A comparison of harvesting productivity and costs in thinning operations with and without midfield |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA;2. University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa;1. University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Forestry and Renewable Resources, Vecna pot 83, Ljubljana, Slovenia;2. CNR IVALSA, Via Madonna del Piano 10, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy;1. School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA;2. Department of Forestry and Wildland Resources, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 95521, USA;1. Natural Resources Institute Finland, Green Technology, Silmäjärventie 2, FI69100, Kannus, Finland;2. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Biomaterials and Technology, Skogsmarksgränd, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden;1. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry.1 Forestry Dr., Syracuse, NY 13210, USA;2. Greenwood Resources Inc., 1500 SW 1st Ave Suite 1150, Portland, OR 97201, USA;3. CNH America LLC, P. O Box 1895, Ms 640, New Holland, PA 17557-0903, USA;1. Department of Forest Technology, Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute, P.O. Box 115, 1430 Ås, Norway;2. University of Life Sciences, Vienna, Institute of Forest Engineering, Peter Jordan Strasse 82, A-1190 Vienna, Austria;3. School of Forestry, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand |
| |
| Abstract: | Mechanised thinning operations can be carried out in the forest where skid roads are provided on which harvesters and forwarders can move. In the transition to continuous cover forestry (CCF) it is better to keep a thinner network of skid roads in the forest. Instead of tracks for harvesters and forwarders, these areas can be used for younger generations of trees. Moreover, fewer skid roads in the forest environment make the stand more natural. Fewer skid roads were introduced in this research as an alternative thinning operation with midfield1 (MF) to the most popular mechanised thinning operation with skid roads2 (SR). The aim of this paper is to analyse the productivity and economic aspects of thinning operations based on harvesters and forwarders, where there are different distances between skid roads. In both of the operations, harvesters and forwarders were used, but in the MF operation a chainsaw was additionally used to cut trees beyond the reach of the harvester boom. The distances between skid roads in the MF operation were 35–38 m, while in the other they were 18–20 m. The research was carried out in premature pine stands in a flat terrain in Poland. Bigger productivity and lower costs were found in the MF thinning operations. In the younger 44-year-old stand, the average harvester (Timberjack 770) productivity (in operational time) in the MF operation was 5.87 m3h−1 and in the SR operation 4.52 m3h−1; forwarding provided by the Vimek 606 6WD achieved a productivity of 5.03 and 4.52 m3h−1, respectively. In the older 72-year-old stand, the Timberjack 1270B productivity was 11.53 m3h−1 in MF and 8.70 m3h−1 in SR; the Timberjack 1010B forwarder achieved 11.22 m3h−1 (MF) and 8.84 m3h−1(SR).The costs of harvesting and forwarding 1 m3 of wood were lower in the MF operations. In the younger stand, harvesting costs were 5.78 €/m3 (MF) and 6.72 €/m3 (SR) while forwarding costs were 1.94 and 2.18 €/m3 respectively. In the older stand, harvesting costs were 5.58 €/m3 (MF) and 6.78 €/m3 (SR); the forwarding costs were 2.65 €/m3 (MF) and 3.41 €/m3 (SR). |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
