2015Southern Forests a Journal of Forest ScienceRequires access

Integrated harvesting for conventional log and energy wood assortments: a case study in a pine plantation in Western Australia

Mohammad Reza Ghaffariyan, Raffaele Spinelli, Natascia Magagnotti, Mark William Brown

Open publisher page 26 citations

Abstract

Biomass or energy wood harvesting can be integrated with conventional log harvesting (saw log or pulpwood production) to allow more cost-effective energy wood supply. The efficiency of an integrated energy wood harvesting system was evaluated and compared with conventional log harvesting in a 32-year-old Pinus radiata plantation (radiata pine) located in south-west Western Australia. The harvesting system consisted of a harvester and a forwarder. The study included two treatments: a conventional log-harvesting operation where merchantable sawlogs and pulp logs were produced at the stump by the harvester and extracted by the forwarder; and an integrated energy wood operation where the harvester produced sawlogs, pulp logs and energy wood at the stump that were extracted by the forwarder. In the integrated energy wood harvesting plot, 37 m3 ha−1 of energy wood was extracted in addition to the sawlog and pulp log volumes. Extracting the additional energy wood reduced the productivity of the forwarder and increased the cost of extraction (AU$2.7 m−3) compared with the control plot (AU$2.2 m−3). Harvesting system cost was not significantly impacted, with a cost of AU$3.18 m−3 in the control plot and AU$3.23 m−3 in the integrated energy wood harvesting plot. Diameter at breast height (DBH) was a significant factor influencing the working time of the harvester, whereas load volume, extraction distance and extraction type (sawlog, pulp logs, and pulp log/energy wood) significantly impacted forwarding time. Increasing DBH resulted in longer working cycles for the harvester. Heavier loads and longer forwarding distances increased forwarding cycle time, while extracting sawlogs was least expensive and energy wood extraction was the most expensive. The marginal cost of the energy wood was approximately AU$10.2 m−3 (AU$7.0 extraction and AU$3.2 harvesting), which is about double the cost of the sawlogs. Additional material recovered in the integrated energy wood plot resulted in less residual residues on the plot (103.2 green metric tonnes per hectare [GMt ha−1]) than the control plot (144.2 GMt ha−1).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Biomass or energy wood harvesting can be integrated with conventional log harvesting (saw log or pulpwood production) to allow more cost-effective energy wood supply. The efficiency of an integrated energy wood harvesting system was evaluated and compared with conventional log harvesting in a 32-year-old Pinus radiata plantation (radiata pine) located in south-west Western Australia. The harvesting system consisted of a harvester and a forwarder. The study included two treatments: a conventional log-harvesting operation where merchantable sawlogs and pulp logs were produced at the stump by the harvester and extracted by the forwarder; and an integrated energy wood operation where the harvester produced sawlogs, pulp logs and energy wood at the stump that were extracted by the forwarder. In the integrated energy wood harvesting plot, 37 m3 ha−1 of energy wood was extracted in addition to the sawlog and pulp log volumes. Extracting the additional energy wood reduced the productivity of the forwarder and increased the cost of extraction (AU$2.7 m−3) compared with the control plot (AU$2.2 m−3). Harvesting system cost was not significantly impacted, with a cost of AU$3.18 m−3 in the control plot and AU$3.23 m−3 in the integrated energy wood harvesting plot. Diameter at breast height (DBH) was a significant factor influencing the working time of the harvester, whereas load volume, extraction distance and extraction type (sawlog, pulp logs, and pulp log/energy wood) significantly impacted forwarding time. Increasing DBH resulted in longer working cycles for the harvester. Heavier loads and longer forwarding distances increased forwarding cycle time, while extracting sawlogs was least expensive and energy wood extraction was the most expensive. The marginal cost of the energy wood was approximately AU$10.2 m−3 (AU$7.0 extraction and AU$3.2 harvesting), which is about double the cost of the sawlogs. Additional material recovered in the integrated energy wood plot resulted in less residual residues on the plot (103.2 green metric tonnes per hectare [GMt ha−1]) than the control plot (144.2 GMt ha−1).

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 26 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Biomass or energy wood harvesting can be integrated with conventional log harvesting (saw log or pulpwood production) to allow more cost-effective energy wood supply. The efficiency of an integrated energy wood harvesting system was evaluated and compared with conventional log harvesting in a 32-year-old Pinus radiata plantation (radiata pine) located in south-west Western Australia. The harvesting system consisted of a harvester and a forwarder. The study included two treatments: a conventional log-harvesting operation where merchantable sawlogs and pulp logs were produced at the stump by the harvester and extracted by the forwarder; and an integrated energy wood operation where the harvester produced sawlogs, pulp logs and energy wood at the stump that were extracted by the forwarder. In the integrated energy wood harvesting plot, 37 m3 ha−1 of energy wood was extracted in addition to the sawlog and pulp log volumes. Extracting the additional energy wood reduced the productivity of the forwarder and increased the cost of extraction (AU$2.7 m−3) compared with the control plot (AU$2.2 m−3). Harvesting system cost was not significantly impacted, with a cost of AU$3.18 m−3 in the control plot and AU$3.23 m−3 in the integrated energy wood harvesting plot. Diameter at breast height (DBH) was a significant factor influencing the working time of the harvester, whereas load volume, extraction distance and extraction type (sawlog, pulp logs, and pulp log/energy wood) significantly impacted forwarding time. Increasing DBH resulted in longer working cycles for the harvester. Heavier loads and longer forwarding distances increased forwarding cycle time, while extracting sawlogs was least expensive and energy wood extraction was the most expensive. The marginal cost of the energy wood was approximately AU$10.2 m−3 (AU$7.0 extraction and AU$3.2 harvesting), which is about double the cost of the sawlogs. Additional material recovered in the integrated energy wood plot resulted in less residual residues on the plot (103.2 green metric tonnes per hectare [GMt ha−1]) than the control plot (144.2 GMt ha−1).

Key concepts: Forwarder, Pulpwood, Pinus radiata, Logging, Pulp (tooth), Pulp and paper industry, Radiata, Environmental science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Integrated harvesting for conventional log and energy wood assortments: a case study in a pine plantation in Western Australia — Research Paper | ScholarLens