Gross value yield potential of coppice, high forest and model conversion of high forest to coppice on best sites

Abstract

Based on yield tables for oak high forest and oak coppice (both first site class) and using assortment tables and assortment prices in the Czech Republic in 2009, a set of variants of conversion of high forest to coppice was simulated. Average annual cut and average gross value of annual cut of such conversions were compared with those of well-established (in terms of the age structure balance) variants of coppice and high forest. Under the existing ratio of assortment prices, established coppice does not reach the gross value yield of high forest. No variant of simulated conversions was more financially profitable than the initial high forest. Furthermore, we found out that a +16.8% increase of the current fuel wood price would counterbalance the mean annual increment of gross value of the best coppice and the worst oak high forest variant. On the other hand, a +164.7% fuel wood price increase would be necessary to counterbalance the mean annual increment of gross value of the worst coppice and the best high forest variants.

Response of diameter and height increment to thinning in oak-hornbeam coppice in the southeastern part of the Czech Republic

“…Nowadays, coppice or coppice-with-standards becomes increasingly a good option for small forest owners. In coppice, the owners can achieve a more balanced yield compared to high forest (Kneifl et al 2011). Coppicing has been a traditional and old silvicultural system in the Czech Republic (Müllerová et al 2014).…”

Coppice Forests: Can Traditional Coppice Forest Management Help the Western Balkan Region?

“…Indeed, several studies have revealed that oak high forest on best sites yielded a higher gross value than coppice [28,29]. Bally [28] found the financial effectiveness of coppice on best sites to be lower than that of high forest and that the variability of coppice net financial yield was significantly lower than that of a high forest.…”

“…The retail price of firewood fundamentally influences the per-consumer firewood consumption [52] the upward trend of firewood prices, which has been apparent in recent years, justifies efforts to reintroduce coppice forests in many regions [29] and a reappraisal of the coppice-with-standards silvicultural system is warranted [54]. Chalikias et al [52] report that the precise households' supply of firewood at an attractive retail price could be satisfied by the development of coppice oak forests, and suggest the utilization of logging residues, and the use of forest plantations on marginal or degraded agricultural land.…”

“…Many studies [58][59][60][61] report that high forests produce high quality timber, but most of these papers concentrate only on the gross value yield as a potential result of virtually harvested and sold assortments without taking into account any kind of costs. International practice shows that coppice is, in terms of the cost of firewood produced, probably considerably cheaper than high forest [29]. In addition, it has been reported that coppice on poor sites brought about higher net financial yield than high forest [28].…”

“…A biodiversity measure should be considered when implementing such land-use changes, as the results of the simulated conversion may be more accurate and closer to reality [29]. Vacik et al [21] noted that the overall conversion of coppices to high forests and as well as the strict protection of sites could lead to a loss of diversity in the long run.…”