Productivity and Cost of Integrated Harvesting for Fuel Reduction Thinning in Mixed-Conifer Forest
Abstract
Removing submerchantable size trees and forest residues as well as sawlogs is preferred in fuel reduction thinning because it improves treatment effectiveness and avoids slash burning. Fuel reduction thinning was investigated to describe integrated harvesting machine processes and productivity and to characterize stump-to-truck costs for sawlogs and biomass for energy production. This system was studied in mixed-conifer forest on land owned by the US Forest Service in northern California and southern Oregon. Detailed time-study methods were paired with standard machine rate calculation methods to evaluate productivity and costs for the system. Sensitivity analysis and a standardized comparison were performed to evaluate costs and productivity under varying operation parameters. Treatment costs (stump-to-truck; without mobilization, overhead, or profit) were US$0.42/ft 3 for sawlogs and US$52.41 per bone dry ton (BDT) for biomass. Standardized unit production costs for sawlog skidding varied little, but the smaller skidder was clearly preferable for biomass tree skidding when external skidding distances exceeded 200 feet. The grinder had the highest hourly cost of any machine in the system and its unit production cost (US$/BDT) was sensitive to changes in utilization rate. Evaluations on system balance showed that improved utilization of the grinder could be accomplished as the grinder and loader often waited for a chip van. Integrated harvesting was a cost-effective way of im…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
There are few studies that identify costs of removing biomass specifically from mixed-conifer forest stands of California under USFS management in the context of forest restoration and fuels reduction treatments.
“Furthermore, there are few studies that identify costs of removing biomass specifically from mixed-conifer forest stands of California under USFS management in the context of forest restoration and fuels reduction treatments [27].”
From Linking Federal Forest Restoration with Wood Utilization: Modeling Biomass Prices and Analyzing Forest Restoration Costs in the Northern Sierra Nevada (2021) · cites this paper as [27]
Costs can be allocated to either sawlog or biomass removal functions depending on the type of work being performed.
“Costs can therefore be allocated to either sawlog or biomass removal functions depending on the type of work being performed [10,27].”
From Linking Federal Forest Restoration with Wood Utilization: Modeling Biomass Prices and Analyzing Forest Restoration Costs in the Northern Sierra Nevada (2021) · cites this paper as [27]
Existing studies found stump-to-truck costs without transportation for biomass removal and processing to range from $29.16/BDT to $52.41/BDT.
“Studies that do exist found stump-to-truck costs (without transportation) for biomass removal and processing to range anywhere from $29.16/BDT to $52.41/BDT [25,[27][28][29].”
From Linking Federal Forest Restoration with Wood Utilization: Modeling Biomass Prices and Analyzing Forest Restoration Costs in the Northern Sierra Nevada (2021) · cites this paper as [27]
Cites
Hartsough, B. R., Abrams, S., Barbour, R. J., Drews, E. S., McIver, J. D., Moghaddas, J. J., Schwilk, D. W., & Stephens, S. L. (2008) · Forest Policy and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2008.02.001 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chang, H., Han, H.-S., Anderson, N., Kim, Y.-S., & Han, S.-K. (2023) · Journal of Forestry · doi:10.1093/jofore/fvac037 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationSwezy, C., Bailey, J., & Chung, W. (2021) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en14092696 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Vitorelo, B., Han, H.-S., & Elliot, W.
- Venue
- Forest Products Journal
- Publisher
- Forest Products Society
- Published
- 2011-12
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 664-674
- ISSN
- 0015-7473 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2089523739
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Forest Products Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Forest Biomass Utilization and Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Agricultural and Food Sciences
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
- Keywords
- mixed conifer forest, biomass harvesting, chipper, skidder, time study, machine productivity, cost analysis, forest residues, slash burning
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