Energy wood harvesting productivity of three harvesting methods in first thinning of scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.)

Published Date
Biomass and Bioenergy
August 2011, Vol.35(8):3383–3388, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.09.012
PROCEEDINGS OF A WORKSHOP OF IEA BIOENERGY TASK 31 ON ‘SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY SYSTEMS FOR BIOENERGY: INTEGRATION, INNOVATION AND INFORMATION’

• Author 

• Jani Lehtimäki
• Juha Nurmi ^,

• Finnish Forest Research Institute, Kannus Research Unit, Silmajarventie, Box 44, 69101 Kannus, Finland

Received 12 October 2009. Revised 21 September 2010. Accepted 24 September 2010. Available online 30 October 2010. 

Abstract

Energy wood harvesting in young forests presents an economical challenge and has been dependent on subsidies in Finland. Whole-tree harvesting systems have proved to be most productive when carrying out energy wood harvesting in cleanings and early thinnings in young forests. The application of integrated energy wood and pulpwood harvesting is less common.

It was hypothesized that multi-tree harvesting (MTH) with the OM-Waratah 745 single grip harvester head could change harvesting logistics and improve productivity for integrated energy wood and pulpwood thinnings. Two variations of MTH were compared with single-tree harvesting (STH). The logging methods studied were: (1) conventional single-tree harvesting with pulpwood and energy wood processed at the strip road; (2) multi-tree harvesting with pulpwood and energy wood processing along the strip road (MTH1); and (3) multi-tree harvesting at the stump where the aim was to leave the logging residues distributed evenly over the harvesting area and not on the strip roads (MTH2).

MTH methods were 28–35% more productive than the single-tree harvesting. The biggest differences in work stages were found in the felling and delimbing stages. In single-tree harvesting felling was 9–26% and delimbing 14–27% slower than in multi-tree harvesting.

MTH2 distributed 13% of residues further than 7 m from the strip road center. With STH and MTH1 only a good 1.2–1.7% was placed this far, and 74.4 and 62.0% respectively within 3 m.

Keywords

Whole-tree biomass

Logging residues

Bioenergy

Ground cover

GIS

---

Fig. 1.

 Table 1

Table 1.

 Table 2

Table 2.

 Table 3

Table 3.

 Table 4

Table 4.

 Table 5

Table 5.

 Table 6

Table 6.

 Table 7

Table 7.

• ∗ 
  Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 102113419; fax: +358 102113401.

For further details log on website :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953410003375