Optimal bucking of stems from terrestrial laser scanning data to maximize forest value

References

• Acuna MA, Murphy GE. 2005. Optimal bucking of Douglas fir taking into consideration external properties and wood density. N Z J For Sci. 35:139–152.
   Google Scholar
• Akay AE. 2017. Potential contribution of optimum bucking method to forest products industry. Eur J For Eng. 3:61–65.
   Google Scholar
• Alvites C, Marchetti M, Lasserre B, Santopuoli G. 2022. LiDAR as a tool for assessing timber assortments: A systematic literature review. Remote Sens. 14(18):4466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arce JE, MacDonagh P, Friedl RA. 2004. Geração de padrões ótimos de corte através de algoritmos de traçamento aplicados a fustes individuais. Rev Árvore. 28:207–217.
   Google Scholar
• ASPAPEL (Spanish Association of Pulp, Paper and Cardboard Manufacturers). 2021. Sustainability report: The decarbonised bi-circularity of the paper industry. December 2021 Edition. Available in: http://www.aspapel.es/content/memoria-de-sostenibilidad-del-papel-2021 (Accessed online 4th April 2021).
   Google Scholar
• Atlas Technology. 2010. https://integral.co.nz/cruiser-inventory-assessment/. Rotorua, New Zeland. (Accessed online 25thFebruary).
   Google Scholar
• Auger M, LeBel L, Brotherton E. 2023. Benefits and requirements of mathematical optimization in the allocation of wood to a network of forest product mills. Forests. 14(1):140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boczniewicz D, Mason EG, Morgenroth JA. 2022. Developing fully compatible taper and volume equations for all stem components of Eucalyptus globoidea Blakely trees in New Zealand. N Z J For Sci. 52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boston K, Murphy G. 2003. Value recovery from two mechanized bucking operations in the southeastern United States. South J Appl For. 27:259–263.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs DG. 1980. A dynamic programming approach to optimizing stem conversion. University of Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Bukauskas A, Mayencourt P, Shepherd P, Sharma B, Mueller C, Walker P, Bregulla J. 2019. Whole timber construction: A state of the art review. Constr Build Mater. 213:748–769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cabo C, Del Pozo S, Rodríguez-Gonzálvez P, Ordóñez C, González-Aguilera D. 2018b. Comparing terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) and wearable laser scanning (WLS) for individual tree modeling at plot level. Remote Sens. 10(4):540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cabo C, Ordóñez C, López-Sánchez CA, Armesto J. 2018a. Automatic dendrometry: tree detection, tree height and diameter estimation using terrestrial laser scanning. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinformation. 69:164–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canga E. 2008. Growth and production of regular Pinus radiata d.don pine forests in Asturias. PhD Thesis directed by Asunción Cámara Obregón and co-directed by Ulises Diéguez Aranda. Universitu of Oviedo (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Chen S, Liu H, Feng Z, Shen C, Chen P. 2019. Applicability of personal laser scanning in forestry inventory. PloS One. 14(2):e0211392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Silva JM, Santana LS, Volpato CES, da Silva ABA, Goiz TB. 2022. Assertiveness of a log length sensor allocated in different positions on the haervester head. Floresta. 52:294–303.
   Google Scholar
• Erber G, Gollob C, Krassnitzer R, Nothdurft A, Stampfer K. 2022. Stem-Level bucking pattern optimization in chainsaw bucking based on terrestrial laser scanning data. Croat J For Eng J Theory Appl For Eng. 43(2):287–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erber G, Stelzer S, Stampfer K. 2021. Evaluation of a novel mobile device app for value-maximized bucking by chainsaw. Int J For Eng. 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang Z, Borders BE, Bailey RL. 2000. Compatible volume-taper models for loblolly and slash pine based on a system with segmented-stem form factors. For Sci. 46:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• García-Márquez E. 2014. Timber price observatory. Technical Collaboration. 61, 22–27. Available online at: http://www.forestales.net/Canales/Ficha.aspx?IdMenu=b6947309-987f-4bff-808d-4e7e974ccaf8&Cod=8f232ea6-c8cc-4792-93f2-99b22c9a10e8&Idioma=es-ES. Accessed online: 02/01/22.
   Google Scholar
• Gollob C, Ritter T, Nothdurft A. 2020. Comparison of 3D point clouds obtained by terrestrial laser scanning and personal laser scanning on forest inventory sample plots. Data. 5(4):103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinzel J, Huber MO. 2017. Detecting tree stems from volumetric TLS data in forest environments with rich understory. Remote Sens. 9:9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollaus M, Mokroš M, Wang Y. 2019. International benchmarking of terrestrial image-based point clouds for forestry. in: Geophysical Research Abstracts.
   Google Scholar
• Hosoi F, Nakai Y, Omasa K. 2013. 3-D voxel-based solid modeling of a broad-leaved tree for accurate volume estimation using portable scanning lidar. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 82:41–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kankare V, Vauhkonen J, Tanhuanpää T, Holopainen M, Vastaranta M, Joensuu M, Krooks A, Hyyppä J, Hyyppä H, Alho P. 2014. Accuracy in estimation of timber assortments and stem distribution – A comparison of airborne and terrestrial laser scanning techniques. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 97:89–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kivinen V-P. 2007. Design and testing of stand-specific bucking instructions for use on modern cut-to-length harvesters. Diss. For.
   Google Scholar
• Ko C, Kang JT, Mo Son Y, Kim D-G. 2019. Estimating stem volume using stem taper equation for Quercus mongolica in South Korea. For Sci Technol. 15:58–62.
   Google Scholar
• Labelle E, Huß L. 2018. Creation of value through a harvester onboard bucking optimization system operated in a spruce stand. Silva Fenn. 52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leica. 2021. https://leica-geosystems.com/es-es/products/laser-scanners (Accessed 3rd May, 2021).
   Google Scholar
• Li D, Guo H, Jia W, Wang F. 2021. Analysis of taper functions for larix olgensis using mixed models and tls. Forests. 12(2):196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang X, Hyyppä J, Kaartinen H, Lehtomäki M, Pyörälä J, Pfeifer N, Holopainen M, Brolly G, Francesco P, Hackenberg J. 2018. International benchmarking of terrestrial laser scanning approaches for forest inventories. ISPRS J Photogram Remote Sens. 144:137–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang X, Kankare V, Hyyppä J, Wang Y, Kukko A, Haggrén H, Yu X, Kaartinen H, Jaakkola A, Guan F, et al. 2016. Terrestrial laser scanning in forest inventories. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 115:63–77. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malinen J, Kilpeläinen H, Piira T, Redsven V, Wall T, Nuutinen T. 2007. Comparing model-based approaches with bucking simulation-based approach in the prediction of timber assortment recovery. Forestry. 80(3):309–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marenče J, Šega B, Bučar Gornik. 2020. Monitoring the quality and quantity of beechwood from tree to sawmill product. Croatian J For Eng: Journal Theory Appl For Eng. 41(1):119–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mederski PS, Bembenek M, Karaszewski Z, Pilarek Z, Lacka A. 2018. Investigation of log length accuracy and harvester efficiency in processing of oak trees. Croat J For Eng J Theory Appl For Eng. 39:173–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menéndez-Miguélez M, Canga E, Álvarez-Álvarez P, Majada J. 2014. Stem taper function for sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) coppice stands in northwest Spain. Ann For Sci. 71:761–770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy G. 2008. Determining stand value and log product yields using terrestrial lidar and optimal bucking: a case study. J For. 106:317–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy G, Marshall H, Bolding MC. 2004. Adaptive control of bucking on harvesters to meet order book constraints. For Prod J. 54:114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy GE, Acuna MA, Dumbrell I. 2010. Tree value and log product yield determination in radiata pine (Pinus radiata) plantations in Australia: comparisons of terrestrial laser scanning with a forest inventory system and manual measurements. Can J For Res. 40:2223–2233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oveland I, Hauglin M, Gobakken T, Næsset E, Maalen-Johansen I. 2017. Automatic estimation of tree position and stem diameter using a moving terrestrial laser scanner. Remote Sens. 9:350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilkerton SJ, Sessions J, Kellogg LD. 2013. Development of efficient cutting patterns to maximize value with a log-allocation constraint. Int J For Eng. 24:42–52.
   Google Scholar
• Pitkänen TP, Raumonen P, Kangas A. 2019. Measuring stem diameters with TLS in boreal forests by complementary fitting procedure. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 147:294–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pnevmaticos SM, Mann SH. 1972. Dynamic programming in tree bucking. For Prod J. 22(2):26–30.
   Google Scholar
• Prendes C, Cabo C, Ordoñez C, Majada J, Canga E. 2021. An algorithm for the automatic parametrization of wood volume equations from terrestrial laser scanning point clouds: application in pinus pinaster. GIScience Remote Sens. 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prendes C, Canga E, Ordoñez C, Majada J, Acuna M, Cabo C. 2022. Automatic assessment of individual stem shape parameters in forest stands from TLS point clouds: application in pinus pinaster. Forests. 13:431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rummukainen H, Makkonen M, Uusitalo J. 2021. Economic value of optical and X-ray CT scanning in bucking of Scots pine. Wood Mater Sci Eng. 16(3):178–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saarinen N, Kankare V, Vastaranta M, Luoma V, Pyörälä J, Tanhuanpää T, Liang X, Kaartinen H, Kukko A, Jaakkola A. 2017. Feasibility of terrestrial laser scanning for collecting stem volume information from single trees. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 123:140–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandak J, Sandak A, Marrazza S, Picchi G. 2019. Development of a sensorized timber processor head prototype–part 1: sensors description and hardware integration. Croat J For Eng J Theory Appl For Eng. 40:25–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanz B, Malinen J, Sirparanta S, Peuhkurinen J, Leppänen V, Melkas T, Riekki K, Kauranne T, Vastaranta M, Tokola T. 2021. Integrating detailed timber assortments into airborne laser scanning (ALS)-based assessments of logging recoveries. Forests. 12(9):1221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidel D, Annighöfer P, Ammer C, Ehbrecht M, Willim K, Bannister J, Soto DP. 2021. Quantifying understory complexity in unmanaged forests using TLS and identifying some of its major drivers. Remote Sens. 13:1513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sessions J. 1988. Making better tree-bucking decisions in the woods. J For. 86:43–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva CA, Klauberg C, Hudak AT, Vierling LA, Jaafar W, Mohan M, Garcia M, Ferraz A, Cardil A, Saatchi S. 2017. Predicting stem total and assortment volumes in an industrial Pinus taeda L. forest plantation using airborne laser scanning data and random forest. Forests. 8(7):254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva RF, Aguilar MO, da Silva MLM, da Silva GF, de Mendonça AR. 2020. SISFLOR: A computational system to determine the optimal tree bucking. Rev Eng Na Agric-Reveng. 28:192–201.
   Google Scholar
• Smith GW, Harrell C. 1961. Linear programming in log production. For Prod J. 11(1):8–11.
   Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Nati C. 2011. Work quality and veneer value recovery of mechanised and manual log-making in Italian poplar plantations. Eur J For Res. 130:737–744.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan MJ, Lewis SL, Hubau W, Qie L, Baker TR, Banin LF, Chave J, Cuni-Sanchez A, Feldpausch TR, Lopez-Gonzalez G. 2018. Field methods for sampling tree height for tropical forest biomass estimation. Methods Ecol Evol. 9:1179–1189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taha HA. 2017. Operations research: an introduction, 10th ed. London: Pearson Education Limited. ISBN 13: 978-1-292-16554-7. 843.
   Google Scholar
• Torresan C, Pelleri F, Manetti MC, Becagli C, Castaldi C, Notarangelo M, Chiavetta U. 2021. Comparison of TLS against traditional surveying method for stem taper modelling. A case study in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests of mount Amiata. Ann Silvic Res. 46:2.
   Google Scholar
• Tukey JW. 1949. Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics. 99–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulak S, Ghimire K, Gautam R, Bhandari SK, Poudel KP, Timilsina YP, Pradhan D, Subedi T. 2022. Predicting the upper stem diameters and volume of a tropical dominant tree species. J For Res. 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Vanzetti N, Broz D, Montagna JM, Corsano G. 2019. Integrated approach for the bucking and production planning problems in forest industry. Comput Chem Eng. 125:155–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vauhkonen J, Maltamo M, McRoberts RE, Næsset E. 2014. Introduction to forestry applications of airborne laser scanning. In: For appl airborne laser scanning. Springer; p. 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Wang J, LeDoux CB, McNeel J. 2004. Optimal Tree-Stem Bucking of Northeastern Species of China.
   Google Scholar
• Wang J, Liu J, LeDoux CB. 2009. A three-dimensional bucking system for optimal bucking of central Appalachian hardwoods. Int J For Eng. 20(2):26–35.
   Google Scholar
• White JC, Wulder MA, Buckmaster G. 2014. Validating estimates of merchantable volume from airborne laser scanning (ALS) data using weight scale data. For Chron. 90(3):378–385.
   Google Scholar
• You L, Guo J, Pang Y, Tang S, Song X, Zhang X. 2021. 3D stem model construction with geometry consistency using terrestrial laser scanning data. Int J Remote Sens. 42(2):714–737.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapata-Cuartas M, Bullock BP, Montes CR. 2021. A taper equation for loblolly pine using penalized spline regression. For Sci. 67:1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Zong X, Wang T, Skidmore AK, Heurich M. 2021. The impact of voxel size, forest type, and understory cover on visibility estimation in forests using terrestrial laser scanning. GIScience Remote Sens. 58:323–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar