Constraints and opportunities in harvesting woody biomass: perspectives of foresters and loggers in the Northeastern United States

References

• Abbas D, Di Fulvio F, Spinelli R. 2018. European and United States perspectives on forest operations in environmentally sensitive areas. Scand J Forest Res. 33(2):188–201. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2017.1338355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbas D, Hodges D, Heard J. 2019. Costing the forest operations and the supply of hardwood in tennessee. Croat J For Eng: J Theory And Appl For Eng. 40(1):49–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anca-Couce A, Hochenauer C, Scharler R. 2021. Bioenergy technologies, uses, market and future trends with Austria as a case study. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 135:110237. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett SM, Bolding MC, Aust WM, Munsell JF. 2014. Characteristics of logging businesses that harvest biomass for energy production. For Prod J [Internet]. 64(7–8):265–272. doi: 10.13073/FPJ-D-14-00033.
   Google Scholar
• Becker DR, Moseley C, Lee C. 2011. A supply chain analysis framework for assessing state-level forest biomass utilization policies in the United States. Biomass Bioenergy [Internet]. 35(4): 1429–1439. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.07.030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamin JG. 2009. Considerations and recommendations for retaining woody biomass on timber harvest sites in Maine. Nat Res Conserv Ser. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=aes_miscpubs.
   Google Scholar
• Bessaad A, Bilger I, Korboulewsky N. 2021. Assessing biomass removal and woody debris in whole-tree harvesting system: are the recommended levels of residues ensured? Forests. 12(6):807. doi: 10.3390/f12060807.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biomass energy service team. 1989. Dorectory of biomass energy facilities in the northeast. Maine, FalmouthWashington, D.C: Sponsored by the CONEG Policy Research Center, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Bolding MC, Barrett SM, Munsell JF, Groover MC. 2010. Characteristics of virginia’s logging businesses in a changing timber market. For Prod J. 60(1):86–93. doi: 10.13073/0015-7473-60.1.86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braghiroli FL, Passarini L. 2020. Valorization of biomass residues from forest operations and wood manufacturing presents a wide range of sustainable and innovative possibilities. Curr For Rep [Internet]. 6(2): 172–183. doi: 10.1007/s40725-020-00112-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Brown A, Le Feuvre P. 2017. Technology roadmap: delivering sustainable bioenergy. Paris, France: International Energy Agency (IEA); p. 94.
   Google Scholar
• Bukauskas A, Mayencourt P, Shepherd P, Sharma B, Mueller C, Walker P, Bregulla J. 2019. Whole timber construction: a state of the art review. Constr Build Mater. 213:748–769. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler BJ, Ma Z, Kittredge DB, Catanzaro P. 2010. Social versus biophysical availability of wood in the northern United States. North J Appl For. 27(4):151–159. doi: 10.1093/njaf/27.4.151.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. 2009. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis 2nd edition. In: Harris C, Larry VH, Jeffrey CV, editors. The hand of res synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Russell Sage Foundation; p. 1–615.
   Google Scholar
• Cowie AL, Berndes G, Bentsen NS, Brandão M, Cherubini F, Egnell G, George B, Gustavsson L, Hanewinkel M, Harris ZM. 2021. Applying a science‐based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy. 13(8):1210–1231.
   Google Scholar
• Crandall MS, Anderson JL, Rubin J. 2017. Impacts of recent mill closures and potential biofuels development on Maine’s forest products industry. Me policy rev. 26(1):15–22. doi: 10.53558/JONV9555.
   Google Scholar
• Damery D, Kelty M, Benjamin D, Lilieholm RJ. 2009. Developing a sustainable forest biomass industry: case of the US northeast. Ecol Environ. 122:141–152.
   Google Scholar
• Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. 2014. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. ProQuest Ebook Central: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, Hoboken, New Jersey. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umaine/detail.action?docID=1762797.
   Google Scholar
• EIA. 2018. Wood and wood waste - energy explained, your guide to understanding energy - energy information administration [Internet]. [accessed 2019 Jun 25]. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=biomass_wood.
   Google Scholar
• EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2019. Monthly energy review – June 2019 [internet]. 274. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Evans AM, Perschel RT, Kittler BA. 2013. Overview of forest biomass harvesting guidelines. J Sustain For. 32(1–2):89–107. doi: 10.1080/10549811.2011.651786.
   Google Scholar
• Faaij A. 2006. Modern biomass conversion technologies. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change. 11(2):343–375. doi: 10.1007/s11027-005-9004-7.
   Google Scholar
• FIA. 2019. Evalidator version 1.8.0.01 [Internet]. [accessed 2021 Sep 6]. https://apps.fs.usda.gov/Evalidator/evalidator.jsp.
   Google Scholar
• FIA U. 2014. Forest inventory & analysis - us forest service research & development [Internet]. [accessed 2020 Jan 30]. https://www.fs.fed.us/research/inventory-monitoring-analysis/forest-inventory-analysis.php.
   Google Scholar
• Fielding D, Cubbage F, Peterson MN, Hazel D, Gugelmann B, Moorman C. 2012. Opinions of forest managers, loggers, and forest landowners in North Carolina regarding biomass harvesting guidelines. Int J Of Fore Resear. 2012:1–15. doi: 10.1155/2012/256141.
   Google Scholar
• Fredriksson M, Bomark P, Broman O, Grönlund A. 2015. Using small diameter logs for cross-laminated timber production. BioResources. 10(1):1477–1486. doi: 10.15376/biores.10.1.1477-1486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fryer LK, Nakao K. 2020. The future of survey self-report: an experiment contrasting likert, VAS, slide, and swipe touch interfaces. Frontline Learn Res. 8(3):10–25. doi: 10.14786/flr.v8i3.501.
   Google Scholar
• Galik CS, Benedum ME, Kauffman M, Becker DR. 2021. Opportunities and barriers to forest biomass energy: a case study of four US states. Biomass Bioenergy. 148:106035. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García LV. 2004. Escaping the Bonferroni iron claw in ecological studies. Oikos. 105(3):657–663. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13046.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George AK, Kizha AR, Daigneault A. 2022. Is forest certification working on the ground? Forest managers perspectives from the northeast US. Trees, For People. 7:100197. doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100197.
   Google Scholar
• George AK, Kizha AR, Kenefic L, CzupyI. 2019. Economic feasibility of timber harvesting in lowlands. In: Imre C, editor. Exceeding the vision: forest mechanisation of the future. Sopron, Hungary:University of Sopron Press; p. 379–393.
   Google Scholar
• Ghaffariyan MR, Dupuis E. 2021. Analysing the impact of harvesting methods on the quantity of harvesting residues: an Australian case study. Forests. 12(9):1212. doi: 10.3390/f12091212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gruchy SR, Grebner DL, Munn IA, Joshi O, Hussain A. 2012. An assessment of nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to harvest woody biomass in support of bioenergy production in Mississippi: a contingent rating approach. For Policy Econ. 15:140–145. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.09.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han H-S, Jacobson A, Bilek ET, Sessions J. 2018. Waste to wisdom: utilizing forest residues for the production of bioenergy and biobased products. Appl Eng Agric. 34(1):5–10. doi: 10.13031/aea.12774.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han H-S, Lee HW, Johnson LR. 2004. Economic feasibility of an integrated harvesting system for small-diameter trees in southwest Idaho. For Prod J. 54(2):21–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han S-K, Murphy G. 2012. Predicting loaded on-highway travel times of trucks hauling woody raw material for improved forest biomass utilization in oregon. West J Appl For [Internet]. 27(2): 92–99. doi: 10.5849/wjaf.11-016.
   Google Scholar
• Hanzelka NC, Bolding MC, Sullivan J, Barrett SM. 2016. Productivity and costs of utilizing small-diameter stems in a biomass-only harvest. Int J For Eng [Internet]. 27(1): 43–52. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2015.1135615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrill H, Han H-S. 2012. Productivity and cost of integrated harvesting of wood chips and sawlogs in stand conversion operations. Int J Of Fore Resear. 2012:10. doi: 10.1155/2012/893079.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson J, Mitchell C, Storry P 1990. Costing integrated harvesting systems: Proceedings of the IEA/BA Task 6th Activity Integrated Harvesting Systems. 2(1-6):121–30. doi:10.1016/0961-9534(92)90094-7.
   Google Scholar
• IEA. 2021. World energy outlook 2020 – analysis. IEA [Internet]. [accessed 2021 Apr 13]. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020.
   Google Scholar
• Irland LC. 1999. Northeast’s changing forests. Petersham, Massachusetts: Distributed by Harvard University Press for Harvard Forest.
   Google Scholar
• Jones G, Loeffler D, Calkin D, Chung W. 2010. Forest treatment residues for thermal energy compared with disposal by onsite burning: emissions and energy return. Biomass Bioenergy Internet. [accessed 2019 Jun 25. 34(5): 737–746. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kizha A, Han HS, Montgomery T, Hohl A, Bisson J. 2015. Determining cost zones and hot spots for procuring feedstock for woody biomass-based power plants in northern California. Calif Agr. 69(3):184–190. doi: 10.3733/ca.v069n03p184.
   Google Scholar
• Kizha AR, Han H-S 2015a. Productivity and cost of processing and sorting forest residues. In: 38th Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting. Lexington, Kentucky; p. 52–67.
   Google Scholar
• Kizha AR, Han H-S. 2015b. Forest residues recovered from whole-tree timber harvesting operations. Eur J Forest Eng. 1(2):46–55.
   Google Scholar
• Kizha AR, Han H-S2016. Processing and sorting forest residues: cost, productivity and managerial impacts. Biomass Bioenergy Internet. [[accessed 2019 Jun 25]. 93:97–106. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.06.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kizha AR, Han H-S. 2017. Moisture content in forest residues: an insight on sampling methods and procedures. Curr For Rep. 3(3):202–212. doi: 10.1007/s40725-017-0060-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kizha AR, Han H-S, Anderson N, Koirala AT, Louis L. 2020. Comparing hot and cold loading in an integrated biomass recovery operation. Forests. 11(4):385. doi: 10.3390/f11040385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kizha AR, Han H-S, Montgomery T, Hohl A. 2015. Biomass power plant feedstock procurement: modeling transportation cost zones and the potential for competition. Cal Ag. [Internet]. 69(3): 184–190. doi; 10.3733/ca.v069n03p184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kizha AR, Han H-S, Paulson JS, Koirala A. 2018. Strategies for reducing moisture content in forest residues at the harvest site. Appl Eng Agric. 34(1):25–33. doi: 10.13031/aea.12427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kizha AR, Nahor E, Coogen N, Louis LT, George AK. 2021. Residual Stand Damage under different harvesting methods and mitigation strategies. Sustainability. 13(14):7641. doi: 10.3390/su13147641.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kizhakkepurakkal AR. 2008. Opportunities and challenges associated with development of wood biomass energy production in Louisiana. Ann Arbor, Louisiana, USA: Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College.
   Google Scholar
• Klein JA, Wolf SA. 2007. Toward multifunctional landscapes: cross‐sectional analysis of management priorities in New York’s Northern forest. Rural Sociol. 72(3):391–417. doi: 10.1526/003601107781799317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koirala A, Kizha A, De Urioste-Stone S. 2017. Policy recommendation from stakeholders to improve forest products transportation: a qualitative study. Forests [Internet]. 8(11): 434. doi: 10.3390/f8110434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koirala A, Kizha A, Roth BE. 2017. Perceiving major problems in forest products transportation by trucks and trailers: a cross-sectional survey. Eur J For Eng. 3:23–34.
   Google Scholar
• Langholtz MH, Stokes BJ, Eaton LM 2016. 2016 billion-ton report: advancing domestic resources for a thriving bioeconomy, volume 1: economic availability of feedstock. oak ridge national laboratory, oak ridge, tennessee, managed by ut-battelle, llc for the us department of energy. 1–411.
   Google Scholar
• Liao Y, Tu D, Zhou J, Zhou H, Yun H, Gu J, Hu C. 2017. Feasibility of manufacturing cross-laminated timber using fast-grown small diameter eucalyptus lumbers. Constr Build Mater. 132:508–515. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louis LT, Kizha AR. 2021. Wood biomass recovery cost under different harvesting methods and market conditions. Int J For Eng. 32(2):164–173. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2021.1874206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louis LT, Kizha AR, Daigneault A, Han H-S, Weiskittel A. 2022. Factors affecting operational cost and productivity of ground-based timber harvesting machines: a meta-analysis. Curr For Rep (in press). 8(1):38–54. doi: 10.1007/s40725-021-00156-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu Z, Zhou H, Liao Y, Hu C. 2018. Effects of surface treatment and adhesives on bond performance and mechanical properties of cross-laminated timber (CLT) made from small diameter eucalyptus timber. Constr Build Mater. 161:9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maguire M, Delahunt B. 2017. Doing a thematic analysis: a practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. J Higher Educ. 9(3):3351–33514.
   Google Scholar
• Marchi E, Chung W, Visser R, Abbas D, Nordfjell T, Mederski PS, McEwan A, Brink M, Laschi A. 2018. Sustainable forest operations (SFO): a new paradigm in a changing world and climate. Sci Total Environ [Internet]. 634:1385–1397. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire JB, Leahy JE, Marciano JA, Lilieholm RJ, Teisl MF. 2017. Social acceptability of establishing forest-based biorefineries in Maine, United States. Biomass Bioenergy. 105:155–163. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.06.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles PD 2017. Forest inventory EVALIDator web-application version 1.6. 0.03. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, St Paul, MN. http://appsfs fedus/Evalidator/evalidatorjsp.
   Google Scholar
• Montgomery TD, Han H-S, Kizha AR2016. Modeling work plan logistics for centralized biomass recovery operations in mountainous terrain. Biomass Bioenergy [Internet]. 85:262–270. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.11.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neupane B, Rubin J. 2017. Implications of US biofuels policy for sustainable transportation energy in Maine and the northeast. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 70:729–735. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver A, Khanna M. 2017. Demand for biomass to meet renewable energy targets in the United States: implications for land use. Gcb Bioenergy. 9(9):1476–1488. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12437.
   Google Scholar
• Pan F, Han H-S, Johnson LR, Elliot WJ. 2008. Production and cost of harvesting, processing, and transporting small-diameter (< 5 inches) trees for energy. For Prod J. 58(5):7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parra-Frutos I. 2013. Testing homogeneity of variances with unequal sample sizes. Comput Stat. 28(3):1269–1297. doi: 10.1007/s00180-012-0353-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulson JS, Kizha AR, Han H-S. 2019. Integrating biomass conversion technologies with recovery operations in-woods: modeling supply chain. Logistics. 3(3):16. doi: 10.3390/logistics3030016.
   Google Scholar
• Pokhrel G, Kizha AR, Gardner DJ. 2022. Transportation cost analysis on alternative wood feedstocks for manufacturing wood-plastic composites. BioResources. 17(1):634–651. doi: 10.15376/biores.17.1.634-651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinn RJ, Ha H, Volk TA, Brown TR, Bick S, Malmsheimer RW, Fortier M-O. 2020. Life cycle assessment of forest biomass energy feedstock in the Northeast United States. Gcb Bioenergy. 12(9):728–741. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12725.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2021. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing [internet]. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Reid WV, Ali MK, Field CB. 2020. The future of bioenergy. Glob Chang Biol. 26(1):274–286. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revilla M, Ochoa C, Turbina A. 2017. Making use of internet interactivity to propose a dynamic presentation of web questionnaires. Qual Quant. 51(3):1321–1336. doi: 10.1007/s11135-016-0333-2.
   Google Scholar
• Sahoo K, Bilek E, Bergman R, Kizha AR, Mani S. 2019. Economic analysis of forest residues supply chain options to produce enhanced‐quality feedstocks. Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref. [Internet]. 13(3): 514–534. doi; 10.1002/bbb.1958.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sass E, Markowski-Lindsay M, Butler B, Caputo J, Hartsell A, Huff E, Robillard A. 2021. Dynamics of large corporate forestland ownerships in the United States. J For. 119(4):363–375. doi: 10.1093/jofore/fvab013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sass EM, Butler BJ, Markowski-Lindsay M 2020. Distribution of forest ownerships across the conterminous United States, 2017 Res Map NRS-11 Madison, WI: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 11.
   Google Scholar
• Silver EJ, Leahy JE, Noblet CL, Weiskittel AR. 2015. Maine woodland owner perceptions of long rotation woody biomass harvesting and bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy. 76:69–78. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.03.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder SA, Blinn CR, Roth S, Windmuller-Campione M. 2022. Gaining insights about forest health prescriptions from loggers and foresters: understudied voices in the human dimensions of forest health. Environ Manage. 70(2):215–228. doi: 10.1007/s00267-022-01652-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soman H, Kizha AR, Roth BE. 2019. Impacts of silvicultural prescriptions and implementation of best management practices on timber harvesting costs. Int J For Eng [Internet]. 30(1): 14–25. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2019.1562691.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soucy A, De Urioste-Stone S, Rahimzadeh-Bajgiran P, Weiskittel A, McGreavy B. 2020. Understanding characteristics of forest professionals and small woodlot owners for communicating climate change adaptation. Trees, For People. 2:100036. doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100036.
   Google Scholar
• Soucy A, De Urioste-Stone S, Rahimzadeh-Bajgiran P, Weiskittel A, McGreavy B. 2021. Forestry professionals’ perceptions of climate change impacts on the forest industry in Maine, USA. J Sustain For. 40(7):695–720. doi: 10.1080/10549811.2020.1803919.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli R, Visser R, Björheden R, Röser D. 2019. Recovering energy biomass in conventional forest operations: a review of integrated harvesting systems. Curr For Rep. [Internet]. 5(2): 90–100. doi: 10.1007/s40725-019-00089-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM, et al. 2013. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tettey UYA, Dodoo A, Gustavsson L. 2019. Effect of different frame materials on the primary energy use of a multi storey residential building in a life cycle perspective. Energ Buildings. 185:259–271. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.12.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thrän D, Peetz D, Schaubach K, Backéus S, Benedetti L, Bruce L. 2017. Global wood pellet industry and trade study. IEA Bioenergy Task 40.
   Google Scholar
• Tisserat BH, Reifschneider L, Gravett A, Peterson SC. 2017. Wood-plastic composites utilizing wood flours derived from fast-growing trees common to the midwest. BioResources. 12(4):7898–7916. doi: 10.15376/biores.12.4.7898-7916.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titus BD, Brown K, Helmisaari H-S, Vanguelova E, Stupak I, Evans A, Clarke N, Guidi C, Bruckman VJ, Varnagiryte-Kabasinskiene I. 2021. Sustainable forest biomass: a review of current residue harvesting guidelines. Energ Sustain Soc. 11(1):1–32. doi: 10.1186/s13705-021-00281-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ugolini F, Massetti L, Sanesi G, Pearlmutter D. 2015. Knowledge transfer between stakeholders in the field of urban forestry and green infrastructure: results of a European survey. Land Use Policy. 49:365–381. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US EPA O. 2015. Renewable identification numbers (RINs) under the renewable fuel standard program [Internet]. [accessed 2021 Oct 22]. https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/renewable-identification-numbers-rins-under-renewable-fuel-standard.
   Google Scholar
• Vance ED, Prisley SP, Schilling EB, Tatum VL, Wigley TB, Lucier AA, Van Deusen PC. 2018. Environmental implications of harvesting lower-value biomass in forests. For Ecol Manage. 407:47–56. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2017.10.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Wang J, Schuler J, Hartley D, Volk T, Eisenbies M. 2020. Optimization of harvest and logistics for multiple lignocellulosic biomass feedstocks in the northeastern United States. Energy. 197:117260. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.117260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whalley S, Klein SJ, Benjamin J. 2017. Economic analysis of woody biomass supply chain in Maine. Biomass Bioenergy. 96:38–49. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.10.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickham H 2016. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York [Internet]. Springer-Verlag New York. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org.
   Google Scholar
• Woodall CW, Weiskittel AR. 2021. Relative density of United States forests has shifted to higher levels over last two decades with important implications for future dynamics. Sci Rep. 11(1):1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-98244-w.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar