Pre-harvest measurement of pine stands for sawing production planning.

To enhance the utilization of the wood, the sawmills are forced to place more emphasis on planning to master the whole production chain from the forest to the end product. One significant obstacle to integrating the forest-sawmill-market production chain is the lack of appropriate information about forest stands. Since the wood procurement point of view in forest planning systems has been almost totally disregarded there has been a great need to develop an easy and efficient pre-harvest measurement method, allowing separate measurement of stands prior to harvesting. The main purpose of this study was to develop a measurement method for pine stands which forest managers could use in describing the properties of the standing trees for sawing production planning. Study materials were collected from ten Scots pine stands (Pinus sylvestris) located in North Häme and South Pohjanmaa, in southern Finland. The data comprise test sawing data on 314 pine stems, dbh and height measures of all trees and measures of the quality parameters of pine sawlog stems in all ten study stands as well as the locations of all trees in six stands. The study was divided into four sub-studies which deal with pine quality prediction, construction of diameter and dead branch height distributions, sampling designs and applying height and crown height models. The final proposal for the pre-harvest measurement method is a synthesis of the individual sub-studies. Quality analysis resulted in choosing dbh, distance from stump height to the first dead branch (dead branch height), crown height and tree height as the most appropriate quality characteristics of Scots pine. Dbh and dead branch height are measured from each pine sample tree while height and crown height are derived from dbh measures by aid of mixed height and crown height models. Pine and spruce diameter distribution as well as dead branch height distribution are most effectively predicted by the kernel function. Roughly 25 sample trees seems to be appropriate in pure pine stands. In mixed stands the number of sample trees needs to be increased in proportion to the intensity of pines in order to attain the same level of accuracy.

Estimation of cutting volume with three inventory methods for harvest planning in Canadian boreal forests.

Two methods of pre-harvest inventory were designed and tested on three cutting sites containing a total of 197 500 m3 of wood. These sites were located on flat-ground boreal forests located in northwestern Quebec. Both methods studied involved scaling of trees harvested to clear the road path one year (or more) prior to harvest of adjacent cut-blocks. The first method (ROAD) considers the total road right-of-way volume divided by the total road area cleared. The resulting volume per hectare is then multiplied by the total cut-block area scheduled for harvest during the following year to obtain the total estimated cutting volume. The second method (STRATIFIED) also involves scaling of trees cleared from the road. However, in STRATIFIED, log scaling data are stratified by forest stand location. A volume per hectare is calculated for each stretch of road that crosses a single forest stand. This volume per hectare is then multiplied by the remaining area of the same forest stand scheduled for harvest one year later. The sum of all resulting estimated volumes per stand gives the total estimated cutting-volume for all cut-blocks adjacent to the studied road. A third method (MNR) was also used to estimate cut-volumes of the sites studied. This method represents the actual existing technique for estimating cutting volume in the province of Quebec. It involves summing the cut volume for all forest stands. The cut volume is estimated by multiplying the area of each stand by its estimated volume per hectare obtained from standard stock tables provided by the governement. The resulting total estimated volume per cut-block for all three methods was then compared with the actual measured cut-block volume (MEASURED). This analysis revealed a significant difference between MEASURED and MNR methods with the MNR volume estimate being 30 % higher than MEASURED. However, no significant difference from MEASURED was observed for volume estimates for the ROAD and STRATIFIED methods which respectively had estimated cutting volumes 19 % and 5 % lower than MEASURED. Thus the ROAD and STRATIFIED methods are good ways to estimate cut-block volumes after road right-of-way harvest for conditions similar to those examined in this study.