Control of Douglas fir beetles by woodborer beetles

Wildfires and bark beetles have interacted for centuries—and even millennia—to shape diverse and resilient forest ecosystems. However, the record-breaking wildfires of recent years in western North America have raised concerns that the vast areas of damaged and dead trees—essentially easily exploitable resources—might promote the growth of insect populations.

The Douglas-fir beetle, the primary mortality agent of Douglas-fir trees, often experiences population increases following wildfires. The same applies to many other phloem-feeding insects, such as various woodboring beetles, which are attracted to burned areas and colonize fire-injured trees.

In a recent study, Canadian researchers investigated the interactions between Douglas-fir beetles and woodboring beetles that exploit the phloem of fire-injured trees. More specifically, their hypothesis was that the rapid colonization of bark beetle niches by woodborers following wildfires might restrict Douglas-fir beetle population growth through interspecific competition beneath the bark.

The hypothesis was tested in three mature Douglas-fir forests in British Columbia that burned in 2017. The researchers found that both Douglas-fir beetles and woodborers preferentially colonized mature stands containing large-diameter trees with moderate fire damage.

When woodborers were absent, the Douglas-fir beetle’s reproductive rate was sufficient to cause a local population outbreak. In contrast, in stands where woodborers were abundant (more than 50% of trees infested), Douglas-fir beetles were unable to reproduce at outbreak levels.

These results indicate that competition from woodboring beetles can significantly limit Douglas-fir beetle outbreaks in fire-injured forests. From a forest management perspective, this suggests that forests should be managed in ways that support the success of economically harmless phloem-feeding insects—such as many woodboring beetle species—since their presence may help reduce the risk of bark beetle outbreaks following wildfires.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The EU Needs Innovations That Drive Climate Neutrality
Forests in Indonesia and Finland
Why are boreal forest fires on the rise everywhere but in Finland?

The EU Needs Innovations That Drive Climate Neutrality

As a result of human activity, the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is considered one of the greatest future risks, as scientific models indicate it raises atmospheric temperatures and thereby causes major changes around the world. For this reason, for example, the European Parliament has approved a climate law that raises the EU’s 2030 emissions reduction target from the previous 40% to 55%, and makes climate neutrality by 2050 a legally binding objective.

To achieve this goal, we can either return to the Stone Age or develop new technology. Finnish company Elementic has chosen the latter and is currently building a pilot plant based on its own innovation. In practice, this means producing a construction material similar to bricks, using lignin — the natural binder found in wood — as the key ingredient.

Since lignin makes up about one-third of wood, this would significantly increase the value of forests and allow the forest-based industry to grow without compromising the production of its current products. As an added bonus, carbon dioxide emissions from construction would disappear, as a house built from lignin bricks would store more carbon than is emitted during its construction.

To top it off, there are two more noteworthy advantages. First, production can be scaled up quickly by modernizing existing brick factories in Finland and elsewhere in Europe — there’s no need to build new production facilities for lignin bricks. Second, lignin as a building material is non-flammable, weather-resistant, and rot-proof.

It remains to be seen whether the Finnish company will succeed in selling its new product to construction firms — and whether, as a result, the EU’s goal of climate neutrality might be achieved much more easily than it seemed not long ago. In any case, it is already clear that the EU needs more innovations like the one described above to drive progress toward climate neutrality.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Big Deal in the Cold North: Finland vs. Canada
Strong statement or intellectual dishonesty in COP27?
The reasons behind the fall of Nokia´s cellphone business

Misleading Claims About European Forests

Finnish forestry professor Annika Kangas wrote in a column for a forestry magazine about two eye-opening cases, neither of which brings credit to research in the field.

According to her, an international research group in 2020 claimed (in this publication), based on satellite image analysis, that the area of forest logging in Europe had increased significantly. In Finland, the increase was allegedly 54 percent, and in Sweden, 36 percent. Furthermore, the biomass removed was estimated to have increased by up to 69 percent.

However, statistics from the same period indicated that the average logging area in Finland had only increased by 7.6 percent between 2016 and 2018 compared to the years 2011–2015, and the volume removed had increased by 13.8 percent. In Sweden, logging had even decreased.

When this data was compared in detail with official forest inventory data from Finland and Sweden, it became evident that advancements in remote sensing technology had significantly improved the probability of detecting logging during the observed period. The large increase in biomass removal, on the other hand, stemmed from a misinterpretation: the assumption that biomass is entirely removed in thinnings—an incorrect assumption.

The analysis relied on readily available global datasets that describe changes in forest canopy cover over time. However, these datasets do not allow for distinguishing between natural disturbances, thinnings, clear-cuttings, or even permanent deforestation.

This was information that the researchers who published these erroneous results should have been aware of. Or at the very least, they and other researchers working with remote sensing data should know by now; yet these same time series continue to be used in other studies, such as those modeling the impact of logging on certain bird species, for which they are entirely unsuitable.

Then, last summer, another claim was introduced (I could not identify the original report Kangas was referring to), asserting that the area of forests with trees at least 15 meters tall had significantly decreased in Europe. The largest decrease—about 20 percent—was again said to have occurred in Finland and Sweden.

This, however, is untrue. According to extensive field measurements, the area of such forests had actually increased during the observed period—by 25 percent in Sweden and by 35 percent in Finland. No explanation has been found for these errors, but they share a common feature with the earlier study: they rely solely on remote sensing. Field measurements were not conducted, nor were the remote sensing results validated on the ground.

This highlights the intense competition for research funding, which demands the production and rapid publication of new findings in large quantities. This competition often leads to the hasty adoption of new, modern methods, without first establishing whether these methods are truly suitable for the intended purpose.

In the worst cases, this rush can result in disasters like those described above, which may—even after corrections have been made—leave the general public and policymakers with an incorrect impression. For example, I have repeatedly encountered claims on social media suggesting that large trees are declining in Finland—a misconception likely fueled by the second study discussed here and the associated reporting before corrections were made.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Finnish forest is life-threatening to asylum-seekers
Why are boreal forest fires on the rise everywhere but in Finland?
A new justification is needed for environmental activists

EU Decision-Makers Did the Bear a Disservice

In Finland, there are four so-called large carnivores. They are the bear, wolf, lynx, and wolverine.

Of these, only the bear and wolf can pose a danger to humans. Or more precisely, only the bear, since the last time a Finnish wolf killed a human was in 1882.

Bears, on the other hand, occasionally attack people. A particularly dangerous time is spring, when these rulers of the forest have cubs. Mother bears will attack, especially if, for some reason—such as during a jog—a person happens to come between them.

The risk exists in remote forest areas, of course, but a bear attack is especially likely when the predator roams densely populated areas, such as towns and cities.

That’s why it’s concerning that recently, bears have been wandering into cities more frequently. According to Finnish large carnivore researcher Ilpo Kojola, this is because bear hunting has practically come to a complete halt in recent years.

This has happened because Finland’s Supreme Court ruled that population control hunting is illegal in Finland. This, in turn, stems from the European Union's Habitats Directive, which requires member states to prohibit the deliberate capture or killing of individuals from certain species in the wild.

Because of this, Finns can currently do nothing but admire urban bears and, at the same time, fear the moment when a bear finally kills—whether to defend its cubs or for some other reason—a human, or perhaps more. And after that, wait anxiously to see what kind of hatred toward predators will take hold among Finns.

If and when that happens, the only certainty is that many bears will be poached. And that likely serves neither the interests of the EU's directive makers nor the bears themselves.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
During the Eurovision song spectacle, the incompetence of EU officials was revealed
Wolfs affect nature conservation
A popular hobby risks ecological balance, private property and human health in Finland

The Finnish forest is life-threatening to asylum-seekers

Finland closed its eastern border a couple of weeks ago because Russia started directing asylum seekers from developing countries through it to the EU area. A few days ago, the border was reopened, but Russians continued to exploit asylum seekers by directing them to Finland.

As a result, Finland decided to close the border again, this time for a whole month. It remains to be seen whether Russia will continue its actions thereafter.

According to the Prime Minister of Finland, Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party), "Russia is trying to undermine the national and mutual unity of Finland and EU countries, as well as the rule-based national order. It is important for Finland that the European Council condemns all hybrid attacks and strongly supports Finland's actions."

Hopefully, the Prime Minister's wish will be followed despite having little impact on the increasingly detached dictator Vladimir Putin. However, condemning his actions would demonstrate that Western countries are unified in defending world peace and the right of nations to decide their own affairs.

The closure of the border between Finland and Russia has also been noticed in Arabic-language social media. One user questioned, "Didn't you say in another post that it's not worth coming near the border because you'll be arrested... That only Russians and Schengen visa holders are allowed?"

The answer, of course, is that one should not approach the border because neither asylum seekers nor Russians are allowed to cross. Perhaps that's why one participant suggested, "Finland's forests are open, no need for border crossings."

This person may not be aware that someone unfamiliar with snow and forests is in mortal danger in Finland's nature during winter when travel is slow, daylight hours are short, and distances to roads are long. Alternatively, the person suggesting forest travel may have a secret aim to endanger the lives of asylum seekers on the border between Finland and Russia.

Even if that's not the case, the risk of death is real and will be realized if the participants' advice is followed.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Non-Discrimination Ombudsman violates the law on openness
In Germany, immigration policy changes are being planned
How naive can the world's most intelligent people be?

Preventing future fires in Hawaii is possible, but the question remains: Are animal activists and politicians prepared for the necessary measures?

Hawaiian researchers Daniel Rubinoff and Samuel M. ‘Ohukani‘ōhi‘a Gon III reported in the journal Science that the fire that devastated the city of Lahaina, Hawaii, has killed more people than any other U.S. wildfire in the past 100 years. According to them, the underlying causes of the wildfire were land-use mistakes that led to the proliferation of easily ignitable invasive species and a lack of control over feral goat grazing.

Therefore, the removal of invasive species, the restoration of native plants, and better management of feral goat populations are essential measures to prevent similar wildfires in the future. The latter is crucial because feral goats have played a significant role in the disappearance of Hawaii's native dry forest ecosystem.

Goats were originally introduced to Maui as a gift to King Kamehameha I in 1789. However, the problem arose when these goats escaped into the wild and became feral. As a result, they have consumed native plants and stripped the bark from native trees. This, coupled with previous fires and the decline of Maui's plantation industry, has created a cycle in which wildfires continue to increase, allowing invasive species to spread.

One potential solution to prevent wildfires, according to researchers, could be the intensive grazing of cattle, which would reduce the quantity of invasive species that serve as fuel. However, this solution would negatively impact reforestation efforts, carbon sequestration, and lead to erosion and increased flood risks during winter rains. It would also result in barren landscapes and fail to support Hawaii's native biota, which is a critical Hawaiian biocultural resource.

Instead, it would be better to restore native Hawaiian dry forests, which burn more slowly than invasive shrubby grasslands. This, in turn, would require the widespread eradication of goats.

It remains uncertain whether the wildfires witnessed this year will indeed prompt the envisioned changes in Hawaiian conservation practices. There could be resistance from animal rights activists opposing large-scale goat eradication operations, and politicians might be reluctant to allocate funding for these essential changes, considering the economic sacrifices involved.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why are boreal forest fires on the rise everywhere but in Finland?
A new justification is needed for environmental activists
A popular hobby risks ecological balance, private property and human health in Finland

History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility

This is the sixth part of a blog series where I go through the significant stages of Finland's history. In the fifth post, I described how the country transitioned from the rule of the highest nobility to a pre-capitalist society governed by the clerical nobility, where the living conditions of ordinary people also began to gradually improve.

Professor Heikki Ylikangas considers the above-mentioned turning point as the most significant in Finnish history. Equally important, following closely after that, is the subject of this post - the mid-18th century.

At that time - amidst the political strife between the "Caps" and "Hats" factions vying for leadership positions - a number of extremely significant decrees were issued that allowed the division of farms into several parts. Prior to this, it was not possible because the state apparatus feared that the farms would become unable to pay taxes as a result.

Similarly, the establishment of tenant farms or rental farms was permitted for peasants: this right had previously only applied to noble and cavalry estates. And as the icing on the cake, the redistribution of land was decided, meaning that each farm's land was located in larger blocks rather than the narrow strips previously required for communal planting and harvesting. This enabled peasants to develop their own land independently of others.

However, initially the peasants were not at all eager to seize the opportunity. The reason was the common forests, which they did not want to divide among the founders of the new farms but rather keep as a resource for profitable tar production. The situation changed only when the crown announced that the state would no longer interfere in the division of land, even forests, and that it would be left to the responsibility of independent landowners after the land reform.

The fourth reform was population registration, which was needed for drafting soldiers into the army, as many families had previously cheated the authorities, for example by giving multiple sons the same name to avoid being drafted. Especially in the 1600s, this had practically meant a death sentence, not so much because of battles but due to diseases that heavily taxed military units.

However, dividing farms was only allowed if the applicant intended to get married. In other words, the ultimate motive behind the reforms was that the Swedish state wanted to increase its population because there was a chronic shortage of labor in the country - in ironworks, manufactories, and manors. Perhaps increasing the economic opportunities of peasants would help to increase the labor force?

As a result of this expanded private ownership, people became more interested in economic entrepreneurship and profit-seeking. In other words, in the mid-1700s, Sweden and thus Finland entered the age of utility.

Also the university system participated in promoting economic prosperity, as in 1747 the position of professor of poetry at the University of Turku was changed to a professorship in economics - the same fate befell the legal department at Uppsala. One of the inventors of economic liberalism, Antti Chydenius, graduated from the Turku Academy, presenting his theories a decade before Adam Smith wrote similar ideas that would be recorded in the world's economic history.

At the same time, the judicial system began to change and the pressure to lighten punishments increased. Municipal power began to be transferred back to parish meetings from the crown bureaucracy. Even the church began to view different revival movements more favorably.

Thus, the societal trend that began in the 1500s towards growing aristocratic power and an extremely unequal society had irreversibly turned towards raising the standard of living for the entire population and democracy. And through this, the economic foundation was gradually laid that would eventually allow for the creation of the modern Nordic welfare state, although this development was not direct or straightforward.

The original blog post in Finnish: Hyödyn aika

All the blog posts in this series:
History of Finland I: How did Finland become culturally part of the West?
History of Finland II: From a hinterland of the Union into a modern state
History of Finland III: The legal and economic weakening of the position of the people
History of Finland IV: The bleakest time in Finnish history
History of Finland V: The pursuit of economic profit saved the country
History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility
History of Finland VII: The dictator of the era of Enlightenment promoted capitalist economy
History of Finland VIII: Joining of Finland to Russia led to an increase in crime
History of Finland IX: Enlightended dictator initiated economic growth
History of Finland X: The birth of Finnish identity
History of Finland XI: Finnish democracy and gender equality for women
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
History of Finland XIII: The far-right's rebellion
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
History of Finland XV: Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine
History of Finland XVI: Through rise and fall to a new kind of future

Why are boreal forest fires on the rise everywhere but in Finland?

A research article published in Science showed that carbon dioxide emissions from fires in boreal forests have been increasing during this century, reaching a new high in 2021. Although boreal fires typically account for only one tenth of global carbon dioxide emissions from all wildfires, in 2021 they produced nearly one quarter of the total emissions.

The reason for this increase was the rare concurrence of water deficits in North America and Eurasia. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that increasing numbers of extreme weather events contribute to global warming, making it even more challenging to mitigate the effects of global change.

It is interesting to compare Finland and Sweden, two neighboring countries that are highly similar in many ways. Both countries experience relatively low levels of forest fire activity compared to other countries, but there is still a notable difference. In Sweden, 3 000 to 4 000 fires burn approximately 2 000 to 5 000 hectares annually. In contrast, Finland has a considerably lower average number of forest fires, around 1 000 per year, with each fire covering an average burnt area of only 0.5 hectares.

So, why do we see this difference? 

There are three main reasons for Finland's success in managing forest fires. Firstly, the country experiences weaker winds, which slows down the spread of fires in burning forests.

Secondly, Finnish society is well-equipped to recognize forest fires, thanks to the presence of volunteer fire brigades with superior local knowledge compared to municipal firefighters. This enables faster site location and response times.

Thirdly, the abundance of forest roads in Finnish forests allows firefighters to quickly reach burning sites. Despite being narrow, these roads are effective in slowing down the spread of fires by creating breaks in the continuous forest cover.

Given that forest fires pose a continuous risk to the global climate, other nations could benefit from adopting Finnish practices and techniques to manage such disasters.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Fair policy will build a strong Union
A new justification is needed for environmental activists
Historical context of forest fires in Kalajoki (Written in Finnish, but readable in English using Google Translate)

Fair policy will build a strong Union

EU Commission is planning to decide on legally binding nature restoration targets. Those targets include restoration of at least 70% of drained peatlands and protecting 30% of land and 30% of sea in the EU. 

Those demands would have a major negative effect in Finland, where forest industry is extremely important by producing 18.1 % of exported goods and bringing a tax revenue of 2,7 billion euros. Such an economic benefit has been possible due to the extremely efficient management of - mostly privately owned - forests in the country. 

It should be noted that Finnish forests were not converted to other use - like in most of Europe - despite demands during the 19th century. In contrast, Finnish forests fortunately got economic value due to the developing industry which saved them from being destroyed. 

To ensure the raw material for saws and the pulp and paper mills, many actions were made during the 20th century to ensure forest growth. Tree production sustainability was reached in 1970´s, and thereafter forests have grown every year more than they have been used - although also the production of forest industry has increased. 

Furthermore, during recent decades many voluntary actions have been made by forest owners to save the biodiversity, which already has turned the previously highly negative development more positive. And therefore, Finnish forests are today remarkable carbon sinks, important source of raw materials and on their way of reaching ecological sustainability.

Finland rarely looks for its own benefit in the Union. Accordingly, the Finnish Government´s decision of nature restoration followed those tracks until the last week. And that was a huge difference to Sweden - exerting almost as sustainable forestry - which noted that the Union has no justification in forest issues. 

However, the Commission plans were noted by the Finnish forest industry, forest owners and professionals as well as ordinary countryside people, who put a pressure on politicians. And finally, they were heard in the national Parliament, where the big opposition parties - Conservatives and True Finns - challenged Government´s earlier decision to support the EU decree on restoration. 

And as a result, also Parliament members of Social democrats, Center party and Swedish people´s party joined the opposition. Only ultimate left of the government - Left alliance and Green party - kept their original position as supporters of the Commission´s arrogant plans.

It remains to be seen, how Finland´s changed view affects EU policy. It would, however, be a benefit for the whole EU to change it to become fairer. For Finland the current plans would be roughly equal if Germany was demanded to reduce its car industry by 30% or Netherlands was forced to return 30% of its dried sea coasts back to a seabed. 

Actually, the leader of EU Commission´s current environmental policy - Frans Timmermans - should understand that only fair policy towards all member states will build a strong Union capable to respond to challenges posed by other economic great powers USA and China. And therefore, even small members should be respected instead of making efforts to destroy their preconditions of living.  

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Share of EU recovery funds will turn attitudes more negative
A new justification is needed for environmental activists
Finnish parties agreed on actions against the climatic change

A new justification is needed for environmental activists

Biodiversity crisis is one of the big environmental issues today. Although the problem is worst in the low latitudes, the topic is intensively discussed also in the European Union, which is in a process of preparing a stringent legislation to save the environment. 

In its current form EU biodiversity strategy would have serious effects on the Nordic forestry, which in Finland gives work to almost 100 000 people, and forms the basis of almost 20 percent of the export value. Despite these economic facts, a considerably higher amount of wood is growing in the Finnish forests now than was hundred years ago.   

One of the keystone species for biodiversity in North-European forests is bilberry. It is a valuable berry that many people are picking in forests, but it also is an extremely important source of food for many wild animals, especially birds - but also the king of the forests, bear. 

The environmentalists have for decades claimed that current forestry practices are reducing the amount of bilberries, and through food chain many other animals (example). The scientific basis supporting their claim are old investigations that showed bilberry area to have reduced between years 1950 and 1995. 

Now a new investigation is ongoing and its first results show that the forest area covered by bilberries has not reduced since 1995, but in contrast it has increased. Therefore the bilberry does not suffer from Nordic forestry, which has intensified between all those years, but may even have benefited on its current practices. 

Neither will many birds suffer from the lack of bilberries, but their reducing numbers result from some other causes. And those may or may not be related to forestry.  

In my opinion this little example demonstrates extremely well the problem typical to fanatic single topic movements. They have decided beforehand - based on their ideology - what is the problem they are opposing, and thereafter they search for evidence supporting their view from wherever that can be found. 

Therefore I do not expect truth about bilberries in Finland to change the opinions of environmental organisations towards commercial forestry. Instead, they will find other issues that seem to support their ideology. And use them against economic activities, that they have decided to oppose. That is, the Nordic forestry.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A popular hobby risks ecological balance, private property and human health in Finland
They want to wipe out from Finland what is good for Africa
Climate change raises dishonesty in the Finnish media