CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Forest Biomass Utilization and ManagementBioenergy crop production and managementAgricultural Engineering and Mechanization

Comparative analysis of harvesting machines on an operational high-density short rotation woody crop (SRWC) culture: One-process versus two-process harvest operation

Open access
Berhongaray, G., El Kasmioui, O., Ceulemans, R.·2013·Biomass and Bioenergy
DOI 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.07.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Short rotation woody crops (SRWCs) are being studied and cultivated because of their potential for bioenergy production. The harvest operation represents the highest input cost for these short rotation woody crops. We evaluated three different harvesting machines representing two harvesting systems at one operational large-scale SRWC plantation. On average, 8 ton ha −1 of biomass was harvested. The cut-and-chip harvesters were faster than the whole stem harvester; and the self-propelled harvester was faster than the tractor-pulled. Harvesting costs differed among the harvesting machines used and ranged from 388 € ha −1 to 541 € ha −1 . The realized stem cutting heights were 15.46 cm and 16.00 cm for the tractor-pulled stem harvester and the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester respectively, although a cutting height of 10 cm was requested in advance. From the potential harvestable biomass, only 77.4% was harvested by the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester, while 94.5% was harvested by the tractor-pulled stem harvester. An increase of the machinery use efficiency (i.e. harvest losses, cost) is necessary to reduce costs and increase the competitiveness of biomass with other energy sources.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study compares three commercial harvesting machines representing one-process cut-and-chip and two-process whole-stem harvest systems on an operational 14.5 ha short rotation woody crop plantation in Belgium. It finds clear trade-offs among speed, cost, harvest efficiency, product form, and machine constraints, with harvest losses and cutting height above the requested threshold reducing recovered biomass.

Key findings

  • Across the first two-year rotation, approximately 230 Mg fresh woody chips were harvested from 14.5 ha, with a mean dry mass yield of 8 Mg ha⁻¹ and 50% moisture content on a wet basis.
  • Harvesting costs ranged from 387.7 € ha⁻¹ (48.5 € odt⁻¹) for the tractor-pulled cut-and-chip harvester, to 464.1 € ha⁻¹ (58.0 € odt⁻¹) for the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester, to 540.9 € ha⁻¹ (67.6 € odt⁻¹) for the tractor-pulled whole-stem harvester.
  • Realized cutting heights were 15.46 cm for the tractor-pulled stem harvester and 16.00 cm for the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester, despite a requested height of 7–10 cm; uncut biomass averaged 37.2 g DM m⁻².
  • The text reports that only 77.4% of potentially harvestable biomass was harvested by the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester versus 94.5% by the tractor-pulled stem harvester; Table 4 lists efficiencies of 68.7% and 93.4%, respectively. Stump mortality after harvest was very low, at 0.68% and 0.54%.

Methods

  • The study was conducted at the operational POPFULL plantation in Lochristi, Belgium: 14.5 ha planted with 12 poplar and 3 willow genotypes at 8000 trees ha⁻¹, harvested on 2–3 February 2012 after a first two-year rotation.
  • Three machines were compared: a self-propelled New Holland FR9090 cut-and-chip harvester with 130 FB coppice header; a tractor-pulled Ny Vraa JF Z200 cut-and-chip harvester on a JD 6920; and a tractor-pulled Nordic Biomass Stemster MKIII whole-stem harvester on a JD 8520T.
  • Data included harvest duration and area, fuel consumption, ownership and operation costs following AAEA guidelines, harvest losses from stump measurements and 1 m² field samples, allometric biomass estimates, and stump mortality surveys across 34 rows and 4927 stumps; losses were tested with one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests, and mortality with a T-test.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the study was conducted on the first rotation of a very low-yield plantation and that caution is required when extrapolating results to other sites or conditions.
  • The paper states that the study was not specifically designed as a harvest test, although few studies have compared different commercial harvesters at this plantation size.
  • The text makes evident additional constraints: the tractor-pulled cut-and-chip harvester was excluded from the harvest-loss analysis because it could not harvest larger poplar trees; loss measurements were limited to two poplar genotypes; the stem harvester could not harvest rows longer than 200 m without a shuttle wagon; and the differential impact of harvesters on soil was not quantified.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.07.003

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 20 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The self-propelled harvester was faster than the tractor-pulled harvester.

    “The cut-and-chip harvesters were faster than the whole stem harvester; and the self-propelled harvester was faster than the tractor-pulled.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The different parts of the plantation harvested by the three machines were comparable in biomass yield and conditions.
  • Findingown data

    Potential harvestable biomass calculated with the allometric relationship equation ranged from 468 to 1167 g DM m−2.

    “The potential harvestable biomass calculated with the allometric relationship equation ranged from 468 g DM m À2 e1167 g DM m À2 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    Moisture content on a wet basis of the freshly harvested biomass was 50%.

    “The moisture content on wet basis of the freshly harvested biomass was 50%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Mean dry mass yield was 8 Mg ha−1 for the two-year rotation.

    “On average, 8 ton ha À1 of biomass was harvested.”
    • Also stated in: § 3.1. Harvest yield · plain
      “The mean dry mass yield was 8 Mg ha À1 for the two-year rotation, which was lower than the average values reported for SRWCs under European conditions [30].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The cut-and-chip harvesters were faster than the whole stem harvester.

    “The cut-and-chip harvesters were faster than the whole stem harvester; and the self-propelled harvester was faster than the tractor-pulled.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The different parts of the plantation harvested by the three machines were comparable in biomass yield and conditions.
  • May combine two claims. 22
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Realized stem cutting heights were 15.46 cm for the tractor-pulled stem harvester and 16.00 cm for the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester, although a cutting height of 10 cm was requested in advance.

    “The realized stem cutting heights were 15.46 cm and 16.00 cm for the tractor-pulled stem harvester and the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester respectively, although a cutting height of 10 cm was requested in advance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Harvesting costs differed among the harvesting machines used and ranged from 388 € ha−1 to 541 € ha−1.

    “Harvesting costs differed among the harvesting machines used and ranged from 388 V ha À1 to 541 V ha À1 .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The different parts of the plantation harvested by the three machines were comparable in biomass yield and conditions.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In December 2011 the mean stem diameter (measured at a height of 22 cm) was 40.8 mm (±0.16, n=4928) for poplars and 24.3 mm (±0.42, n=289) for willows.

    “In December 2011 the mean stem diameter (measured at a height of 22 cm) was 40.8 mm (Æ0.16, n ¼ 4928) for poplars and 24.3 mm (Æ0.42, n ¼ 289) for willows.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester, NRB losses consisted of 97.2 g DM m−2 front losses of cut biomass that the machine failed to chip, and 116.8 g DM m−2 of biomass chips lost during the transfer from the harvester to the tractor-trailer combination.

    “In the selfpropelled cut-and-chip harvester, NRB losses consisted of 97.2 g DM m À2 front losses of cut biomass that the machine failed to chip, and 116.8 g DM m À2 of biomass chips lost during the transfer from the harvester to the tractoretrailer combination.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At the POPFULL plantation approximately 95.4 Mg of fresh biomass (50% moisture content on wet basis) was chipped at a cost of 1.035 €, corresponding to a cost of 21.68 € odt−1.

    “At the POPFULL plantation approximately 95.4 Mg of fresh biomass (50% moisture content on wet basis) was chipped at a costs 1.035 V, corresponding to a cost of 21.68 V odt À1 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Harvesting costs for the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester amounted to 464.1 € ha−1 or 58.0 € odt−1.

    “For the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester of New Holland the ownership and operation costs equaled 212.5 V h À1 , whereas the harvesting costs amounted to 464.1 V ha À1 or 58.0 V odt À1 .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The different parts of the plantation harvested by the three machines were comparable in biomass yield and conditions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    A front harvesting machine can start the harvest operation in any row of the plantation.

    “In contrast, a front harvesting machine can start the harvest operation in any row of the plantation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The stem harvester was not able to harvest the long rows before the storage capacity was reached; for rows with a length of more than 200 m a cut-and-chip harvester was needed.

    “The stem harvester was not able to harvest the long rows before the storage capacity was reached; for rows with a length of more than 200 m a cut-and-chip harvester was needed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Although a cutting height of 7-10 cm had been requested at the start of the harvest, the realized stem cutting height was 15.46 cm and 16.00 cm for the tractor-pulled stem harvester and the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester, respectively.

    “Although a cutting height of 7e10 cm had been requested at the start of the harvest, the realized stem cutting height was 15.46 cm and 16.00 cm for the tractorpulled stem harvester and the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester, respectively (Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Under the same conditions (clone: Skado and land: pasture), the NRB differed between both harvesting machines; it accounted for 3.6% and 10.7% for the tractor-pulled stem harvester and the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvesting machine, respectively.

    “Under the same conditions (clone: Skado and land: pasture), the NRB differed between both harvesting machines; it accounted for 3.6% and 10.7% for the tractor-pulled stem harvester and the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvesting machine, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No statistically significant differences were found between the two harvesting machines in cut height, but the tractor-pulled stem harvester had a more variable cut height than the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester.

    “No statistically significant differences were found between the two harvesting machines, but the tractor-pulled stem harvester had a more variable cut height than the selfpropelled cut-and-chip harvester (Fig. 5).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Considering all the losses, only 77.4% of the potentially harvestable biomass was harvested on average by the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester, while the tractor-pulled stem harvester collected 94.5% of the potentially harvestable biomass.

    “Considering all the losses, only 77.4% of the potentially harvestable biomass was harvested on average by the selfpropelled cut-and-chip harvester, while the tractor-pulled stem harvester collected 94.5% of the potentially harvestable biomass (Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The ownership and operation costs of the tractor-pulled stem harvester of Nordic Biomass amounted to 195.7 € h−1, whereas the harvesting costs were 540.9 € ha−1 or 67.6 € odt−1.

    “The ownership and operation costs of the tractor-pulled stem harvester of Nordic Biomass amounted to 195.7 V h À1 , whereas the harvesting costs were 540.9 V ha À1 or 67.6 V odt À1 .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On average, losses by NRB accounted for 17.2 g DM m−2 for the tractor-pulled stem harvester versus 214.0 g DM m−2 for the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester.

    “On average, losses by NRB accounted for 17.2 g DM m À2 for the tractor-pulled stem harvester versus 214.0 g DM m À2 for the self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester (Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Caution is required if the results are extrapolated to other sites or conditions.

    “Therefore caution is required if the results are extrapolated to other sites or conditions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The two poplar genotypes Koster and Skado were chosen because they are genetically and phenotypically contrasting and represented the range of productivity for the entire plantation.

    “Those genotypes were chosen because they are genetically and phenotipically contrasting and represented the range of productivity for the entire plantation (see Broeckx et al. [7] for more details of the genotypes).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Broeckx et al. [7] Broeckx, 2012, Establishment and two-year growth of a bio-energy plantation with fast-growing Populus trees in Flanders (Belgium): effects of genotype and former land use, Biomass Bioenerg source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The rods produced by the stem harvester still need to be chipped to deliver the same final product (woody biomass chips), which incurs additional costs.

    “The rods produced by the stem harvester still need to be chipped to deliver the same final product (i.e.woody biomass chips), which incurs additional costs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The stem harvester and the chip harvesters produce completely different products.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Expected productivity is 35.6 Mg of fresh biomass per scheduled machine hour for the self-propelled cut-and-chip front harvester and 19 Mg for the harvest-and-storage system, with similar operational costs.

    “The expected productivity is 35.6 Mg of fresh biomass per scheduled machine hour for the self-propelled cut-and-chip front harvester, and 19 Mg for the harvest-and-storage system, but with similar operational costs [14,15].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [14] Spinelli, 2009, Using modified foragers to harvest short-rotation poplar plantations, Biomass Bioenerg source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [15] Schweier, 2012, Harvesting of short rotation coppice - harvesting trials with a cut and storage system in Germany, Silva Fennica source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Productivity values of the first rotation period are generally lower than for subsequent rotations due to early establishment from unrooted cuttings and initial root development.

    “However productivity values of the first rotation period are generally lower than for subsequent rotations due to the early establishment from unrooted cuttings and the initial root development [31].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [31] Deraedt, 1998, Clonal variability in biomass production and conversion efficiency of poplar during the establishment year of a short rotation coppice plantation, Biomass Bioenerg source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Twenty stumps were selected randomly on the areas harvested by the two harvesting machines for measuring uncut biomass.

    “To estimate the UB, 20 stumps were selected randomly on the areas harvested by the two harvesting machines, and the height of the remaining stump from the soil surface was measured with a simple ruler (accuracy 1 mm).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Harvesting costs make up a large share of the total costs of biomass produced from SRWCs and might amount up to 45% of total cultivation costs.

    “Consequently, harvesting costs make up a large share of the total costs of biomass produced from SRWCs and might amount up to 45% of the total cultivation costs [24].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] El Kasmioui, 2012, Financial analysis of the cultivation of short rotation woody crops for bioenergy in Belgium: barriers and opportunities, Bioenergy Res source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A harvest efficiency of 64% of the potentially harvestable biomass has been reported for switchgrass.

    “A harvest efficiency of 64% of the potentially harvestable biomass has been reported for switchgrass [26].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] Monti, 2009, The discrepancy between plot and field yields: harvest and storage losses of switchgrass, Biomass Bioenerg source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The harvest loss analysis was done without including the tractor-pulled cut-and-chip harvester, because this harvester was not able to harvest the larger (poplar) trees.

    “The harvest loss analysis was done without including the tractor-pulled cut-and-chip harvester, because this harvester was not able to harvest the larger (poplar) trees.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Harvest losses were measured only in two poplar genotypes, Koster and Skado, to control variability caused by different species and genotypes.

    “In order to control the variability caused by different species and genotypes, losses were only measured in two poplar genotypes: i.e.Koster and Skado.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Air-drying on the field increases the quality of the biomass delivered and as a consequence the price of the biomass chips.

    “This increases the quality of the biomass delivered and as a consequence the price of the biomass chips.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    This study was conducted on the first rotation of a very low-yield plantation.

    “Firstly, this study was conducted on the first rotation of a very low-yield plantation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    High reductions in the number of stems produced due to mechanical damage have been reported for willow plantations, but damaged plants compensated by producing larger stems.

    “High reductions in the number of stems produced due to mechanical damage have been reported for willow plantations, but damaged plants compensated by producing larger stems [35].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] Souch, 2004, Effects of soil compaction and mechanical damage at harvest on growth and biomass production of short rotation coppice willow, Plant Soil source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A recent comparative study showed that various forest harvesters had a different impact on soil compaction and changed soil density accordingly.

    “Although we did not quantify the differential impact of the harvesters on the soil, a recent comparative study showed that various forest harvesters had a different impact on soil compaction and changed soil density accordingly [35,36].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [35] Souch, 2004, Effects of soil compaction and mechanical damage at harvest on growth and biomass production of short rotation coppice willow, Plant Soil source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [36] Ampoorter, 2012, Impact of mechanized harvesting on compaction of sandy and clayey forest soils: results of a meta-analysis, Ann For Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Typical harvest rates charged by Belgian and Danish subcontractors range from 400 € ha−1 for a tractor-pulled stem harvester, over 600 € ha−1 for a tractor-pulled cut-and-chip harvester, to 950 € ha−1 for a self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester.

    “Typical harvest rates (excluding transportation costs) charged by Belgian and Danish subcontractors range from 400 V ha À1 for a tractorpulled stem harvester, over 600 V ha À1 for a tractor-pulled cut-and-chip harvester to 950 V ha À1 for a self-propelled cutand-chip harvester [24].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] El Kasmioui, 2012, Financial analysis of the cultivation of short rotation woody crops for bioenergy in Belgium: barriers and opportunities, Bioenergy Res source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    All dry matter was obtained with the same drying methodology, so potential residual water in biomass dried at 70 °C does not affect comparability.

    “Although we acknowledge that some water may stay in the biomass when it is dried at 70 C, all the DM was obtained with the same methodology.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Given a number of limitations of the study, caution is required if the results are extrapolated to other sites or conditions.

    “Given a number of limitations of our study, caution is required if the results are extrapolated to other sites or conditions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The harvesting machines evaluated differed in their operational cost, harvest capacity, harvest efficiency and final product.

    “The harvesting machines that we evaluated differed in their operational cost (e.g.one-step operation vs. two-steps operation), their harvest capacity (i.e.stem diameter, row length), their harvest efficiency (i.e.losses) and the final product (chips or rods).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study was not specifically designed for the harvest test.

    “Secondly, we did not specifically design the study for the harvest test.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    In conclusion, this study confirmed that harvesting machines have their specific advantages and disadvantages.

    “In conclusion, this study confirmed that harvesting machines have their specific advantages and disadvantages.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
34 of 34

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Missing or dead stumps since the 2011 counting were due to the harvesting operations.

    “We assumed that missing or dead stumps e since the counting in 2011 e were due to the harvesting operations.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The different parts of the plantation harvested by the three machines were comparable in biomass yield and conditions.

    “The three harvesting machines harvested different parts of the plantation.The self-propelled cut-and-chip harvester harvested approx.7 ha, while the tractor-pulled cut-and-chip harvester and stem harvester harvested 1 ha and 6.5 ha, respectively.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The stem harvester and the chip harvesters produce completely different products.

    “It is however important to mention that the stem harvester and the chip harvesters produce completely different products.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Losses after harvest of SRWC poplars and willows have never been carefully quantified or assessed.

    “As far as we know, losses after harvest of SRWC poplars and willows have never been carefully quantified or assessed.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Very few studies have been conducted on a comparison of different commercial harvesters at a plantation of this size (14.5 ha).

    “However, very few studies have been conducted on a comparison of different commercial harvesters at a plantation of this size (14.5 ha).”
5 of 5

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?

  • Management of perennial systems greatly affects residue inputs because harvest practices vary the amount of aboveground biomass removed depending on harvest date and harvest method.

    “The management of such systems greatly affects residue inputs as harvest practices vary the amount of aboveground biomass (AGB) removed depending on harvest date [19, 20] and harvest method [21, 22].”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [22]

  • Harvest method can have a profound impact on losses, but woody harvest residues below 5% seem achievable.

    “Harvest method can have a profound impact on losses, but woody harvest residues <5 % seem achievable [22].”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [22]

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Tractor models are reversed in Table 1

    Minor

    The text identifies the whole-stem harvester's tractor as a JD 8520T, but Table 1 assigns it a JD 6920 and assigns the JD 8520T to the cut-and-chip harvester.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Berhongaray, G., El Kasmioui, O., & Ceulemans, R.
Affiliations
University of Antwerp (BE)
Corresponding author
Berhongaray, G.
ORCID
Venue
Biomass and Bioenergy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-11
Volume
58
Pages
333-342
ISSN
0961-9534 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.07.003
OpenAlex
W2151884849
Semantic Scholar
62ae106ce9bfae954581a0328a063c1556f1bb6d
Cited by
61
References
30
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
9.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Biomass and Bioenergy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • European Research Council
  • Flemish Methusalem Programme
  • Research Council of the University of Antwerp
  • Erasmus-Mundus External Cooperating, Consortium EADIC
  • European Union Mobility Programme
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Forest Biomass Utilization and Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
Keywords
short rotation woody crops, harvesting machinery, self-propelled harvester, harvesting costs, harvest losses, biomass harvesting, biomass feedstock, high-density plantations

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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