Cited by 129Soil Management and Crop YieldSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsSoil erosion and sediment transport

Impact of mechanized harvesting on compaction of sandy and clayey forest soils: results of a meta-analysis

Open access
Ampoorter, Evy, de Schrijver, An, van Nevel, Lotte, Hermy, Martin, Verheyen, Kris·2012·Annals of Forest Science

Abstract

Abstract Context Nowadays, harvest operations are predominantly performed fully mechanized using heavy tractors or forestry machines. The resulting soil compaction may negatively affect the soil ecosystem. Aims We wanted to draw general conclusions concerning the impact of mechanized harvesting on forest soil bulk density and the influencing factors. Method Therefore, we combined the data of several studies using a meta-analysis approach. Results The impact decreased from the surface towards deeper soil layers. At 0–10 cm depth, the impact on clayey soils was highest although not significantly different from the impact on sandy soils. Higher initial bulk densities, i.e., on already compacted forest soils, generally led to smaller extra increases of bulk density after machine traffic. For sandy soils, the impact was also significantly smaller when machines were lighter. No significant relationship was observed between the compaction degree and traffic intensity. Conclusions We observed clear compaction on both clayey and sandy soils, especially in case of low initial soil compaction degrees and heavy machines. The compacted initial state of many forest soils, the long recovery period, and the generally high impact of the first passes that is frequently mentioned in literature all count in favour of designated skid trails and an adjustment of the machine type to the job.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13595-012-0199-y

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Ampoorter, E., de Schrijver, A., van Nevel, L., Hermy, M., & Verheyen, K.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
Ampoorter, Evy
Venue
Annals of Forest Science
Published
2012-03-21
Volume
69
Issue
5
Pages
533-542
ISSN
  • 1286-4560 (ISSN-L)
  • 1297-966X
OpenAlex
W2074119722
Cited by
129
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Forest Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
Funders
Vlaamse regering
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Soil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
Keywords
mechanical harvesting, soil bulk density, sandy soil, clay soil, heavy machinery, skid trails, traffic intensity, machine weight, soil recovery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review