4.2 Article

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

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
Volume 34, Issue 6, Pages 436-444

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2019.1595128

Keywords

Site impact; uprooting; bioenergy; soil disturbance; excavator

Categories

Funding

  1. Forest Refine research project as part of the EU Intereg Botnia-Atlantica program
  2. European Union Seventh Framework Programme (EU FP7-KBBE-2012-6) through the INFRES project [311811]
  3. Swedish Energy Agency
  4. Swedish District Heating Association
  5. Jamtkraft AB
  6. Skelleftekraft AB
  7. research school FIRST

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tree stumps could be a source of renewable energy, contributing to a reduced dependence on fossil fuels. In Finland, stumps are currently harvested when the ground is not frozen to avoid co-removal of large amounts of soil and stones. Hence, the machinery used for stump extraction is not operated year-round. On peatlands, stumps could potentially be harvested when the ground is frozen. However, peatlands are highly sensitive to ground disturbance. There is, therefore, a need to identify equipment that causes low ground disturbance. In this study, peatland ground disturbance at stump level caused by stump harvesting using either a stump drill or a conventional stump rake was evaluated and compared in winter conditions. Results show that the stump drill caused up to 90% less ground disturbance per harvested stump than the conventional stump rake, but harvested 32-53% of the stump wood. Additionally, the size and shape of the disturbed areas changed between the harvesting year and following year, indicating that frost heaving plays a role in filling holes caused by stump extraction. The stump drill also consumed similar time to the conventional stump rake when harvesting Scots pine stumps on mineral soils, but far more when harvesting Norway spruce stumps.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available