Comparison of ground disturbance of frozen peatland during stump harvesting using a stump drill and rake

References

• Anerud E. 2010. Stump as a fuel – the influence of harvesting technique and storage method on fuel quality of Norway spruce [ dissertation]. Uppsala: University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Energy and Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Anerud E, Jirjis R. 2011. Fuel quality of Norway spruce stumps – influence of harvesting technique and storage method. Scand J For Res. 26(3):257–266. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2011.561807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asikainen A. 2010. Simulation of stump crushing and truck transport of chips. Scand J For Res. 25(3):245–250. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2010.488656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Athanassiadis D, Lindroos O, Nordfjell T. 2011. Pine and spruce stump harvesting productivity and costs using a Pallari KH 160 stump-lifting tool. Scand J For Res. 26(5):437–445. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2011.573502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg S, Bergström D, Nordfjell T. 2015. Effect of stump size and timing of stump harvesting on ground disturbance and root breakage diameter. Silva Fenn. 49(5):article 1312. doi: 10.14214/sf.1312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chimner RA. 2011. Restoring sedges and mosses into frost heaving iron fens, San Juan Mountains, Colorado. Mires Peat. 8:article 7.
   Google Scholar
• Czereyski K, Galinska I, Robel H. 1965. Rationalization of stump extraction. Geneva: FAO/ECE/LOG/158. Joint FAO/ECE/ILO Committee on Forest Working Techniques and Training of Forest Workers.
   Google Scholar
• Egnell G, Hyvönen R, Högbom L, Johansson T, Lundmark T, Olsson B, Ring E, von Sydow F. 2007. Miljökonsekvenser av stubbskörd – en sammanställning av kunskap och kunskapsbehov [Environmental aspects on stump-harvest – compilation of knowledge and knowledge gaps]. Eskilstuna: Swedish Energy Agency. (Rapport ER 2007:40). Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Eklöf K, Kraus A, Weyhenmeyer GA, Meili M, Bishop K. 2012. Forestry influence by stump harvest and site preparation on methylmercury, total mercury and other stream water chemistry parameters across a boreal landscape. Ecosystems. 15(8):1308–1320. doi: 10.1007/s10021-012-9586-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emeyriat R, Castagnet C, Cloarec S, Moreau J, Husson H. 2014. Harvesting of heart stump from poplar and maritime pine forest in South West France. Poster session presented at: 5th Forest Engineering Conference; Sep 23–26; Gerardmer, France.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2011. A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. COM(2011) 112 final.
   Google Scholar
• Goulet F. 1995. Frost heaving of forest tree seedlings: a review. New For. 9(1):67–94. doi: 10.1007/BF00028927
   Google Scholar
• Grelle A, Strömgren M, Hyvonen R. 2012. Carbon balance of a forest ecosystem after stump harvest. Scand J For Res. 27(8):762–773. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2012.726371
   Google Scholar
• Hakkila P. 1972. Mechanized harvesting of stumps and roots: a sub-project of the joint Nordic research programme for the utilization of logging residues. Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae 77(1). Helsinki: Finnish Forest Research Institute. 71 p. ISBN 951-40-0035-8.
   Google Scholar
• Harstela P. 1991. Work studies in forestry. Juensuu: Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu.
   Google Scholar
• Hellsten S, Helmisaari HS, Melin Y, Skovsgaard JP, Kaakinen S, Kukkola M, Saarsalmi A, Petersson H, Akselsson C. 2013. Nutrient concentrations in stumps and coarse roots of Norway spruce, scots pine and silver birch in Sweden, Finland and Denmark. Forest Ecol Manag. 290:40–48. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.09.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollander M, Wolfe DA. 1973. Nonparametric statistical methods. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Jonsell M, Hansson J. 2011. Logs and stumps in clearcuts support similar saproxylic beetle diversity: implications for bioenergy harvest. Silva Fenn. 45(5):1053–1064. doi: 10.14214/sf.86
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaarakka LM, Vaittinen J, Marjanen M, Hellsten S, Kukkola M, Saarsalmi A, Palviainen MM, Helmisaari H-SM. 2018. Stump harvesting in Picea abies stands: soil surface disturbance and biomass distribution of the harvested stumps and roots. Forest Ecol Manag. 425:27–34. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2018.05.032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kärhä K. 2012. Comparison of two stump-lifting heads in final felling Norway spruce stand. Silva Fenn. 46(4):625–640. doi: 10.14214/sf.915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiikkilä O, Nieminen TM, Starr M, Mäkilä M, Loukola-Ruskeeniemi K, Ukonmaanaho L. 2014. Leaching of dissolved organic carbon and trace elements after stem-only and whole-tree clear-cut on boreal peatland. Water Air Soil Pollut. 225(2):1767. doi: 10.1007/s11270-013-1767-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laitila J, Poikela A, Ovaskainen H, Väätäinen K. 2019. Novel extracting methods for conifer stumps. Int J Forest Eng. DOI:10.1080/14942119.2019.1564614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laitila J, Ranta T, Asikainen A. 2008. Productivity of stump harvesting for fuel. Int J Forest Eng. 19(2):37–47. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2008.10702566
   Google Scholar
• Leckner B. 2007. Co-combustion: a summary of technology. Therm Sci. 11(4):5–40. doi: 10.2298/TSCI0704005L
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magagnotti N, Kanzian C, Schulmeyer F, Spinelli R. 2013. A new guide for work studies in forestry. Int J Forest Eng. 24(3):249–253. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2013.856613
   Google Scholar
• Niemistö P, Korpunen H, Laurén A, Salomäki M, Uusitalo J. 2012. Impact and productivity of harvesting while retaining young understorey spruces in final cutting of downy birch (Betula pubescens). Silva Fenn. 46(1):81–97. doi: 10.14214/sf.67
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson PO, Danielsson B-O. 1976. Tillgängliga kvantiteter stubbråvara [Available quantities of stump wood]. In: Alsefelt P, editor. Proceedings of Stubbdag; March 9; Stockholm (Sweden): Projekt Helträdsutnyttjande. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Nurmi J. 1997. Heating values of mature trees. Acta For Fenn. 256:1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Nuutinen Y, Petty A, Bergström D, Rytkönen M, Di Fulvio F, Tiihonen I, Lauren A, Dahlin B. 2016. Quality and productivity in comminution of small-diameter tree bundles. Int J Forest Eng. 27(3):179–187. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2016.1223926
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palander T, Kärhä K, Mehtätalo L. 2015. Work system study of three stump-lifting devices in Finland. Scand J For Res. 30(6):558–567. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2015.1027731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson M, Saarinen M, Minkkinen K, Silvan N, Laine J. 2012. Short-term impacts of soil preparation on greenhouse gas fluxes: a case study in nutrient-poor, clearcut peatland forest. Forest Ecol Manag. 283:10–26. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.07.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson T. 2016. Stump harvesting – impact on climate and environment. Forest Ecol Manag. 371:1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.04.046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royston P. 1982. An extension of Shapiro and Wilk’s W test for normality to large samples. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat. 31(2):115–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snowdon P. 1991. A ratio estimator for bias correction in logarithmic regressions. Can J For Res. 21(5):720–724. doi: 10.1139/x91-101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Nati C, Magagnotti N. 2005. Harvesting and transport of root biomass from fast-growing poplar plantations. Silva Fenn. 39(4):539–548. doi: 10.14214/sf.365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turunen J. 2008. Development of Finnish peatland area and carbon storage 1950–2000. Boreal Env. Res. 13:319–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uusitalo J, Ala-Ilomaki J. 2013. The significance of above-ground biomass, moisture content and mechanical properties of peat layer on the bearing capacity of ditched pine bogs. Silva Fenn. 47(3):article 993. doi: 10.14214/sf.993
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Väätainen K, Sikanen L, Asikainen A. 2004. Feasibility of excavator-based harvester in thinnings of peatland forests. Int J Forest Eng. 15(2):103–111. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2004.10702502
   Google Scholar
• von Hofsten H. 2010. Skörd av stubbar – nuläget och utvecklingsbehov [The harvesting of stumps – the present situation and development needs]. Uppsala: Skogforsk. (Arbetsraport 703). Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• von Hofsten H. 2014. Utvärdering av TL-GROT AB:s stubbaggregat [Evaluation of the TL-GROT AB stump harvesting head]. Uppsala: Skogforsk. (Arbetsraport 853). Swedish with English summary.
   Google Scholar
• von Hofsten H, Johannesson T, Anerud E. 2012. Jämförande studie av två stubbrytningsaggregat, Biorex 50 och Stubbfräsen [Comparative study of two stump lifting heads, Biorex 50 and the rotary stump cutter]. Uppsala: Skogforsk. (Arbetsrapport 783). Swedish with English summary.
   Google Scholar
• von Hofsten H, Nordén B. 2007. Stubbfräsen – en ny och annorlunda teknik för att ta tillvara stubbar [Rotary stump cutter – a new technique for harvesting stumps]. Uppsala: Skogforsk. (Resultat 2007:18). Swedish with English summary.
   Google Scholar
• Walmsley JD, Godbold DL. 2010. Stump harvesting for bioenergy – a review of the environmental impacts. Forestry. 83(1):17–38. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpp028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar