Comparison of the productivity, cost and stem breakage of two- and three-machine harvest systems clearfelling a mature Pinus radiata stand

IF 0.9 4区 农林科学 Q3 FORESTRY Australian Forestry Pub Date : 2020-04-02 DOI:10.1080/00049158.2020.1775379
M. Strandgard, R. Mitchell
{"title":"Comparison of the productivity, cost and stem breakage of two- and three-machine harvest systems clearfelling a mature Pinus radiata stand","authors":"M. Strandgard, R. Mitchell","doi":"10.1080/00049158.2020.1775379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Damage to trees and logs during harvest and transport can result in major losses of wood volume and value. The study compared a harvester/forwarder (two-machine) harvest system, which typically is used in Australia, with a feller-buncher/processor/forwarder (three-machine) harvest system in terms of productivity, cost and felling stem breakage when clearfelling a 29-year-old Pinus radiata plantation in eastern Victoria, Australia. The study aimed to determine whether the three-machine harvest system reduced felling tree breakage while maintaining or improving on the productivity and delivered cost of the two-machine harvest system. The harvest systems were compared on adjacent sites (~1 ha each) using an elemental time study. Machine productivity was derived from cycle times using StanForD stem files to obtain merchantable tree volumes and forwarder load weights from the forwarder’s onboard scales. The three-machine harvest system was more productive and resulted in considerably less felling stem breakage than the two-machine harvest system (two broken stems compared with 21 broken stems). However, it was approximately 41% more expensive than the two-machine harvest system in terms of cost per m3 of logs delivered to roadside. Because chiplogs were cut from broken stem sections where possible, and it was unlikely that sawlog volume was lost through stem breakage (based on the minimum sawlog specifications and the length and large-end diameter of the broken stem sections), any financial losses resulting from the additional breakage in the two-machine harvest system were insignificant compared with the extra cost per m3 of logs delivered for the three-machine harvest system.","PeriodicalId":55426,"journal":{"name":"Australian Forestry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00049158.2020.1775379","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Forestry","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00049158.2020.1775379","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Damage to trees and logs during harvest and transport can result in major losses of wood volume and value. The study compared a harvester/forwarder (two-machine) harvest system, which typically is used in Australia, with a feller-buncher/processor/forwarder (three-machine) harvest system in terms of productivity, cost and felling stem breakage when clearfelling a 29-year-old Pinus radiata plantation in eastern Victoria, Australia. The study aimed to determine whether the three-machine harvest system reduced felling tree breakage while maintaining or improving on the productivity and delivered cost of the two-machine harvest system. The harvest systems were compared on adjacent sites (~1 ha each) using an elemental time study. Machine productivity was derived from cycle times using StanForD stem files to obtain merchantable tree volumes and forwarder load weights from the forwarder’s onboard scales. The three-machine harvest system was more productive and resulted in considerably less felling stem breakage than the two-machine harvest system (two broken stems compared with 21 broken stems). However, it was approximately 41% more expensive than the two-machine harvest system in terms of cost per m3 of logs delivered to roadside. Because chiplogs were cut from broken stem sections where possible, and it was unlikely that sawlog volume was lost through stem breakage (based on the minimum sawlog specifications and the length and large-end diameter of the broken stem sections), any financial losses resulting from the additional breakage in the two-machine harvest system were insignificant compared with the extra cost per m3 of logs delivered for the three-machine harvest system.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两机采伐和三机采伐辐射松成熟林分的生产率、成本和断茎率比较
摘要:采伐和运输过程中对树木和原木的损坏可能导致木材体积和价值的重大损失。这项研究比较了澳大利亚通常使用的收获机/搬运机(两台机器)收获系统与砍伐机-捆扎机/加工机/搬运器(三台机器)收割系统在澳大利亚维多利亚州东部砍伐一个29年树龄的辐射松种植园时的生产力、成本和砍伐茎干断裂情况。该研究旨在确定三机收获系统是否减少了砍伐树木的破坏,同时保持或提高了两机收获系统的生产力和交付成本。利用元素时间研究对相邻地点(每个约1公顷)的收获系统进行了比较。机器生产率是从使用StanForD干锉的循环时间中得出的,以从货代的船上磅秤中获得可销售的树体积和货代负载重量。三机收获系统比两机收获系统生产率更高,导致的砍伐树干断裂要少得多(两个断茎,而21个断茎)。然而,就运送到路边的每立方米原木的成本而言,它比两台机器收割系统贵约41%。因为在可能的情况下,木片是从断干部分切割而来的,并且锯材体积不太可能因断干而损失(基于最小锯材规格以及断干部分的长度和大端直径),与为三机收获系统输送的每立方米原木的额外成本相比,由两机收获系统中的额外破损引起的任何财务损失都是微不足道的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
15
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Forestry is published by Taylor & Francis for the Institute of Foresters of Australia (IFA) for scientific, technical, and professional communication relating to forestry in the Asia Pacific.
期刊最新文献
Form factors and volume models for Falcataria moluccana in smallholder plantations, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia Effect of site, silviculture and tree social status on internal checking variation in plantation-grown Eucalyptus nitens Variation in adaptation and growth among Corymbia citriodora natural-stand and landrace seed sources in southern China Constructing a non-linear additive crown-width model system for moso bamboo forests in eastern China Domestication, restoration and sustainable use of Indonesian sandalwood
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1