Damage of the Remaining Stands Caused by Various Types of Logging Technology

Abstract

Forest harvesting causes a lot of damage, which results in damage of the remaining stand. These damages have different character. Their origin, range, and type is affected by the type of machinery, harvesting technology and the machine operator. This paper was focused on the negative impact of three types of forest harvesting technologies to the remaining stand. We considered wheeled skidder technology, and CTL technology with wheeled and tracked chassis. The harvest in stands varied between 21 and 52%, with an average concentration of felling 13.7–95.4 m3 per one skid trail. We observed that the damage rate in stands processed by CTL technology was between 7.3 and 8.03%. Skidder technologies caused damage between 17.8% and 44.6%. The average size of wound caused by CTL technologies was between 167 and 322 cm2. Skidder caused damages with area between 395 and 506 cm2. We also observed differences between damages caused by various types of chassis. CTL technology with tracked chassis caused more damages of timber and tree root system. We used multivariate regression and correlation analyses to evaluate the effect of stand density and intensity of harvest on the intensity of damage. The analyses did not confirm significant impact of these two characteristics on intensity of damage, with coefficients of correlation of 0.22 (stand density) and 0.53 (intensity of harvest).

Machinery-Induced Damage to Soil and Remaining Forest Stands—Case Study from Slovakia

“…[35] states wounds at tree roots were from 10 to 200 cm 2 large in mixed beech-oak stands. [39] compared the mean size of wounds that occurred during forest operations performed by skidders and harvesters. He revealed the smallest mean sizes of 134.21 and 200 cm 2 in stands, where a tracked harvester was applied (spruce-thinning).…”

How and How Much, Do Harvesting Activities Affect Forest Soil, Regeneration and Stands?

“…110 y.o. oak were skidded [87]. The same authors observed that a higher thinning (or shelterwood cutting) intensity can cause a higher level of damage.…”

“…and younger stands (30-35 y.o.) or species: oak or spruce [87]. Cudzik et al [48] confirmed a lower level of damage, 4-6% in thinned stands, where CTL was used, and 9-12% for chainsaw felling with skidding in the late thinning of pine stands.…”

“…The same authors observed that a higher thinning (or shelterwood cutting) intensity can cause a higher level of damage. More injured trees were also observed closer to the strip or skid roads [87]. When tracked machines were used more damage to the roots was observed, although studies were carried out in spruce stands, and these trees have roots which are only partially under the surface of the soil [87].…”

“…Therefore, the setting of maximal limits, as in the case of stand damage, should further limit soil disturbance and injuries to natural regeneration. [89]: hardwood forest, thinning or selection cutting with chainsaw and skidder, published in [89], damage 3% ± 1.0%; Hw-Sh-HF [48]: hardwood forest, shelterwood cutting with harvester and forwarder, published in [48], damage 5% ± 1.1%; Hw-Sh-HF [87]: hardwood forest, shelterwood cutting by harvester and forwarder, published in [87], damage 8% ± 1.0%; Hw-Sc-CS [13]: hardwood forest, selection cutting with chainsaw and skidder, published in [13], damage 8% ± 1.4%; Hw-Sh-CS [48]: hardwood forest, shelterwood cutting with chainsaw and skidder, published in [48], damage 10%± 2.8%; Hw-Th-CS [11]: hardwood forest, thinning with chainsaw and skidder, published in [11], damage 14% ± 2.0%; Sw-Th-CS [73]: softwood forest (pine), thinning with chainsaw and skidder, published in [73], damage 16% ± 2.1%; Hw-Sc-CS [88]: hardwood forest, selection cutting with chainsaw and skidder, published in [88], damage 21% ± 1.0%; Sw-Sc-HF [76]: softwood forest, selection cutting with harvester and forwarder, published in [76], damage 21%± 2.6%; Hw-Sh-CS [91]: hardwood forest, shelterwood cutting with chainsaw and skidder, published in [91], damage 22% ± 2.0%; Hw-Sh-CS [87]: hardwood forest, shelterwood cutting with chainsaw and skidder, published in [87], damage 32% ± 4.9%; Sw-Th-CY [17]: softwood forest, thinning treatment by chainsaw and cable yarder, published in [18], damage 43%± 10.6%; Hw-Th-CS [90]: hardwood forest, thinning treatment by chainsaw and skidder, published in [90], damage 50%± 5.0%…”