An enhanced method for improving the efficiency of harvesting tree plantations on flat and sloping terrain using a cutting-cycle productivity model

Abstract

This study aimed to model and identify the most productive cutting methods of tree plantations by comparing a forward felling technique (C) with sideways techniques outside (A and D) or inside cutting edge (B and E). Drone video material of each tree was analyzed by comparing time distribution of work phases. The relation between this input data and harvester production data was analyzed by regression models. A quadratic model predicted productivity precisely (R² = 0.95) and explained the effective-hour productivity in cutting cycle with dummy variables of harvesting conditions. The productivity was explained by tree size and cutting cycle time, while effects of operator and harvester were eliminated by statistical analysis. In loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantations on flat terrain, cutting method B was 4.8 m³/E₀h (effective working hour) more productive than method A, and 6.7 m³/E₀h than method C. In Sydney blue gum (Eucalyptus saligna Sm.) plantations, cutting method E was 1.8 m³/E₀h more productive than cutting method D on sloping terrain. Of the time-cycle variables, time consumption of the “moving of tree” changed significantly between the cutting methods, of which the ones that used the sideways felling technique inside cutting edge were most efficient. This quadratic modeling structure can be recommended for precise studies in similar harvesting conditions.

Keywords

Time and motion study / Effective-hour productivity / Felling technique / Work-phase analysis / Cut-to-length method

References

[1] Ackerman P, Martin C, Brewer J, Ackerman S. Effect of slope on productivity and cost of Eucalyptus pulpwood harvesting using single-grip purpose-built and excavator-based harvesters. Int J for Eng, 2018, 29(2): 74-82

[2] Acuna M, Strandgard M, Wiedemann J, Mitchell R. Impacts of early thinning of a Eucalyptus globulus labill. pulplog plantation in western Australia on economic profitability and harvester productivity. Forests, 2017, 8(11): 415

[3] Brandtner N (2018) Produktivitätsevaluierung des seilgestützten Harvesters John Deere 1170E. MS Dissertations, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria

[4] da Silva Leite E, Minette LJ, Fernandes HC, de Souza AP, do Amaral EJ, das Graça Lacerda E. Performance of the harvester on eucalyptus crops in different spacing and slopes. Rev Árvore, 2014, 38(11-7(in Finnish)

[5] Dancey C, Reidy J. Statistics without maths for psychology: using SPSS for Windows, 2004, London, Prentice Hall

[6] Eriksson M, Lindroos O. Productivity of harvesters and forwarders in CTL operations in northern Sweden based on large follow-up datasets. Int J for Eng, 2014, 25(3): 179-200

[7] Garren AM, Bolding MC, Aust WM, Moura AC, Barrett SM. Soil disturbance effects from tethered forwarding on steep slopes in Brazilian Eucalyptus plantations. Forests, 2019, 10(9): 721

[8] Gerasimov Y, Senkin V, Väätäinen K. Productivity of single-grip harvesters in clear-cutting operations in the northern European part of Russia. Eur J for Res, 2012, 131(3647-654

[9] Green PQ, Chung W, Leshchinsky B, Belart F, Sessions J, Fitzgerald SA, Wimer JA, Cushing T, Garland JJ. Insight into the productivity, cost and soil impacts of cable-assisted harvester-forwarder thinning in western Oregon. For Sci, 2020, 66(1): 82-96

[10] Harstela P (1991) Work studies in forestry. University of Eastern Finland. Silva Carelica 18. 41 p.

[11] Heikkilä T. Statistical research, 20013Helsinki, Oy Edita Ab327

[12] Henley SS, Golden RM, Kashner TM. Statistical modeling methods: challenges and strategies. Biostat Epidemiol, 2020, 4(1): 105-139

[13] Hollander M, Wolfe DA. Nonparametric statistical methods, 1973, New York, John Wiley and Sons

[14] Holzfeind T, Stampfer K, Holzleitner F. Productivity, setup time and costs of a winch-assisted forwarder. J for Res, 2018, 23(4): 196-203

[15] Holzfeind T, Visser R, Chung W, Holzleitner F, Erber G. Development and benefits of winch-assist harvesting. Curr for Rep, 2020, 6(3): 201-209

[16] Jiroušek R, Klvač R, Skoupý A. Productivity and costs of the mechanised cut-to-length wood harvesting system in clear-felling operations. J for Sci, 2007, 53(10): 476-482

[17] Jylhä P, Jounela P, Koistinen M, Korpunen H (2019) Mechanical cutting: Follow-up-study. Natural Resources and Bioeconomy Research, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, Finland. 53 p. (in Finnish)

[18] Malinen J, Taskinen J, Tolppa T. Productivity of cut-to-length harvesting by operators’ age and experience. Croat J for Eng, 2018, 39: 14-22

[19] McEwan A, Magagnotti N, Spinelli R. The effects of number of stems per stool on cutting productivity in coppiced Eucalyptus plantations. Silva Fenn, 2016, 50(2): 1448

[20] Niebel B (1993) Motion and time study. Irwin 850 p.

[21] Norihiro J, Ackerman P, Spong B, Längin D. Productivity model for cut-to-length harvester operation in South African Eucalyptus pulpwood plantations. Croat J for Eng, 2018, 39(11-13

[22] Nurminen T, Korpunen H, Uusitalo J. Time consumption analysis of the mechanized cut-to-length harvesting system. Silva Fenn, 2006, 40(2): 335-363

[23] Nuutinen Y. Possibilities to use automatic and manual timing in time studies on harvester operations. Diss for, 2013, 156: 68

[24] Olivera A, Visser R, Acuna M, Morgenroth J. Automatic GNSS-enabled harvester data collection as a tool to evaluate factors affecting harvester productivity in a Eucalyptus spp. harvesting operation in Uruguay. Int J for Eng, 2016, 27(1): 15-28

[25] Ovaskainen H. Timber harvester operators’ working technique in first thinning and the importance of cognitive abilities on work productivity. Diss for, 2009, 79: 62

[26] Ovaskainen H (2012) Work methods in mechanical timber harvesting. Metsätehon raportti 22.47 p. (in Finnish)

[27] Ovaskainen H, Uusitalo J, Sassi T. Effect of edge trees on harvester positioning in thinning. For Sci, 2006, 52(6659-669

[28] Palander T. Outsourcing issues of wood supply chain management in the forest industry. For Sci, 2022, 68(5–6521-532

[29] Palander T, Nuutinen Y, Kariniemi A, Väätäinen K. Automatic time study method for recording work phase times of timber harvesting. For Sci, 2013, 59(4): 472-483

[30] Palander T, Ovaskainen H, Tikkanen L. An adaptive work study method for identifying the human factors that influence the performance of a human-machine system. For Sci, 2012, 58(4): 377-389

[31] Palander T, Pasi A, Laurèn A, Ovaskainen H. Comparison of cut-to-length harvesting methods in tree plantations in Brazil. Forests, 2024, 15(4): 666

[32] Prinz R, Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Routa J, Asikainen A. Modifying the settings of CTL timber harvesting machines to reduce fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions. J Clean Prod, 2018, 197: 208-217

[33] Purfürst FT, Erler J. The human influence on productivity in harvester operations. Int J for Eng, 2011, 22(215-22

[34] Ramantswana M, McEwan A, Steenkamp J. A comparison between excavator-based harvester productivity in coppiced and planted Eucalyptus grandis compartments in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. South for: J for Sci, 2013, 75(4): 239-246

[35] Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg, 2018, 126(5): 1763-1768

[36] Seixas F, Batista J. Technical and economical comparison between wheel harvesters and excavators. Cienc Florest, 2014, 24: 185-191

[37] Sirén M, Aaltio H. Productivity and costs of thinning harvesters and harvester-forwarders. Int J for Eng, 2003, 14(1): 39-48

[38] Spinelli R, Owende PMO, Ward SM. Productivity and cost of CTL harvesting of Eucalyptus globulus stands using excavator-based harvesters. For Prod J, 2002, 52(1): 67-77

[39] Inc SPSS. SPSS-X User’s Guide, 19883Chicago, SPSS Inc.

[40] Strandgard M, Mitchell R, Acuna M. General productivity model for single grip harvesters in Australian eucalypt plantations. Aust for, 2016, 79(2): 108-113

[41] Strimbu V, Boswell B (2018) Adverse skidding using a Tigercat 635E assisted by a T-Winch 10.1. Technical report no. 23, FPInnovations, Point-Claire, Canada

[42] Väätäinen K, Ovaskainen H, Ranta P, Ala-Fossi A (2005) The importance of the harvester operator’s tacit information to the felling result at the work point level. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 937.90 p. (in Finnish)

[43] Visser R, Spinelli R. Determining the shape of the productivity function for mechanized felling and felling-processing. J for Res, 2012, 17(5): 397-402

Funding

University of Eastern Finland (including Kuopio University Hospital)

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s)