Harvester and forwarder productivity and net revenues in patch cutting

References

• Arlinger J. 2020. StanForD project page on Skogforsk webpage. [accessed 2020 Jun 01]. https://www.skogforsk.se/english/projects/stanford/.
   Google Scholar
• Axelsson S-Ă. 1998. The mechanization of logging operations in Sweden and its effect on occupational safety and health. J For Eng. 9(2):25–31.
   Google Scholar
• Bergstrand K-G. 1985. Underlag för prestationsmål för skotning: basic data for productivity targets in forwarding. Kista (Sweden): Forest Operations Institute of Sweden. Announcement No. 7; p. 35. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Bergstrand K-G. 1987. Planering och analys av skogstekniska tidsstudier: planning and analysis of time studies on forest technology. Kista (Sweden): Forest Operations Institute of Sweden. Announcement No. 17; p. 58.
   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 Sci. 61:109–124.
   Google Scholar
• Brunberg T. 1995. Underlag för produktionsnorm för stora engreppsskördare i slutavverkning: basic data for productivity norms for heavy-duty single-grip harvesters in final felling. Uppsala (Sweden): Forestry Research Institute of Sweden. Announcement No. 5. p. 22. Swedish, summary in English.
   Google Scholar
• Brunberg T. 1997. Basic data for productivity norms for single-grip harvesters in thinning - underlag för produktionsnorm för engreppsskördare i gallring. Uppsala (Sweden): Forestry Research Institute of Sweden. Announcement No. 8. p. 22. Swedish, summary in English.
   Google Scholar
• Brunberg T. 2004. Productivity-norm data for forwarders. Uppsala (Sweden): Forestry Research Institute of Sweden. Announcement No. 3; p. 16. Swedish, summary in English.
   Google Scholar
• Brunberg T. 2007. Underlag för produktionsnormer för extra stora engreppsskördare i slutavverkning - basic data for productivity norms for extra-large single-grip harvesters in final felling. Uppsala (Sweden): Forestry Research Institute of Sweden. Announcement No. 2. p.12. Swedish, summary in English.
   Google Scholar
• Bürgi M, Schuler A. 2003. Driving forces of forest management—an analysis of regeneration practices in the forests of the Swiss central plateau during the 19th and 20th century. For Ecol Manag. 176(1–3):173–183. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00270-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadei A, Mologni O, Röser D, Cavalli R, Grigolato S. 2020.Forwarder Productivity in Salvage Logging Operations in Difficult Terrain. Forests. 11 (3):341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drever CR, Peterson G, Messier C, Bergeron Y, Flannigan M. 2006. Can forest management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience? Can J For Res. 36(9):2285–2299. doi:10.1139/x06-132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliasson L. 1998. Analyses of single-grip harvester productivity [ Doctoral thesis]. Umeå (Sweden): Department of Operational Efficiency, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Thesis No. 80. p. 24.
   Google Scholar
• Eliasson L. 2000. Effects of establishment and thinning of shelterwoods on harvester performance. J For Eng. 11:21–27.
   Google Scholar
• Eliasson L. 2019. Skogsbrukets kostnader och intäkter 2018– ett utmaningarnas år [Costs and revenues in Swedish forestry 2018 - a year of challenges]. Skogforsk.se 2019-35.Swedish. [accessed 2020 Feb 13]. https://www.skogforsk.se/kunskap/kunskapsbanken/2019/skogsbrukets-kostnader-och-intakter-2018–ett-utmaningarnas-ar/.
   Google Scholar
• Eliasson L, Bengtsson J, Cedergren J, Lageson H. 1999. Comparison of single-grip harvester productivity in clear- and shelterwood cutting. J For Eng. 10:43–48.
   Google Scholar
• Eliasson L, Manner J, Thor M. 2019. Costs for thinning and final felling operations in Sweden, 2000–2017. Scand J For Res. 34 (7):627–634.
   Google Scholar
• Erefur C. 2010. Regeneration in continuous cover forestry systems [ Doctoral thesis]. Umeå (Sweden): Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Thesis No. 42. p. 55.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson A. 2019. Frivilliga avsättningar och certifierad areal - voluntary set-asides and area under forest management certification schemes. Jönköping (Sweden): Swedish Forest Agency. Statistics announcements JO1404 SM 1901. p. 14. Swedish, summary in English.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson M, Lindroos O. 2014. Productivity of harvesters and forwarders in CTL operations in northern Sweden based on large follow-up datasets. Int J For Eng. 25(3):179–200.
   Google Scholar
• FSC S. 2020. The FSC national forest stewardship standard of Sweden. Draft version 191219 awaiting final approval by the Board of FSC Sweden. Document ID; FSC-STD-003-05-2019 V-1. p. 98.
   Google Scholar
• Glöde D. 1999. Single- and double-grip harvesters - productivity measurements in final cutting of shelterwood. J For Eng. 10:63–74.
   Google Scholar
• Glöde D, Sikström U. 2001. Two felling methods in final cutting of shelterwood, single-grip harvester productivity and damage to the regeneration. Silva Fenn. 35(1):71–83. doi:10.14214/sf.604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granhus A, Fjeld D. 2001. Spatial distribution of injuries to Norway spruce advance growth after selection harvesting. Can J For Res. 31(11):1903–1913. doi:10.1139/x01-103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grönlund Ö, Di Fulvio F, Bergström D, Djupström L, Eliasson L, Erlandsson E, Forsell N, Korosuo A. 2019. Mapping of voluntary set-aside forests intended for nature conservation management in Sweden. Scand J Forest Res. 34(2):133–144. doi:10.1080/02827581.2018.1555279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grönlund Ö, Eliasson L. 2019. Birch shelterwood removal – harvester and forwarder time consumption, damage to understory spruce and net revenues. Int J For Eng. 30:26–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grönlund Ö, Erlandsson E, Djupström L, Bergström D, Eliasson L. 2020. Nature conservation management in voluntary set-aside forests in Sweden: practices, incentives and barriers. Scand J Forest Res. 35(1–2):96–107. doi:10.1080/02827581.2020.1733650.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gundersen P, Schmidt IK, Raulund-Rasmussen K. 2006. Leaching of nitrate from temperate forests – effects of air pollution and forest management. Environ Rev. 14(1):1–57. doi:10.1139/a05-015.
   Google Scholar
• Gundersen VS, Frivold LH. 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban For Urban Gree. 7(4):241–258. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001.
   Google Scholar
• Hynynen J, Eerikäinen K, Mäkinen H, Valkonen S. 2019. Growth response to cuttings in Norway spruce stands under even-aged and uneven-aged management. For Ecol Manag. 437:314–323. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.12.032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonsson R. 2015. Performance and costs in selective harvesting with harvester and forwarder - prestation och kostnader i blädning med skördare och skotare. Uppsala (Sweden): Forestry Research Institute of Sweden. Report 863-2015. p. 36. Swedish, summary in English.
   Google Scholar
• Kuitto PJ, Keskinen S, Lindroos J, Oijala T, Rajamäki J, Räsänen T, Terävä J. 1994. Puutavaran koneellinen hakkuu ja metsäkuljetus.[Mechanized cutting and forest haulage]. Vantaa (Finland): Metsäteho. Metsäteho Report 410. p. 38. Finnish, summary in English.
   Google Scholar
• Kuuluvainen T, Siitonen J. 2013. Fennoscandian boreal forests as complex adaptive systems: properties, management challenges and opportunities. In: Messier C, Puettmann KJ, Coates KD, editors. Managing forests as complex adaptive systems: building resilience to the challenge of global change. Oxon: England and New York: NY: Routledge, p. 244–269.
   Google Scholar
• Kuuluvainen T, Aakala T. 2011. Natural forest dynamics in boreal Fennoscandia: a review and classification. Silva Fenn. 45(5):article id 73. doi:10.14214/sf.73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuuluvainen T, Grenfell R. 2012. Natural disturbance emulation in boreal forest ecosystem management — theories, strategies, and a comparison with conventional even-aged management. Can J For Res. 42(7):1185–1203. doi:10.1139/x2012-064.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuuluvainen T, Tahvonen O, Aakala T. 2012. Even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in boreal Fennoscandia: a review. AMBIO. 41(7):720–737. doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0289-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF. 2002. Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Washington (DC): Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lundqvist L. 2017. Tamm review: selection system reduces long-term volume growth in Fennoscandic uneven-aged Norway spruce forests. For Ecol Manag. 391:362–375. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.02.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malinen J, Laitila J, Väätäinen K, Viitamäki K. 2016. Variation in age, annual usage and resale price of cut-to-length machinery in different regions of Europe. Int J For Eng. 27(2):95–102.
   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(4):article id 1030. doi:http://doi.10.14214/sf.1030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercurio R, Spinelli R. 2012. Exploring the silvicultural and economic viability of gap cutting in Mediterranean softwood plantations. Forest Stud China. 14(1):63–69. doi:10.1007/s11632-012-0103-8.
   Google Scholar
• Mohtashami S, Bergkvist I, Löfgren B, Berg S. 2012. A GIS approach to analyzing off-road transportation: a case study in Sweden. Croat J For Eng. 33:275–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohtashami S, Eliasson L, Jansson G, Sonesson J. 2017. Influence of soil type, cartographic depth-to-water, road reinforcement and traffic intensity on rut formation in logging operations: a survey study in Sweden. Silva Fenn. 51(5):article id 2018. doi:10.14214/sf.2018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Möller J, Arlinger J, Nordström M. 2013. Test av StanForD 2010 - implementation i skördare. StanForD 2010 - implementation and test of harvester. Uppsala (Sweden): Forestry Research Institute of Sweden. Report 798-2013. p. 72. Swedish, summary in English.
   Google Scholar
• Nurminen T, Korpunen H, Uusitalo J. 2006. Time consumption analysis of the mechanized cut-to-length harvesting system. Silva Fenn. 40(2):335–363. doi:10.14214/sf.346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen E, Hossain MM, Miller ME. 1998. Statistical comparison of methods used in harvesting work studies. Corvallis (Oregon): Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory. Research contribution No. 23. p. 45.
   Google Scholar
• Palander T, Nuutinen Y, Kariniemi A, Väätäinen K. 2012. Automatic time study method for recording work phase times of timber harvesting. For Sci. 59(4):472–483. doi:10.5849/forsci.12-009.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips EJ. 1996. Comparing silvicultural systems in a coastal montane forest: productivity and cost of harvesting operations. Victoria (B.C, Canada): Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. FRDA Report 247. p. 52.
   Google Scholar
• Pommerening A, Murphy ST. 2004. A review of the history, definitions and methods of continuous cover forestry with special attention to afforestation and restocking. Forestry. 77(1):27–44. doi:10.1093/forestry/77.1.27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purfürst T, Erler J. 2011. The human influence on productivity in harvester operations. Int J For Eng. 22(2):15–22.
   Google Scholar
• Riksbanken. 2018. Monthly average exchange rates. [accessed 2020 Mar 06]. https://www.riksbank.se/en-gb/statistics/search-interest–exchange-rates/monthly-average-exchange-rates/.
   Google Scholar
• Roach BA. 1974. Selection cutting and group selection. New York (NY): State University of New York College, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. AFRI Miscellaneous Report No. 5. p. 10.
   Google Scholar
• Rossit DA, Olivera A, Viana Céspedes V, Broz D. 2019. A big data approach to forestry harvesting productivity. Comput Electron Agric. 161:29–52. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2019.02.029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachs J, Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C, Lafortune G, Fuller G. 2019. Sustainable development report 2019. New York (NY): Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN); p. 478.
   Google Scholar
• Sands R. 2013. Forestry in a global context. 2nd ed. Wallingford (England): CABI.
   Google Scholar
• Schall P, Gossner MM, Heinrichs S, Fischer M, Boch S, Prati D, Jung K, Baumgartner V, Blaser S, Böhm S et al. 2018. The impact of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on regional biodiversity of multiple taxa in European beech forests. J Appl Ecol. 55(1):267–278. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12950
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sikström U, Glöde D. 2000. Damage to picea abies regeneration after final cutting of shelterwood with single- and double-grip harvester systems. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 15(2):274–283. doi:10.1080/028275800750015091.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sirén M, Hyvönen J, Surakka H. 2015. Tree damage in mechanized uneven-aged selection cuttings. Croat J For Eng. 36:33–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Magagnotti N. 2013. The effect of harvest tree distribution on harvesting productivity in selection cuts. Scand J For Res. 28(7):701–709. doi:10.1080/02827581.2013.821517.
   Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Picchi G. 2011. Annual use, economic life and residual value of cut-to-length harvesting machines. J Forest Econ. 17(4):378–387. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2011.03.003.
   Web of Science ®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
• Suadicani K, Fjeld D. 2001. Single-tree and group selection in montane Norway spruce stands: factors influencing operational efficiency. Scand J Forest Res. 16(1):79–87. doi:10.1080/028275801300004433a.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. 1992. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992 - Agenda 21. United Nations. p. 300.
   Google Scholar
• Willén E, Friberg G, Flisberg P, Andersson G, Rönnqvist M, Westlund K, Jönsson P. 2017. Bestway – decision support tool for proposing main base roads for forwarders – method report. Uppsala (Sweden): Forestry Research Institute of Sweden. Report 959-2017. p. 22. Swedish, summary in English.
   Google Scholar