Wednesday, 26 October 2016

Techniques and productivity of coppice harvesting operations in Europe: a meta-analysis of available data

Published Date
Original Paper
DOI: 10.1007/s13595-016-0578-x

Cite this article as: 
Spinelli, R., Cacot, E., Mihelic, M. et al. Annals of Forest Science (2016). doi:10.1007/s13595-016-0578-x

Author
  • Raffaele Spinelli
  • Emmanuel Cacot
  • Matevz Mihelic
  • Ljupco Nestorovski
  • Piotr Mederski
  • Eduardo Tolosana

Abstract

Key message

Coppice harvesting technology is evolving toward increased mechanization and larger more efficient equipment. Nevertheless, cheap and versatile general-purpose machines (excavators and farm tractors) still represent the backbone of coppice mechanization, which is consistent with the rural character of coppice economy.

Context

Operating within the scope of COST Action FP1301 “Eurocoppice”, the authors conducted a survey of coppice harvesting studies produced in Europe from 1970 to present. The survey focused on traditional coppice stands and excluded industrial short-rotation coppice, established with willow, poplar, eucalyptus, or other fast-growing species.

Aims

The goals of this study were to calculate productivity benchmarks for coppice harvesting operations and to gauge the progress achieved over the past 40-plus years.

Methods

Data from existing studies (published and unpublished) were collected through a harmonized questionnaire and gathered into a single master database. Statistical analysis was used to estimate productivity models and determine possible differences between methods, work conditions, and time periods.

Results

Six productivity models were estimated for the main harvesting steps and technologies. Productivity varied with a number of factors and notably with removal (m3 ha−1). The analysis disclosed a clear trend toward increased mechanization and higher productivity.

Conclusion

Coppice harvesting is being mechanized, but the mechanization deployed in coppice stands is adapted to the specific conditions offered by these stands. Light, cheap, and versatile machines are generally preferred to heavy industrial equipment.

Keywords

FellingExtractionLoggingHardwood mechanizationClear cutSelection


References

  1. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley, Chichester, p 452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buckley GP (1992) Ecology and management of coppice woodlands. Chapman & Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cacot E, Maire L, Chakroun M, Peuch D, Montagny X, Perrinot C, Bonnemazou M (2015a) a La mécanisation du bûcheronnage dans les peuplements feuillus - Synthèse opérationnelle. Institut Téchnologique FCBA, Champs-sur-Marne, p 38Google Scholar
  4. Cacot E, Grulois S, Thivolle-Cazat A, Magaud P (2015b) B mechanization of French logging operations: challenges and prospects in 2020. In: Kanzian C, Erber G, Kühmaier M (eds) Forest engineering: making a positive contribution. Abstracts and Proceedings of the 48th Symposium on Forest Mechanization, Linz, 2015. p 512Google Scholar
  5. Chai T, Draxler R (2014) Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)?—arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geosci Model Dev 7:1247–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciancio O, Corona P, Lamonaca A, Portoghesi L, Travaglini D (2006) Conversion of clearcut beech coppices into high forests with continuous cover: a case study in central Italy. For Ecol Manag 224:235–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erber G, Holzleitner F, Kastner M, Stampfer K (2016) Effect of multi-tree handling and tree-size on harvester performance in small-diameter hardwood thinnings. Silva Fennica 50 :17particle id 1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eriksson M, Lindroos O (2014) Productivity of harvesters and forwarders in CTL operations in northern Sweden based on large follow-up datasets. Int J For Eng 25:179–200Google Scholar
  9. Ferrari E, Spinelli R, Cavallo E, Magagnotti N (2012) Attitudes towards mechanized cut-to-length technology among logging contractors in northern Italy. Scand J For Res 27:800–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fraser A (1982) The role of deciduous woodlands in the economy of rural communities. Int J Urb For 6:37–47Google Scholar
  11. Hédl R, Kopecky M, Komàrek J (2010) Half a century of succession in a temperate Oakwood: from species-rich community to mesic forest. Divers Distrib 16:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jansen P, Kuiper L (2004) Double green energy from traditional coppice stands in the Netherlands. Biomass Bioen 26:401–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirby K, Watkins C (1998) The ecological history of European forests. CAB International, Oxford, p. 373 ISBN 0-85199-256-0Google Scholar
  14. Koŝir B, Magagnotti N, Spinelli R (2015) The role of work studies in forest engineering: status and perspectives. Int J For Eng 26:160–170Google Scholar
  15. Magagnotti N, Pari L, Spinelli R (2012) Re-engineering firewood extraction in traditional Mediterranean coppice stands. Ecol Eng 38:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McEwan A, Magagnotti N, Spinelli R (2016). The effects of number of stems per stool on cutting productivity in coppiced Eucalyptus plantations. Silva Fennica 50, article id 1448. 14 p.
  17. Mitchell D, Gallagher T (2007) Chipping whole trees for fuel chips: a production study. Southern J Appl For 4:176–180Google Scholar
  18. Nicolescu V, Barčić D, Carvalho J, Dimitriou I, Dohrenbusch A, Dubravac T, Ertekin M, Folcz A, Frank N, Hernea C, Jansen P, Löf M, Molnár D, Nordfjell T, Özel H, Rodrigues A, Trajkov P, Şimon D, Weih M. (2014) Ecology and silvicultural management of coppice forests in Europe. Proceedings of the 1st Eurocoppice Conference, Florence. Downloaded from: www.eurocoppice.uni-freiburg.de/intern/pdf/conference_1/nicolescu-ecology-and-silvicultural-management. 26 February 2014
  19. Nordfjell T, Björheden R, Thor M, Wästerlund I (2010) Changes in technical performance, mechanical availability and prices of machines used in forest operations in Sweden from 1985 to 2010. Scand J Forest Res 25:382–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pettenella D (2001) Marketing perspectives and instruments for chestnut products and services. For Snow Landsc Res 76:511–517Google Scholar
  21. Ramantswana M, McEwan A, Pauw J (2012) Determining the effect of tree size, bark-wood bond strength and tree form on the productivity of an excavator-based harvester in Acacia mearnsii in the KwaZulu-Natal forestry region of South Africa. Southern For J For Sci 74:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. SAS Institute Inc (1999) StatView reference. SAS Publishing, Cary, p 84–93Google Scholar
  23. Siry J, Cubbage F, Ahmed M (2005) Sustainable forest management: global trends and opportunities. For Pol Econ 7:551–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N (2011) The effects of introducing modern technology on the financial, labour and energy performance of forest operations in the Italian alps. For Pol Econ 13:520–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Lombardini C (2010) Performance, capability and costs of small-scale cable yarding technology. Small Scale For 9:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spinelli R, Ebone A, Gianella M (2014) Biomass production from traditional coppice management in northern Italy. Biomass bioenerg 62:68–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Visser R (2015) Productivity models for cable yarding in alpine forests. Eur J For Eng 1:9–14Google Scholar
  28. Splechtna B, Gratzer G, Black B (2005) Disturbance history of a European old-growth mixed-species forest—a spatial dendro-ecological analysis. J Veg Sci 16:511–522Google Scholar
  29. Szabò P (2009) Open woodland in Europe in the Mesolithic and in the middle ages: can there be a connection? For Ecol Manag 257:2327–2330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tulbure C, Duduman G (2012) A conversion method of young hornbeam coppices and its possible impact on future stand structural attributes. Ann. For Res 55:281–296Google Scholar
  31. Vacik H, Zlatanov T, Trajkov P, Dekanić S (2009) Role of coppice forests in maintaining forest biodiversity. Silva Balc 10:35–45Google Scholar
  32. Wolfslehner B, Krajter S, Jovic D, Nestorovski L, Velichkov I (2009) Framing stakeholder and policy issues for coppice forestry in selected central and south-eastern European countries. Silva Balc 10:21–34Google Scholar

For further details log on website :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13595-016-0584-z

No comments:

Post a Comment