4.4 Article

Productivity of single-grip harvesters in clear-cutting operations in the northern European part of Russia

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
Volume 131, Issue 3, Pages 647-654

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10342-011-0538-9

Keywords

Wood harvesting; CTL method; Stem volume; Tree species

Categories

Funding

  1. European Union through the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (TEKES)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A field-based study was carried out to broaden our knowledge of fully mechanized cut-to-length harvesting productivity in naturally grown forests in the northern European part of Russia (NEPR). The recorded data comprised 38 midsized single-grip harvesters (JD 1270D) in clear-cutting operations in the Karelia, Komi, Vologda, Leningrad, Tver, and Kirov regions in NEPR, 4.3 million felled trees, and 1.4 million m(3) u.b. (under bark) of processed timber. Harvesting operations were conducted in forest stands composed of spruce (48% on average), pine (19%), birch (22%), and aspen (11%), with an average stem volume 0.31 m(3) u.b. The cut-to-length harvesters produced from 4.3 to 14.9 m(3) u.b./productive machine hour (PMH) and 16.0-49.5 m(3) u.b./stem processing machine hour (S (proc) MH). A machine evaluation analysis and a regression analysis were used to formulate models for predicting cutting productivity of modern single-grip harvester. The regression models were developed to estimate the productivity of the harvesters in the regions taking into account two significant factors influencing the productivity: the stem volume and tree species of the felled trees. Productivity/cubic meter u.b. of processed timber/PMH was calculated according to stem volume and tree species distributions in most forest-covered NEPR regions. Further research is suggested to improve the developed productivity models and to allow prediction of system performance over a broad range of stand and site conditions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available