Advertisement

Small-scale Forestry

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 367–376 | Cite as

Effects of Wheeled Cable Skidding on Residual Trees in Selective Logging in Caspian Forests

  • Farshad Keivan BehjouEmail author
Research Paper

Abstract

There are increasing demands on silvicultural practices to reduce the adverse impacts of harvesting. Damage to residual trees caused by ground-based skidding was assessed in stands with low [3.4 stems per hectare (sph), 14.36 m3/ha], medium (5.2 sph, 21.61 m3/ha), and high (7.1 sph, 25.95 m3/ha) harvest intensities. Skidding was conducted using a cable skidder. After the skidding operation, a field survey was conducted to collect data on all residual trees (species, dbh, height) and on tree wounds (size class, location, intensity of damage). It was hypothesized that increased harvest intensity leads to increased injury rates. The treatment with the highest harvest intensity was found to cause the highest percentage of damage and the largest stem wounds. The most common types of damage were stem wounds to the cambium layer and bark scrapes. In all three harvest intensity treatments the probability of individual tree damage decreased as skid-trail cross slope decreased and distance to skid-trail edge increased. It is concluded that harvesting intensity should be limited to 5 trees/ha during each harvesting operation to reduce extent of tree damage and thus future financial loss.

Keywords

Residual trees Damage probability Ground-based skidding Harvest intensity Stem wounds 

References

  1. Aho PE, Fiddler G, Filip GE (1983) How to reduce injury to residual trees during stand management activities. USDA For Serv Gen, Tech Rep, PNW-156Google Scholar
  2. Behjou FK, Majnounian B, Namiranian M, Dvorak J (2008) Time study and skidding capacity of the wheeled skidder Timberjack 450C in Caspian forests. J For Sci 4(2):183–188Google Scholar
  3. Cline ML, Hoffman BF, Cyr M, Bragg W (1991) Stand damage following whole-tree partial cutting in northern forests. North J Appl For 8(2):72–76Google Scholar
  4. Fairweather SE (1991) Damage to residual trees after cable logging in northern hard-woods. North J Appl For 8(1):15–17Google Scholar
  5. Fajvan MA, Knipling KE, Tift BD (2002) Damage to Appalachian hardwoods from diameter-limit harvesting and shelterwood establishment cutting. North J Appl For 19(2):80–87Google Scholar
  6. Fjeld D, Granhus A (1996) Injuries after selection harvesting in multi-stored spruce stands—the influence of operating system and harvest intensity. J For Eng 9(3):33–40Google Scholar
  7. Froese K, Han HS (2006) Residual stand damage from cut-to-length thinning in a mixed conifer stand in northern Idaho. West J Appl For 21(3):142–148Google Scholar
  8. Fuhrer E (2000) Forest function ecosystem stability and management. For Ecol Manag 132(2):29–38Google Scholar
  9. Higman S, Mayers J, Bass S, Judd N, Nassbaum R (2005) The sustainable forestry handbook: a practical guide for tropical forest managers on implementing new standards. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Jackson SM, Fredericksen TS, Malcolm JR (2002) Area disturbed and residual stand damage following logging in a Bolivian tropical forest. For Ecol Manag 166(4):271–283Google Scholar
  11. Jactel H, Nicoll BC, Branco M, Gonzalez-Olabarria JR, Grodzki W, Långström B, Moreira F, Netherer S, Orazio C, Piou D, Santos H, Schelhaas MJ, Tojic K, Vodde F (2009) The influences of forest stand management on biotic and abiotic risks of damage. Ann For Sci 66(2):18–26Google Scholar
  12. Klenner W, Arsenault A, Brockerhoff EG, Vyse A (2009) Biodiversity in forest ecosystems and landscapes: a conference to discuss future directions in biodiversity management for sustainable forestry. For Ecol Manag 258(4):51–64Google Scholar
  13. Krueger W (2004) Effects of future crop tree flagging and skid trail planning on conventional diameter-limit logging in a Bolivian tropical forest. For Ecol Manag 188(1):381–393Google Scholar
  14. Lamson NI, Smith HC, Miller GW (1985) Logging damage using an individual-tree selection practice in Appalachian hardwood stands. North J Appl For 2(1):117–120Google Scholar
  15. Landau S, Everitt BS (2004) A handbook of statistical analysis using SPSS. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Lavallee A, Lortie M (1968) Relationships between external features and trunk rot in living yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis, Nectria galligena, Poria obliqua). For Chron 44(2):5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Littell RC, Freund RJ, Spector PC (1991) SAS system for linear models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  18. Nichols MT, Lemin RCJ, Ostrofsky WD (1994) The impact of two harvesting systems on residual stems in a partially cut stand of northern hardwoods. Can J For Res 24(4):350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nyland RD, Gabriel WJ (1971) Logging damage to partially cut hardwood stands in New York State. Logging damage to partially cut hardwood stands in New York State, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Panfil SN, Gullison RE (1998) Short term impacts of experimental timber harvest intensity on forest structure and composition in the Chimanes Forest Bolivia. For Ecol Manag 102(3):235–243Google Scholar
  21. Reisinger TW, Pope PE (1991) Impact of timber harvesting on residual trees in a central hardwood forest in Indiana. USDA For Serv Gen, Tech RepGoogle Scholar
  22. Shigo AL (1979) Tree decay—an expanded concept. USDA For. Serv, Inf Bull 419Google Scholar
  23. Smith HC, Miller GW, Schuler TM (1994) Closure of logging wounds after 10 years. USDA For Serv Res Pap, Radnor, PA, NE 692Google Scholar
  24. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Nati C (2010) Benchmarking the impact of traditional small-scale logging systems used in Mediterranean forestry. Biomass Bioenergy 15(11):1997–2001Google Scholar
  25. Zolciak A, Sierota Z, 71 (1997) Zabiegi hodowlane a zagrozenie drzewostanow przez patogeny korzeni. (Sylvicultural treatments and the threat to stands from root pathogens). Prace Inst Bad Les B 33(2):71–84Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Agricultural Technology and Natural ResourcesUniversity of Mohaghegh ArdabiliArdabilIran

Personalised recommendations