IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnljfs/v61y2015i12id50-2015-jfs.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Residual damage in different ground logging methods alongside skid trails and winching strips

Author

Listed:
  • N. Badraghi

    (Global Change Research Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno, Czech Republic)

  • J. Erler

    (Department of Forest Technology, TU Dresden University, Tharandt, Germany)

  • S.A.O. Hosseini

    (Department of Forestry and Forest Economics, University of Tehran, Iran)

Abstract

To assess the residual damage a 100% inventory method was employed in pre-hauling and post-hauling, alongside skid trails and winching strips. Inventory was executed within 6 m from each side of the skid trail or winching strip centreline (12 m width). Besides the data analysis to choose the best alternative depending on residual damage the Analysis of Multiple-criteria Approval (MA) was applied. In the winching strip, our results demonstrated that depending on the density of standing residual trees the most unfriendly alternative to standing trees was a short-length method (SLM) which damaged 27.9% of the total standing trees and the best alternative was a tree-length method (TLM) (11.89%). The most unfriendly alternative to regeneration in winching and skidding operations was SLM with damaged 21% and 9% of all seedlings, respectively. In the winching strip TLM is the best alternative depending on the number of damage trees but 72% damage degree was deep. Alongside the skid trails the highest number of damaged trees occurred in TLM (44 stems) and the lowest was in the long-length method (LLM) (10 stems); according to the density of trees also the greatest damage to trees occurred in TLM (16.73%) and the lowest was in LLM (3.13%). In addition (in winching and skidding operations), 14.31, 8.79 and 18.19% of residual trees and 9, 11 and 16% of individuals of regeneration were damaged in TLM, LLM and SLM, respectively. The results of data analysis (by SPSS and MA) indicated that the friendly alternative to residual stand in the north of Iran is a long-length method.

Suggested Citation

  • N. Badraghi & J. Erler & S.A.O. Hosseini, 2015. "Residual damage in different ground logging methods alongside skid trails and winching strips," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 61(12), pages 526-534.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnljfs:v:61:y:2015:i:12:id:50-2015-jfs
    DOI: 10.17221/50/2015-JFS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/50/2015-JFS.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://jfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/50/2015-JFS.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/50/2015-JFS?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. F. Tavankar & B. Majnounian & A.E. Bonyad, 2013. "Felling and skidding damage to residual trees following selection cutting in Caspian forests of Iran," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 59(5), pages 196-203.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. F. Tavankar & R. Picchio & A. Lo Monaco & A.E. Bonyad, 2014. "Forest management and snag characteristics in Northern Iran lowland forests," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 60(10), pages 431-441.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnljfs:v:61:y:2015:i:12:id:50-2015-jfs. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.