Work efficiency and harvester costs in Brazilian eucalyptus plantations

References

• Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC, Gonçalves JLM, Sparovek G. 2013. Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol Z. 22(6):711–728. doi: 10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman P, Belbo H, Eliasson L, Jong A, Lazdins A, Lyons J. 2014. The cost model for calculation of forest operations costs. Int J For Eng. 25(1):75–81. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2014.903711.
   Google Scholar
• Adebayo AB, Han HS, Johnson L. 2007. Productivity and cost of cut-to-length and whole-tree harvesting in a mixed-conifer stand. For Prod J. 57(6):59–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ASAE - American Society of Agricultural Engineers. ASAE standards. 2001. Machinery, equipment and buildings: operating costs. Iowa, USA: Ames; 164–226.
   Google Scholar
• Aworka R, Cedric LS, Adoni WYH, Zoueu JT, Mutombo FK, Kimpolo CLM, Nahhal T, Krichen M. 2022. Agricultural decision system based on advanced machine learning models for yield prediction: case of East African countries. Smart Agric Technol J. 2:100048. CrossRef. doi: 10.1016/j.atech.2022.100048.
   Google Scholar
• Bont LG, Fraefel M, Frutig F, Holm S, Ginzler C, Fischer C. 2022. Improving forest management by implementing best suitable timber harvesting methods. J Environ Manage. 302. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114099.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown RO, Diniz CCC. 2017. Colheita florestal e manutenção de equipamentos móveis. In: Semana de Aperfeiçoamento em Engenharia Florestal. Vol. 1. Curitiba: SEAFLOR, UFPR; p. 01–41.
   Google Scholar
• Burla ER, Fernandes HC, Machado CC, Leite DM, Fernandes PF. 2012. Avaliação técnica e econômica do harvester em diferentes condições operacionais. Engenharia na Agri Viçosa. 20(5):412–422. doi: 10.13083/reveng.v20i5.202.
   Google Scholar
• Gallis C, Spyroglou G. 2012. Productivity linear regression models of tree-length harvesting system in natural coastal aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis L.) forests in the Chalkidiki area of Greece. Croat J For Eng. 33(1):115–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiesl P 2013. Productivity standards for whole-tree and cut-to-length harvesting systems in Maine Electronic Theses and dissertations, The University of Maine.
   Google Scholar
• Kamarulzaman AMM, Jaafar WSWM, Maulud KNA, Saad SNM, Omar H, Mohan M. 2022. Integrated segmentation approach with machine learning classifier in detecting and mapping post selective logging impacts using UAV imagery. Forests. 13:48. CrossRef. doi: 10.3390/f13010048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kluender R, Stokes BJ. 1994. Productivity and costs of three harvesting methods. South J Appl For. 18(4):168–174. doi: 10.1093/sjaf/18.4.168.
   Google Scholar
• Labelle ER, Breinig L, Sycheva E. 2018. Exploring the use of harvesters in large diameter hardwood-dominated stands. Forests. 9:424. doi: 10.3390/f9070424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landford BL, Sirois D. 1983. Drive-to-tree, rubber-tired feller buncher production studies. US department of agriculture, forest service, Southern forest experiment station general technical report SO-45. 45:14.
   Google Scholar
• Leite ES, Fernandes HC, Minette LJ, Leite HG, Guedes IL. 2013. Modelagem técnica e de custos do Harvester no corte de madeira de eucalipto no sistema de toras curtas. Sci Forestalis, Piracicaba. 41(98):205–215.
   Google Scholar
• Lima GF, Oliveira FM. Manutenção mecânica, eficiência operacional e custo de produção de harvesters de pneus e esteiras. Scientia Rural. 2019. 19:1–13. www.cescage.edu.br/publicacoes/scientiarural.
   Google Scholar
• Lindroos O, La Hera P, Häggström C. 2017. Drivers of advances in mechanized timber harvesting – a selective review of technological innovation. Croat J For En: J Theory and Appl Forestry Engine. V(38):243–258.
   Google Scholar
• Liski E, Jounela P, Korpunen H, Sosa A, Lindroos O, Jylhä P. 2020. Modeling the productivity of mechanized CTL harvesting with statistical machine learning methods. Int J For Eng. 31(3):253–262. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2020.1820750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purfürst T, Erler J. 2013. The human influence on productivity in harvester operations. J Forest Engine. 22(2):15–22. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2011.10702606.
   Google Scholar
• Munis RA, Almeida RO, Camargo DA, Silva RBG, Wojciechowski J, Simões D. 2022. Machine learning methods to estimate productivity of harvesters: mechanized timber harvesting in Brazil. Forests. 13:1068. doi: 10.3390/f13071068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy GE. 2005. Determining sample size for harvesting cost estimation. NZ J For Sci. 35(2/3):166–169.
   Google Scholar
• Ünver-Okan S. 2020. Modelling of work efficiency in cable traction with tractor implementing the least-squares methods and robust regression. Croat J For Eng. 41(1):109–117. doi: 10.5552/crojfe.2020.677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palonen T, Hyyti H, Visala A. 2017. Augmented reality in forest machine cabin. IFAC-Papersonline 2017. 50(1):5410–5417. CrossRef. doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1075.
   Google Scholar
• Santos HG, Jacomine PKT, Anjos LHC, Oliveira VA, Lumbreras JF, Coelho MR, Almeida JA, Filho JCA, Oliveira JB, Cunha TJF. 2018. Sistema Brasileiro de Classificação de Solos. 5th ed. Brasília, DF: Embrapa; p. 356.
   Google Scholar
• Santos DWFN, Valente DSM, Fernandes HC, Forastiere PR, Silva RMF. 2016. Análise técnica e econômica do harvester operando em dois subsistemas de colheita de madeira. Engenharia na Agri. 24:484–490. Viçosa. doi: 10.13083/reveng.v24i6.725.
   Google Scholar
• Silva EN, Machado CC, Minette LC, Souza AP, Fernandes HC, Silva ML, Jacovine LA. 2010. Avaliação técnica e econômica do corte mecanizado de pinus sp. Com harvester Revista Árvore, Viçosa-MG. 34(4):745–753. doi: 10.1590/S0100-67622010000400019.
   Google Scholar
• Parajuli M, Hiesl P, Smidt M, Mitchell D. 2020. Factors influencing productivity and cost in the whole-tree harvesting system. Clemson (SC): Clemson Cooperative Extension, Land-Grant Press by Clemson Extension. LGP. 1079. http://lgpress.clemson.edu/publication/factors-influencing-productivity-and-cost-in-the-whole-tree-harvesting-system.
   Google Scholar
• Savelli S, Cavalli R, Baldini S, Picchio R. 2010. Small scale mechanization of thinning in artificial coniferous plantation. Croat J For Eng. 31(1):11–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seixas F, Batista JLF. 2014. Comparação técnica e econômica entre harvesters de pneus e com máquina base de esteiras. Ciência Florestal, Santa Maria. 24(1):185–191. doi: 10.5902/1980509813335.
   Google Scholar
• Tufts RA, Stokes BJ, Lanford BL. 1988. Productivity of grapple skidders in southern pine. For Prod J. 38(10):24–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VOLVO. 2003. Escavadeira volvo versão florestal EC210Bf. [accessed 2018 July 23]. http://colheitademadeira.com.br/wpcontent/uploads/publicacoes/126/escavadeira_volvo_ec_210_bf.
   Google Scholar