A major component of sustainable forest management are the stands left behind after the logging operation. Large mechanized harvesting equipment involved in current forest management can inflict damage on residual trees; and can pose a risk of mortality from diseases, natural calamities, and/or degrade future economic value. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the residual stand damage under different harvesting methods and silvicultural prescriptions i.e., crop tree release (CTR), diameter limit cut (DLC), and overstory removal (OSR). The second objective was to evaluate the intensity and frequency of damage occurring on the bole, canopy, and root at tree and stand level. The third objective was to document strategies adopted globally to minimize stand damage due to timber harvesting. Five harvest blocks implementing three silvicultural prescriptions, were selected as the treatments across two different industrial timberlands in central and northern Maine (Study Site (SS) I and II, respectively). A hybrid cut-to-length (Hyb CTL) and whole-tree (WT) harvesting method were employed for conducting the harvest in SS I and II, respectively. Systematic transect sampling was employed to collect information on type, frequency, and intensity of damages. The inventory captured 41 and 8 damaged trees per hectare with 62 and 22 damages per hectare from SS I and SS II respectively. Bole damage was the most frequent damage across all treatments. The Hyb CTL had lower damage density (damage per ha) and severity compared to WT. The average number of trees damaged per ha was higher for CTR prescriptions compared to DLC. There were no significant differences in the height of the damages from the ground level between treatments within each study site; however, there was a significant difference between the study sites. Species damaged was directly related to the residual trees left behind and was dominated by American beech, yellow birch, sugar maple, and eastern hemlock. Finally, the study provides strategies that can be adopted at different forest managerial phases to mitigate residual stand damage.
The balance of production activities at the landing is pivotal to the success of any forest harvesting operation and has a direct impact on the cost and efficiency of the enterprise. The primary objective of this study was to understand the operational characteristics of the loader in a hot operation (handling both sawlog and biomass components concurrently) and cold operation (handling biomass and sawlogs separately) for harvesting sawlogs and biomass. Systematic work sampling techniques were employed to obtain “snapshots” of the loader activities for a cable logging operation, including the interaction of the loader with other operational phases and delay time for both hot and cold configurations. The results show that for hot loading at the landing, the yarder was the most utilized machine (85%), and was the bottleneck of the operation, followed by the loader (70%). In the hot loading configuration, 39% of operational delay during truck loading was caused by the loader and was predominantly due to movement of the loader within or between the landings. This was followed by the yarder (19%, due to rigging activities) and the chaser (15%, to maintain the crews’ safety). In the cold loading configuration, delays due to the unavailability of roll-off bins constituted up to 77% of the operational delay. This suggests that the number of bins and trucks hauling biomass has a crucial role in the overall efficiency of the biomass harvesting system, and should be well balanced with loading capacity. Additionally, the choice of hot or cold biomass loading operations is highly dependent on the site and operating conditions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.