Ok...Thanks, Matti...I'll accept your word on that...Mattlill2000 wrote:Nah. Penelopes great!you are a rather odd person
Maybe we'll eventually work out our inexplicable differences... Here's hoping ... Metsä ja Puu - Tutkimus
Well, I was thinking about answering with a "yes" to the "Did you know..." question. You did ask, didn't you? And, sitting here surrounded by forest (right at Kehä III), grown up surrounded by even more forest, and personally owning a small amount of forest (sold most of it), your question was kind of funny, sorry.Rob A. wrote:My goodness... I don't want to get into useless forum p*ssing contest, but you are a rather odd person. I don't even think like that and I wouldn't even think of responding in such a manner to an outsider who is expressing an interest in some aspect of the country I'm living in... But, then, maybe it has something to do with you being an outsider, too...
Ok... ...I'll sue for peace now... I suppose if a foreigner said to me, "Do you know that Douglas firs and Sitka spruces can be over 100m tall have diameters over 4m..." ... I might say, "Hey, no kidding, when did you figure that one out???"... But more likely I would just smile and talk about the trees....
And also talk about my summer student jobs measuring some of these monsters...not being able to get the diameter tape around them and not having a long enough increment borer to be able to get an accurate age...
But...OK..I'll be more careful with my posts in the future...I'll try to be a little more "Finnish" in how I say things...
Oh...hey, I read something recently about the apparent discovery of the oldest tree in Finland....Who wants to tell me about it???...
...I'll sue for peace now... I suppose if a foreigner said to me, "Do you know that Douglas firs and Sitka spruces can be over 100m tall have diameters over 4m..." ... I might say, "Hey, no kidding, when did you figure that one out???"... But more likely I would just smile and talk about the trees.... And also talk about my summer student jobs measuring some of these monsters...not being able to get the diameter tape around them and not having a long enough increment borer to be able to get an accurate age...
But...OK..I'll be more careful with my posts in the future...I'll try to be a little more "Finnish" in how I say things...
Oh...hey, I read something recently about the apparent discovery of the oldest tree in Finland....Who wants to tell me about it???...
-
Karhunkoski
- Posts: 7034
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:44 pm
- Location: Keski-Suomi
Not sure... I tried to find the site again but can't...I think I stumbled on it while looking for something else...so can't remember the search terms. I remember they said it was 750 years old, was within one kilometre of the Russian border, but, probably wisely, didn't say exactly where... The date of the article was, I think, this past August... But debates about old trees never seem to end, someone probably knows of an older one somewhere else...Karhunkoski wrote:Rob A. wrote: Oh...hey, I read something recently about the apparent discovery of the oldest tree in Finland....Who wants to tell me about it???...
Are you talking about the one in Säärijärvi?
Pines can be surprisingly fire resistant... Some of the species here need fire to get the seeds dispursed and/or started... I would guess it's similar with Finnish pine forests... So if they are not disturbed they can last a long time...-
Karhunkoski
- Posts: 7034
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:44 pm
- Location: Keski-Suomi
As for typical forest succession regimes it is pretty difficult to figure out what the hell is going on since there is so much interference. The percentage of protected natural forest is tiny (I'm sure you can find it on that webpage you posted)... These days it seems that only the forests that are home to endangered species (like the flying squirrel) get any protection at all.Rob A. wrote: I can't at the moment remember all that is there, but I believe oak and beech are the significant ones. I understand these forests were more widespread during the global warm period that scientitsts tell us occurred between about 800 and 1350 AD... It's almost a 'no-brainer' to assume it will happen again in the appropriate circumstances.
...
I don't yet know the typical forest succession regimes in Finland...but I'm confident it will be some variation on this same theme.
As for the south coast, I think the Viking ship theory is a good one. There are some beautiful oak forests in Tammisaari (where else?) and also some ancient specimen trees in the botanical gardens in Turku. I noticed many have been planted in Fiskars, there is a tree path you can walk around the village (get a trail map from inside any of the shops, 1.8km or print it from here ) . BTW there are no beech at all.
There is another tree walk here with lots of interesting things to see. There is a hazlenut grove along the trail, these are now protected in Finland, but used to be widespread along the south of the country. We have many at the mökki and have even collected nuts (but not too many) in the past.
I believe it is more complex than Finland´s, no cedars or such here. And certainly the trees are bigger. But what about northern Canada? Do those giants grow also there? Or are forests there more like Finland´s? I am just watching a map, and only towns marked on it that lie in the same latitude with Finland are Whitehorse, Yellowknife and such.British Columbia where I live has a rather complex forest environment
Yes, but it is still the largest % in Europe. And in some places there really should be interference, Koli in Lieksa is a good example. Talk about "national scenery", look at all the old drawings, and then go there and see what it nowadays. You can hardly see the lake from the trees. 100 years ago sheep and cows pastured in forests and ate the new growth, but the half a dozen sheep that are "employed" in Koli now can "clean up" only a little patch.As for typical forest succession regimes it is pretty difficult to figure out what the hell is going on since there is so much interference. The percentage of protected natural forest is tiny (I'm sure you can find it on that webpage you posted)
The species that grow must also depend on the soil, not just temperatures? Because our mökki is only about 50 km more north than Helsinki, and nothing grows there. Except pines, spruces and blueberries. Father-in-law planted rowan trees 40 years ago, and today they are the same size, they have not grown at all, they are tiny twigs.
BTW, I have to take back what I said about modern Finns and their relationship with forests. I was wrong. Just yesterday in the news they said that there has been some Gallup, and 80 % of people (also those from Helsinki) had said that forest and nature are very important to them. Their recreational value is biggest.
That'll be it!!! ...While I couldn't find the link on my computer at home, I had no trouble at all finding it on computer at work... Hmmm, ...makes me a bit nervous...what else am I missing when I do a google search???....Karhunkoski wrote:Ah yes I know the one you're talking about. 780 years old and found in Lapland. The ones in Saarijärvi are relatively young at circa 500 years.
Here's the link:
http://www.russianforestryreview.com/ne ... se250.html
Well...I did find this...a park about 70km north of Vancouver...Mark I. wrote:Actually the oldest tree found in Finland is about 1070 yo juniper in Lemmenjoki (Lapland) - older than those in Canada?
Spipiyus Provincial Park (2,825 ha - 700 to 1200 m above sea level) covers the upper subalpine range within the
Mountain Hemlock Biogeoclimatic Zone. Approximately 98 percent of the par(k) is forested and between 800 and 1,000 hectares
is comprised of the ancient forest. A yellow cedar measuring eleven feet (...that's 3.354m ...I don't know why the left the "stone age" measurement in the article...
) in diameter and dated at over 1800 years old is found in the park.Yellow cedar is Chameacyparis nootkatensis in Latin...and so, like juniper, is another member of the long-lived cypress family...
And I see for the tree species range map that the juniper in Finland is the same one found across much of Canada...in the west, in more northerly areas, and gradually drifting down to the northern US in the east...even found on the coast of Greenland...
And, thanks, now I know about this...
Finally, here's an interesting link on another long-lived cypress...the Saharan cypress...these are so rare that the locals give them individual names and some are so old they were around in Caesar's time...
Yes...forest succession is a complex process... Now I don't know exactly the ecology of Finnish pine forests, but I'm going to have to guess that bushfires would be a part of it... (Feel free to correct me if I'm off target...) Typically here, in the drier interior part of the province, a pine forest will get well established, assuming other variables are also appropriate, after a fire...but the result can also be even-aged and stagnating forests over large areas...the practice of silviculture, much more common in Europe than here, can (...dare I say it in this era...penelope wrote: As for typical forest succession regimes it is pretty difficult to figure out what the hell is going on since there is so much interference. The percentage of protected natural forest is tiny (I'm sure you can find it on that webpage you posted)... These days it seems that only the forests that are home to endangered species (like the flying squirrel) get any protection at all.
) ...have benefical effects on some forests... I hope I've said it delicately enough... I don't know that theory... Can I assume it has something to do with a longboat running aground and a plank or two sprouting???...As for the south coast, I think the Viking ship theory is a good one.
EDIT: Oops...sorry, you were referring to mattlill's post... That the Vikings cut most of them down...Nice walks... In the first link I see the Douglaskuusi...Tree #24 ...that's the one!!... they are often the dominant tree in the ecosystems here... more so in somewhat drier areas, though in the right conditions, even in the wettest areas, they can grow to massive sizes.... in terms of height, probably second only to the California coastal redwoods and maybe the Sitka spruce... overall size (volume) gets a little more complicated...There are some beautiful oak forests in Tammisaari (where else?) and also some ancient specimen trees in the botanical gardens in Turku. I noticed many have been planted in Fiskars, there is a tree path you can walk around the village (get a trail map from inside any of the shops, 1.8km or print it from here ) . BTW there are no beech at all.
There is another tree walk here with lots of interesting things to see. There is a hazlenut grove along the trail, these are now protected in Finland, but used to be widespread along the south of the country. We have many at the mökki and have even collected nuts (but not too many) in the past.
And I have hazlenut trees nearby...one actually too close to my house...I'm sure, though, they will be from cultivated nuts and likely exactly the same European species... But the squirrels clear them away before they're even fully ripe...
Last edited by Rob A. on Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
The impression I'm getting of Finland's forests is that they would be very similar to those in the interior part of the province in the centre and further north... that's kind of a plateau area and relatively flat with lots of lakes... Lots of pine and further north more and more spruce...EP wrote:I believe it is more complex than Finland´s, no cedars or such here. And certainly the trees are bigger. But what about northern Canada? Do those giants grow also there? Or are forests there more like Finland´s? I am just watching a map, and only towns marked on it that lie in the same latitude with Finland are Whitehorse, Yellowknife and such.British Columbia where I live has a rather complex forest environment
The tree line in Canada, and in Alaska, is actually quite far north in the west...well above the Arctic circle...I would say around 68 d. N. It tends to drift southward as you head east, and in Ontario, you can find the tundra at around 54 d. N. I spent part of one summer as student in, and around, the delta of the Mackenzie River (an Arctic river close to Alaska)... White spruce (Picea glauca) and, I guess, Black spruce (Picea mariana) were the main conifers...the white spruce weren't massive, though in some areas with deep soil pockets they were pretty big trees...(black spruce is actually a kind of bog spruce and is never all that big.)
One of the limiting conditions up there is the perma-frost...there are large areas of rather stunted trees and eventually the only things that you might think of as tree-like are willows... I remember one camping trip into the tundra...nice warm summer day... I'm sure it was 25 C. +...yet, you could stick your fingers into the mossy ground cover and within about 10 cm...frozen solid...
The biggest trees in Canada are found along the coast from the Alaska panhandle, south to northrn California...there is also a wet belt in the upper valley of the Columbia River and on the western slopes of the Rocky Mountains... There are massive trees there...Western redcedars, Douglas fir and, I think, western hemlock...
Interesting...I've heard of that, though very little like that has happened here. I'm sure in Finland there will now, or soon, be issues with forest growth and fire risks...Yes, but it is still the largest % in Europe. And in some places there really should be interference, Koli in Lieksa is a good example. Talk about "national scenery", look at all the old drawings, and then go there and see what it nowadays. You can hardly see the lake from the trees. 100 years ago sheep and cows pastured in forests and ate the new growth, but the half a dozen sheep that are "employed" in Koli now can "clean up" only a little patch.As for typical forest succession regimes it is pretty difficult to figure out what the hell is going on since there is so much interference. The percentage of protected natural forest is tiny (I'm sure you can find it on that webpage you posted)
Yes...always the local limitations to consider...The species that grow must also depend on the soil, not just temperatures? Because our mökki is only about 50 km more north than Helsinki, and nothing grows there. Except pines, spruces and blueberries. Father-in-law planted rowan trees 40 years ago, and today they are the same size, they have not grown at all, they are tiny twigs.
I remember farms and trees growing near the edges of the Niagra Escarpment which basically runs through Ontario from Niagra Falls to Lake Huron...the soils there, on limestone bedrock, could be so thin that grass would barely grow let alone trees... There are small, stunted cedar trees that might be 200 or 300 years old...Nice to hear... I think people who retain their connection with nature are nicer people...but, then, thinking that is just being opinionated, isn't it??...I have to take back what I said about modern Finns and their relationship with forests. I was wrong. Just yesterday in the news they said that there has been some Gallup, and 80 % of people (also those from Helsinki) had said that forest and nature are very important to them. Their recreational value is biggest.
I have never heard of any major forest fires in Finland in the 6 years I have been here. The forest is generally "owned" and exploited commercially... nobody wants it to burn down
I'm not too sure how insurance works but I remember when we bought our mökki plot the insurance company did come and estimate the timber in cubic metres and then applied some kind of annual growth coefficient. But my other half takes care of all the paperwork so I'm not too sure. We have planted over 2000 visakoivu.... if they were to go up in flames then my retirement fund would be seriously compromised
Finnish forests are swampy and the undergrowth is humid so wild-fires do not start easily. There are strict regulations about where and when you can light a fire outdoors.
OTOH across the Russian border (Karelia) there were serious forest fires raging for weeks last summer (we had a 3 month drought) and the smoke pollution was terrible even in Helsinki.
Rejuvenation of forests happens after they are commercially cleared. These days there is move to let the forests grow back naturally but it used to be that unwanted new growth was removed, so you could end up with miles and miles of just spruce and nothing else.
I'm not too sure how insurance works but I remember when we bought our mökki plot the insurance company did come and estimate the timber in cubic metres and then applied some kind of annual growth coefficient. But my other half takes care of all the paperwork so I'm not too sure. We have planted over 2000 visakoivu.... if they were to go up in flames then my retirement fund would be seriously compromised
Finnish forests are swampy and the undergrowth is humid so wild-fires do not start easily. There are strict regulations about where and when you can light a fire outdoors.
OTOH across the Russian border (Karelia) there were serious forest fires raging for weeks last summer (we had a 3 month drought) and the smoke pollution was terrible even in Helsinki.
Rejuvenation of forests happens after they are commercially cleared. These days there is move to let the forests grow back naturally but it used to be that unwanted new growth was removed, so you could end up with miles and miles of just spruce and nothing else.