IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i14p7641-d590749.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Residual Stand Damage under Different Harvesting Methods and Mitigation Strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Anil Raj Kizha

    (School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA)

  • Evan Nahor

    (Thomas Donnelly Logging, New York, NY 12847, USA)

  • Noah Coogen

    (LandVest Timberland, Jackman, ME 04945, USA)

  • Libin T. Louis

    (School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA)

  • Alex K. George

    (School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA)

Abstract

A major component of sustainable forest management are the stands left behind after the logging operation. Large mechanized harvesting equipment involved in current forest management can inflict damage on residual trees; and can pose a risk of mortality from diseases, natural calamities, and/or degrade future economic value. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the residual stand damage under different harvesting methods and silvicultural prescriptions i.e., crop tree release (CTR), diameter limit cut (DLC), and overstory removal (OSR). The second objective was to evaluate the intensity and frequency of damage occurring on the bole, canopy, and root at tree and stand level. The third objective was to document strategies adopted globally to minimize stand damage due to timber harvesting. Five harvest blocks implementing three silvicultural prescriptions, were selected as the treatments across two different industrial timberlands in central and northern Maine (Study Site (SS) I and II, respectively). A hybrid cut-to-length (Hyb CTL) and whole-tree (WT) harvesting method were employed for conducting the harvest in SS I and II, respectively. Systematic transect sampling was employed to collect information on type, frequency, and intensity of damages. The inventory captured 41 and 8 damaged trees per hectare with 62 and 22 damages per hectare from SS I and SS II respectively. Bole damage was the most frequent damage across all treatments. The Hyb CTL had lower damage density (damage per ha) and severity compared to WT. The average number of trees damaged per ha was higher for CTR prescriptions compared to DLC. There were no significant differences in the height of the damages from the ground level between treatments within each study site; however, there was a significant difference between the study sites. Species damaged was directly related to the residual trees left behind and was dominated by American beech, yellow birch, sugar maple, and eastern hemlock. Finally, the study provides strategies that can be adopted at different forest managerial phases to mitigate residual stand damage.

Suggested Citation

  • Anil Raj Kizha & Evan Nahor & Noah Coogen & Libin T. Louis & Alex K. George, 2021. "Residual Stand Damage under Different Harvesting Methods and Mitigation Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-19, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7641-:d:590749
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7641/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7641/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7641-:d:590749. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.