European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 138, Issue 4, pp 595–606 | Cite as

Spatial prediction of soil disturbance caused by forest logging using generalized additive models and GIS

  • Saeid Shabani
  • Akbar NajafiEmail author
  • Baris Majnonian
  • Jalil Alavi
  • Ali Sattarian
Original Paper


Forest soil conditions can be affected by ground-based harvesting; the degree of impact depends upon management factors, location of stands, soil, and topographical conditions. The present study predicted the area and extent of the disturbance of forest soil using soil data collected from 39 ground-based working areas. Random sampling was used to lay out 351 circular sample plots, each with a radius 10 m and located within 39 working areas, before the beginning of logging operations. Data regarding local conditions including stand characteristics, terrains, physical and mechanical properties of the soil, and extraction method was collected and used as predictor variables. Soil compaction, displacement, and rutting were defined as the response variables and were measured post-harvest. The results showed that E-value, cone index, and extracted volume had the most effect on the area of compaction. The lowest soil displacement was recorded at gentle slope and extracted volume of less than 5 m3/ha in clay–loam soil. Rutting of clay soil was most effectively predicted using E-value, slope, and extracted volume. A geospatial-explicit predictive model of soil disturbance was developed using a generalized additive model by implementation of generalized regression analysis and spatial prediction. Land types susceptible to detrimental soil disturbance during ground-based harvest operations were depicted geospatially by GIS. The models can be used as a decision support tool to predict forest harvesting impacts on soil properties.


Harvesting Modeling Hyrcanian forest Prediction Soil mechanic 



  1. Agherkakli B, Najafi A, Sadeghi SH (2010) Ground based operation effects on soil disturbance by steel tracked skidder in a steep slope of forest. J For Sci 56(6):278–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agherkakli B, Najafi A, Sadeghi SH, Zenner E (2014) Mitigating effects of slash on soil disturbance in ground-based skidding operations. Scand J For Res 29(4):1–7Google Scholar
  3. Ampoorter E, Goris R, Cornelis WM, Verheyen K (2007) Impact of mechanized logging on compaction status of sandy forest soils. For Ecol Manag 241(1–3):162–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ampoorter E, Schrijver A, Van Nevel L, Hermy M, Verheyen K (2012) Impact of mechanized harvesting on compaction of sandy and clayey forest soils: results of a meta-analysis. Ann For Sci 69:533–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM D 6528-07 (2007) Standard test method for consolidated undrained direct simple shear testing of cohesive soils. American Society for Testing and Materials, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Botta GF, Vazquez JM, Tolon Becerra A, Balbuena R, Stadler S (2012) Soil compaction distribution under land clearing in calden (Prosopis Caldenia Burkart) forest in Argentinean pampas. Soil Tillage Res 119:70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell DMH, White B, Arp PA (2013) Modeling and mapping soil resistance to penetration and rutting using LiDAR-derived digital elevation data. J Soil Water Conserv 68(6):460–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter EA, Aust WM, Burger JA (2007) Soil strength response of select soil disturbance classes on a wet pine flat in South Carolina. For Ecol Manag 247:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen JA (1960) Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curran MP, Miller RE, Howes SW, Maynard DG, Terry TA, Heninger RL, Niemann T, van Rees K, Powers RF, Schoenholtz SH (2005) Progress towards more uniform assessment and reporting of soil disturbance for operations, research, and sustainability protocols. For Ecol Manag 220:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edlund J, Bergsten U, Arvidsson H (2013) A forest machine bogie with a bearing capacity dependent contact area: acceleration and angular orientation when passing obstacles and drawbar pull force and free rolling resistance on firm ground. Silva Fennica 47(3):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ezzati S, Najafi A, Durston T (2011) Impact of animal logging on soil physical properties in mule trail in Hyrcanian forests. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 16(4):316–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geissen V, Kim RY, Schöning A, St Schütte, Brümmer GW (2003) Effects of strip wise tillage in combination with liming on chemical and physical properties of acidic spruce forest soils after clear cutting. For Ecol Manag 180:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goetz JN, Guthrie RH, Brenning A (2011) Integrating physical and empirical landslide susceptibility models using generalized additive models. Geomorphology 129:376–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guisan A, Edwards TCJ, Hastie T (2002) Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: setting the scene. Ecol Model 157:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Han SK, Han HS, Page-Dumroese DS, Johnson LR (2009) Soil compaction associated with cut-to-length and whole tree harvesting of a coniferous forest. Can J For Res 39(5):976–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iskandar H, Snook LK, Toma T, MacDicken KG, Kanninen M (2006) A comparison of damage due to logging under different forms of resource access in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. For Ecol Manag 237:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kosir B (2008) Damage to young forest due to harvesting in shelterwood systems. Croat J For Eng 29(2):141–153Google Scholar
  20. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehmann A, Overton JM, Leathwick JR (2002) GRASP: generalized regression analysis and spatial prediction. Ecol Model 157:189–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marchi E, Picchio R, Spinelli R, Verani S, Venanzi R, Certini G (2014) Environmental impact assessment of different logging methods in pine forests thinning. Ecol Eng 70:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marko G, Pismuz P, Peterfalvi J (2013) Measuring the bearing capacity of forest roads with an improved Benkelman beam apparatus. Acta Silv Lingaria Hung 9:97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McDonald TP, Seixas F (1997) Effect of slash on forwarder soil compaction. Int J For Eng 8:15–26Google Scholar
  25. McKenzie N, Coughlan K, Cresswell H (2002) Soil physical measurement and interpretation for land evaluation. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, p 379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller RE, Colbert SR, Morris LA (2004) Effects of heavy equipment on physical properties of soils and on long-term productivity: a review of literature and current research. NCASI Technical Bulletin 887. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI Publishing), USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller RE, McIver JD, Howes SW, Gaueman WB (2010) Assessment of soil disturbance in forests of the interior Columbia River basin: a critique. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report. Published in cooperation with: USA. Department of the interior bureau of land management, Portland Oregon, PNW-GTR-811Google Scholar
  28. Najafi A, Solgi A (2010) Assessing site disturbance using two ground survey methods in a mountain forest. Croat J For Eng 31:47–55Google Scholar
  29. Najafi A, Solgi A, Sadeghi SH (2009) Soil disturbance following four wheel rubber skidder logging on the steep trail in the north mountainous forest of Iran. Soil Tillage Res 103:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Owende PMO, Lyons J, Haarlaa R, Peltola A, Spinelli R, Molano J, Ward SM (2002) Operations protocol for eco-efficient wood harvesting on sensitive sites. Ireland. December 2002
  31. Picchio R, Neri F, Petrini E, Verani S, Marchi E, Certini G (2012) Machinery-induced soil compaction in thinning two pine stands in central Italy. For Ecol Manag 285:38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pinard MA, Barker MG, Tay J (2000) Soil disturbance and post-logging forest recovery on bulldozer paths in Sabah, Malaysia. For Ecol Manag 130:213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rab MA (1992) Impact of timber harvesting on soil disturbance and compaction with reference to residual log harvesting in East Gippsland, Victoria-a review. VSP Tech. Rep. No. 13. Native Forest Research, Department of Conservation and Environment, Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  34. Reeves DA, Reeves MC, Abbott AM, Page-Dumroese DS, Coleman MD (2012) A detrimental soil disturbance prediction model for ground-based timber harvesting. Can J For Res 42:821–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Solgi A, Najafi A, Sadeghi SHR (2009) Soil disturbance following four wheel rubber skidder logging on the steep trail in the north mountainous forest of Iran. Soil Tillage Res 103:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sowa J, Kulak D (2008) Probability of occurrence of soil disturbance during timber harvesting. Croat J For Eng 29(1):29–39Google Scholar
  37. Tessier S, Lachance B, Laguë C, Chen Y, Chi L, Bachand D (1997) Soil compaction reduction with a modified one-way disker. Soil Tillage Res 42:63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Den Eeckhaut M, Vanwalleghem T, Poesen J, Govers G, Verstraeten G, Vandekerckhove L (2006) Prediction of landslide susceptibility using rare events logistic regression: a case-study in the Flemish Ardennes (Belgium). Geomorphology 76:392–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vanags C, Minasny B, McBratney AB (2004) The dynamic penetrometer for assessment of soil mechanical resistance. SuperSoil 2004, 3rd Australian-New Zealand Soils Conference. 5-9 December. University of Sydney, Sidney, Australia. Published by The Regional Institute Ltd, Published on CDROM.
  40. Vorpahl P, Elsenbeer H, Mrker M, Schrder S (2012) How can statistical models help to determine driving factors of landslides? Ecol Model 239:27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Williamson JR, Neilsen WA (2000) The influence of forest site on rate and extent of soil compaction and profile disturbance of skid trails during ground-based harvesting. Can J For Res 30:1196–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yeclinacar EK (2005) The application of computational intelligence to landslide susceptibility mapping in Turkey. PhD Thesis, Department of Geomatics the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang L, Gove JH, Heath LS (2005) Spatial residual analysis of six modeling techniques. Ecol Model 186:154–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forestry and Forest Engineering, Faculty of Natural ResourcesTarbiat Modares UniversityNoorIran
  2. 2.Department of Forestry and Forest Engineering, Faculty of Natural ResourcesTarbiat Modares UniversityNoorIran
  3. 3.Department of Forestry, Faculty of Natural ResourcesUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  4. 4.Faculty of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Gonbad-e KavousGonbad-e KavousIran

Personalised recommendations