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.
References
[1]
Forbig, A.; Büttner, I.; Emmerich, T. KWF-Tagung 2012: Die Fachexkursion. Available online: http://www.forstpraxis.de/kwf-tagung-2012-fachexkursion (accessed on 20 December 2012).
[2]
WG3 Group. Development and Harmonisation of New Operatonal Research and Assessment Procedures for Sustainable Forest Biomass Supply. In Presented at WG3: Machine Cost Calculation and Data Analysis Methodologies, Berlin, Germany, 29 January 2010.
[3]
Spinelli, R.; Hartsough, B.R.; Magagnotti, N. Productivity standards for harvesters and processors in Italy. For. Prod. J. 2010, 60, 226–235.
[4]
Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N. Comparison of two harvesting systems for the production of forest biomass from thinning of Picea abies plantations. Scand. J. For. Res. 2010, 25, 69–77, doi:10.1080/02827580903505194.
[5]
Spinelli, R.; Cuchet, E.; Roux, P. A new feller-buncher for harvesting energy wood: Results from a European test programme. Biomass Bioenergy 2007, 31, 205–210, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.08.002.
[6]
Bolding, M.C.; Kellogg, L.D.; Davis, C.T. Productivity and costs of an integrated mechanical forest fuel reduction operation in southwest Oregon. For. Prod. J. 2009, 59, 35–46.
[7]
Adebayo, A.B.; Han, H.-S.; Johnson, L. Productivity and cost of cut-to-length and whole-tree harvesting in a mixed-conifer stand. For. Prod. J. 2007, 57, 59–69.
[8]
Wang, J.; Long, C.; McNeel, J. Production and cost analysis of a feller-buncher and grapple skidder in central Appalachian hardwood forests. For. Prod. J. 2004, 54, 159–167.
[9]
Brinker, R.W.; Kinard, J.; Rummer, B.; Lanford, B.L. Machine Rates for Selected Forest Harvesting Machines. Circular 296(revised); Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station: Auburn, AL, USA, 2002; pp. 1–32.
[10]
Holzleitner, F.; Stampfer, K.; Visser, R. Utilization rates and cost factors in timber harvesting based on long-term machine data. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2011, 32, 501–508.
[11]
Stone, I.J.; Benjamin, J.G.; Leahy, J. Applying innovation theory to maine’s logging industry. J. For. 2011, 109, 462–469.
[12]
North East State Foresters Association. The Economic Importance and Wood Flows from Maine’s Forests, 2007; North East State Foresters Association: Concord, NH, USA, 2007; p. 8.
[13]
McCaskill, G.L.; McWilliams, W.H.; Barnett, C.J.; Butler, B.J.; Hatfield, M.A.; Kurtz, C.M.; Morin, R.S.; Moser, W.K.; Perry, C.H.; Woodall, C.W. Maine’s Forests 2008. Resource Bulletin NRS-48; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station: Newtown Sqaure, PA, USA, 2011; pp. 1–68.
[14]
Maine Forest Service. 2011 Silvicultural Activities Report. Silvicultural Activities Report; Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry—Maine Forest Service—Forest Policy and Management Division: Augusta, ME, USA, 2013; p. 8.
[15]
Leon, B.; Benjamin, J.G. A survey of business attributes, harvest capacity and equipment infrastructure of logging businesses in the northern forest. In the Northern Forest Logging Industry Assesment; University of Maine: Orono, ME, USA, 2013; p. 29.
[16]
McWilliams, W.H.; Butler, B.J.; Caldwell, L.E.; Griffith, D.M.; Hoppus, M.L.; Laustsen, K.M.; Lister, A.J.; Lister, T.W.; Metzler, J.W.; Morin, R.S.; et al. The Forests of Maine: 2003. Resource Bulletin NE-164; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: Newton Square, PA, USA, 2005; p. 188.
[17]
Jirou？ek, R.; Klva？, R.; Skoupy, A. Productivity and costs of the mechanized cut-to-length wood harvesting system in clear-felling operations. J. For. Sci. 2007, 53, 476–482.
[18]
Légère, G.; Gingras, J.-F. Evaluation of Methods of Harvesting with Protection of Small Merchantable Stems. Technical Report-124; Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC): Pointe Claire, PQ, Canada, 1998; p. 12.
[19]
Gl？de, D. Single- and double-grip harvesters—Productive measurements in final cutting of shelterwood. Int. J. For. Eng. 1999, 10, 63–74.
[20]
Gingras, J.-F.; Favreau, F.E. Comparative Cost Analysis of Integrated Harvesting and Delivery of Roundwood and Forest Biomass. Special Report SR-111; Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC): Pointe Claire, PQ, Canada, 1996; p. 18.
[21]
Lanford, B.L.; Stokes, B.J. Comparison of two thinning systems. Part 2. Productivity and costs. For. Prod. J. 1996, 46, 47–53.
[22]
Gingras, J.-F. A Comparison of Full-Tree versus Cut-to-Length Systems in the Manitoba Model Forest. Special Report SR-92; Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC): Pointe Claire, PQ, Canada, 1994; p. 16.
[23]
Han, H.-S.; Lee, H.W.; Johnson, L.R. Economic feasibility of an integrated harvesting system for small-diameter trees in southwest Idaho. For. Prod. J. 2004, 54, 21–27.
[24]
Andersson, B.; Evans, C.M. Harvesting Overmature Aspen Stands in Central Alberta. Special Report SR-112; Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC): Pointe Claire, PQ, Canada, 1996; p. 42.
[25]
Phillips, E.J. Comparison of Conventional and Mechanical Harvesting for the Prince Albert Model Forest. Special Report SR-121; Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC): Pointe Claire, PQ, Canada, 1997; p. 17.
[26]
Gingras, J.-F. The Effect of Site and Stand Factors on Feller-Buncher Performance. Technical Report TR-84; Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC): Pointe Claire, PQ, Canada, 1988; p. 18.
[27]
Li, Y.; Wang, J.; Miller, G.; McNeel, J. Production economics of harvesting small diameter hardwood stands in central Appalachia. For. Prod. J. 2006, 56, 81–86.
[28]
Ovaskainen, H.; Uusitalo, J.; V？？t？inen, K. Characteristics and significance of a harvester operators’ working technique in thinnings. Int. J. For. Eng. 2004, 15, 67–77.
[29]
Richardson, R. Evaluation of Five Processors and Harvesters. Technical Report TR-94; Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC): Pointe Claire, PQ, Canada, 1989; p. 18.
[30]
Richardson, R.; Makkonen, I. The Performance of Cut-to-Length Systems in Eastern Canada. Technical Report TR-109; Publisher: Pointe Claire, PQ, Canada, 1994; p. 16.
[31]
Gingras, J.-F. Feller-Buncher Performance in Adverse Stand and Terrain Conditions. Technical Report TR-89; Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC): Pointe Claire, PQ, Canada, 1989; p. 10.
[32]
Eggers, J.; McEwan, A.; Conradie, B. Pinus saw timber tree optimization in South Africa: A comparison of mechanised tree optimisation (harvester/processor) versus current manual methods. South. For. 2010, 72, 23–30.
[33]
Nakagawa, M.; Hamatsu, J.; Saitou, T.; Ishida, H. Effect of tree size on productivity and time required for work elements in selective thinning by a harvester. Int. J. For. Eng. 2007, 18, 24–28.
[34]
Purfürst, F.T. Learning curves of harvester operators. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2010, 31, 89–97.
[35]
Holtzscher, M.A.; Lanford, B.L. Tree diameter effects on cost and productivity of cut-to-length systems. For. Prod. J. 1997, 47, 25–30.
[36]
Brown, M.; Strandgard, M.; Acuna, M.; Walsh, D.; Mitchell, R. Improving forest operations management through applied research. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2011, 32, 471–480.
[37]
Hiesl, P.; Benjamin, J.G. A multi-stem feller-buncher cycle time model in partial harvests in small diameter wood stands. Int. J. For. Eng. 2013, 24, 101–108.
[38]
Kluender, R.; Lortz, D.; McCoy, W.; Stokes, B.J.; Klepac, J. Productivity of rubber-tired skidders in southern pine forests. For. Prod. J. 1997, 47, 53–58.
[39]
Sim？es, D.; Marcelino, F.A.; Pletsch, T.A.; de Faria, L.R.; Fenner, P.T. Technical and Economical Evaluation of Harvester Cut-to-Length System in First Cut Eucalyptus Forest. In Proceedings of CIGR International Conference of Agricultural Engineering; XXXVII Congresso Brasileiro De Engenharia Agricola—CONBEA, Iguassu Falls City, Brazil, 31 August to 4 September 2008.
[40]
Nurminen, T.; Korpunen, H.; Uusitalo, J. Time consumption analysis of the mechanized cut-to-length harvesting system. Silva Fenn. 2006, 40, 335–363.
[41]
Hiesl, P. Productivity Standards for Whole-Tree and Cut-to-Length Harvesting Systems in Maine. Master Thesis, School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA, 2013.
[42]
K？rh？, K.; R？kk？, E.; Gumse, S.-I. Productivity and cutting costs of thinning harvesters. Int. J. For. Eng. 2004, 15, 43–56.
[43]
Lindroos, O. Scrutinizing the theory of comparative time studies with operator as a block effect. Int. J. For. Eng. 2010, 21, 20–30.
[44]
Lindroos, O. The effects of increased mechanization on time consumption in small-scale firewood processing. Silva Fenn. 2008, 42, 791–805.
[45]
Makkonen, O. Mets？t？iden vertailevan aikatutkirnuks- periaate. Summary: The principle of comparative time studies in forest work. Acta For. Fenn. 1954, 61. No. 14.
[46]
Purfürst, F.T.; Lindroos, O. The correlation between long-term productivity and short-term performance ratings of harvester operators. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2011, 32, 509–519.
[47]
Gullberg, T. Evaluating operator-machine interactions in comparative time studies. Int. J. For. Eng. 1995, 7, 51–61.
[48]
Bj？rheden, R. Basic time concepts for international comparisons of time study reports. Int. J. For. Eng. 1991, 2, 33–39.
[49]
Coup, C.E. A Case Study Approach for Assessing Operational and Silvicultural Performance of Whole-Tree Biomass Harvesting in Maine. Master Thesis, School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA, 2009.
[50]
Wang, J.; LeDoux, C.B. Estimating and validating ground-based timber harvesting production through computer simulation. For. Sci. 2003, 49, 64–76.
