Applicability of International Harvesting Equipment Productivity Studies in Maine, USA: A Literature Review

Harvesting equipment productivity studies have been conducted in many countries around the world spanning over 25 years. These studies have shown that many factors influence individual machine productivity. These factors include stand and site conditions, equipment configuration, management objectives, and operator experience. Productivity can increase or decrease with slight changes in any of these factors. This literature review also highlights the variety of experimental designs and data collection methods encountered in a cross section of those studies. It further shows the variation in species composition, stand density, tree diameter, and harvest prescription. Although studies that include the influence of operator performance on harvest equipment productivity are limited, they were included in this review where appropriate and available. It is clear that productivity equations should be developed using population-level data with several operators. Some studies were conducted in stands similar to Maine, but they used harvesting equipment that is not commonly used in logging operations in this state. Therefore the applicability of existing studies to the logging industry in Maine, USA, is very limited. Our conclusion is that in order to accurately predict harvesting productivity it is necessary to develop regional harvesting productivity equations using harvesting equipment commonly used in Maine. Forest operations researchers in other regions will be able to use this summary to explore the difficulty of applying productivity information to regional logging operations.

[1]  Loren D. Kellogg,et al.  Productivity and costs of an integrated mechanical forest fuel reduction operation in southwest Oregon , 2009 .

[2]  Chris B. LeDoux,et al.  Estimating and Validating Ground-Based Timber Harvesting Production Through Computer Simulation , 2003 .

[3]  Ola Lindroos,et al.  Scrutinizing the Theory of Comparative Time Studies with Operator as a Block Effect , 2010 .

[4]  Ola Lindroos,et al.  The effects of increased mechanization on time consumption in small-scale firewood processing , 2008 .

[5]  Masahiko Nakagawa,et al.  Effect of Tree Size on Productivity and Time Required for Work Elements in Selective Thinning by a Harvester , 2007 .

[6]  Alec Giffen.  The Economic Importance and Wood Flows from Maine's Forests, 2007 , 2007 .

[7]  Han-Sup Han,et al.  Productivity and cost of cut-to-length and whole-tree harvesting in a mixed-conifer stand , 2007 .

[8]  R. W. Brinker,et al.  Machine Rates for Selected Forest Harvesting Machines , 2002 .

[9]  Charles E. Coup.  A Case Study Approach for Assessing Operational and Silvicultural Performance of Whole-Tree Biomass Harvesting in Maine , 2009 .

[10]  Bruce R. Hartsough,et al.  Productivity standards for harvesters and processors in Italy. , 2010 .

[11]  Han-Sup Han,et al.  Economic feasibility of an integrated harvesting system for small-diameter trees in Southwest Idaho , 2004 .

[12]  Joe Mcneel,et al.  Production economics of harvesting small-diameter hardwood stands in central Appalachia , 2006 .

[13]  A. F. Howard.  Validating Forest Harvesting Production Equations , 1992 .

[14]  B. Andersson,et al.  Harvesting overmature aspen stands in Central Alberta , 1996 .

[15]  Jori Uusitalo,et al.  Characteristics and Significance of a Harvester Operators’ Working Technique in Thinnings , 2004 .

[16]  Bryce J. Stokes,et al.  Nondestructive evaluation for detection of honeycomb in the sawmill: an economic analysis , 1997 .

[17]  Dan Glade,et al.  Single- and Double-Grip Harvesters – Productive Measurements in Final Cutting of Shelterwood , 2013 .

[18]  Bryce J. Stokes,et al.  Comparison of two thinning systems. Part 2. Productivity and costs , 1996 .

[19]  Raffaele Spinelli,et al.  A new feller-buncher for harvesting energy wood: Results from a European test programme , 2007 .

[20]  Jingxin Wang,et al.  Production and cost analysis of a feller-buncher and grapple skidder in central Appalachian hardwood forests , 2004 .

[21]  Jori Uusitalo,et al.  Time consumption analysis of the mechanized cut-to-length harvesting system , 2006 .

[22]  Rolf Björheden,et al.  Basic Time Concepts For International Comparisons of Time Study Reports , 1991 .

[23]  Natascia Magagnotti,et al.  Comparison of two harvesting systems for the production of forest biomass from the thinning of Picea abies plantations , 2010 .

[24]  Frank Thomas Purfürst,et al.  Learning Curves of Harvester Operators , 2010 .

[25]  Karl Stampfer,et al.  Utilization Rates and Cost Factors in Timber Harvesting Based on Long-term Machine Data , 2011 .

[26]  Patrick Hiesl,et al.  A multi-stem feller-buncher cycle-time model for partial harvest of small-diameter wood stands , 2013 .

[27]  Patrick Hiesl,et al.  Productivity standards for whole-tree and cut-to-length harvesting systems in Maine , 2013 .

[28]  Rick Mitchell,et al.  Improving forest operations management through applied research , 2011 .

[29]  Andrew McEwan,et al.  Pinus saw timber tree optimisation in South Africa: a comparison of mechanised tree optimisation (harvester/processor) versus current manual methods , 2010 .

[30]  Kalle Kärhä,et al.  Productivity and Cutting Costs of Thinning Harvesters , 2004 .

[31]  Metsäteho Oy,et al.  Productivity and Cutting Costs of Thinning Harvesters , 2004 .

[32]  T. A. Pletsch,et al.  Technical and economical evaluation of Harvester in cut-to-length system in first cut eucalyptus forest. , 2008 .

[33]  T. Gullberg,et al.  Evaluating Operator-Machine Interactions in Comparative Time Studies , 1995 .

[34]  Matthew A. Holtzscher,et al.  Tree diameter effects on cost and productivity of cut-to-length systems , 1997 .

[35]  William H. McWilliams.  The forests of Maine , 2005 .

[36]  Ola Lindroos,et al.  The correlation between long-term productivity and short-term performance ratings of harvester operators , 2011 .