Articles containing the keyword 'wild berries'

A presentation based on the historical development of Russia is given in the form of an overview of the development of Russian forest resources, of the wood, non-wood, and biological aspects of the forest ecosystem. The list of non-wood forest resources includes resin, saps, oils, berries, wild nuts, mushrooms, hay harvesting, game animals, etc. The dynamics of the system are presented in the light of the data of the Forest State Account (FSA) of Russia for the period 1956–1993. The most significant changes in the dynamics of Russia's forest resources are related to concentrated, large-scale wood harvesting operations. The dynamics of non-wood resources follow the process of the economic recession in all parts of the forest sector of Russia, the said recession having begun in the mid-1980s. The forests of Russia are considered to be of immense social and cultural value and a globally significant factor contributing to the sustainable development of forest resources.

• Pisarenko, E-mail: ap@mm.unknown
• Strakhov, E-mail: vs@mm.unknown

According to 459 and 350 questionnaires sent in 1983 and in 1985, respectively, the households in the Rovaniemi region located in the Arctic Circle in Northern Finland, eagerly picked wild berries. In both years, four out of five households picked at least one species of berry. In 1983 the total amount of wild berries picked was 29.2 kg per capita. In 1985 it was 15.0 kg per capita. Three species, the lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.), cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus L.) and bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) made up 96% of all the wild berries picked during both years. Most of these berries were picked for the family’s own use, but many were also picked for sale. In 1983, 43% of all berries picked were sold, in 1985, 19% were sold. The cloudberry, although difficult to find, is the most important commercial species and also for household use it is the most sought after wild berry. Only very small amounts of edible mushrooms were collected, 1.0 kg per capita in 1983 and 1.3 kg in 1985.

The PDF includes an abstract in Finnish.

• Saastamoinen, E-mail: os@mm.unknown
• Lohiniva, E-mail: sl@mm.unknown

The study is based on a questionnaire sent to 5,000 randomly sampled persons representing the adult population in Finland. The results give a picture of the amounts of berries preserved for home use and the consumption patterns of berries and berry products in the population and its various subgroups. Non-commercial berry consumption accounts for a considerable part of the total use of fruits and berries. However, use of berries and berry products decreases with the degree of urbanization and from older age classes to young. The results support the view that imported fruits and commercial juices are substitute products to domestic berries. It would appear that the consumer’s choice between fruits and berries is primarily regulated by the availability of berries.

The PDF includes an abstract in Finnish.

• Kuusipalo, E-mail: jk@mm.unknown
• Berg, E-mail: mb@mm.unknown
• Mikkola, E-mail: mm@mm.unknown
• Niemensivu, E-mail: hn@mm.unknown

A survey was carried out among forest foremen and forest technicians to record their observations on the value of various swamp and forest types as producers of berries and on the effect of drainage of peatlands upon the berry yields. Comparative agreement existed on the best blueberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) forest types and on the best lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) forest types of rather dry upland sites. Fuscum pine swamps or fuscum bogs were considered best for the most part as regards the yield of cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus L.). The replies showed rather great dispersion.

Agreement existed as well on the relation between drainage of peatlands and the yields of our economically most important swamp berries, cloudberry and cranberry. 90% of those responding were of the opinion that drainage reduces the cloudberry yield in the long term and a full 97% indicated that cranberry crop diminishes as well.

The PDF includes a summary in English.

• Sepponen, E-mail: ps@mm.unknown

The picking and use of wild berries were investigated in five municipalities in Central Finland during 1978–81. The picked amounts per person were in average 17.6 litres of lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) and 5.6 litres of bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.). 54%, of lingonberries were consumed by the families who picked them, 43% was sold and 3% was delivered to others. Of the picked bilberry yield the figures were 74%, 24% and 2% respectively.

About 86% of the families picked lingonberry and 79% of the families picked bilberry in five municipalities in Central Finland during

The PDF includes a summary in English.

• Rossi, E-mail: er@mm.unknown
• Huovinen, E-mail: jh@mm.unknown
• Koskela, E-mail: mk@mm.unknown
• Niemelä, E-mail: mn@mm.unknown
• Raatikainen, E-mail: mr@mm.unknown

A study on wild berry-bearing plants was made in five municipalities in Central Finland during 1978–81. Yield of lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) was 8.0 kg/ha of forest area. Bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) produced 4.3 kg/ha and black crowberry (Empetrum nigrum coll. L.) 1.5 kg/ha. Lingonberry comprised 40%, bilberry 27% and black crowberry 14% of the total berry yield. Any other species produced less than 10% of the total yield. Lingonberry produced high yield in clear-cut areas and in old Scots pine dominated forests but bilberry production was restricted almost completely to old sparse forests.

The total lingonberry yield in Finland was estimated as 180 million kg and the total bilberry yield as 150–200 million kg. About 80% of the lingonberry yield and 60% of bilberry yield was judged to be gatherable on the basis of the yield.

The PDF includes a summary in English.

• Raatikainen, E-mail: mr@mm.unknown
• Huovinen, E-mail: jh@mm.unknown
• Koskela, E-mail: mk@mm.unknown
• Niemelä, E-mail: mn@mm.unknown
• Raatikainen, E-mail: tr@mm.unknown
• Rossi, E-mail: er@mm.unknown

• Turtiainen, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: marjut.turtiainen@uef.fi
• Salo, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Unit, Joensuu, Finland E-mail: ks@nn.fi
• Saastamoinen, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: os@nn.fi

• Kangas, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry, P.O. Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: kari.kangas@joensuu.fi
• Markkanen, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry, P.O. Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: pm@nn.fi