Productivity of harvesters and forwarders in CTL operations in northern Sweden based on large follow-up datasets

References

• Anon. 2010. StanForD 2010–modern communication with forest machines. Uppsala, Sweden: Skogforsk.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes R. 1937. Motion and time study. 1st ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Baskerville GL. 1972. Use of logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass. Can J For Res. 2(1):49–53. doi:10.1139/x72-009
   Google Scholar
• Berg S. 1992. Terrain classification system for forestry work. Kista, Sweden: Forest Operations Institute of Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Björheden R. 1991. Basic time concepts for international comparisons of time study reports. Int J Forest Eng. 2(2):33–39.
   Google Scholar
• Brunberg T. 1995. Basic data for productivity norms for heavy-duty single-grip harvesters in final felling. Report 7. The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden. Uppsala, Sweden. [In Swedish with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Brunberg B. 2004. Productivity-norm data for forwarders. Redogörelse 3. The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden. Uppsala, Sweden. [In Swedish with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Brunberg T. 2007. Basic data for productivity norms for extra large single-grip harvesters in final felling. Report 2. The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden. Uppsala, Sweden. [In Swedish with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Femling J. 2010. Follow-up on planned forwarding distance using geographical information technology (GIT). Arbetsrapport 278. Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Umeå, Sweden. [In Swedish with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Gerasimov Y, Senkin V, Väätäinen K. 2012. Productivity of single-grip harvesters in clear-cutting operations in the northern European part of Russia. Eur J Forest Res. 131:647–654. doi:10.1007/s10342-011-0538-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinimann HR. 2001. Productivity of a cut-to-length harvester family – an analysis based on operation data. In the Proceedings from the 2001 Council on Forest Engineering (COFE) meeting. Snowshoe, July 15–18, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Hiesl P, Benjamin JG. 2013. Applicability of international harvesting equipment productivity studies in Maine, USA: a literature review. Forests. 4:898–921. doi:10.3390/f4040898
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holzleitner F, Stampfer K, Visser R. 2011. Utilization rates and cost factors in timber harvesting based on long-term machine data. Croat J Forest Eng. 32:501–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IUFRO WP 3.04.02. 1995. Forest work study nomenclature. Test edition valid 1995–2000. Garpenberg, Sweden: Department of Operational Efficiency, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. ISBN 91-576-5055–1.
   Google Scholar
• Kärhä K, Rönkkö E, Gumse S-I. 2004. Productivity and cutting cost of thinning harvesters. Int J Forest Eng. 15(2):43–56.
   Google Scholar
• Kuitto P-J, Keskinen S, Lindroos J, Oijala T, Rajamäki J, Räsänen T, Tärävä J. 1994. Mechanised cutting and forest haulage. Tiedotus Metsäteho Report 410. [In Finnish with English summary]. ISBN 951-673-139–2.
   Google Scholar
• Lindroos O, Matisons M, Johansson P, Nordfjell T. 2010. Productivity of a prototype truck-mounted logging residue bundler and a road-side bundling system. Silva Fenn. 44:547–559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manner J, Nordfjell T, Lindroos O. 2013. Effects of the number of assortments and log concentration on time consumption for forwarding. Silva Fenn. 47:19 p. article id 1030. doi:10.14214/sf.1030
   Google Scholar
• Mayo E. 1933. The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York, NY: Macmillan Company.
   Google Scholar
• Micklitz R, Micklitz J. 1860. Nachträglichen beobachtungen über die Leistungsfähigkeit verschiedener holzhauerverkzeuge (Supplementary observations of the efficiency of different types of tools for firewood hewing). Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung Supplement zur Band II): 154–159.
   Google Scholar
• Nieble B, Freiwalds A. 2003. Methods, standards and work design. 11th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Nordfjell T, Björheden R, Thor M, Wästerlund I. 2010. Changes in technical performance, mechanical availability and prices of machines used in forest operations in Sweden from 1985 to 2010. Scan J Forest Res. 25:382–389. doi:10.1080/02827581.2010.498385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nurminen T, Korpunen H, Uusitalo J. 2006. Time consumption analysis of the mechanized cut-to-length harvesting system. Silva Fenn. 40:335–363. doi:10.14214/sf.346
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palander T, Nuutinen Y, Kariniemi A, Väätäinen K. 2013. Automatic time study method for recording work phase times of timber harvesting. Forest Sci. 59:472–483. doi:10.5849/forsci.12-009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purfürst FT. 2009. Der Einfluss des Menchen auf die Leistung von Harvestersystemen (The operator’s influence on harvester productivity), PhD thesis. Institut für Forstnutzung und Forsttechnik, Technische Universität Dresden. Dresden, Germany. (In German).
   Google Scholar
• Purfürst T, Erler J. 2011. The human influence on productivity in harvester operations. Int J Forest Eng. 22(2):15–22.
   Google Scholar
• Purfürst T, Lindroos O. 2011. The long-term productivity’s correlation with subjective and objective ratings of harvester operators. Croat J Forest Eng. 32:509–519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shrestha SP, Rummer RB, Dubois M. 2005. Utilization and cost of log production from animal logging operations. Int J Forest Eng. 16(2):167–180.
   Google Scholar
• Sirén M, Aaltio H. 2003. Productivity and costs of thinning harvesters and harvester-forwarders. Int J Forest Eng. 14(1):39–48.
   Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Hartsough BR, Magagnotti N. 2010. Productivity standards for harvesters and processors in Italy. Forest Prod J. 60:226–235. doi:10.13073/0015-7473-60.3.226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strandgard M, Walsh D, Acuna M. 2013. Estimating harvester productivity in Pinus radiata plantations using StanForD stem files. Scan J For Res. 28:73–80. doi:10.1080/02827581.2012.706633
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiger K. 2012. Comparison of estimated and driven forwarding distance. Arbetsrapport 357. Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Umeå, Sweden. [In Swedish with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Tufts RA, Stokes BJ, Lanford BL. 1988. Productivity of grapple skidders in southern pine. Forest Prod J. 38:24–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser R, Spinelli R. 2012. Determining the shape of the productivity function for mechanized felling and felling-processing. J For Res. 17:397–402. doi:10.1007/s10310-011-0313-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vöry J. 1954. Analysis of the time study materials of some forest jobs. Publication No. 31. The Forest Work Studies Section of the Central Association of Finnish Woodworking Industries, Metsäteho. Helsinki, Finland. [In Finnish with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Zeng WS, Tang SZ. 2011. Bias correction in logarithmic regression and comparison with weighted regression for nonlinear models. Nat Prec. 1–11. doi:10.1038/npre.2011.6708.1
   Google Scholar