Damage Caused by a Wheeled Harvester to the Residual Trees of a Pinus Stand in the First Mechanized Mixed Thinning

Diniz, Carlos Cézar Cavassin; Oliveira, Felipe Martins de; Timofeiczyk, Romano; Robert, Renato César Gonçalves; Tramontini, Miguel Pesch; Brito, Fabio Cordeiro de

doi:10.5380/rf.v50i3.64331

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, other forms of damage (uprooted and/or broken tree and broken branches) were almost absent. Similar results of the absence of crown damage were reported in the research on mechanised thinning of young coniferous stands [26].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The share of trees with peeled bark, expressed as a percentage of the number of remaining trees after finishing harvesting operations, was 33% in Subcompartment 14b and 39% in Subcompartment 14c. When compared with previous research on residual stand damage in mechanised thinning, the results are similar to those reported for young coniferous stands (29.1-36.1% and 25% damaged trees) [25,26] and for late thinnings of a mixed conifer stand (37.4% of the remaining trees damaged) [29], but higher than 21.5% damaged trees in uneven-aged Norway spruce dominated stands [28] as well as 20.47% and 23.36% damaged trees in shelterwood-system regeneration felling of sessile oakdominated stands [30]. Previous research shows a wide range in the intensity of damage to the remaining trees in timber harvesting operations for the thinning of hardwoods (3-50%) [23].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Current information on damage to residual trees following fully mechanised harvesterforwarder systems is primarily focused on young coniferous stands reporting 29.1-36.1% damaged trees, but with a mean wound area under 100 cm 2 in the thinning of a 12-year old Pinus taeda stand with a removal of 40% of trees in the stand [25], and 25% damaged trees in the first thinning of Pinus taeda stand with a removal of 50% of trees in the stand [26], to as low as 7.0% (with a 1 cm 2 bark damage threshold) in the first thinning with an intensity of 60% of the standing trees in Norway spruce dominated stand without previous marking of trees designated for felling, and 3.2% when prior marking of the trees was conducted [27]. Mechanised thinning of an uneven-aged Norway spruce dominated stand resulted in 21.5% damaged trees [28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Damage to Residual Trees in Thinning of Broadleaf Stand by Mechanised Harvesting System

Ursić

Vusić

Papa

et al. 2022

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research was conducted to determine the cause, intensity and location of damage (stem, butt end, root collar, root) and the extent of damage to standing trees during felling and processing by an harvester and timber extraction by a forwarder (cut-to-length system). The research was conducted in the central part of the Republic of Croatia in the Management Unit (MU) “Bjelovarska Bilogora” during the thinning of Subcompartment 14b, area of 18.28 ha, in the stand of hornbeam (Carpino betuli—Quercetum roboris fagetosum Rauš 1975), age 70, and of Subcompartment 14c, area of 9.07 ha, in a stand of common beech (Carici pilosae—Fagetum Oberdorfer 1957) aged 79 years. The thinning intensity was 12.13% in Subcompartment 14b and 13.72% in Subcompartment 14c. Field measurements were carried out on sample plots—the first time in 2017 to determine the intensity and characteristics of the damage to standing trees with regard to the cause of the damage (harvester or forwarder), and the second time in 2018 to determine the overall intensity and features of the damage to standing trees after finishing harvesting operations. For all trees remaining in the stand after the harvesting operations, the following were determined: tree species, diameter at breast height (DBH), the position of the tree in the stand depending on the forest traffic infrastructure, and—if damaged—cause of damage, type of damage, the position of damage on the tree, and dimensions of damage. The intensity of the damage was expressed by the ratio of damaged and undamaged trees, with a detailed analysis of bark damage (squeezed-bark damage and peeled-bark injuries). The results of the research indicate the highest prevalence of peeled-bark injuries. In relation to the total number of standing trees, trees with peeled-bark injuries were more represented in Subcompartment 14c (39%) than in Subcompartment 14b (33%). In Subcompartment 14b, the harvester and the forwarder damaged an equal number of trees, while in Subcompartment 14c, the harvester damaged 59% of the damaged trees. In both subcompartments, an average of 83% of (peeled bark) injuries were up to 1.3 m above the ground. In both subcompartments, the most common (67%) were injuries up to 100 cm2 in size, for which many authors claim the tree can heal by itself. Given the increasing use of harvester-forwarder systems in deciduous stands and research results that indicate possible damage to standing trees, it is necessary to pay attention to all phases of planning and execution of timber harvesting operations, thus minimising negative effects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Damage to Residual Trees in Thinning of Broadleaf Stand by Mechanised Harvesting System

Ursić

Vusić

Papa

et al. 2022

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar percentages have been found elsewhere, for example 13-17% by Jäghagen and Lageson [48], 12-23% by Tavankar et al [49] and 13% by Cabral [50,51]. However, higher percentages have also been reported [51,52]. Bergström et al [15] compared BCT and ST in young, dense Scots pine stands in Sweden.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Environmental Impacts of Boom-Corridor and Selectively Thinned Small-Diameter-Tree Forests

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

European forest stands of small-diameter trees can provide industries with biomass as an alternative to fossil use. Small-tree harvesting is costly using conventional methods but using accumulating felling heads (AFH) in combination with a novel boom-corridor thinning (BCT) technique can increase harvester productivity and supply cost efficiency. This method has great potential to reduce costs, but its environmental impact compared with selective thinning (ST) needs to be determined. The objectives of this study were therefore to quantify and compare tree and soil damage as well as air, water and soil emissions for both BCT and ST in various European small-diameter-tree forests. Trials were performed in 84 study units (42 replications per thinning technique) across four countries. Damaged trees (with a diameter at breast height ≥ 7 cm) were measured after thinning and after forwarding. Harvesting emissions were calculated from a life cycle assessment. The percentage of remaining trees that had been damaged by the harvesting processes was 13% and 19% for BCT and ST, respectively, and the difference was significant. BCT exhibited the lowest emissions in all environmental impact categories considered, in all countries. Greenhouse gas emissions were on average 17% lower for BCT. BCT in small-diameter-tree stands therefore reduces the environmental impact of thinning operations compared with conventional methods, and results in less damage to the remaining trees.

show abstract

“…For this reason, the social pillar examines the impact of the working environment on the forest worker [21][22][23][24][25][26]. The environmental pillar evaluates the high impact on the environment, such as environmental impact [27][28][29][30][31], biodiversity [32,33], and soil impacts [34][35][36][37][38]. The economic pillar is important for forests managed for the primary purpose of wood production, as logging operations represent the largest cost center [39].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria for Assessing the Sustainability of Logging Operations—A Systematic Review

Grünberg,

Ghaffariyan,

Jourgholami

et al. 2023

Curr. For. Rep.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review The comprehensive assessment of timber and fuelwood harvesting operations through the consideration of the three pillars of sustainability: Economic, social, and environmental has not received much attention. The use of criteria can significantly improve impact assessment. Therefore, the objective of this review paper is to compile and analyze the most commonly used criteria and indicators for each dimension of sustainability in logging operations over the last 6 years. This review provides an overview of these criteria for different harvesting machines, geographical areas, slope classes, time periods, types of research, and silvicultural treatments. Recent Findings The environmental pillar was the most studied (46%), followed by the economic pillar (38%). Productivity was the most investigated criterion (15%). On the one hand, productivity is linked to the environmental and social pillars, as it is related to the level of greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and the employment rate. However, productivity is mainly used as a criterion of financial interest, as it is most often studied in combination with costs. In addition to productivity, the other most frequently examined criteria were costs (10%), soil nutrients (9.5%), and soil compaction (9%). The social dimension was the least studied pillar (16%). This may be due to a lack of knowledge of social sustainability issues in this area. Summary Sustainability is achieved when all three dimensions are balanced. The results of this review show an imbalance, with economic and environmental aspects being weighted more heavily than social aspects. Balancing all three dimensions typically requires an assessment of trade-offs. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the criteria that have been studied to date and can be used as a checklist and guideline for future sustainability assessments of harvesting operations.

show abstract

Damage Caused by a Wheeled Harvester to the Residual Trees of a Pinus Stand in the First Mechanized Mixed Thinning

Cited by 3 publications

References 11 publications

Damage to Residual Trees in Thinning of Broadleaf Stand by Mechanised Harvesting System

Damage to Residual Trees in Thinning of Broadleaf Stand by Mechanised Harvesting System

Environmental Impacts of Boom-Corridor and Selectively Thinned Small-Diameter-Tree Forests

Criteria for Assessing the Sustainability of Logging Operations—A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About