All damage causes combined. A) Scots pine as the main tree species and B) Norway spruce as the main tree species. For description of the chains, see Table 1. Chains 24–36 present uneven-aged chains, as shown.

Table 2a. Risk of damage (scaled damage risk) by the causal agent and operational chain, in chains with Scots pine as the main tree species. Risk classes: L = low risk M = medium risk, H = high risk. The risk classes are based on percentiles of the scaled damage risks of the specific cause in all the chains: 51–70 percentiles present a medium risk and percentiles over 70 a high risk. For a description of the chains, please see Table 1.
Damage cause Chain number (even-aged management) Chain number (uneven-aged management)
1 2 3 4 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 25 26 27 30 31 36
Drought H H H L M L L M L L M L M M L L L
Frost L L L L L L L L L L L H L L L L L
Nutrient imbalance L H L H L L L M L H L L L L L L L
Snow M M H H H H H H H H M M H H H H H
Wind L L H L L H H M L H M L M M M L M
Large pine weevil M L L L L L M L H M M M L L L L M
Pine sawflies H H H L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
Pine shoot beetle M L L L L L L L L M L L L H L L
Harvesting damage M M H M L M M M M H M M H H H M H
Bush M H M H L L L M L M L M L M L M L
Vegetation M M H H L L L M H M L M L M L M H
Bank vole H H M H H H H H H H M M L L M M M
Short tailed vole M M L M M M M H H H L L L L L M M
Moose M H H H M M H H H H M H H M H H L
Grey needle cast L M L M L L L H L H L L L L L M L
Honey mushrooms L M L L L L L L L L M L H H L M M
Pine twisting rust M H L H L L M H H H L L L L L L L
Resin-top disease L L L M L L L H M H L L M M L L L
Root rot L L M M L L L L L L M H H H L L H
Scleroderris canker H H L H L H M H H M L L L L M L L
Snow blight L M L H H H H H M L L L L M H L
Table 2b. Risk of damage (scaled damage risk) by the causal agent and operational chain, in chains with Norway spruce as the main tree species. Risk classes: L = low risk M = medium risk, H = high risk. The risk classes are based on percentiles of the scaled damage risks of the specific cause in all the chains: 51–70 percentiles present a medium risk and percentiles over 70 a high risk. For a description of the chains, please see Table 1.
Damage cause Chain number (even-aged management) Chain number (uneven-aged management)
5 6 7 8 9 21 22 23 28 29 32 33 34 35
Drought L M M L L H L L L H L L L L
Frost H M H H M M M M M L M L L L
Nutrient imbalance L L L L L H L L L L L L L L
Snow H L H L M M M M M M H L L L
Wind L L H H H L H H L M M M M M
European spruce bark beetle M M H H L L L L M L L L L L
Large pine weevil H M L L L L L L L L L L L L
Six toothed spruce bark beetle L M M M L L L L M L L L L L
Harvesting damage M M H H H L M M H H L M M L
Bush H L H H H L M L M M M M L L
Vegetation H L H M H L M L M M M M L L
Bank vole H H M M M H M M M L M M L L
Short tailed vole H H M M M H M M M M L L L L
Moose H H L L L L L L L L L L L L
Honey mushrooms M M M M H M L L L L L L L L
Root rot H H H H H L L L H H L L L L

Fig. 4. Example of a regression tree, computed with rpart package in R. The scaled damage risk was used as the response variable, and combinations of operational methods, site factors, damage causes and cutting methods were used as classifiers. The numbers in the box show the risk value (scaled damage risk) and n indicates the number of risk assessments (by all experts and for the appropriate damage causes and operational chains).

Table 3. The 10 most risky operations (question B), based on the votes given by the experts). EA = even-aged, UEA = uneven-aged management. Votes means the votes given by all experts for all damage causes.
Regime Tree Species Operation Votes
EA Scots pine Clearcutting 67
UEA Scots pine Selection cutting 66
EA Norway spruce Thinning 62
EA Scots pine Thinning 54
EA Norway spruce Strip felling 46
EA Scots pine Planting 41
UEA Norway spruce Patch harvesting 39
EA Norway spruce No soil preparation 36
UEA Norway spruce Selection cutting 33
EA Norway spruce Clearcutting 33
Table 4. Comparison of damage risks between even-aged (EA) and uneven-aged (UEA) management regimes according to the literature review and the expert survey. Blank cells in the literature review columns indicate no data. The comparisons in the expert survey are based on the scaled damage risk. The risk values over two times higher or lower depicted a higher or lower risk, respectively. Values five times higher or lower depicted a much higher or lower risk. ’>>’ denotes a much higher risk and ‘<<’ a much lower risk. The most obvious discrepancies between the literature and the expert survey are underlined.
Main tree species Damage cause Comparison of damage risks in EA and
UEA in the literature review 		Comparison in the expert survey
Sots pine Drought Seedling damage may be higher in EA EA > UEA
Frost Seedling damage may be higher in EA EA << UEA
Nutrient imbalance Increased risk in former peatlands in EA EA >> UEA
Snow EA = UEA
Wind Higher risk in EA EA > UEA
Large pine weevil Higher risk in EA EA = UEA
Pine sawflies No unambiguous data EA >> UEA
Pine shoot beetles No clear differences EA = UEA
Harvesting damage Usually low risk in EA and UEA EA < UEA
Bush EA > UEA
Vegetation EA = UEA
Bank vole EA >> UEA
Short tailed vole Planted seedlings: higher risk in EA EA >> UEA
Moose Higher damage in EA seedling stands EA > UEA
Grey needle cast Higher risk in EA in too fertile soils EA >> UEA
Honey mushrooms No clear differences EA < UEA
Pine twisting rust EA >> UEA
Resin- top disease EA > UEA
Root rot High risk in EA and UEA EA << UEA
Scleroderris canker Higher risk in EA EA >> UEA
Snow blight EA >> UEA
Norway spruce Drought Seedling damage may be higher in EA EA = UEA
Frost Seedling damage may be higher in EA EA >> UEA
Nutrient imbalance Higher risk in EA EA >> UEA
Snow EA = UEA
Wind Higher risk in EA EA > UEA
European spruce bark beetle Higher risk in EA EA > UEA
Large pine weevil Higher risk in EA EA >> UEA
6- toothed spruce bark beetle No clear differences EA = UEA
Harvesting damage Repeated thinnings: high risk in UEA EA = UEA
Bush EA >> UEA
Vegetation EA > UEA
Bank vole EA >> UEA
Short tailed vole Planted seedlings: higher risk in EA EA >> UEA
Moose Small risk in EA and UEA EA >> UEA
Honey mushrooms No unambiguous data EA >> UEA
Root rot High risk in EA and UEA EA = UEA