Comparing operational and economic viability of integrated full tree roundwood and residue harvesting with tree length roundwood harvesting in a shelterwood system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrating roundwood harvesting with collecting traditionally unmerchantable harvest residue largely depends on the operational and economic viability for harvest contractors. This study compared machine time of motion, harvest volumes, productivity, and profits of two harvesting methods in a shelterwood system in the Canadian Great Lakes-St. Lawrence (GLSL) forest region. Conventional “tree length” (TL) harvesting only harvested merchantable roundwood and “full tree” (FT) harvesting residues and roundwood. FT harvesting required significantly more feller buncher time of motion compared to TL harvesting, but there were no significant differences in time of motion for other machines. FT harvesting yielded greater volumes of residue (34.1 ± 6.9 m 3 ha −1 ), small poles, and medium poles compared to TL. Average profits were 36% higher using FT harvesting ($611 ± 560 CAD ha −1 ), compared to TL ($450 ± 506 CAD ha −1 ), but these differences were not statistically significant. The increased profits at FT blocks were largely from residual management services (such as chipping) versus the sale of residues for bioenergy feedstocks. The results from this study suggest that FT harvesting recovers greater merchantable volumes and can be equally or more profitable at the contractor level than TL harvesting in GLSL shelterwood systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".