2016
DOI: 10.21833/ijaas.2016.08.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wood waste during full‐length and cut‐to‐length harvesting systems in caspian forests

Abstract: A field-based study was performed to examine wood waste associated with full-length and cut to length harvesting systems in Caspian forests of Iran. Damaged logs were recorded with additional information obtained for the location, dimensions, and type of damage. The data were analyzed statistically to determine significant differences of damages during logging process. The results indicated that cut to length harvesting systems caused more volume loss to logs than full-length harvesting systems; also bucking r… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 10 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The logging waste is lower than the research results in the sub-regions of East Kalimantan and Central Kalimantan, which ranged from 17-18% (Soenarno et al, 2016;Soenarno et al, 2021) and in East Luwu Regency of 5.75 m 3 /ha (Dalya et al 2021). The amount of waste is much smaller than the research in the Caspian hardwood forests of Pakistan at 15.6% (Behjou et al 2016) and North Kalimantan at 11.06 m 3 /ha (Muhdi et al, 2016). The waste differences are caused by differences in how waste is measured.…”
Section: Skidding and Grading Scaling Wastementioning
confidence: 87%
“…The logging waste is lower than the research results in the sub-regions of East Kalimantan and Central Kalimantan, which ranged from 17-18% (Soenarno et al, 2016;Soenarno et al, 2021) and in East Luwu Regency of 5.75 m 3 /ha (Dalya et al 2021). The amount of waste is much smaller than the research in the Caspian hardwood forests of Pakistan at 15.6% (Behjou et al 2016) and North Kalimantan at 11.06 m 3 /ha (Muhdi et al, 2016). The waste differences are caused by differences in how waste is measured.…”
Section: Skidding and Grading Scaling Wastementioning
confidence: 87%