Full resolution (TIFF) - On this page / på denna sida - N:o 5 - Pages ...
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
24 Yrjö Ilvessalo, The Forest .’Resources’ of Finland in 1936—1938
As the mean volume per hectare is less dependent on changes in
area and therefore easier to compare with the results of the earlier
survey than the total volume, the former will be examined first.
a. The mean volume per hectare.
The mean volume per hectare for productive and poor productive
forest land and for the total forest area will be found in Table 12, in
which the results of the survey in 1922—23 are included for the sake
of comparison.
Table 12. The mean volume per hectare.
Productive forest land Poor productive forest land Total forest area
Part of country1) 1936— 38 1922— 23 1936— 38 1922— 23 1936— 38 1922— 23
m8/ha
West Finland......................... 92.1 86.6 24.6 22.6 82.5 79.5
East Finland ........................ 83.3 92.0 26.6 32.8 75.5 83.8
Ostrobothnia......................... 68.9 64.3 17.6 15.3 57.0 54.8
South Finland ....................... 84.4 84.7 23.2 24.7 74.8 76.4
North Finland ....................... 59.7 61.2 14.2 16.2 46.7 48.4
Whole country....................... 74.8 75.6 18.1 19.4 62.8 64.3
The mean volume of the forests of the whole country appears to
be 62.8 m3 per hectare or 1.5 m3 less than the result obtained in 1922—
23. This is, however, not an actual reduction, at least not entirely,
for it should be noted that in 1922—23 the volume of deciduous trees
was calculated about 8 per cent too high according to the volume
tables available at that time. This signifies that the mean volume
of the forests of the whole country in 1922—23 was in reality 63.1 m3
(now 62.8), of South Finland 74.9 m3 (now 74.8) and of North Finland
47.7 m3 (now 46.7). It should also be noted that the difference in the
results of the two surveys is well within the limits of 1% times the
standard error, which shows the uncertainty of the results.
The mean volume is seen to have risen in West Finland and to a
slight degree too in Ostrobothnia —thanks to the influence of South
Ostrobothnia — but to have dropped in East Finland and slightly in
North Finland. If the remarks referring to deciduous trees are borne
in mind, the rise mentioned is in reality greater and the decrease less
than the figures indicate. It is worth mentioning that the increase
in the mean volume on productive forest land in West Finland and
See map on p. 8.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
