The effect of coppice management on stump volume recovery in mechanized operations
Coppice stands result in slightly higher stump waste compared with planted stands, when felled mechanically by a harvester.
The large demand for wood fibre requires efficient production and cost-effective practices throughout the supply chain.
The purpose of the study was to quantify the amount of volume lost to excessive stump height in coppiced and planted stands.
Stump height was measured on similar eucalypt stands that differed only for their origin: coppiced or planted. The study sample comprised of 543 planted stems and 851 coppice stems; of which 365 grew as double stems and 486 as single.
Stump waste was highest for coppiced double stumps, smallest for coppiced single stumps and intermediate for planted tree stumps. All differences were statistically significant, but the difference between coppiced single stumps and planted tree stumps was much smaller (20%) than the difference between coppiced double stumps and the rest (220–260%). Regression analysis showed that stump waste volume increased with tree volume, and this effect was twice as large for coppiced double stumps compared with the other treatments. Stump waste seemed very small in both relative and absolute terms and is unlikely to offset the large benefits accrued through coppice management and mechanization.
Comparison with previous stump height studies indicates that the results obtained in this experiment for planted eucalypt may have general value and could be extended to other coppice stands, although with caution.
KeywordsVolume Waste Harvester Plantation Eucalypt, volume recovery
- Barreiro S, Schelhaas M, Kändler G, Antón-Fernández C, Colin A, Bontemps J, Alberdi I, Condés S, Dumitru M, Ferezliev A, Fischer C, Gaspatini P, Gshwantner T, Kindermann G, Kiartansson B, Kovácsevics P, Kucera M, Lundström A, Marin G, Mozgeris G, Nord-Larsen T, Packalen T, Redmond J, Sacchelli S, Sims A, Snorrason A, Stoyanov N, Thürig E, Wikberg P (2016) Overview of methods and tools for evaluating future woody biomass availability in European countries. Ann For Sci 73:823–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bentley JW, Harper AR (2004) Georgia harvest and utilization study. NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research StationGoogle Scholar
- Boston K, Dysart G (2000) A comparison of felling techniques on stump height and log damage with economic interpretations. West J Appl For 15:59–61Google Scholar
- Bredenkamp B (2000) Volume and mass of logs and standing trees. In: Owen, D.L. (ed.). South African forestry handbook, Vol. 1. The Southern African Institute of Forestry, pp. 167–174; p.194Google Scholar
- Hall R, Han H (2006) Improvements in value through low stump heights: mechanized versus manual felling. West J Appl For 21:33–38Google Scholar
- Han H, Renzie C (2005) Effect of ground slope, stump diameter and species on stump height for feller-buncher and chainsaw felling. Int J For Eng 16:81–88Google Scholar
- Haynes HJG, Visser RJM (2004) An applied hardwood value recovery study in the Appalachian hardwood region of Virginia and West Virginia. Int J For Eng 15:25–31Google Scholar
- INDUFOR (2012) Forest Stewardship Council: strategic review of the future of forest plantations. INDUFOR [Online] http://www.fao.org/forestry/42701-090e8a9fd4969cb334b2ae7957d7b1505.pdf [Accessed 22 February 2017]
- McEwan A, Magagnotti N, Spinelli R (2016) The effects of number of stems per stool on cutting productivity in coppiced Eucalyptus plantations. Silva Fenn. 50 (id 1448) 14 pGoogle Scholar
- Ramantswana M, McEwan A, Steenkamp J (2013) A comparison between excavator-based harvester productivity in coppiced and planted Eucalyptus grandis compartments in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. South For: J For Sci 75:239–246Google Scholar
- Sappi (2011) Mpumalanga pre-harvest agreement and compartment planning: utilizable timber waste Pietermaritzburg Sappi Cascades p3Google Scholar
- SAS Institute Inc (1999) StatView reference. SAS Publishing, Cary, NC, USA. ISBN-1-58025-162-5. p 84–93Google Scholar
- Spinelli R, Owende PMO, Ward S (2002) Productivity and cost of CTL harvesting of Eucalyptus globulus stands using excavator-based harvesters. For Prod J 52:67–77Google Scholar
- Spinelli R, Hartsough BR, Magagnotti N (2010) Productivity standards for harvesters and processors in Italy. For Prod J 60:226–235Google Scholar
- Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Facchinetti D (2013) Logging companies in the European mountain: an example from the Italian Alps. Int J For Eng 24:109–120Google Scholar
- Suchomel C, Becker G, Pyttel P (2011) Fully mechanized harvesting in aged oak coppice stands. For Prod J 61:290–296Google Scholar
- Suchomel C, Spinelli R, Magagnotti N (2012) Productivity of processing hardwoods from coppice forests. Croat J For Eng 33:39–47Google Scholar