Benchmarking operational conditions, productivity, and costs of harvesting from industrial plantations in different global regions

Figures & data

Table 1. Variables that were extracted from each study and included in the database.

Variable name	Description	Unit
Year	Date when the study was conducted
Country	The country where the study took place
Tree species	Primary tree species in the plantation
Silviculture operation	Operation observed in the study (e.g. clearcut, thinning)
Product	Main product produced in the operation (i.e. sawlogs, pulpwood logs, veneer, pulpwood chips)
Age	The age of the plantation at the time of the observed operation	Year
Stem volume	Tree stem volume	m^3 solid
Stand volume	The volume of stem wood per hectare of the plantation	m^3 ha^−1
Distance to road	Distance of stand to roadside/landing	m
System	Harvesting system (i.e. CTL, TL, FT)
Machine	Description of the machine used in each operation and harvesting system (e.g. large harvester, medium forwarder, skidder)
Productivity	Hourly productivity of each operation	m^3 PMH^−1
Delays	Delays time measured/reported for the operation	% SMH
Hourly cost	Hourly cost of each operation	LCU SMH^−1
Operation cost	Cost of each operation per unit of product	LCU m^−3
System cost	Cost for the whole harvesting system per unit of product (up to roadside)	LCU m^−3

Table 2. Regional context, cultivation schemes and products reported by regional experts.

	Regional context	Cultivation schemes and products
Australia	The total commercial plantation area was 1.93 M hectares (ha) in 2018, of which about half were softwood species (1.04 M ha, dominated by Pinus radiata) and half hardwood species (0.9 M ha, dominated by Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus nitens) (ABARES 2019). The primary purpose of commercial plantation forestry is wood production. The total roundwood harvested totaled 32.9 M m^3 in 2017–18, corresponding to a 27.7% increase over 2008–09. About 86.7% of the logs harvested (28.8 M m3) occurred in plantations, and only 13.3% (4.1 M m^3) occurred in native forests. The roundwood harvested in softwood plantations corresponded to 10.9 M m^3 of sawlogs and 6.7 M m^3 of pulpwood logs and other logs. Around 0.8 M m^3 of sawlogs and 10.5 M m^3 of pulpwood logs and other logs were harvested from hardwood plantation estates (ABARES 2019).	Rotation ages in Radiata pine plantations range between 25 and 40 years. These plantations are thinned 2–3 times during the rotation age, and in some cases, trees are also pruned to produce high-value clear logs. At the end of the rotation, the tree size ranges between 0.8 and 1.5 m^3. Rotation ages in Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus nitens plantations range between 10 and 15 years. These plantations may have an early thinning during the rotation (Acuna et al. 2017). At the end of the rotation, tree size ranges between 0.5 and 1 m^3, depending on on-site quality.
Brazil	Brazil has 500 M ha of forested area, and 9.8 M ha are commercially planted with hybrid Eucalyptus spp. and Pinus spp. FSC, PEFC, and ISO certifications cover 6.7 M ha of these plantations SNIF (Boletim SNIF 2018). Eucalyptus plantations contribute 1.2 % of the Brazilian GDP, with gross revenues of R$ 244.6 billion (49 billion USD) (IBA Relatório 2022).	Typical Eucalyptus rotations are usually between 6–7 years, and the national MAI (mean annual increment) of these plantations is 35.3 m^3 ha^−1 year^−1. Coppice regeneration in Eucalyptus plantations is an economically viable alternative to replanting in Brazil, even though it yields only 70 % of the original stand volume (Guedes et al. 2011).
South East Asia	The rate of Eucalyptus spp. plantation establishment has increased sharply in the past decade. The overall plantation area in the region exceeds 10 M ha. Teak (Tectona grandis) is one of the most important tropical timber species in natural forests and plantations. Rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis) offers the most attractive and readily available wood-based resource for biobased feedstocks from plantation forestry in Thailand. In 2014, the rubberwood plantation area was 2.75 M ha, and the majority of the plantation (70%) is located in the Southern part of Thailand. The total Rubberwood production is approximately 5 Million t year^−1. Smallholders own a large proportion of mature rubber plantations.	Eucalyptus is mainly used as a raw material for pulp and paper industries, sawn timber, veneer, and wood chips, especially in Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, China, and India Eucalyptus is generally grown in plantations (blocks, along roadsides, along canals, or on the border of paddy fields), with 5–10 years rotation, depending on the end-use product, the intensity of management/silviculture, soil fertility, and clone selection. The standing volume at the harvesting time ranges between 50 and 100 m^3 ha^−1. Typical assortments are logs extracted from stems for different uses, including sawlogs, veneer logs, pulpwood, and residues for bioenergy use. Teak is commonly used in manufacturing outdoor furniture, boat decks, construction, indoor flooring, countertops, and as a veneer for indoor finishing. Initially, the rotation was 80 years for teak, but recently, it has been shortened to 20–40 years, depending on the region. Teak plantations require thinning to remove poorly formed trees and to reduce the overall stand density to the final harvest (200 to 300 trees/ha). In Thailand, two thinnings are usually conducted between 15 and 25 years; the final harvest is at 30 years. The rubberwood trees have a rotation period of 25–30 years. After latex production declined, rubber trees were cut down. Now, wood from rubber trees, apart from harvesting the latex, is used as timber and fuel.
European poplar	Hybrid poplar (Populus x Euroamericana) plantations represent a traditional crop and a strategic fiber source in many European countries (Britt 2000), Cardias-Williams and (Thomas 2006), as well as in the temperate regions of North America and Asia (Heilman 1999), (Sedjo 1999). China, France, India, Italy, and Turkey each already produce over 1 M m^3 of poplar wood (IPC 2008).	Poplar is generally grown in industrial plantations, established at final density and clearcut after 7 to 30 years, depending on climate, soil fertility, varietal (or clone), and product target (Cogliastro et al. 1997). Intermediate rotations of 10 to 15 years are typical in the Mediterranean, where poplar plantations are geared to support a thriving veneer industry (Hongyuan 1992), (Castro and Zanuttini 2008). Central Europe’s most extended rotations are typical in countries such as Belgium and France, where poplar is also used for veneer and sawlog production (Cuchet et al. 2004). Growth rates vary between 15 and 45 m^3 ha^−1 year^−1, resulting in a stand stocking at harvest that ranges from 200 to over 600 m^3 ha^−1 (Picchio et al. 2008). Most plantations are designed to deliver high-quality timber, so value recovery is often a critical issue. Shorter rotations generally apply to those stands exclusively designed for pulp production, once popular in North America (Spinelli et al. 2008) and now spreading in Eastern Europe (Jansons et al. 2014).
Iberian Eucalyptus	In Europe, the Iberian Peninsula is the region with the highest concentration of Eucalyptus plantations, comprising an area (mostly E. globulus) with around 620,000 ha in (Spain MAPA 2020) and 845,000 ha in Portugal (ICNF 2019). The harvest levels of Eucalyptus have increased by around 3 M m^3 (with bark) in the last ten years (from ca. 4 to ca. 7 M m^3). According to the latest Spanish Forest Statistics Yearbook (Anuario de Estadística Forestal 2019), which compiles data collected in 2017, 86% of the harvest of evergreen species corresponded to Eucalyptus spp. The volume stock of E. globulus, E. camaldulensis, and E. nitens accounted for 79.6 M m^3, 5.5 M m^3, and 1 M m^3, respectively. These stocks are concentrated primarily in the northwest regions of Spain.	E. globulus plantations in the Iberian Peninsula are internationally recognized for their good yields. Annual volume increments can reach 50 m^3 ha^−1 year^−1, with averages ranging between 7 and 30 m^3 ha^−1year^−1 (Muñoz 2007); optimal rotations range between 8 and 12 years when trees are grown for the production of cellulose pulp (Rodriguez and Borges 1999).
South Africa	The 1.21 Mha of South African plantations only accounts for 1% of the country’s total land area (FSA 2017). Of the 1.21 Mha, softwoods (i.e. Pinus spp.) total about 619.000 ha, while the remaining area consists of hardwoods (i.e. Eucalyptus and Acacia spp.). Of the total plantation area, 57% is managed for pulpwood, 38 % for structural timber, 3% for mining timber, and 2% for other purposes (FSA 2017). The total plantation round wood production during 2016/2017 was 18.3 Mm^3, of which 37% was softwood and 63% hardwood. Total plantation roundwood sales were R10.1 billion (ca. 500 M USD) for the same period (FSA 2017). Of the 619,000 ha of softwood, 74% is managed for structural saw timber and 26% for pulpwood production. In contrast, around 87% of all the hardwood volume ends up in the pulp mills in South Africa. The pulp and paper industry consumes approximately 66% of all fiber supplied by the commercial forest industry in South Africa (FSA 2017).	Rotation lengths differ significantly depending on management objectives. Softwood structural timber is grown between 20 and 30 years before clear felling with at least three selections, thinning, and pruning during their lifetime. A final thinning will reduce the stem count to approximately 250 to 350 stems ha^−1. The final volumes for these stands are 250 to 450 m^3 ha^−1 of standing biomass at clear felling. Hardwood pulpwood, in contrast, is clear-felled between 10 to 15 years (site dependent) (ca. 125–150 m^3 ha^−1), and softwood pulpwood felled at around 15 years (at ca. 120 to 150 m^3 ha^−1). There is a hardwood structural production process, and the rotation ages around 25 years.
United States	Plantation forestry is minimal in the US since only approximately 11% of the timberland is planted (22 M ha). Most of the planted forest in the US is in the southern US states (67%-14.5 M ha). To a large degree, actively managed plantations are privately owned (Stanturf and Zhang 2003). In the southern US, plantations are mostly pines, comprising loblolly pine (P. taeda) in the coastal plains; slash pine (P. elliottii) in Florida and adjacent states; and increasingly longleaf pine (P. palustris) for restoration. In the western US, west of the Cascade Mountain range, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) plantations are dominant. In the northern and midwestern states of the US, native Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) is the fastest-growing tree. Interest in Aspen for fiber production has led to an interest in hybrid poplar in the Lake States, especially Minnesota. Eucalyptus plantations are primarily located in northern California. In Maine, hybrid larch (Larix spp.) was planted by one company for several years (Stanturf and Zhang 2003).	Pine plantations are harvested at 15–30 years for roundwood logs. Eucalyptus and poplar plantations for pulpwood chips are harvested after 6–10 years. Hybrid poplar plantations in the Pacific Northwest are mostly harvested at ages not exceeding 15 years for sawlogs and pulpwood chips, as a more favorable regulatory environment for intensive management and tax advantages.

Table 3. Harvesting systems, productivity and costs ported by the regional experts.

	Harvesting systems	Productivity and Costs
Australia	Most harvesting operations are conducted on relatively flat terrain with maximum slopes that do not exceed 15–20%; therefore, they are predominantly harvested with ground-based equipment. Cable logging or winch-assisted operations are less common and account for less than 10% of the total log harvest. FT, CTL, and in-field chipping (IFC) are the three major harvesting systems. The FT and CTL systems are the predominant systems in Eucalyptus globulus, Eucalyptus nitens and Radiata pine plantations, while IFC is the predominant system in Eucalyptus globulus plantations (Lambert et al. 2006) (Annex 1). The CTL system is the most common in Radiata pine operations. The harvester-processors cut about six to eight log types during harvesting, including 3.7, 4.9, 5.5, and 6.1 m long sawlogs and 2.4–3.6 m long pulpwood logs. Onboard computers installed on harvesters are widespread in Radiata pine operations to collect standard forest production data StanforD data (Strandgard et al. 2013), (Skogforsk 2014) for optimizing cross-cutting and maximizing the value recovery from the log types cut during harvesting. CTL is preferred in Radiata pine operations where the mix of products is complex (i.e.> 10 log assortments). For example, this is the case when tree size is relatively small (< 0.5 m^3), when tree quality is poor (bad tree form and high occurrence of branches), or when site fertility is poor. The CTL system is preferred to allow nutrients to remain on the site. The FT and the CTL systems are popular in Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus nitens operations (Acuna et al. 2017), (Ghaffariyan et al. 2019). Harvesters and processors cut short (about 5 m) and long (about 10 m) pulpwood logs during harvesting. Onboard computers installed in harvesters are rarely used in these hardwood operations, but some companies are starting to install onboard computers to collect StanforD data. The IFC operations in Australia are conducted on flat areas where operating space for locating the DDCs (delimber-debarker-chipper) landings is not a limitation. Woodchips are hauled to ports or static chip mills, whereas logging residues are either returned to the stump on poor-quality sites or chipped and sold as energy biomass on good-quality sites (Acuna et al. 2012).	The cost of the most common harvesting systems usually ranges between 11.5 and 23.6 USD/m^3 (Annex 1). These costs depend on several factors, including tree size, tree form and site quality.
Brazil	As the area of planted forests increased in Brazil, their silvicultural mechanization intensified, and harvesting equipment became larger and heavier (Suzuki et al. 2014); hence, harvesters have been replaced by feller-bunchers, which are more cost-effective in tree cutting (Bertin 2010). (Lopes and Pagnussat 2017) reported on the influence of technology, operator training, population conditions, mechanical availability, and operational efficiency in Brazilian plantations.).	During the first rotation of clear-cuts on flat terrain, a harvester produces between 19 and 31 m^3 PMH^−1, and forwarder productivity varies between 26 and 36 m^3 PMH^−1. The harvesting and forwarding hourly operational costs (i.e. in April 2018) are described by (Carvalho et al. 2018) to be respectively ca. 90 USD SMH^−1 and 73 USD SMH^−1. Thus, the cost of the harvesting system for logs at the roadside would vary between 4.9 and 7.5 USD m^−3. The feller-buncher operation is suitable for Eucalyptus coppice because it handles multiple stems from each stump. For example, a eucalyptus feller-buncher operation in Brazil, on flat terrain, reaches productivity between 40 and 50 m3 PMH^−1, with operational costs around 1.00 USD m^−3 (i.e. with average productivity of 48 m^3 PMH^−1) (Nascimento et al. 2011). (Miyajima et al. 2016) show that the slope is a limiting factor; on average, the feller-buncher productivity was 124 m^3 PMH^−1 for undulating slopes and up to 142 m^3 PMH^−1 on flat terrain. For the skidder operation, (Lopes et al. 2014) indicate an average cost of 1.60 USD m^−3 and productivity varying from 59 to 62 m^3 PMH^−1. However, it is still necessary to de-branch, debark, and cut-to-length the felled and skidded trees using a forestry wood processor, which adds an extra 2.13 USD m^−3 (Simões et al. 2014).
South East Asia	Eucalyptus: The dominant logging system consists of semi-mechanized harvesting operations. It includes essential manual work, where felling and crosscutting are the only motor-manual activities. Motor-manual felling is performed by one chainsaw operator who is exclusively responsible for felling trees and cross-cutting the stem sections. Next, a group of workers performs de-branching with a bush knife. Sectioning or marking assortments are manual operations performed by only one worker on-site. Subsequently, crosscutting is performed again by a chainsaw operator. Several workers carry the logs by hand and pile them at the harvesting site. Loading concludes the harvesting operation and is carried out manually by a group of workers or with a front-end grapple loader. The fully mechanized harvesting operation involves a small harvester and farm tractor with a timber trailer. The harvester felled, delimbed, measured the stems, and cut them into different assortments specified by the mill, and the timber trailer attached to a farm tractor transported the logs to the roadside. The loading of vehicles for long-distance transportation to mills is performed with a front-end grapple loader. However, fully mechanized harvesting is limited and is usually applied only in large-scale operations because of the high initial investment.Teak: the logging method that is commonly applied is the TL method. In this method, trees are felled, delimbed, and topped at the stump area by a chainsaw; then, trees are skidded to the roadside by an elephant, farm tractor, or skidder, depending on slope limitation and available resources. A self-loading truck or a front-ended grapple loader performs the primary transportation of logs. At log the landing, trees are crossed cut into 3, 4, and 6 m long logs and stacked into a pile for auction.Rubberwood: harvesting in Thailand applies both FT and CTL methods. Harvesting techniques can be divided into 1) cutting above the stump and 2) uprooting the stump. For the FT method, trees are felled by chainsaw, extracted by tractor or elephants to the roadside, and then trees are processed into short logs (2 m) and loaded onto the truck either by staffing or mechanized loading by an excavator. Where CTL is implemented, trees are pushed and pulled by a modified bulldozer or excavator until their stumps are uprooted. Then, it was followed by delimbing, cross-cutting with a chainsaw at the stump area, manually stacking, and mechanized loading to the truck by excavator or front-ended grapple tractor.	Eucalyptus: The mean felling and processing productivity are 0.5–4 m^3 SMH^−1 for the semi-mechanized system (Manavakun 2014), (Engler et al. 2016), with costs per product unit that range between 1.8 and 5 USD m^−3. The productivity of a fully mechanized harvesting system varies between 50–60 tonne day^−1, depending on extraction distance. Teak: In terms of productivity according to work phase can be summarized that felling by chainsaw 25–30 m^3 PMH^−1, skidding by elephant 5–10 m^3 PMH^−1, skidding by farm tractor 10–25 m^3 PMH^−1, skidding by skidder 15–20 m^3 PMH^−1, and primary transportation with self-loading truck 7–8 m^3 PMH^−1 (Rianthakool et al. 2018). The average harvesting cost is about 8–11 USD m^−3, depending on the equipment used (Rianthakool et al. 2018). Rubberwood: Productivity of tree felling by chainsaw varies between 20–60 m^3 PMH^−1, delimbing 7–21 m^3 PMH^−1, cross-cutting 5–11 m^3 PMH^−1, stacking 9–21 m^3 PMH^−1, manual loading 3–6 m^3 PMH^−1 and mechanized loading 16–22 m^3 PMH^−1 (Rianthakool and Sakai 2014).
European poplar	Harvesting techniques vary from place to place, but they all reflect the favorable work conditions offered by clear-cuts in flat terrain where poplar plantations are established (Picchio et al. 2008). When good-quality stems are appropriately merchandied, the yield of high-value veneer logs often exceeds 50% of the total volume. For that reason, most owners still look at mechanized cut-to-length harvesting with suspicion and favor motor-manual processing, which they deem more accurate (Marshall et al. 2006). In that case, trees are felled motor-manually or with a feller-buncher, and they are preferably processed with chainsaws before or after extraction to the roadside, depending on terrain conditions. In summer, many cutovers can be accessed with trucks; hence, extraction is unnecessary. The large trees obtained from the older Central European stands may exceed the size limits of mainstream CTL equipment and are processed motor-manually.	Mean felling and processing productivity is 6 and 9 m^3 SMH^−1, respectively, for the motor-manual and semi-mechanized systems, the latter consisting of mechanical felling by feller-buncher followed by motor-manual processing (Spinelli et al. 2011a). In contrast, fully mechanized felling and processing will raise productivity to over 20 m^3 SMH^−1 (Puttock et al. 2005). Poplar plantations offer such favorable conditions to mechanized harvesting that they are the only forest environment in Central Europe where harvesters can reach the same high-productivity levels as Nordic countries (Spinelli et al. 2010). Previous studies suggest mechanized processing does not significantly reduce value recovery (Spinelli and Magagnotti 2011b). Depending on tree size and harvesting technique, felling and processing costs will vary between 3 and 17 USD m^−3. In addition to this cost, an extraction cost of approximately 11 USD m^−3 should be added. Concerning shorter-rotation stands established for pulpwood production, abundant data are available for North America (Spinelli and Hartsough 2006). However, very little productivity data is available from Europe, where these plantations are still new and are only coming to the harvesting age. Early experiences suggest that an effective harvesting technique consists of mechanical felling and bunching, skidding to the roadside with a grapple skidder or an adapted farm tractor, and processing with a grapple saw or a slasher. Correctly deployed, this system incurs a total harvesting cost of 20 USD m^−3 (Spinelli et al. 2012).
Iberian Eucalyptus	A semi-mechanized system is usually employed for harvesting Eucalyptus stands destined for producing paper pulp; thus, the felling and cutting of the stems into logs is performed manually with a chainsaw, followed by mechanized processing with a processor’s head. The stems are usually cut into 2.5 m logs and then stacked for later transport to the loading area by a forwarder. A two-pass harvesting system is quite popular in Spain, where forestry residues are collected separately after the felling and cutting of stems have been completed. In the second phase, the residual forest biomass (branches, leaves, and bark that remain on the ground after removing stems) is compacted and bundled by a dedicated bundling machine. Bundles are then extracted by forwarders to the loading area and transported to end customers by trucks. Once at the factory, the bundles are chipped and used to produce the electricity required in the pulp production process or sold as a surplus to the National Electricity System (Sánchez-García 2016). In some areas, productivity studies are underway to explore efficiency gains and safety improvements that may result from fully mechanized systems. These systems include a harvester for felling the trees and processing the stems, usually cut into logs of over 5 m.	A wide range of productivity and costs can be observed in the region, depending on the level of mechanization, extraction distances, and scale of the operations.
South Africa	Regarding harvesting systems applied in South Africa, a study by (Wenhold et al. 2019) showed that 57% of operations are fully mechanized, and the rest are motor-manual based for all species and products. All hardwood pulpwood is debarked in the field, whether manually or mechanically. Regardless of the product, all softwoods are debarked at mill sites using various mechanical equipment. Mechanized CTL harvesting systems are becoming more prevalent in South Africa, but TL systems will remain in use for the foreseeable future, particularly in softwood pulp, veneer, and structural timber harvesting, where no debarking in-field is necessary. These TL systems mainly comprise motor-manual felling in tandem with cable skidders or being fully mechanized, including feller-bunchers and grapple skidders. There is a 35%:65% split between motor-manual and mechanized systems for hardwood pulpwood operations. The larger pulp companies have moved firmly to mechanization, while smaller landowners still use the more conventional motor-manual with manual debarking, stacking, and loading for secondary transport. The decision is primarily driven by the availability of capital to purchase mechanized systems and an economy of scale.	The productivity of the different operations ranges from 25 m^3 PMH^−1 for semi-mechanized systems to 85 m^3 PMH^−1 and more for feller-buncher and grapple skidder systems. In mechanized CTL operations, productivity in clear felling (average tree size of about 0.7 to 1.0 m^3 and species dependant), is between 50 and 80 m^3 PMH^−1 for a harvester and 25 to 35 m^3 PMH^−1 for a forwarder. The cost/m^3 is between R125/m^3 (7 USD) and R150/m^3 (8 USD), but the benefits of mechanized over motor-manual remain improved operational safety, improved product quality, and potentially higher rates of production associated with mechanization. These increases in productivity range from 9 to 12 m^3 PMH^−1 for the harvester and 18 to 22 m^3 PMH^−1 for forwarding (Hogg et al. 2011). However, the emergence of excavator-based harvesters as potentially suitable alternatives to purpose-built machines has opened a debate about the most suitable cost and productivity within the South African forestry environment and context. The number of excavator-based machines in South Africa and worldwide attests to their suitability in easy terrain, where leveling technology is not required. However, in steeper terrain, the outcomes are not that clear. A study in hardwood pulpwood stands indicates that the productivity of an excavator-based harvester decreases by 0.048m^3 PMH^−1 for every 1% increase in slope (Ackerman et al. 2018). Purpose-built machines are not significantly affected by the slope. A purpose-built harvester was found to have a higher mean productivity (16.24 m^3PMH^−1) greater than the excavator-based machine (13.00 m^3 PMH^−1), but this extra productivity came at a price as the excavator-based machine was more economical per cubic meter. The mean harvest cost for the purpose-built machine was 6.60 USD m^−3, while the excavator-based machine achieved a mean cost of 5.06 USD m^−3 (Ackerman et al. 2018).
United States	The systems applied in the loblolly pine plantations use traditional FT harvesting with a chainsaw or feller-buncher, followed by skidders, loaders, and delimbers. A recent study by (Conrad et al. 2013) described a harvest system of fiber in a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantation. The study in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina assessed harvesting productivity and costs with and without biomass energy extraction. Feller-buncher systems are operated in eucalyptus plantations in California (Spinelli et al. 2002). The cost of recovering sawlogs from pulpwood-sized plantations and cottonwood short-rotation farms was investigated in the past (Spinelli et al. 2008). The harvesting system used was the full-tree system, including a manual selection of stems suitable for sawlogs, mechanical felling, and bunching, forwarding to a landing, mechanized processing, and feeding into a chain-flail delimber-debarker-chipper (DDC) of pulpwood size stem sections.	Results of the (Conrad et al. 2013) study described conventional roundwood (only tree-length) southern pine commercial clearcut extraction system to be at 70.6 m^3 PMH^−1, with an average cut and load cost of 7.95 USD m^−3 (for roundwood loaded on truck). In the integrated option (roundwood and chips), the system productivity rate was 58 m^3 PMH^−1 (49.3 t PMH^−1) for roundwood extraction and 17.9 m^3 PMH^−1 (15.2 t PMH^−1) of woodchips for energy (Conrad et al. 2013). A similar study, in 28–33-year-old clearcut pine plantations (Pinus elliottii and Pinus taeda) was conducted in Georgia by Baker et al. (2010), in integrated harvesting of roundwood and woodchips with similar productivity (42–68 m^3 PMH^−1) and costs for roundwood (6.9 USD m^3). Eucalyptus: Felling and bunching productivity ranged from 24 to 32 m^3 PMH^−1. The productivity of the skidder/loader was 48–93 m^3 PMH^−1, and the delimber-debarker-chipper was 30–38 m^3 PMH^−1. The cost of the whole system ranged between 8- and 13 USD m^−3, depending on the tree size (Spinelli et al. 2002). Cottonwood: In the case of pulpwood production, productivity for a feller-buncher reached 42 m^3 PMH^−1, 92 m^3 PMH^−1 for forwarding, 17 m^3 PMH^−1 for processing and 60 m^3 PMH^−1 for the DDC. Trees/tree sections with smaller diameters are sorted into pulpwood production. Manual selection of trees suitable for sawlogs significantly increased total costs, representing 73% of the additional costs for sawlogs, compared to the exclusive production of pulpwood (Spinelli et al. 2008).

Figure 1. Removal volume as a function of rotation length (Pi = pine, Eu = Eucalyptus, Po = Poplar, Ac = Acacia, Tk = Teak). Dots and grey lines represent the average value and the variation range between x and y axes, respectively. (Country codes in the figure: AUS = Australia, BRA = Brazil, CHN = China, ESP = Spain, ITA = Italy, MYS = Malaysia, PRT = Portugal, THA =Thailand, US = United States, ZAF = South Africa).

Figure 2. Individual stem volume as a function of rotation length (Pi = Pine, Eu = Eucalyptus, Po = Poplar, Ac = Acacia, Tk = Teak, Rb = Rubberwood). Dots and grey lines represent the average value and the variation range in the x and y axes, respectively. (Country codes in the figure: AUS = Australia, BRA = Brazil, CHN = China, ESP = Spain, ITA = Italy, MYS = Malaysia, PRT = Portugal, THA =Thailand, US = United States, ZAF = South Africa).

Figure 3. Harvester productivity in Eucalyptus (Eu), Pine (Pi), and Poplar (Po) plantations as a function of stem volume. Dots and grey lines represent the average value and the variation range in the x and y axes, respectively. (Country codes in the figure: AUS = Australia, BRA = Brazil, ITA = Italy, PRT = Portugal, ZAF = South Africa).

Figure 4. Feller-buncher productivity in Eucalyptus (Eu), Pine (Pi), and Poplar (Po) plantations as a function of stem volume. Dots and grey lines represent the average value and the variation range in the x and y axes, respectively. (Country codes in the figure: AUS = Australia, BRA = Brazil, ITA = Italy, US = United States, ZAF = South Africa).

Figure 5. Forwarder productivity as a function of removal volume per hectare (top) and extraction distance (bottom) in Eucalyptus (Eu), Pine (Pi), and Poplar (Po) plantations. Dots and grey lines represent the average value and the variation range in the x and y axes, respectively. (Country codes in the figure: AUS = Australia, BRA = Brazil, ESP = Spain, ITA = Italy, PRT = Portugal, ZAF = South Africa).

Figure 6. Skidder productivity in Eucalyptus (Eu), Pine (Pi), and Teak (Tk) plantations as a function of removal volume per hectare (top) and extraction distance (bottom). Dots and grey lines represent the average value and the variation range in the x and y axes, respectively. (Country codes in the figure: AUS = Australia, BRA = Brazil, THA =Thailand, US = United States, ZAF = South Africa).

Figure 7. Processor productivity in Eucalyptus (Eu), Pine (Pi), and Poplar (Po) plantations as a function of stem volume. Dots and grey lines represent the average value and the variation range in the x and y axes, respectively. (Country codes in the figure: AUS = Australia, BRA = Brazil, ESP = Spain, ITA = Italy, US = United States, ZAF = South Africa).

Figure 8. Productivity of motor-manual operations in Eucalyptus (Eu), Pine (Pi), Poplar (Po), Teak (Tk), and Rubberwood (Rb) plantations as a function of stem volume. (ZAF Pi = South Africa felling with chainsaw, ITA Po = Italy felling and processing with chainsaw, PRT Eu = Portugal felling with chainsaw, CHN Eu = China felling and processing with chainsaw and manual extraction, THA Eu = Thailand felling and processing with brush saw and extraction with farm tractor, THA Tk = Thailand felling with chainsaw, THA Rb = Thailand felling and processing with chainsaw). Dots and grey lines represent the average value and the variation range in the x and y axes, respectively.

Figure 9. Number of observations by harvesting system and study region.

Figure 10. Regional harvesting costs at the roadside (felling, extraction to roadside, and stem processing) for the species included in the study (Eu = eucalyptus, Pi = Pine, Po = Poplar, Pa = Paraserianthes, Tk = Teak) during the period 2010–2020. Squares represent the average value; the grey lines are the cost variation ranges (min, max).

Figure 11. Cost breakdown by harvesting system (CTL, FT) and plantation type (Eu = Eucalyptus, Pi = Pine, Po = Poplar) in the study regions. Me = fully mechanized, Se = semi-mechanized.

Table A1. Benchmarking plantation characteristics, harvesting systems, productivity, and costs across the different study regions.

Country (Region)	Plantation characteristics (rotation length, stem volume, removal per hectare, products)	Harvesting system (CTL= cut to length, TL= tree-length, FT= full tree)	Net productivity (m^3 PMH^−1)	Hourly operational cost (USD SMH^−1)	Operational cost per unit of product (USD m^−3)	System cost per unit of product (USD m^−3)	References
Australia	Eucalyptus globulus, Eucalyptus nitens, 8–15 years rotations, stem volume 0.1–0.7 m^3, 200–325 m^3 ha^−1, pulp logs and pulp chips	CTL (logs, debarked and loaded)				17.7–23.4	Strandgard et al. (2019), Acuna et al. (2017), Lambert et al. (2006), Ghaffariyan (2013), Ghaffariyan and Brown (2013), McEwan et al. (2020), Strandgard et al. (2015), Strandgard et al. (2016)
		Tracked harvester (large excavator/specialized)	8–55	177	5.8–15.0
		Forwarder	34		5
		Loader
		FT (logs, debarked and loaded)				11.5–23.6
		Feller-buncher(tracked specialized)	65–140	133–198	2.2–3.6
		Grapple skidder	32–94	98–128	2.6–5.6
		Processor	5–66	117–147	8.4–15.8
		Loader	74–96	115	1.7–1.9
		FT (woodchips A)				12.9–21.9
		Feller-buncher (tracked specialized)	65–140	133–198	2.2–3.6
		Grapple skidder	32–94	98–128	2.6–5.6
		Delimber-debarker-chipper	50–51		8.2
		FT (woodchips B)				12.9–21.9
		Feller-buncher (tracked specialized)	65–140	133–198	2.2–3.6
		Grapple skidder	32–94	98–128	2.6–5.6
		Flail-delimber-debarker	64		5.2
		Chipper	64		5.7
Australia	Pinus radiata, 32–34 years rotation, stem volume 0.6–3.5 m^3, harvest volume 315–470 m^3 ha^−1, sawlogs and pulpwood logs	CTL				12.6–20.0	Strandgard et al. (2013), Acuna et al. (2011), Ghaffariyan et al. (2015)
		Tracked harvester (large specialized)	50–160	150
		Forwarder	86	101
		FT				15.5–19.6
		Feller-buncher (tracked specialized)	20–206
		Swing yarder	30–90
		Processor on excavator
Brazil	Eucalyptus ssp., E. grandis, E. grandis x urophylla, E. urograndis, 4–11 years rotation, stem volume 0.1–0.6 m^3, harvest volume 50–440 m^3 ha^−1, pulplogs/debarked pulplogs	CTL (A)				4.9–7.5	Moreira da Costa et al. (2017), Carvalho et al. (2018), Bertin (2010), Simoes and Ferres (2010) , Bramucci (2001), Do Nascimento Santos et al. (2018); Nascimento et al. (2011), Simões et al. (2014), Schettino et al. (2015), Miyajima (2019) , Nascimento et al. (2011) , Mac Donagh et al. (2017), de Oliveira Júnior and Seixas (2012), Seixas and Ferreira Batista (2012), Leite et al. (2014), Spinelli et al. (2018), Spinelli and Conrado de Arruda Moura (2019), Spinelli & Moura (2019)
		Tracked harvester (excavator based)	5–42	53–136	1.3–9.7
		Forwarder	29–44	72–73	1.8–2.5
		CTL (B)
		Feller-buncher (tracked excavator based)(felling)	107
		Processor (tracked excavator based) (processing in stand)	139
		FT (logs)				2.7–8.8
		Feller-buncher (tracked specialized)	10–80	81	0.5–2.5
		Grapple skidder	40–60		0.3–1.8
		Slasher/grapple processor	38–57		0.3–4.5
		FT (woodchips)
		Feller-buncher (tracked specialized)	10–80
		Grapple skidder	40–60
		Delimber-Debarker-Chipper	80–112
	Pinus ssp, P. taeda, age 15–39, stem volume 0.4–1.6 m^3, harvest volume 400–730 m^3 ha^−1, sawlogs and pulpwood	CTL					Lopes et al. (2007), Lopes et al. (2014), Pereira et al. (2015)
		Tracked harvester (excavator based)	32–34	115	3.4–3.6
		FT				1.8–2.6 (unprocessed)
		Feller-buncher (tracked specialized)	85–130	68	0.6–0.9
		Skidder	46–63	71–82	1.2–1.7
		CTL
		Tracked harvester (excavator based)	32–34	115	3.4–3.6
		FT				1.8–2.6 (unprocessed)
		Feller-buncher (tracked specialized)	85–130	68	0.6–0.9
		Skidder	46–63	71–82	1.2–1.7
China (South East Asia)	Eucalyptus grandis, 3–9 years rotation, stem volume 0.1 m^3, harvest volume 58–115 m^3 ha^−1, pulpwood	CTL	0.4–0.8 (whole system)			1.5–3.0	Engler et al. (2016)
		Motor-manual felling with the chainsaw
		Manual delimbing by knives
		Motor-manual bucking by chainsaw
		Manual extraction by gravity
		TL					Hoffmann et al. (2015)
		Chainsaw (felling and delimbing)
		Cable yarder	5.0–6.2	125	33.8–50.2
		Chainsaw (processing)
Thailand (South East Asia)	Eucalyptus ssp., 5–10 years rotation, stem volume 0.1 m^3, harvest volume 50–100 m^3 ha^−1, pulpwood	CTL	2.9–4.6 (whole system)	8.7–14.0		3.5–5.0	Manavakun (2014)
		Brush saw in felling and bucking
		Manual tools in delimbing and piling
		Farm tractor in extraction and loading/manual loading
	Teak, 20–40 years rotation, stem volume 0.86 m^3, harvest volume 130–170 m^3 ha^−1, sawed timber	TL				8–11	Rianthakool et al. (2018)
		Motor-manual felling with the chainsaw	25–30		1.09
		Elephant skidding	5–10		1.38
		Farm tractor	10–25		0.96
		Skidder	15–20
	Rubberwood, 25–30 years rotation, stem volume 0.27 m^3, sawed timber	CTL					Rianthakool and Sakai (2014)
		Felling with chainsaw	25.1	22.69	0.90
		Cross cutting with the chainsaw	23.1	22.67	0.98
Malaysia (South East Asia)	Acacia mangium, 10–15 years rotation, stem volume 0.2–1.2 m^3, harvest volume 85–365 m^3 ha^−1	FT					Engelbrecht et al. (2017)
		Chainsaw
		Excavator (bunching)
		Cable yarder	15–133
		Excavator with grapple
Philippines (South East Asia)	Paraserianthes falcata, 8–10 years rotation, veneer and plywood	CTL				13.8	Carandang et al. (2015)
		Chainsaw felling and processing			2.7
		Extraction with animal, manual, wrecker			11.1
Italy (European Poplar)	Populus ssp., 10–23 years rotation, stem volume 0.4–1.6 m^3, harvest volume 200–600 m^3 ha^−1, production of veneer, sawlogs, pulpwood and woodchips	CTL (motor-manual)				18.1–28.1	Spinelli et al. (2008), Spinelli et al. (2010), Spinelli et al. (2011a, 2011b),) Verani et al. (2017)
		Chainsaw	2–9	28	7.0–17.0
		Farm tractor	15–22		11.1
		CTL (semi-mechanized)				18.1–28.1
		Feller-buncher (excavator based)(felling)	12–13	141	7.0–17.0 (incl. proces.)
		Chainsaw (processing)	8–12	28	11.1
		Farm tractor
		CTL mechanized			5.0–13.0	14.7–24.1
		Harvester (wheeled specialized)	20–60	146	11.1
		Farm tractor	15–22
		Forwarder	29–36
		FT mechanized				20.8
		Feller-buncher (excavator based)
		Grapple skidder
		Processor	14.3
Spain andPortugal (Iberian Eucalyptus)	Eucalyptus globulus, Eucalyptus spp., 10–14 years rotation, stem volume 0.1 m^3, harvest volume 90–270 m^3 ha^−1, short logs and pulpwood	CTL (motor-manual)					CETEMAS-ENCE (2019) Spinelli et al. (2004) Magagnotti et al. (2011), Dias et al. (2007)
		Chainsaw	4
		Farm tractor	12
		CTL semi-mechanized				7.7–10.6
		Chainsaw (felling)	23–32	16	0.6–0.8
		Harvester (tracked excavator based) (processing)	22–26	71	3.5–3.6
		Forwarder/Farm tractor and trailer	9–19	47–93	3.0–6.2
		CTL mechanized				16.3–29.4
		Harvester (wheeled specialized)	3–33	115
		Forwarder	9–19	48–93
South Africa	Eucalyptus grandis x camaldulensis, E. grandis, 7–12 years rotation, stem volume 0.1–0.5 m^3, harvest volume 118–160 m^3 ha^−1, pulpwood	CTL (debarked)				7.0–8.0	Ackerman et al. (2018) Norihiro et al. (2018) Hogg et al. (2011)
		Harvester (tracked eexcavator based/specialized wheeled incl. debarking)	13–20	137	5.3–8.9
		FT (debarked)				4.8–5.8
		Feller-buncher (wheeled specialized)			0.8–0.9
		Grapple Skidder			1.0–1.2
		Excavator with processor head (delimbing/debarking and topping)	18–28		1.8–2.9
		Slasher deck			0.9
	Pinus radiata, P. elliottii, P. patula, P. pinaster, 20–30 + years rotation, Stem volume 0.3–1 m^3, harvest volume 257–481 m^3 ha^−1, sawlogs, plywood, pulpwood	CTL (no debarking)				9.0–9.5	Ackerman et al. (2017), Brewer et al. (2018), Williams and Ackerman (2016), Williams and Ackerman (2019), Eggers et al. (2010), Ackerman et al. (2016), Pellegrini et al. (2013), Ackerman et al. (2014)
		Tracked harvester (specialized)	21–101	90–120	2.6
		Forwarder	28–57	75–110	1.9
		TL motor-manual (no debarking)				3.6–5.0
		Chainsaw	10–13	10–25	1.1–1.5
		Grapple Skidder	9–46	80–100
		Cable Skidder	20–45	70–80
		Chainsaw	20–25	10–25
		Processor	40–50	80–90	5.0–6.3
		FT mechanized (no debarking)				4.0–4.4 (unprocessed)
		Feller-buncher (specialized)	80–120	80–90
		Grapple/Cable Skidder	44–124	70–80
US	Pinus taeda, P. elliottii, 14–30 years rotation, Stem volume 0.2–0.6 m^3, Harvest volume 80–223 m^3 ha^−1, sawlogs, pulpwood, pulp chips	FT (logs)				6.9–8.3	Conrad et al. (2013), Daniel et al. (2019) Baker et al. (2010) Klepac and Mitchell (2016) Klepac and Mitchell (2017) Klepac and Rummer (2000)
		Feller-buncher (specialized tracked)	82–149
		Grapple skidder	24–113	55–69	1.6–2.0
		Delimber/Loader delimber	43–63		1.5–1.9
		Processor/Processor on excavator	43–94
		Loader	43–63
	Eucalyptus camaldulensis, E viminalis, 7–10 years rotation, Stem volume 0.1–0.2 m^3, pulp chips	FT (pulpchips)				8.2–12.9	Spinelli et al. (2002)
		Feller-buncher (specialized wheeled/tracked)	24–32	53–94	2.4–4.8
		Skidder/Loader	49–83	62–69	1.2–1.8
		Deliber-debarker-chipper	30–38	157–169	4.5–6.3
	Poplar spp., 6–8 years rotation, Stem volume 0.13 m^3, sawlogs, pulp chips	FT (pulpchips)				5.2	Spinelli et al. (2008), Hartsough et al. (2002)
		Feller-buncher	42	82	1.8
		Forwarder	92	89	0.9
		Delimber-debarker-chipper	60	175	2.6
		FT (sawlogs)				17.4
		Feller-buncher	42	82	1.8
		Forwarder	92	89	0.9
		Manual selection	5	75	14.5
		Processor (on excavator)	17	80	5.3

ABARES. 2019, November. Australian forest and wood products statistics, March and June quarters 2019. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra. CC BY 4.0. [accessed 2020 March 6]. doi: 10.25814/5dd613f2cf61a.

 Google Scholar

Acuna M, Strandgard M, Wiedemann J, Mitchell R. 2017. Impacts of early thinning of a eucalyptus globulus Labill. Pulplog Plantation in Western Australia on economic profitability and harvester productivity. Forests. 8(11):415. doi: 10.3390/f8110415.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

SNIF Boletim SNIF. 2018. Bulletin The National Forest Information System – SNIF. [accessed 2020 Nov 11]. http://www.florestal.gov.br/documentos/publicacoes/4092-boletim-snif-2018-ed1/file.

 Google Scholar

IBÁ Relatório. 2022. Indústria brasileira de árvores [Brazilian Trees Industry]. Brasília: IBÁ.

 Google Scholar

Guedes ICL, Coelho Júnior LM, Oliveira AD, Mello JM, Rezende JLP, Silva CPC. 2011. Economic analysis of replacement regeneration and coppice regeneration in eucalyptus stands under risk conditions. Cerne. 17(3):393–401. doi: 10.1590/S0104-77602011000300014.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Britt C. 2000. Poplars: a multiple-use crop for European arable farmers. In: Poplar and willow culture: meeting the needs of society and the environment. Minnesota: USDA Forest Service, St. Paul. GTR-NC-215; p. 24.

 Google Scholar

Cardias-Williams F, Thomas T. 2006. Some key issues concerning current poplar production and future marketing in the United Kingdom. New For. 31(3):343–359. doi: 10.1007/s11056-005-8197-7.

 Google Scholar

Heilman P. 1999. Planted forests: poplars. New For. 17(1/3):89–93. doi: 10.1023/A:1006515204167.

 Google Scholar

Sedjo R. 1999. The potential of high-yield plantation forestry for meeting timber needs. New For. 17(1/3):339–360. doi: 10.1023/A:1006563420947.

 Google Scholar

IPC. 2008. International poplar commission 23rd session. Beijing, China. Synthesis of Country Progress Reports. www.fao.org/forestry/ipc2008/en.

 Google Scholar

Cogliastro A, Gagnon D, Bouchard A. 1997. Experimental determination of soil characteristics optimal for the growth of ten hardwoods planted on abandoned farmland. For Ecol Manage. 96(1–2):49–63. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00042-X.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hongyuan X. 1992. The culture history and breeding strategy of poplar in Italy. J For Res. 3(2):95–100. doi: 10.1007/BF02843043.

 Google Scholar

Castro G, Zanuttini R. 2008. Poplar cultivation in Italy: history, state of the art, perspectives. Proceedings of the Cost Action E44 Final Conference in Milan on a European wood processing strategy: future resources matching products and innovations. Milan, Italy; 30 May 2008 141–154.

 Google Scholar

Cuchet E, Roux P, Spinelli R. 2004. Performance of a logging residue bundler in the temperate forests of France. Biomass Bioenergy. 27(1):31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.10.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Picchio R, Verani S, Spinelli R, Picchi G. 2008. Field Handbook – Poplar Harvesting. International Poplar Commission Working Paper IPC/8. Rome: Forest Management Division, FAO.

 Google Scholar

Spinelli R, Hartsough BR, Moore PW. 2008. Recovering sawlogs from pulpwood-size plantation cottonwood. For Prod J. 58(4):80–84.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jansons A, Zurkova S, Ladzina D, Zeps M. 2014. Productivity of poplar hybrid (Populus balsamifera x P. laurifolia) in Latcia. Agron Res. 12(2):469–478.

 Google Scholar

MAPA. 2020. Anuario de Estadística Forestal 2020. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación.

 Google Scholar

ICNF. 2019. 6º Inventário Florestal Nacional - Relatório Final. Lisboa, Portugal: Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas.

 Google Scholar

Spanish Forest Statistics Yearbook. 2019. Anuario de Estadística Forestal Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Madrid: Gobierno de España. https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/estadisticas/forestal_anuarios_todos.aspx.

 Google Scholar

Muñoz G. 2007. Aspectos particulares de la ordenación de plantaciones de eucalipto (Eucalyptus globulus Labill.). Boletín del CIDEU; p. 171–180.

 Google Scholar

Rodriguez LCE, Borges JG. 1999. Técnicas matemáticas para determinação de níveis sustentáveis de produção florestal. Rev For. 12(1/2):83–92.

 Google Scholar

FSA. 2017. The South African forestry and forest products industry 2015. https://forestry.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/South-African-Forestry-Forest-Products-Industry-2015-R.

 Google Scholar

Stanturf JA, Zhang D. 2003. Plantations forests in the United States of America: past, present and future. http://www.fao.org/3/xii/0325-b1.htm.

 Google Scholar

Lambert J, Quill D, Bren LJ. 2006, December. Growth in blue gum forest harvesting and haulage requirements in the green triangle 2007-2020. CRC Forestry, consultant report. Hobart: Australia; p. 120

 Google Scholar

Strandgard M, Walsh D, Acuna M. 2013. Estimating harvester productivity in pinus radiata plantations using StanForD stem files. Scand J Forest Res. 28(1):73–80. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2012.706633.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Skogforsk. 2014. [accessed 2010 March 6]. https://www.skogforsk.se/english/projects/stanford/.

 Google Scholar

Acuna M, Strandgard M, Wiedemann J, Mitchell R. 2017. Impacts of early thinning of a Eucalyptus plantation in Western Australia on economic profitability and harvester productivity. Forests. 8(11):415. doi: 10.3390/f8110415.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ghaffariyan M, Acuna M, Brown M. 2019. Machine productivity evaluation for harvesters and forwarders in thinning operations in Australia. Silva Balcanica. 20(2):13–25.

 Google Scholar

Acuna M, Mirowski L, Ghaffariyan MR, Brown M. 2012. Optimising transport efficiency and costs in Australian wood chipping operations. Biomass Bioenergy. 46(2012):291–300. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.08.014.

 Google Scholar

Suzuki L, Lima CLR, Reinert DJ, Reichert JM, Pillon CN. 2014. Estrutura e armazenamento de água em um Argissolo sob pastagem cultivada, floresta nativa e povoamento de eucalipto no Rio Grande do Sul [Water structure and storage in an Argisol under cultivated pasture, native forest and eucalyptus stand in Rio Grande do Sul]. Rev Bras Ciênc do Solo. 38(1):94–106.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bertin VAS. 2010. Análise de dois modais de sistemas de colheita mecanizados de eucalipto em primeira rotação [Analysis of two modes of mechanized Eucalyptus harvesting systems in first rotation]. Dissertação (Mestrado em Agronomia Energia na Agricultura). Botucatu: Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho.

 Google Scholar

Lopes ES, Pagnussat MB. 2017. Effect of the behavioral profile on operator performance in timber harvesting. Int J For Eng. 28(3):134–139. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2017.1328847.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carvalho LME, Silva CS, Leite AMP. 2018. Simulação de cenário de variação da eficiência operacional e da produtividade no desempenho e custo das atividades de corte e extração florestal. [Simulation of operating efficiency and productivity variation scenario in the performance and cost of logging and logging activities]. In: Malinovski J, Malinovski R, Malinovski R, Oliveira E, Preto R. editors. Anais of 18o. Seminário de Colheita e Transporte de Madeira. Brasília: Embrapa; p. 27–30.

 Google Scholar

Nascimento AC, Leite AMP, Soares TS, Freitas LC. 2011. Technical and economical analysis of the forest harvesting with Feller-Buncher. CERNE. 17(1):9–15. doi: 10.1590/S0104-77602011000100002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Miyajima RH, Tonin RP, De Souza Passos JR, Fenner PT. 2016. A influência da declividade do terreno e do tempo de experiência dos operadores no rendimento do feller buncher. Sci For. 44(110):443–451. doi: 10.18671/scifor.v44n110.17.

 Google Scholar

Lopes ES, Oliveira D, Sampietro JA. 2014. Influence of wheeled types of a skidder on productivity and cost of the forest harvesting. Floresta. 44(1):1. doi: 10.5380/rf.v44i1.31356.

 Google Scholar

Simões D, Fenner PT, Esperancini MST. 2014. Productivity and costs of feller buncher and forest processor in stands of eucalypt in first cut. Ciênc Florest. 24:3. doi: 10.5902/1980509815742.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Manavakun N. 2014. Harvesting operations in eucalyptus plantations in Thailand [ Doctoral Dissertation]. Finnish Society of Forest Science, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry at the University of Helsinki; https://dissertationesforestales.fi/pdf/article1960.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Engler B, Becker G, Hoffmann S. 2016. Process mechanization models for improved Eucalyptus plantation management in Southern China based on the analysis of currently applied semi-mechanized harvesting operations. Biomass Bioenergy. 87:96–106. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.02.021.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rianthakool R, Kaakkurivaara N, Diloksampun P, Arunpraparut W. 2018. Supply chain operations in teak plantation. Proceedings of the 6th International Forest Engineering Conference (FEC). Rotorua, New Zealand; 16-19 April 2018.

 Google Scholar

Rianthakool R, Sakai H. 2014. Short wood harvesting and pickup truck transportation during regeneration of rubber plantations. Bull Univ Tokyo For. 130:45–58.

 Google Scholar

Marshall H, Murphy G, Boston K. 2006. Evaluation of the economic impacts of length and diameter measurement error on mechanical harvesters and processors operating in pine stands. Can J For Res. 36(7):1661–1673. doi: 10.1139/x06-064.

 Google Scholar

Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Nati C. 2011a. Work quality and veneer value recovery of mechanized and manual log-making in Italian poplar plantations. Eur J Forest Res. 130(5):737–744. doi: 10.1007/s10342-010-0464-2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Puttock D, Spinelli R, Hartsough B. 2005. Operational trials of cut-to-length harvesting of poplar in a mixed wood stand. Int J For Eng. 16(1):39–49. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2005.10702506.

 Google Scholar

Spinelli R, Hartsough B, Magagnotti N. 2010. Productivity standards for harvesters and processors in Italy. For Prod J. 60(3):226–235. doi: 10.13073/0015-7473-60.3.226.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Spinelli R, Magagnotti N. 2011b. Strategies for the processing of tree tops from hybrid poplar plantations. Balt For. 17(1):50–57.

 Google Scholar

Spinelli R, Hartsough B. 2006. Harvesting SRF poplar for pulpwood: experience in the Pacific Northwest. Biomass Bioenerg. 30(5):439–445. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.11.021.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Spinelli R, Schweier J, De Francesco F. 2012. Harvesting techniques for non-industrial forestry plantations. Biosyst Eng. 113(4):319–324. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.09.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sánchez-García S. 2016. Potential biomass use in Asturias: GIS analysis, yields, costs and logistics [ Doctoral thesis]. http://hdl.handle.net/10651/38974.

 Google Scholar

Wenhold R, Ackerman P, Ackerman S, Gagliardi K. 2019, March 1. Skills development of mechanized softwood saw timber cut-to-length harvester operators on the Highveld of South Africa. Int J For Eng. 31(1):9–18. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2019.1578561.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hogg G, Pulkki R, Ackerman P. 2011. Excavator-based processor operator productivity and cost analysis in Zululand, South Africa. South For J For Sci. 73(2):109–115. doi: 10.2989/20702620.2011.610874.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ackerman P, Martin C, Brewer J, Ackerman S. 2018. Effect of slope on productivity and cost of eucalyptus pulpwood harvesting using single-grip purpose-built and excavator-based harvesters. Int J For Eng. 29(2):74–82. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2018.1431491.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Conrad JL, Bolding MC, Aust WM, Smith RL, Horcher A. 2013. Harvesting productivity and costs when utilizing energywood from pine plantations of the southern Coastal Plain USA. Biomass Bioenergy. 52:85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.038.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Spinelli R, Hartsough BR, Owende PMO, Ward SM. 2002. Productivity and cost of mechanized whole-tree harvesting of fast-growing eucalypt stands. Int J For Eng. 13(2):49–60. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2002.10702462.

 Google Scholar

Baker SA, Westbrook MDJ, Greene WD. 2010. Evaluation of integrated harvesting systems in pine stands of the southern United States. Biomass Bioenergy. 34(5):720–727. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.014.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Strandgard M, Mitchell R, Wiedemann J. 2019. Comparison of productivity, cost and chip quality of four balanced harvest systems operating in a Eucalyptus globulus Plantation in Western Australia. Croat J For Eng. 40:1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ghaffariyan MR. 2013. Comparing productivity-cost of roadside processing system and road side chipping system in Western Australia. J for Sci. 59(5):204–210. doi: 10.17221/81/2012-JFS.

 Google Scholar

Ghaffariyan MR, Brown M. 2013. Selecting the efficient harvesting method using multiple-criteria analysis: a case study in south-west Western Australia. J for Sci. 59(12):479–486. doi: 10.17221/45/2013-JFS.

 Google Scholar

McEwan A, Marchi E, Spinelli R, Brink M. 2020. Past, present and future of industrial plantation forestry and implication on future timber harvesting technology. J For Res. 31(2):339–351. doi: 10.1007/s11676-019-01019-3.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Strandgard M, Walsh D, Mitchell R. 2015. Productivity and cost of whole‑tree harvesting without debarking in a Eucalyptus nitens plantation in Tasmania, Australia. South For. 77(3):173–178. doi: 10.2989/20702620.2014.1001669.

 Google Scholar

Strandgard M, Mitchell R, Acuna M. 2016. General productivity model for single grip harvesters in Australian eucalypt plantations. Aust For. 79(2):108–113. doi: 10.1080/00049158.2015.1127198.

 Google Scholar

Acuna M, Skinnell J, Evanson T, Mitchell R. 2011. Bunching with a self-levelling feller-buncher on steep terrain for efficient yarder extraction [utjecaj sakupljanja stabala feler-bančerom na strmom terenu na učinkovito iznošenje drva žičarom]. Croat J For Eng. 32(2):521–531.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ghaffariyan MR, Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Brown M. 2015. Integrated harvesting for conventional log and energy wood assortments: a case study in a pine plantation in Western Australia, southern forests. South For J For Sci. 77(4):249–254. doi: 10.2989/20702620.2015.1052946.

 Google Scholar

Moreira da Costa E, da Cunha Marzano FL, Cardoso Machado C, da Silva Leite E. 2017. Performance and operational costs of a harvester in a low productivity forest. Rev Eng Agric. 25(2):124–131. doi: 10.13083/reveng.v25i2.751.

 Google Scholar

Simoes D, Ferres PT. 2010. Influência do relevo na produtividade e custos do harvester. Influence of relief in productivity and costs of harvester. Sci For Piracicaba. 38(85):107–114.

 Google Scholar

Bramucci M. 2001. Determinação e quantificação de fatores de influência sobre a produtividade de “harvester” na colheita de madeira [Determination and quantification of factors influencing the harvester productivity in wood harvesting]. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciências Florestais) - Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz. Piracicaba: Universidade de São Paulo.

 Google Scholar

Do Nascimento Santos DWF, Fernandes HC, Magalhães Valente DS, Meira Gomes B, Pinheiro Dadalto J, da Silva Leite E. 2018. Desempenho técnico e econômico de distintos modelos de forwarders. Nativa Sinop. 6(3):305–308. Pesquisas Agrárias e Ambientais. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.31413/nativa.v6i3.5070.

 Google Scholar

Schettino S, Minette LJ, Souza AP. 2015. Correlation between volumetry of eucalyptus forests and productivity and costs of wood harvesting machines. Rev Árvore. 39(5):935–942. doi: 10.1590/0100-67622015000500016.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Miyajima RH. 2019. Modelagem da produtividade e dos custos de máquinas na colheita de eucalipto [Modeling machine productivity and costs in eucalyptus harvesting]. Tese (Doutorado em Ciências Florestal). Botucatu: Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho.

 Google Scholar

Mac Donagh P, Botta G, Schlichter T, Cubbage F. 2017. Harvesting contractor production and costs in forest plantations of Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. Int J For Eng. 28(3):157–168. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2017.1360657.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Oliveira Júnior ED, Seixas F. 2012. Energy Analysis of two eucalyptus harvesting systems in Brazil. 35th Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting. New Bern, North Carolina.

 Google Scholar

Seixas F, Ferreira Batista JL. 2012. Use of wheeled harvesters and excavators in eucalyptus harvesting in brazil. 35th Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting. New Bern, North Carolina.

 Google Scholar

Leite ES, Fernandes HC, Guedes IL, Do Amaral EJ. 2014. Technical and economic analysis of semimechanized harvest of eucalyptus in different spacing [Análise técnica e de custos do corte florestal semimecanizado em povoamentos de eucalipto em diferentes espaçamentos. Cerne. 20(4):637–643. doi: 10.1590/01047760201420041340.

 Google Scholar

Spinelli R, Conrado de Arruda Moura A, Manoel da Silva P. 2018. Decreasing the diesel fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of industrial in-field chipping operations. J Clean Prod. 172:2174–2181. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.196.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Spinelli R, Conrado de Arruda Moura A. 2019. Productivity and utilization benchmarks for chain flail delimber-debarkers-chippers 2019 used in fast-growing plantations Croat. J For Eng. 40(1):65–80.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Spinelli R, Moura ACA. 2019. Productivity and utilization benchmarks for chain flail delimber-debarkers-chippers used in fast-growing plantations. Croat J for Eng. 40(1):65–80.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lopes ES, Cruziniani E, Dias NA, Fiedler NC. 2007. Avaliação técnica e econômica do corte de madeira de pinus com cabeçote harvester em diferentes condições operacionais. Floresta. 37(3):3. doi: 10.5380/rf.v37i3.9926.

 Google Scholar

Pereira ALN, Lopes ES, Dias AN. 2015. Technical and cost analysis of feller buncher and skidder on wood harvesting in different stand productivity. Ciênc Florest. 25(4):981–989. doi: 10.5902/1980509820659.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hoffmann S, Jaeger D, Schoenherr S, Talbot B. 2015. Challenges in mechanization efforts of small diameter eucalyptus harvesting operations with a low capacity running skyline yarder in Southern China. Forests. 6(12):2959–2981. doi: 10.3390/f6092959.

 Google Scholar

Engelbrecht R, McEwan A, Spinelli R. 2017. A robust productivity model for grapple yarding in fast-growing tree plantations. Forests. 8(10):396. doi: 10.3390/f8100396.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carandang AP, Carandang MG, Camacho LD, Camacho SC, Aguilon BC, Gevaña DT. 2015. Profitability of smallholder private tree plantations in Talacogon, Agusan Del Sur, Philippines. Ecosyst Dev J. 5(3):3–11.

 Google Scholar

Spinelli R, Hartsough B, Moore P. 2008. Recovering sawlogs from pulpwood-size plantation cottonwood. For Prod J. 58:80–84.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Verani S, Sperandio G, Civitarese V, Spinelli R. 2017. La meccanizzazione nella raccolta di impianti di arboricoltura da legno: produttività di lavoro e costi. Forest. 14(4):237–246. http://www.sisef.it/forest@/contents/?id=efor2389-014.

 Google Scholar

CETEMAS-ENCE. 2019. Primary field data from ENCE company working in the North of Spain collected and evaluated by CETEMAS (Forest and Wood Technology Research Centre of Asturias) in 2019 at Province of Lugo and Coruña [ unpublished].

 Google Scholar

Spinelli R, Owende PMO, Ward SM, Tornero M. 2004. Comparison of short-wood forwarding systems used in Iberia. Silva Fenn. 38(1):85–94. doi: 10.14214/sf.437.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Magagnotti N, Nati C, Pari L, Spinelli R, Visser R. 2011. Assessing the cost of stump-site debarking in eucalypt plantations. Biosyst Eng. 110(4):443–449. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.09.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dias AC, Arroja L, Capela I. Carbon dioxide emissions from forest operations in Portuguese eucalypt and maritime pine stands. 2007. Scand J Forest Res. 22(5):422–432. doi: 10.1080/02827580701582692.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Norihiro J, Ackerman P, Spong BD, Längin D. 2018. Productivity model for cut-to-length harvester operation in South African eucalyptus pulpwood plantations. Croat J For Eng. 39(1):1–13.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ackerman P, Williams C, Ackerman S, Nati C. 2017. Diesel consumption and carbon balance in South African pine clear-felling CTL operations: a preliminary case study. Croat J For Eng. 38(1):65–72.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brewer J, Talbot B, Belbo H, Ackerman P, Ackerman S. 2018. A comparison of two methods of data collection for modelling productivity of harvesters: manual time study and follow-up study using on-board-computer stem records. Ann For Res. 61(1):109–124. doi: 10.15287/afr.2018.962.

 Google Scholar

Williams C, Ackerman P. 2016. Cost-productivity analysis of South African pine sawtimber mechanized cut-to-length harvesting. Vol. 78, Southern Forests; p. 267–274.

 Google Scholar

Williams C, Ackerman P. 2019. South African pine cut-to-length harvesting: an analysis of fibre loss and productivity. Croat J For Eng. 40(1):55–63.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eggers J, McEwan A, Conradie B. 2010. Saw timber tree optimisation in South Africa: a comparison of mechanized tree optimisation (harvester/processor) versus current manual methods. South For J For Sci. 72(1):23–30. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/20702620.2010.481099.

 Google Scholar

Ackerman P, Pulkki R, Odhiambo B. 2016. Comparison of cable skidding productivity and cost: pre-choking mainline versus tagline systems. Croat J For Eng. 37(2):261–268.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pellegrini M, Ackerman P, Cavalli R. 2013. On-board computing in forest machinery as a tool to improve skidding operations in South African softwood sawtimber operations. South For J For Sci. 75(2):89–96. doi: 10.2989/20702620.2013.785107.

 Google Scholar

Ackerman P, Pulkki R, Gleasure E. 2014. Modelling of wander ratios, travel speeds and productivity of cable and grapple skidders in softwood sawtimber operations in South Africa. South For J For Sci. 76(2):101–110. doi: 10.2989/20702620.2014.917355.

 Google Scholar

Daniel MJ, Gallagher T, Mitchell D, McDonald T, Via B. 2019. Productivity and cost estimates for incorporating tracked processors into conventional loblolly pine harvesting regimes in the Southeastern United States. Int J For Eng. 30(2):155–162. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2019.1611131.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Klepac J, Mitchell D. 2016. Comparison of four harvesting systems in a Loblolly Pine Plantation. Prof Agric Workers J. 4(1):9.

 Google Scholar

Klepac J, Mitchell D. 2017. Evaluation of a tracked feller-buncher harvesting plantation loblolly pine. USDA, Forest Service US. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2017/ja_2017_mitchell_003.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Klepac J, Rummer B. 2000. Productivity and cost comparison of two different-sized skidders. Written for Presentation at the 2000 ASAE Annual International Meeting, Midwest Express Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA; July 9-12 2000.

 Google Scholar

Hartsough BR, Spinelli R, Pottle SJ. 2002. Delimbing hybrid poplar prior to processing with a flail/chipper. For Prod J. 52(4):85–93.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar