IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v111y2020ics1389934119302990.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A value chain comparison of Pinus patula sawlog management regimes based on different initial planting densities and effect on wood quality

Author

Listed:
  • Charlton, Ryan A.
  • Naghizadeh, Zahra
  • Ham, Cori
  • Wessels, C. Brand

Abstract

This research provides an economic analysis of different management regimes of Pinus patula plantations destined for saw log production based on land expectation value (LEV). The effect of initial planting density on wood quality is considered in the economic evaluation. Different planting densities (403, 1097, 1808 and 2981 stems per hectare [spha]), thinning ages (10 to 13 years) and thinning intensities (150 to 400 spha remaining) were investigated. An experimental spacing trial was destructively tested to quantify the effect of initial planting density on lumber quality. Sawing simulation software and the FORSAT scenario analysis software were used to create an economic model of the saw log value chain where different management scenarios were analysed. The results indicated that there was an increase in the mean stiffness of lumber with increasing planting density which, in turn, resulted in increased log value recovery for logs from closely spaced trees. When including the effect of planting density on tree growth, mortality, as well as the operational costs, the best management regimes for each of the three lower planting densities (403, 1097, and 1808 spha) returned LEV values relatively close to each other. Despite the results showing that high planting densities result in better value recoveries for the same log sizes, the best LEV was from a medium high planting density (1808 spha) and included a late thinning. The research showed the importance of analysing the complete value chain including the effect of initial planting density on wood end-product quality, when performing economic comparisons of forest management regimes for saw log production.

Suggested Citation

  • Charlton, Ryan A. & Naghizadeh, Zahra & Ham, Cori & Wessels, C. Brand, 2020. "A value chain comparison of Pinus patula sawlog management regimes based on different initial planting densities and effect on wood quality," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:111:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119302990
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934119302990
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102067?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. Maraseni, Tek Narayan & Son, Hoang Lien & Cockfield, Geoff & Duy, Hung Vu & Nghia, Tran Dai, 2017. "Comparing the financial returns from acacia plantations with different plantation densities and rotation ages in Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 80-87.
    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. Tham, La Thi & Darr, Dietrich & Pretzsch, Jürgen, 2021. "Analysis of Acacia hybrid timber value chains: A case study of woodchip and furniture production in central Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    2. Cubbage, Frederick & Kanieski, Bruno & Rubilar, Rafael & Bussoni, Adriana & Olmos, Virginia Morales & Balmelli, Gustavo & Donagh, Patricio Mac & Lord, Roger & Hernández, Carmelo & Zhang, Pu & Huang, J, 2020. "Global timber investments, 2005 to 2017," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    3. Nguyen, Hanh Tien & Ariyawardana, Anoma & Ratnasiri, Shyama, 2020. "Forest plantation owners' willingness to pay for hybrid nursery stock: The case of Acacia hybrids in Central Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    4. Maraseni, Tek Narayan & Son, Hoang Lien & Cockfield, Geoff & Duy, Hung Vu & Nghia, Tran Dai, 2017. "The financial benefits of forest certification: Case studies of acacia growers and a furniture company in Central Vietnam," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 56-63.
    5. Roland Cochard & Bien Thanh Vu & Dung Tri Ngo, 2021. "Acacia Plantation Development and the Configuration of Tree Farmers’ Agricultural Assets and Land Management—A Survey in Central Vietnam," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-39, November.
    6. Blackburn, David & Huong, Vu Dinh & Mendham, Daniel, 2020. "Returns to Vietnamese smallholder farmers from managing acacia plantations for sawn wood over 4-10 year rotations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    7. Cochard, Roland & Nguyen, Van Hai Thi & Ngo, Dung Tri & Kull, Christian A., 2020. "Vietnam’s forest cover changes 2005–2016: Veering from transition to (yet more) transaction?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    8. Maraseni, Tek Narayan & Phimmavong, Somvang & Keenan, Rodney J. & Vongkhamsao, Vongvilay & Cockfield, Geoff & Smith, Hilary, 2018. "Financial returns for different actors in a teak timber value chain in Paklay District, Lao PDR," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 145-154.
    9. Phimmavong, Somvang & Maraseni, Tek Narayan & Keenan, Rodney J. & Cockfield, Geoff, 2019. "Financial returns from collaborative investment models of Eucalyptus agroforestry plantations in Lao PDR," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    10. Ronja Herzberg & Tung Gia Pham & Martin Kappas & Daniel Wyss & Chau Thi Minh Tran, 2019. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the Land Evaluation of Potential Agricultural Land Use Types in a Hilly Area of Central Vietnam," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-25, June.

    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:eee:forpol:v:111:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119302990. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.