Annals of Forest Science

, 74:58

The effect of coppice management on stump volume recovery in mechanized operations

  • Muedanyi Ramantswana
  • Andrew Mcewan
  • Raffaele Spinelli
Original Paper


Key message

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.


Volume Waste Harvester Plantation Eucalypt, volume recovery 


  1. 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
  2. Bell J (2002) Changes in logging injury rates associated with use of feller-bunchers in West Virginia. J Saf Res 33:436–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentley JW, Harper AR (2004) Georgia harvest and utilization study. NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research StationGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Hall R, Han H (2006) Improvements in value through low stump heights: mechanized versus manual felling. West J Appl For 21:33–38Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. INDUFOR (2012) Forest Stewardship Council: strategic review of the future of forest plantations. INDUFOR [Online] [Accessed 22 February 2017]
  10. Magagnotti N, Nati C, Pari L, Spinelli R, Visser R (2011) Assessing the cost of stump-site debarking in eucalypt plantations. Biosyst Eng 110:443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Sappi (2011) Mpumalanga pre-harvest agreement and compartment planning: utilizable timber waste Pietermaritzburg Sappi Cascades p3Google Scholar
  14. SAS Institute Inc (1999) StatView reference. SAS Publishing, Cary, NC, USA. ISBN-1-58025-162-5. p 84–93Google Scholar
  15. Schweier J, Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Becker G (2015) Mechanized coppice harvesting with new small-scale feller-bunchers: results from harvesting trials with newly manufactured felling heads in Italy. Biomass Bioenergy 72:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Spinelli R, Cuchet E, Roux P (2007) A new feller-buncher for harvesting energy wood: results from a European test programme. Biomass Bioenergy 31:205–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Spinelli R, Hartsough BR, Magagnotti N (2010) Productivity standards for harvesters and processors in Italy. For Prod J 60:226–235Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Spinelli R, Cacot E, Mihelic M, Nestorovski L, Mederski P, Tolosana E (2016) Techniques and productivity of coppice harvesting operations in Europe: a meta-analysis of available data. Ann For Sci 73:1125–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Spinelli R, Pari L, Aminti G, Magagnotti N, Giovannelli A (2017) Mortality, re-sprouting vigor and physiology of coppice stumps after mechanized cutting. Ann For Sci 74:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stringer C (2006) Forest certification and changing global commodity chains. J Econ Geogr 6:701–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Suchomel C, Becker G, Pyttel P (2011) Fully mechanized harvesting in aged oak coppice stands. For Prod J 61:290–296Google Scholar
  24. Suchomel C, Spinelli R, Magagnotti N (2012) Productivity of processing hardwoods from coppice forests. Croat J For Eng 33:39–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nelson Mandela Metropolitan UniversityGeorgeSouth Africa
  2. 2.CNR IVALSASesto Fiorentino (FI)Italy

Personalised recommendations