Comparison of Spatially Constrained Harvest Scheduling and a Classic Allowable Cut Indicator Approach for a Strip Shelterwood System

Forest management changed markedly in the Czech Republic and Slovakia after 1989. Following the denationalization of forestlands, forest managers became more concerned about sustainable timber production and the environmental impact of harvest operations. Current national forest laws in both countries prescribe a shelter- wood silvicultural system, but clear-cutting according to harvest scheduling by allowable cut indicators is still the most widely used management system. As an alternative to allowable cut indicators, we investigate spatially constrained harvest scheduling under a shelterwood system. Our study design considers both spatial and non-spatial constraints. The first spatial constraint concerns adjacency—managers cannot simultaneously harvest trees from adjacent areas. The second is an environmental requirement to reserve a specific portion of the stand. Non-spatial constraints include factors such as the upper limit of harvest determined by an owner's harvest flow requirements. We developed and compared three alternatives, which employ different constraints to investigate their respective influence. We used integer programming to find the optimal solution for each alternative under spatially constrained harvest scheduling and compared these results with the allowable

[1]  Michael Bevers,et al.  Optimal timber harvest scheduling with spatially defined sediment objectives , 2000 .

[2]  Ola Sallnäs,et al.  Harvest scheduling under adjacency constraints — a case study from the Swedish sub‐alpine region , 1993 .

[3]  H. L. Scheurman,et al.  Techniques for Prescribing Optimal Timber Harvest and Investment Under Different Objectives—Discussion and Synthesis , 1977 .

[4]  J. K. Gilless,et al.  Economic and fragmentation effects of clearcut restrictions , 1998 .

[5]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Integrating scenic and recreational amenities into numerical forest planning , 1995 .

[6]  K. Hanssen,et al.  Effects of Partial Cutting and Scarification on Planted Picea abies at Mid-elevation Sites in South-east Norway , 2003 .

[7]  J. D. Brodie,et al.  Comparison of a random search algorithm and mixed integer programming for solving area-based forest plans. , 1990 .

[8]  Richard C. Field,et al.  Complementary linear and goal programming procedures for timber harvest scheduling. , 1980 .

[9]  José G. Borges,et al.  Erratum to “Structuring a landscape by forestland classification and harvest scheduling spatial constraints” [For. Ecol. Manage. 130 (2000) 269–275] ☆ , 2000 .

[10]  P. Sendak,et al.  Silviculture affects composition, growth, and yield in mixed northern conifers: 40-year results from the Penobscot Experimental Forest , 2003 .

[11]  M. Kurttila.  The spatial structure of forests in the optimization calculations of forest planning — a landscape ecological perspective , 2001 .

[12]  Howard M. Hoganson,et al.  More on forest regulation: an LP perspective , 1993 .

[13]  K. Lertzman,et al.  Light-growth responses of coastal Douglas-fir and western redcedar saplings under different regimes of soil moisture and nutrients , 2001 .

[14]  Eldon A. Gunn,et al.  Tabu search design for difficult forest management optimization problems , 2003 .

[15]  Felipe Caro,et al.  A 2-Opt Tabu Search Procedure for the Multiperiod Forest Harvesting Problem with Adjacency, Greenup, Old Growth, and Even Flow Constraints , 2003, Forest Science.

[16]  E. Nikinmaa,et al.  Patterns of above- and below-ground response of understory conifer release 6 years after partial cutting , 2002 .

[17]  J. Nelson,et al.  The influence of cut-block size and adjacency rules on harvest levels and road networks , 1991 .

[18]  Atsushi Yoshimoto,et al.  Comparative analysis of algorithms to generate adjacency constraints , 1994 .

[19]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Scale and Unit Specification Influences in Harvest Scheduling with Maximum Area Restrictions , 2002 .

[20]  Karin Öhman,et al.  Clustering of harvest activities in multi-objective long-term forest planning , 2003 .

[21]  J. P. Roise.  Multicriteria nonlinear programming for optimal spatial allocation of stands. , 1990 .

[22]  Howard M. Hoganson,et al.  Structuring a landscape by forestland classification and harvest scheduling spatial constraints , 2000 .

[23]  L. Joyce,et al.  A mixed integer linear programming approach for spatially optimizing wildlife and timber in managed forest ecosystems , 1993 .

[24]  William A. Leuschner,et al.  Forest Regulation, Harvest Scheduling, and Planning Techniques , 1990 .