Evaluation of the Hitman PH330 acoustic assessment system for harvesters

References

• ACS. 2011. Timer Pro Professional v10/9.6.11. Englewood (CO): Applied Computer Services. [Internet]. [cited 2011 Sep 19]. Available from: www.acsco.com
   Google Scholar
• Acuna M, Heidersdorf E. 2008. Harvesting machine evaluation framework for Australia. CRC for Forestry Draft Technical Report. Hobart: CRC for Forestry, 33 p.
   Google Scholar
• Alam M, Walsh D, Strandgard M, Brown M. 2014. A log-by-log productivity analysis of two Valmet 475EX harvesters. Int J For Eng. 25:14–22.
   Google Scholar
• Auty D, Achim A. 2008. The relationship between standing tree acoustic assessment and timber quality in Scots pine and the practical implications for assessing timber quality from naturally regenerated stands. Forestry. 81:475–487. 10.1093/forestry/cpn015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailleres H, Hopewell G, Boughton G. 2009. MOE and MOR assessment technologies for improving graded recovery of exotic pines in Australia. Project No. PNB040-0708. Melbourne: Forest & Wood Products Australia Ltd, 85 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Blakemore P, Cown D, Dumbrell I, McKinley R, Lyon A, Barr B, Northway R. 2010. Western Australian softwood resource evaluation: a survey of key characteristics of the Pinus radiata and Pinus pinaster resources in Western Australia with links to product performance of trees sampled from each resource, as determined by a processing study. Project No. PNC059–0809. Melbourne: Forest & Wood Products Australia Ltd, 82 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Carter P, Chauhan S, Walker J. 2006. Sorting logs and lumber for stiffness using Director HM200. Wood Fibre Sci. 38:49–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickson RL, Joe B, Harris P, Holtorf S, Wilkinson C. 2004. Acoustic segregation of Australian-grown Pinus radiata logs for structural board production. Aust For. 67:261–266. 10.1080/00049158.2004.10674944
   Google Scholar
• Edlund J, Lindstrom H, Nilsson F, Reale M. 2006. Modulus of elasticity of Norway spruce sawlogs vs. structural lumber grade. Holz als Roh und Werkstoff [Eur J Wood Wood Prod]. 64:273–279. 10.1007/s00107-005-0091-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gujarati D. 1970. Use of dummy variables in testing for equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions: a note. Am Statistician. 24:50–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilic J, Northway R, Pongracic S. 2003. Juvenile wood characteristics, effects and identification literature review. Project No. PN02–1907. Melbourne: Forest & Wood Products Australia Ltd, 20 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Jones TG, Emms GW. 2010. Influence of acoustic velocity, density, and knots on the stiffness grade outturn of radiata pine logs. Wood Fibre Sci. 42:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellogg LD, Bettinger P. 1994. Thinning productivity and cost for a mechanized cut-to-length system in the North-west pacific coast region of the USA. Int J For Eng. 5:43–54.
   Google Scholar
• Matheson AC, Dickson RL, Spencer DJ, Joe B, Ilic J. 2002. Acoustic segregation of Pinus radiata logs according to stiffness. Ann For Sci. 59:471–477. 10.1051/forest:2002031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minitab. 2012. Minitab® statistical software v16. Pennsylvania (PA): Minitab [Internet]. [cited 2011 Nov 30]. Available from: www.minitab.com
   Google Scholar
• Mochan S, Connolly T, Moore J. 2009. Using acoustic tools in forestry and the wood supply chain. Edinburgh (UK): Forestry Commission Technical Note 018.
   Google Scholar
• Nakagawa M, Hamatsu J, Saitou T, Ishida H. 2007. Effects of tree size on productivity and time required for work elements in selective thinning by a harvester. Int J For Eng. 18:43–48.
   Google Scholar
• Ovaskainen H, Uusitalo J, Väätäinen K. 2004. Characteristics and significance of a harvester operators’ working technique in thinnings. Int J For Eng. 15:67–77.
   Google Scholar
• Paradis N, Auty D, Carter P, Achim A. 2013. Using a standing-tree acoustic tool to identify forest stands for the production of mechanically-graded lumber. Sensors. 13:3394–3408. 10.3390/s130303394
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purfürst FT. 2010. Learning curves of harvester operators. Croatian J For Eng. 31:89–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skogforsk. 2012. StanForD: listing of variables by category. [cited 2014 May 28]. Available from: http://www.skogforsk.se/PageFiles/60712/AllVarGrp_ENG_120418.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Strandgard M, Walsh D. 2011. Improving harvester estimates of bark thickness for radiata pine (Pinus radiata D. Don). South For. 73:101–108.
   Google Scholar
• Strandgard M, Walsh D, Acuna M. 2013. Estimating harvester productivity in Pinus radiata plantations using StanForD stem files. Scand J For Res. 28:73–80. 10.1080/02827581.2012.706633
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsehaye A, Buchanan AH, Walker JCF. 2000. Selecting trees for structural timber. Holz als Roh und Werkstoff [Eur J Wood Wood Prod]. 58:162–167. 10.1007/s001070050407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser R, Spinelli R, Saathof J, Fairbrother S. 2009. Finding the ‘sweet-spot’ of mechanised felling machines. In Proceedings of USA: 32nd Annual Meeting of the Council on Forest Engineering (COFE); 2009 June 15–18; Kings Beach (CA). Christchurch: School of Forestry, University of Canterbury, 10 p.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X. 2013 Acoustic measurements on trees and logs: a review and analysis. Wood Sci Technol. 47:965–975. 10.1007/s00226-013-0552-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu P, Walker JCF. 2004. Stiffness gradients in radiata pine trees. Wood Sci Technol. 38:1–9. 10.1007/s00226-003-0188-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar