Benchmarking operational conditions, productivity, and costs of harvesting from industrial plantations in different global regions

References

• Abbas D, Di Fulvio F, Marchi E, Spinelli R, Schmidt M, Bilek T, Han H-S. 2021. A proposal for an integrated methodological and scientific approach to cost-used forestry machines. Croat J For Eng. 42(1):63–75. doi: 10.5552/crojfe.2021.849.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman P, Gleasure E, Ackerman S, Shuttleworth B. 2014. Standards for time studies for the South African forest industry. [accessed 2019 May 27]. http://www.forestproductivity.co.za/?page_id=678.
   Google Scholar
• Barrios A, López AM, Nieto VM. 2008. Influencia del diámetro medio del rodal y las distancias medias de extracción en los costos de un sistema de cosecha en bosques de Eucalyptus globulus en la zona central de chile. Colomb For. 11:83–92. doi: 10.14483/udistrital.jour.colomb.for.2008.1.a06.
   Google Scholar
• Barua SK, Lehtonen P, Pahkasalo T. 2014. Plantation vision: potentials, challenges, and policy options for global industrial forest plantation development. Int Forest Rev. 16(2):117–127. doi: 10.1505/146554814811724801.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bendlin L, Souza A, Senff CO, Pedro JJ, Stafin OO. 2016. Custos de produção, expectativas de retorno e riscos associados ao plantio de eucalipto na região do Planalto Norte – Catarinense/Brasil. Custos e gronegócio line. 12(2). ISSN 1808-2882.
   Google Scholar
• Brinker RW, Kinard J, Rummer B, Lanford B. 2002. Machine rates for selected forest harvesting machines. Auburn (AL): Alabama Experiment Station; p. 32.
   Google Scholar
• Cubbage F, Donagh PM, Balmelli G, Olmos VM, Bussoni A, Rubilar R, Torre RDL, Lord R, Huang J, Hoeflich VA, et al. 2014. Global timber investments and trends, 2005-2011. New Zealand J For Sci. 44(1):12. doi: 10.1186/1179-5395-44-S1-S7.
   Google Scholar
• Cubbage F, Koesbandana S, Mac Donagh P, Rubilar R, Balmelli G, Olmos VM, De La Torre R, Murara M, Hoeflich VA, Kotze H, et al. 2010. Global timber investments, wood costs, regulation, and risk. Biomass Bioenergy. 34(12):1667–1678. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.05.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Fulvio F, Abbas D, Spinelli R, Acuna M, Ackerman P, Lindroos O. 2017. Benchmarking technical and cost factors in forest felling and processing operations in different global regions during the period 2013–2014. Int J For Eng. 28(2):94–105. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2017.1311559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FAO. 2006. Global planted forests thematic study: results and analysis, by A. De Lungo, J. Ball and J. Carle. Planted forests and trees Working Paper 38. Rome.
   Google Scholar
• FAOSTAT. 2020. http://www.fao.org/faostat.
   Google Scholar
• Favreau J, Ristea C. 2017. The role of FPInnovations, governments, and industry in transforming Canada’s forest industry. Chapter four. In: D’Amours S, Ouhimmou M, Audy JF, Feng Y, editors. Forest value chain optimisation and sustainability. Ottawa: CRC Press, Taylor and Frances Group; p. 76–94.
   Google Scholar
• FSC/INDUFOR. 2012. Strategic review on the future of plantations, produced for the forest stewardship council. http://ic.fsc.org/force-download.php?file=671.
   Google Scholar
• Ghaffariyan MR, Brown M, Acuna M, Sessions J, Gallagher T, Kühmaier M, Spinelli R, Visser R, Devlin G, Eliasson L, et al. 2017. An international review of the most productive and cost effective forest biomass recovery technologies and supply chains. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 74:145–158. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jürgensen C, Kollert W, Lebedys A. 2014. Assessment of industrial roundwood production from planted forests. FAO planted forests and trees working paper FP/48/E. Rome. http://www.fao.org/forestry/plantedforests/67508@170537/en/.
   Google Scholar
• Lauri P, Forsell N, Korosuo A, Havlík P, Obersteiner M, Nordin A. 2017. Impact of the 2 °C target on global woody biomass use. For Policy Econ. 83:121–130. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.07.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundbäck M, Häggström C, Nordfjell T. 2021. Worldwide trends in methods for harvesting and extracting industrial roundwood. Int J For Eng. 32(3):202–215. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2021.1906617.
   Google Scholar
• Machado CC, Silva EN, Pereira RS, Castro GP. 2014. O setor florestal brasileiro e a colheita florestal. In: Machado CC, editor. Colheita florestal. 3rd ed. Viçosa, MG: Editora; p. 15–45. UFV, 2014, cap. 1.
   Google Scholar
• Magagnotti N, Kanzian C, Schulmeyer F, Spinelli R. 2013. A new guide for work studies in forestry. Int J For Eng. 24(3):249–253. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2013.856613.
   Google Scholar
• McEwan A, Marchi E, Spinelli R, Brink M. 2020. Past, present and future of industrial plantation forestry and implication on future timber harvesting technology. J For Res. 31(2):339–351. doi: 10.1007/s11676-019-01019-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles PD, Smith WB. 2009. Specific gravity and other properties of wood and bark for 156 tree species found in North America. Res. Note NRS-38. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
   Google Scholar
• Minette LJ, Souza AP, Silva EP, Medeiros NM. 2008. Postos de trabalho e perfil de operadores de máquinas de colheita florestal. Revista Ceres. 55(1):66–73.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy G, Acuna M, Brown M. 2017. Economics of in-forest debarking of radiata pine in New Zealand and Australia. NZ J For. 62(2):26–32.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen R, Aksenov D, Goldman E, Sargent S, Harris N, Manisha A, Esipova E, Shevade V, Loboda T. 2016. Mapping tree plantations with multispectral imagery: preliminary results for seven tropical countries. Technical Note. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. www.wri.org/publication/mapping-treeplantations.
   Google Scholar
• Pulkki R. 2001. Role of supply chain management in the wise use of wood resources. South Afr For J. 191(1):89–95. doi: 10.1080/20702620.2001.10434154.
   Google Scholar
• Siry JP, Greene WD, Harris TG, Izlar RL, Hamsley A, Eason KE, Tye T, Baldwin SS, Hydahl C. 2006. Wood supply chain efficiency and fiber cost: what can we do better? For Prod J. 56:4–10. www.exchangerates.org.uk.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang G, Hui G, Hu Y, Zhao Z, Guan X, Gadow KV, Zhang G. 2019. Designing near-natural planting patterns for plantation forests in china forest ecosystems. For Ecosyst. 6(1). doi: 10.1186/s40663-019-0187-x.
   Google Scholar
• ABARES. 2019, November. Australian forest and wood products statistics, March and June quarters 2019. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra. CC BY 4.0. [accessed 2020 March 6]. doi: 10.25814/5dd613f2cf61a.
   Google Scholar
• Acuna M, Strandgard M, Wiedemann J, Mitchell R. 2017. Impacts of early thinning of a eucalyptus globulus Labill. Pulplog Plantation in Western Australia on economic profitability and harvester productivity. Forests. 8(11):415. doi: 10.3390/f8110415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acuna M, Mirowski L, Ghaffariyan MR, Brown M. 2012. Optimising transport efficiency and costs in Australian wood chipping operations. Biomass Bioenergy. 46(2012):291–300. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.08.014.
   Google Scholar
• Acuna M, Skinnell J, Evanson T, Mitchell R. 2011. Bunching with a self-levelling feller-buncher on steep terrain for efficient yarder extraction [utjecaj sakupljanja stabala feler-bančerom na strmom terenu na učinkovito iznošenje drva žičarom]. Croat J For Eng. 32(2):521–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghaffariyan MR, Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Brown M. 2015. Integrated harvesting for conventional log and energy wood assortments: a case study in a pine plantation in Western Australia, southern forests. South For J For Sci. 77(4):249–254. doi: 10.2989/20702620.2015.1052946.
   Google Scholar
• Ghaffariyan MR. 2013. Comparing productivity-cost of roadside processing system and road side chipping system in Western Australia. J for Sci. 59(5):204–210. doi: 10.17221/81/2012-JFS.
   Google Scholar
• Ghaffariyan MR, Brown M. 2013. Selecting the efficient harvesting method using multiple-criteria analysis: a case study in south-west Western Australia. J for Sci. 59(12):479–486. doi: 10.17221/45/2013-JFS.
   Google Scholar
• Lambert J, Quill D, Bren LJ. 2006, December. Growth in blue gum forest harvesting and haulage requirements in the green triangle 2007-2020. CRC Forestry, consultant report. Hobart: Australia; p. 120
   Google Scholar
• Ghaffariyan M, Acuna M, Brown M. 2019. Machine productivity evaluation for harvesters and forwarders in thinning operations in Australia. Silva Balcanica. 20(2):13–25.
   Google Scholar
• Acuna M, Strandgard M, Wiedemann J, Mitchell R. 2017. Impacts of early thinning of a Eucalyptus plantation in Western Australia on economic profitability and harvester productivity. Forests. 8(11):415. doi: 10.3390/f8110415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skogforsk. 2014. [accessed 2010 March 6]. https://www.skogforsk.se/english/projects/stanford/.
   Google Scholar
• Strandgard M, Mitchell R, Acuna M. 2016. General productivity model for single grip harvesters in Australian eucalypt plantations. Aust For. 79(2):108–113. doi: 10.1080/00049158.2015.1127198.
   Google Scholar
• Strandgard M, Mitchell R, Wiedemann J. 2019. Comparison of productivity, cost and chip quality of four balanced harvest systems operating in a Eucalyptus globulus Plantation in Western Australia. Croat J For Eng. 40:1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strandgard M, Walsh D, Acuna M. 2013. Estimating harvester productivity in pinus radiata plantations using StanForD stem files. Scand J Forest Res. 28(1):73–80. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2012.706633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strandgard M, Walsh D, Mitchell R. 2015. Productivity and cost of whole‑tree harvesting without debarking in a Eucalyptus nitens plantation in Tasmania, Australia. South For. 77(3):173–178. doi: 10.2989/20702620.2014.1001669.
   Google Scholar
• Bertin VAS. 2010. Análise de dois modais de sistemas de colheita mecanizados de eucalipto em primeira rotação [Analysis of two modes of mechanized Eucalyptus harvesting systems in first rotation]. Dissertação (Mestrado em Agronomia Energia na Agricultura). Botucatu: Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho.
   Google Scholar
• Bramucci M. 2001. Determinação e quantificação de fatores de influência sobre a produtividade de “harvester” na colheita de madeira [Determination and quantification of factors influencing the harvester productivity in wood harvesting]. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciências Florestais) - Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz. Piracicaba: Universidade de São Paulo.
   Google Scholar
• Carvalho LME, Silva CS, Leite AMP. 2018. Simulação de cenário de variação da eficiência operacional e da produtividade no desempenho e custo das atividades de corte e extração florestal. [Simulation of operating efficiency and productivity variation scenario in the performance and cost of logging and logging activities]. In: Malinovski J, Malinovski R, Malinovski R, Oliveira E, Preto R. editors. Anais of 18o. Seminário de Colheita e Transporte de Madeira. Brasília: Embrapa; p. 27–30.
   Google Scholar
• de Oliveira Júnior ED, Seixas F. 2012. Energy Analysis of two eucalyptus harvesting systems in Brazil. 35th Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting. New Bern, North Carolina.
   Google Scholar
• Do Nascimento Santos DWF, Fernandes HC, Magalhães Valente DS, Meira Gomes B, Pinheiro Dadalto J, da Silva Leite E. 2018. Desempenho técnico e econômico de distintos modelos de forwarders. Nativa Sinop. 6(3):305–308. Pesquisas Agrárias e Ambientais. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.31413/nativa.v6i3.5070.
   Google Scholar
• Guedes ICL, Coelho Júnior LM, Oliveira AD, Mello JM, Rezende JLP, Silva CPC. 2011. Economic analysis of replacement regeneration and coppice regeneration in eucalyptus stands under risk conditions. Cerne. 17(3):393–401. doi: 10.1590/S0104-77602011000300014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IBÁ Relatório. 2022. Indústria brasileira de árvores [Brazilian Trees Industry]. Brasília: IBÁ.
   Google Scholar
• Leite ES, Fernandes HC, Guedes IL, Do Amaral EJ. 2014. Technical and economic analysis of semimechanized harvest of eucalyptus in different spacing [Análise técnica e de custos do corte florestal semimecanizado em povoamentos de eucalipto em diferentes espaçamentos. Cerne. 20(4):637–643. doi: 10.1590/01047760201420041340.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes ES, Cruziniani E, Dias NA, Fiedler NC. 2007. Avaliação técnica e econômica do corte de madeira de pinus com cabeçote harvester em diferentes condições operacionais. Floresta. 37(3):3. doi: 10.5380/rf.v37i3.9926.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes ES, Oliveira D, Sampietro JA. 2014. Influence of wheeled types of a skidder on productivity and cost of the forest harvesting. Floresta. 44(1):1. doi: 10.5380/rf.v44i1.31356.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes ES, Pagnussat MB. 2017. Effect of the behavioral profile on operator performance in timber harvesting. Int J For Eng. 28(3):134–139. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2017.1328847.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mac Donagh P, Botta G, Schlichter T, Cubbage F. 2017. Harvesting contractor production and costs in forest plantations of Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. Int J For Eng. 28(3):157–168. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2017.1360657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyajima RH. 2019. Modelagem da produtividade e dos custos de máquinas na colheita de eucalipto [Modeling machine productivity and costs in eucalyptus harvesting]. Tese (Doutorado em Ciências Florestal). Botucatu: Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho.
   Google Scholar
• Miyajima RH, Tonin RP, De Souza Passos JR, Fenner PT. 2016. A influência da declividade do terreno e do tempo de experiência dos operadores no rendimento do feller buncher. Sci For. 44(110):443–451. doi: 10.18671/scifor.v44n110.17.
   Google Scholar
• Moreira da Costa E, da Cunha Marzano FL, Cardoso Machado C, da Silva Leite E. 2017. Performance and operational costs of a harvester in a low productivity forest. Rev Eng Agric. 25(2):124–131. doi: 10.13083/reveng.v25i2.751.
   Google Scholar
• Nascimento AC, Leite AMP, Soares TS, Freitas LC. 2011. Technical and economical analysis of the forest harvesting with Feller-Buncher. CERNE. 17(1):9–15. doi: 10.1590/S0104-77602011000100002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira ALN, Lopes ES, Dias AN. 2015. Technical and cost analysis of feller buncher and skidder on wood harvesting in different stand productivity. Ciênc Florest. 25(4):981–989. doi: 10.5902/1980509820659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schettino S, Minette LJ, Souza AP. 2015. Correlation between volumetry of eucalyptus forests and productivity and costs of wood harvesting machines. Rev Árvore. 39(5):935–942. doi: 10.1590/0100-67622015000500016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seixas F, Ferreira Batista JL. 2012. Use of wheeled harvesters and excavators in eucalyptus harvesting in brazil. 35th Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting. New Bern, North Carolina.
   Google Scholar
• Seixas F, Ferreira Batista JL. 2014. Comparação técnica e econômica entre harvesters de pneus e com máquina base de esteiras technical and economical comparison between wheel harvesters and excavators. Ciênc Florestal Santa Maria. 24(1):185–191. doi: 10.5902/1980509813335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simoes D, Ferres PT. 2010. Influência do relevo na produtividade e custos do harvester. Influence of relief in productivity and costs of harvester. Sci For Piracicaba. 38(85):107–114.
   Google Scholar
• Simões D, Fenner PT, Esperancini MST. 2014. Productivity and costs of feller buncher and forest processor in stands of eucalypt in first cut. Ciênc Florest. 24:3. doi: 10.5902/1980509815742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SNIF Boletim SNIF. 2018. Bulletin The National Forest Information System – SNIF. [accessed 2020 Nov 11]. http://www.florestal.gov.br/documentos/publicacoes/4092-boletim-snif-2018-ed1/file.
   Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Conrado de Arruda Moura A. 2019. Productivity and utilization benchmarks for chain flail delimber-debarkers-chippers 2019 used in fast-growing plantations Croat. J For Eng. 40(1):65–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Conrado de Arruda Moura A, Manoel da Silva P. 2018. Decreasing the diesel fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of industrial in-field chipping operations. J Clean Prod. 172:2174–2181. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suzuki L, Lima CLR, Reinert DJ, Reichert JM, Pillon CN. 2014. Estrutura e armazenamento de água em um Argissolo sob pastagem cultivada, floresta nativa e povoamento de eucalipto no Rio Grande do Sul [Water structure and storage in an Argisol under cultivated pasture, native forest and eucalyptus stand in Rio Grande do Sul]. Rev Bras Ciênc do Solo. 38(1):94–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carandang AP, Carandang MG, Camacho LD, Camacho SC, Aguilon BC, Gevaña DT. 2015. Profitability of smallholder private tree plantations in Talacogon, Agusan Del Sur, Philippines. Ecosyst Dev J. 5(3):3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Engelbrecht R, McEwan A, Spinelli R. 2017. A robust productivity model for grapple yarding in fast-growing tree plantations. Forests. 8(10):396. doi: 10.3390/f8100396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engler B, Becker G, Hoffmann S. 2016. Process mechanization models for improved Eucalyptus plantation management in Southern China based on the analysis of currently applied semi-mechanized harvesting operations. Biomass Bioenergy. 87:96–106. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.02.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann S, Jaeger D, Schoenherr S, Talbot B. 2015. Challenges in mechanization efforts of small diameter eucalyptus harvesting operations with a low capacity running skyline yarder in Southern China. Forests. 6(12):2959–2981. doi: 10.3390/f6092959.
   Google Scholar
• Manavakun N. 2014. Harvesting operations in eucalyptus plantations in Thailand [ Doctoral Dissertation]. Finnish Society of Forest Science, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry at the University of Helsinki; https://dissertationesforestales.fi/pdf/article1960.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rianthakool R, Sakai H. 2014. Short wood harvesting and pickup truck transportation during regeneration of rubber plantations. Bull Univ Tokyo For. 130:45–58.
   Google Scholar
• Rianthakool R, Kaakkurivaara N, Diloksampun P, Arunpraparut W. 2018. Supply chain operations in teak plantation. Proceedings of the 6th International Forest Engineering Conference (FEC). Rotorua, New Zealand; 16-19 April 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Britt C. 2000. Poplars: a multiple-use crop for European arable farmers. In: Poplar and willow culture: meeting the needs of society and the environment. Minnesota: USDA Forest Service, St. Paul. GTR-NC-215; p. 24.
   Google Scholar
• Cardias-Williams F, Thomas T. 2006. Some key issues concerning current poplar production and future marketing in the United Kingdom. New For. 31(3):343–359. doi: 10.1007/s11056-005-8197-7.
   Google Scholar
• Castro G, Zanuttini R. 2008. Poplar cultivation in Italy: history, state of the art, perspectives. Proceedings of the Cost Action E44 Final Conference in Milan on a European wood processing strategy: future resources matching products and innovations. Milan, Italy; 30 May 2008 141–154.
   Google Scholar
• Cogliastro A, Gagnon D, Bouchard A. 1997. Experimental determination of soil characteristics optimal for the growth of ten hardwoods planted on abandoned farmland. For Ecol Manage. 96(1–2):49–63. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00042-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuchet E, Roux P, Spinelli R. 2004. Performance of a logging residue bundler in the temperate forests of France. Biomass Bioenergy. 27(1):31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.10.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heilman P. 1999. Planted forests: poplars. New For. 17(1/3):89–93. doi: 10.1023/A:1006515204167.
   Google Scholar
• Hongyuan X. 1992. The culture history and breeding strategy of poplar in Italy. J For Res. 3(2):95–100. doi: 10.1007/BF02843043.
   Google Scholar
• IPC. 2008. International poplar commission 23rd session. Beijing, China. Synthesis of Country Progress Reports. www.fao.org/forestry/ipc2008/en.
   Google Scholar
• Jansons A, Zurkova S, Ladzina D, Zeps M. 2014. Productivity of poplar hybrid (Populus balsamifera x P. laurifolia) in Latcia. Agron Res. 12(2):469–478.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall H, Murphy G, Boston K. 2006. Evaluation of the economic impacts of length and diameter measurement error on mechanical harvesters and processors operating in pine stands. Can J For Res. 36(7):1661–1673. doi: 10.1139/x06-064.
   Google Scholar
• Picchio R, Verani S, Spinelli R, Picchi G. 2008. Field Handbook – Poplar Harvesting. International Poplar Commission Working Paper IPC/8. Rome: Forest Management Division, FAO.
   Google Scholar
• Puttock D, Spinelli R, Hartsough B. 2005. Operational trials of cut-to-length harvesting of poplar in a mixed wood stand. Int J For Eng. 16(1):39–49. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2005.10702506.
   Google Scholar
• Sedjo R. 1999. The potential of high-yield plantation forestry for meeting timber needs. New For. 17(1/3):339–360. doi: 10.1023/A:1006563420947.
   Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Hartsough B. 2006. Harvesting SRF poplar for pulpwood: experience in the Pacific Northwest. Biomass Bioenerg. 30(5):439–445. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.11.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Hartsough BR, Moore PW. 2008. Recovering sawlogs from pulpwood-size plantation cottonwood. For Prod J. 58(4):80–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Nati C. 2011a. Work quality and veneer value recovery of mechanized and manual log-making in Italian poplar plantations. Eur J Forest Res. 130(5):737–744. doi: 10.1007/s10342-010-0464-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Magagnotti N. 2011b. Strategies for the processing of tree tops from hybrid poplar plantations. Balt For. 17(1):50–57.
   Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Hartsough B, Magagnotti N. 2010. Productivity standards for harvesters and processors in Italy. For Prod J. 60(3):226–235. doi: 10.13073/0015-7473-60.3.226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Sperandio G, Cielo P, Verani S, Zanuttini R. 2011. Cost and productivity of harvesting high-value hybrid poplar plantations in Italy. For Prod J. 61(1):64–70. doi: 10.13073/0015-7473-61.1.64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Schweier J, De Francesco F. 2012. Harvesting techniques for non-industrial forestry plantations. Biosyst Eng. 113(4):319–324. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.09.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verani S, Sperandio G, Civitarese V, Spinelli R. 2017. La meccanizzazione nella raccolta di impianti di arboricoltura da legno: produttività di lavoro e costi. Forest. 14(4):237–246. http://www.sisef.it/forest@/contents/?id=efor2389-014.
   Google Scholar
• CETEMAS-ENCE. 2019. Primary field data from ENCE company working in the North of Spain collected and evaluated by CETEMAS (Forest and Wood Technology Research Centre of Asturias) in 2019 at Province of Lugo and Coruña [ unpublished].
   Google Scholar
• Dias AC, Arroja L, Capela I. Carbon dioxide emissions from forest operations in Portuguese eucalypt and maritime pine stands. 2007. Scand J Forest Res. 22(5):422–432. doi: 10.1080/02827580701582692.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magagnotti N, Nati C, Pari L, Spinelli R, Visser R. 2011. Assessing the cost of stump-site debarking in eucalypt plantations. Biosyst Eng. 110(4):443–449. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.09.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MAPA. 2020. Anuario de Estadística Forestal 2020. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación.
   Google Scholar
• ICNF. 2019. 6º Inventário Florestal Nacional - Relatório Final. Lisboa, Portugal: Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz G. 2007. Aspectos particulares de la ordenación de plantaciones de eucalipto (Eucalyptus globulus Labill.). Boletín del CIDEU; p. 171–180.
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez LCE, Borges JG. 1999. Técnicas matemáticas para determinação de níveis sustentáveis de produção florestal. Rev For. 12(1/2):83–92.
   Google Scholar
• Sánchez-García S. 2016. Potential biomass use in Asturias: GIS analysis, yields, costs and logistics [ Doctoral thesis]. http://hdl.handle.net/10651/38974.
   Google Scholar
• Spanish Forest Statistics Yearbook. 2019. Anuario de Estadística Forestal Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Madrid: Gobierno de España. https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/estadisticas/forestal_anuarios_todos.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Owende PMO, Ward SM, Tornero M. 2004. Comparison of short-wood forwarding systems used in Iberia. Silva Fenn. 38(1):85–94. doi: 10.14214/sf.437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman P, Martin C, Brewer J, Ackerman S. 2018. Effect of slope on productivity and cost of eucalyptus pulpwood harvesting using single-grip purpose-built and excavator-based harvesters. Int J For Eng. 29(2):74–82. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2018.1431491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman P, Pulkki R, Odhiambo B. 2016. Comparison of cable skidding productivity and cost: pre-choking mainline versus tagline systems. Croat J For Eng. 37(2):261–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman P, Pulkki R, Gleasure E. 2014. Modelling of wander ratios, travel speeds and productivity of cable and grapple skidders in softwood sawtimber operations in South Africa. South For J For Sci. 76(2):101–110. doi: 10.2989/20702620.2014.917355.
   Google Scholar
• Ackerman P, Williams C, Ackerman S, Nati C. 2017. Diesel consumption and carbon balance in South African pine clear-felling CTL operations: a preliminary case study. Croat J For Eng. 38(1):65–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer J, Talbot B, Belbo H, Ackerman P, Ackerman S. 2018. A comparison of two methods of data collection for modelling productivity of harvesters: manual time study and follow-up study using on-board-computer stem records. Ann For Res. 61(1):109–124. doi: 10.15287/afr.2018.962.
   Google Scholar
• Eggers J, McEwan A, Conradie B. 2010. Saw timber tree optimisation in South Africa: a comparison of mechanized tree optimisation (harvester/processor) versus current manual methods. South For J For Sci. 72(1):23–30. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/20702620.2010.481099.
   Google Scholar
• FSA. 2017. The South African forestry and forest products industry 2015. https://forestry.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/South-African-Forestry-Forest-Products-Industry-2015-R.
   Google Scholar
• Hogg GA, Pulkki RE, Ackerman PA. 2010. Multi-stem mechanized harvesting operation analysis – application of arena 9 discrete-event simulation software in Zululand, South Africa. Int J For Eng. 21(2):14–22. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2010.10702594.
   Google Scholar
• Hogg G, Pulkki R, Ackerman P. 2011. Excavator-based processor operator productivity and cost analysis in Zululand, South Africa. South For J For Sci. 73(2):109–115. doi: 10.2989/20702620.2011.610874.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norihiro J, Ackerman P, Spong BD, Längin D. 2018. Productivity model for cut-to-length harvester operation in South African eucalyptus pulpwood plantations. Croat J For Eng. 39(1):1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellegrini M, Ackerman P, Cavalli R. 2013. On-board computing in forest machinery as a tool to improve skidding operations in South African softwood sawtimber operations. South For J For Sci. 75(2):89–96. doi: 10.2989/20702620.2013.785107.
   Google Scholar
• Wenhold R, Ackerman P, Ackerman S, Gagliardi K. 2019, March 1. Skills development of mechanized softwood saw timber cut-to-length harvester operators on the Highveld of South Africa. Int J For Eng. 31(1):9–18. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2019.1578561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams C, Ackerman P. 2016. Cost-productivity analysis of South African pine sawtimber mechanized cut-to-length harvesting. Vol. 78, Southern Forests; p. 267–274.
   Google Scholar
• Williams C, Ackerman P. 2019. South African pine cut-to-length harvesting: an analysis of fibre loss and productivity. Croat J For Eng. 40(1):55–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker SA, Westbrook MDJ, Greene WD. 2010. Evaluation of integrated harvesting systems in pine stands of the southern United States. Biomass Bioenergy. 34(5):720–727. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conrad JL, Bolding MC, Aust WM, Smith RL, Horcher A. 2013. Harvesting productivity and costs when utilizing energywood from pine plantations of the southern Coastal Plain USA. Biomass Bioenergy. 52:85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel MJ, Gallagher T, Mitchell D, McDonald T, Via B. 2019. Productivity and cost estimates for incorporating tracked processors into conventional loblolly pine harvesting regimes in the Southeastern United States. Int J For Eng. 30(2):155–162. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2019.1611131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartsough BR, Spinelli R, Pottle SJ. 2002. Delimbing hybrid poplar prior to processing with a flail/chipper. For Prod J. 52(4):85–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klepac J, Mitchell D. 2016. Comparison of four harvesting systems in a Loblolly Pine Plantation. Prof Agric Workers J. 4(1):9.
   Google Scholar
• Klepac J, Mitchell D. 2017. Evaluation of a tracked feller-buncher harvesting plantation loblolly pine. USDA, Forest Service US. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2017/ja_2017_mitchell_003.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Klepac J, Rummer B. 2000. Productivity and cost comparison of two different-sized skidders. Written for Presentation at the 2000 ASAE Annual International Meeting, Midwest Express Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA; July 9-12 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Hartsough B, Moore P. 2008. Recovering sawlogs from pulpwood-size plantation cottonwood. For Prod J. 58:80–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Hartsough BR, Owende PMO, Ward SM. 2002. Productivity and cost of mechanized whole-tree harvesting of fast-growing eucalypt stands. Int J For Eng. 13(2):49–60. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2002.10702462.
   Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Moura ACA. 2019. Productivity and utilization benchmarks for chain flail delimber-debarkers-chippers used in fast-growing plantations. Croat J for Eng. 40(1):65–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanturf JA, Zhang D. 2003. Plantations forests in the United States of America: past, present and future. http://www.fao.org/3/xii/0325-b1.htm.
   Google Scholar