Next Article in Journal
Stable Coexistence in a Field-Calibrated Individual-Based Model of Mangrove Forest Dynamics Caused by Inter-Specific Crown Plasticity
Next Article in Special Issue
Injury Patterns among Forestry Workers in Croatia
Previous Article in Journal
Bioclimatic Suitability of Actual and Potential Cultivation Areas for Jacaranda mimosifolia in Chinese Cities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Working Posture Comparability in Forest Operations by the Use of Similarity Metrics
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/f12070954
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Models for the Evaluation of Productivity and Costs of Mechanized Felling on Poplar Short Rotation Coppice in Italy

by
Giulio Sperandio
*,
Andrea Acampora
,
Angelo Del Giudice
and
Vincenzo Civitarese
Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e L’analisi Dell’economia Agraria (CREA)—Centro di Ricerca Ingegneria e Trasformazioni Agroalimentari, via della Pascolare 16, 00015 Monterotondo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2021, 12(7), 954; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070954
Submission received: 31 May 2021 / Revised: 12 July 2021 / Accepted: 16 July 2021 / Published: 19 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mechanization, Wood Production and Environmental Sustainability in Forest Operations)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The forest biomass, as a renewable energy source, can significantly contribute to the progressive replacement of fossil fuels in energy production, with a positive final balance in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. One of the different sources of woody biomass supply is represented by short rotation coppices (SRC) plantations, currently present in various European countries for a total of about fifty thousand hectares. In Italy, part of the SRC surface has been converted into other more profitable crops, both the low levels reached by the woodchips market price and the scarce availability of specific public incentives. In this study, the authors expose the results of the models for evaluating work time, productivity, and costs of the felling operation on SRC poplar plantations with 8- and 11-year-old trees. The aim is to evaluate the economic sustainability in the use of advanced mechanization on these plantations. The machine was a crawler excavator equipped with a shear head. In the 11-year-old plantation, the productivity estimation model returned a range of 1.09–18.93 Mg h−1 (average 5.56 ± 3.88 SD) when the weight variation of the trees was 20–491 kgw (average 100.41 ± 87.48 SD). In the 8-year-old poplar, the range was 1.02–11.60 Mg h−1 (average 3.80 ± 1.71 SD), for weight variation of 17–137 kgw (average 50.57 ± 18.82 SD). The consequent variation in unit cost was EUR 2.82–51.63 Mg−1 and EUR 4.05–49.65 Mg−1, corresponding to EUR 1252.17–3463.78 ha−1 and EUR 922.49–2545.11 ha−1 for 11- and 8-year-old trees, respectively.

1. Introduction

In the debate on the production of energy from renewable sources, woody biomass plays an important role, representing almost 70% of the total European renewable energies [1]. In the future, in accordance with the energy policy objectives at the European level, the demand for biomass should increase to meet the needs of the energy production sector. This growing demand involves fuelwood and higher-quality energy products [2,3], as well as wood building material or other biomaterials for different uses [4]. Greater use of biomass can concretely contribute to the progressive replacement of fossil fuels in energy production, with a positive final balance in terms of greenhouse gas emissions [5,6]. Among the various sources of woody biomass supply, the fast-growing short rotation woody crops (Short Rotation Coppices—SRC) could contribute significantly to the achievement of the 2020 European targets [7].
Currently, at the European level, about 50,000 ha of SRC are estimated, which represents a limited area considering the European and national incentives and political support measures in recent years in favor of these crops [8]. The European countries that pay greater attention to these plantations and have a greater surface invested in SRC are mainly Sweden, Poland, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy [7]. In other European countries, these plantations are rather limited but there are plans and political wills to favor their development in the near future [1].
In Italy, in the last decade, there has also been a substantial downsizing of the SRC surface due to the strong critical position taken by public opinion regarding the atmospheric emissions produced by all biomass combustion processes [9]. However, the national production of thermal energy represents a relevant sector, and renewable sources can concretely contribute to the achievement of national energy and environmental goals in the medium–long term (2030–2050). This has led to a significant change in the technological development of the biomass plants with the adoption of technical solutions and energy processes, also developed on a small scale [10], that is more respectful of the environmental aspects [11]. The current biomass energy plants, in fact, are always equipped with efficient and technological filtering systems to effectively reduce pollution by fine dust [12].
SRC plantations have been an object of intense experimentation and cultivation over the past twenty years [13,14,15]. However, if we consider the current area covered by these crops, we can say that what is foreseen for these plantations has not been achieved. The maximum SRC area was reached a few years ago, when an overall national area of about 7000 ha was estimated, made using mainly poplar clones, followed by eucalyptus, willow, and black locust, most of which are located in Northern Italy [16,17]. This area has progressively decreased due to both the reduction in economic margins due to the low levels reached by the market price of the woodchips, and the decreased availability of specific public incentives. For these reasons, part of the existing area that has invested in SRC plantations has been converted to other more profitable types of crops [18].
Many of the remaining plantations, when not converted, have been partly abandoned or not managed according to the usual planned cuts, perhaps waiting for more favorable market conditions. The lengthening of the cutting shift influences the working system with which the plantation is harvested, determining the level and type of mechanization to be used [19]. Under normal plantation growth conditions, if the cutting is not done every two or three years, it will no longer be possible to use the modified forage harvester normally used on these crops [20,21]. In this case, when the diameter at the base of the tree exceeds 15–20 cm, it is necessary to resort to forest mechanization [22].
The introduction of forest mechanization techniques, such as feller-buncher heads, specialized tractors for logging, and processors for mechanized delimbing, began in the early 1980s in conifer plantations created for industrial purposes [23].
Currently, the use of advanced mechanization, such as harvesters and forwarders, is constantly increasing [24,25], especially on poplar [26] and eucalyptus [27], while it is not widespread in mountain forests compared to other European countries [28,29]. This type of mechanization could also be used on SRC, when the size of the tree makes the use of dedicated machines impossible. The harvesting method adopted in these cases is the whole tree system (WTS). This system involves cutting the whole tree or dividing it into two parts, depending on the machine, to be used for subsequent extraction up to the landing area, where the trees are subsequently chipped. WTS is generally applied in forestry yards using different levels of mechanization on harvesting operation, substantially represented by: (a) motor-manual harvesting, using a chainsaw for felling and tractor with grapple or winch for wood extraction; (b) partially mechanized harvesting, using a chainsaw for felling and skidding with a forwarder or skidder; or (c) fully mechanized harvesting, using a felling machine (shear, disc saw or chainsaw head) and forwarder or skidder with grapple for tree extraction [30].
In this study, the authors present the results of a research activity developed within the national AGROENER project. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical and economic sustainability in the use of advanced mechanization for felling of two SRC poplar plantations: the first with 8-year-old trees and the second with 11-year-old trees. Sustainability was assessed by comparison models of the work time, productivity, and costs between the two crop cycles.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. SRC Poplar Plantations

The SRC poplar plantation is located inside the farm of CREA, Research Centre for Engineering and Agro-food Processing, in Monterotondo (Rome), Central Italy (42°06′4.40″ N, 12°37′31.41″ E). The plantation was planted in 2005 on a flat surface of 4.5 ha on a clayey-loamy soil with a low content of organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorus [17,31]. The climatic conditions are typical of the Mediterranean area with cold winters and dry summers. The average temperature in the last ten years has been 16.2 °C, with an average annual rainfall of 821 mm in about 81 rainy days per year.
The plantation considered in the study consisted of clone AF2 (Populus × canadensis Moenech), with an initial density of 7140 plants ha−1 and with a distance between the rows of 2.80 m and between the plants along the row of 0.50 m. The plantation was harvested in previous years with different harvesting methods. The previous harvesting operations were carried out in spring 2008 in one area and in 2011 in another area. The last cut was made in 2019 with the use of advanced mechanization consisting of a crawler excavator equipped with a shear head. The cutting area of the AF2 clone had a total area of 0.49 ha and was divided into two sections of seven rows each. In the first one, the trees were 8 years old (T8), while in the second one, they were 11 (T11). The roots, in both cases, were 14 years old. The T8 section was approximately 0.27 ha, with an average row length of 138 m, compared to 0.22 ha for the T11 section, with an average row length of 112 m. At the time of cutting, there was only one dominant tree for each live stump, also due to the old age of the trees. To highlight the differences in the operating performance of the machine and, consequently, in the costs of the operation, the felling work was observed separately for the two sections.
Before cutting, the diameters at breast height (DBH) and heights on each row were measured to determine the dendrometric characteristics of all the standing trees. A Mantax 500 dendrometric caliper (accuracy 1 mm) and a Trupulse R360 laser rangefinder (accuracy 0.10 m) were used, respectively. To determine the relationship between tree weight and DBH, a sample of 30 representative trees was taken for each section, and each tree was weighed with a Kern digital dynamometer (accuracy 100 g).
Equation (1) establishes the best relationship between weight and tree DBH:
W = a × D2 + b × D
where W represents the tree weight (kgw); a and b the equation coefficients and D the DBH (cm).
The two equations obtained from the samples of 30 trees each, were applied to determine all the weights of the trees in the two cut areas and then to estimate the relative total fresh biomass present. The polynomial equation was chosen because it was the one that best represented the data set with the highest statistical coefficient of determination. To determine the moisture content of the trees and consequently the dry biomass produced at the time of cutting, a total of 20 trees were sampled, 10 for each section. Three 3 cm thick wooden discs were taken, in basal, medium, and high positions, for a total of 60 cylinders. The moisture content was determined by using a digital scale (accuracy 0.01 g), placing the samples to dry in a forced ventilation stove at a temperature of 105 ± 2 °C, according to the requirements of the European Standard EN ISO 18134-1:2015. The average value of moisture content obtained, distinguished for the two sections, was applied to determine the corresponding dry matter (DM) produced per year by two plantations.

2.2. Felling Machine and Working System

The machine used to fell the two areas was a Volvo EC 140 CL crawler excavator, with an engine power of 69 kW (Figure 1a), equipped with a Westtech C350 accumulating shear head (Figure 1b) with a standard cutting capacity of 35 cm. The total mass of the machine was 17,900 kg (including 1200 kg of the shear head), with an overall size of 2.53 m wide, 8.26 m of long, and 2.98 m of high. On the upper part of the shear head, there was one collecting arm, which closed on a fixed arm, clutching the trunk; in addition, two other mobile pincer arms (accumulator arms) were set above to hold the already cut trees before proceeding to other cuts.
The harvesting method applied was WTS. In the T8 plantation, the operator made a single cut at the base of the tree, moving and stacking it on the ground. In the T11 plantation, on the bigger trees, for a total of 152 trees (33%), he made two cuts: the first one at a height of about 6 m, moving and stacking this first part of the tree on the ground and the second one at the base of the tree. The machine, in both the T8 and T11 plantations, proceeded to cut 3 or 4 rows at a time.

2.3. Time Study

The time study was aimed at determining the productive working time (PT) of the felling operation including only delays (D) not exceeding 15 min for each event. Delays represent work interruptions and have been divided into mechanical (MD), i.e., service or repair, and personal (PD), such as interruptions due to the operator, including rest breaks [32].
The productive work carried out by the machine was divided into four main work phases, including a phase of movement and approach to the tree; a subsequent phase in which the shear head grabs and cuts the tree; a phase in which raises, moves, aligns, and stacks the tree; and a fourth phase concerning the cleaning of the ground from shrubs and dead trees to facilitate the approach to the next tree to be cut. In particular, the basic time elements considered were therefore the following:
  • Moving time (MT), spent to move and position the machine in the place before felling;
  • Felling time (FT), required for tree grabbing and cutting;
  • Bunching time (BT), required for lifting, moving, and stacking the tree;
  • Clearing time (CT), used for removing brambles, shrubs, and dead trees around the trees to be felled.
In the T11 section, on trees subjected to double cut as mentioned above, FT and BT represent the sum of the respective two times measured. Since CT and D are not related to tree characteristics and occur sporadically, the total time observed for these two elements was homogeneously attributed to each tree (total time divided per number of trees felled).
The time study follows the indications of the Forest Work Study Nomenclature suggested by IUFRO Working Party S3.04.02 [33] and approved by the IUFRO Division 3. The working times were detected using a Minerva chronometric table with three centesimal stopwatches, applying the snap-back timing method [27] and making videos for further checking of the working times observed during some work phases. The machine was observed at work for a total of 16.5 h, while the length of the videos was about 250 min.
The time study, distinct in the single work phases, was conducted with reference to each cutting cycle. Data were collected for the construction of a statistical model representative of the productive time (PT) as a function of the weight of the trees.
The model chosen that best interpolates the data referring to both sections T8 and T11 is described by the power equation (Equation (2)), whose general formula is the following:
PT = a × Wb
where PT is expressed in s tree−1 and W in kgw tree−1 and a and b represent the coefficients of the equation.

2.4. Productivity and Cost Evaluation Models

On the basis of PT values recorded for each tree in the two sections, the work productivity per hour (PH) was determined [27,34] by applying Equation (3):
PH = 6 × W/PT
where PH is expressed in Mg h−1, W is the tree weight (kgw), and PT is the productive work time (centesimal seconds).
The related costs were also calculated on the basis of the PH thus obtained. The unit cost was calculated using the following Equation (4):
CMg = HC/PH
where CMg represents the unit cost (EUR Mg−1) and HC is the machine hourly cost (EUR h−1).
The following Equation (5) was instead used to calculate the cost per hectare:
CHa = CMg × W/1000 × N
where CHa is the cost per hectare (EUR ha−1), CMg is the unit cost (EUR Mg−1) determined by Equation (4), W is the tree weight (kgw), and N is the number of trees per hectare (trees ha−1).
Once the data set was built, the productivity and cost evaluation models were determined for the T8 and T11 sections, adopting the equations derived as a function of the tree weight.
To determine the economic models, it was necessary to calculate the hourly cost of the felling machine, applying the analytical methodology proposed by Miyata [35]. The main technical-economic elements used in the calculation and the relative hourly costs are shown in Table 1. The hourly cost of the machine was used in Equation (4) to evaluate the unit cost for each tree cut and, subsequently, to elaborate the univariate regression models to estimate the cost per Mg and per hectare as a function of the tree weight.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical data processing was performed using SPSS statistical software. The analysis was aimed at highlighting statistically significant differences between the T8 and T11 plantations in relation to the parameters examined and to build models about the performance and costs of the felling operation.
On the basis of the experimental data collected in the two plantations (DBH and heights), models were developed for the estimation of the regression curves of the weights of the trees as a function of the DBH. The weights calculated in this way were used for the construction of predictive models for estimating time, productivity, and costs (unitary and per hectare) distinct for the two plantations to compare them. To verify the condition of normality of the data and any significant difference between the two plantations in relation to the different variables considered, the Shapiro–Wilk test and the non-parametric Mann–Whitney test were performed, respectively.

3. Results

3.1. SRC Poplar Plantations

The statistical analysis of the dendrometric data showed non-normal distributions of the diameters and heights in the T8 and T11 sections (Shapiro–Wilk normality test, p < 0.05). Graphical representations of the characteristics of the distributions are shown in the box plots of Figure 2. The Mann–Whitney non-parametric test for two independent samples reveals the existence of statistically significant differences (at a level p < 0.05) in DBH, heights and weights, between the two groups. The results of the processing related to dendrometric measurements and those regarding the moisture content of the trees sample are indicated in Table 2. The harvested biomass was 31.15 Mg in T8 and 46.65 Mg in T11, corresponding to 6.65 and 9.25 Mg ha−1 year−1 of DM, respectively.
The relationship between the observed tree heights and diameters in the two sections is shown in Figure 3a, while the relationship between the weight and the diameter of the trees sample used to determine the equations of the weights as a function of DBH is reported in Figure 3b. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the four regression models reported in the figure produced a statistically significant result (p < 0.01), showing that the model adopted is good.

3.2. Time Study

Figure 4 shows the percentage value of working time per tree, broken down into individual elements. Figure 5 instead shows the comparison box plots of the distributions of the main elements of the working times in sections T8 and T11. The delay times were longer in T8, where the machine recorded frequent work stoppages due to technical problems regarding the shear hydraulic system. The incidence of MD was 9.2% in T8, compared to just 2.2% in T11. The percentage of PD was similar in the two cases (4.6% and 4.2%), for a total delay of 13.8% and 6.4%, respectively.
In general, a higher incidence of the main work phases was observed in T11, except for CT and MD. This is mainly because the machine made two cuts on about one-third of the total trees (bigger trees), increasing the average times per tree to perform the moving, felling, and stacking phases. The machine was observed for a total of 16.50 h, of which 52.2% was on T8 and was 47.8% on T11. Referring to the surface unit, the PT that was estimated as necessary was 31.83 h ha−1 on the T8 section and 35.86 h ha−1 on the T11 section.
The practice of two cuts per tree on the T11 section led to an increase in the average time consumed for the felling phase, which was 15.88 s tree−1 (±6.67 SD), compared to 12.46 s tree−1 (±4.56 SD) recorded in the T8 section. The total PT was 102.90 s (±21.61 SD) and 83.83 s (±14.92 SD), respectively. Statistical analysis using the Mann–Whitney test highlights statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the medians of each variable considered in sections T8 and T11. Figure 6 shows the two PT curves as a function of the tree weight. ANOVA test on the two curve models was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The anomalous trend of the PT curve on the plantation T8 and the low value of the determination coefficient (R2 = 0.106) is justified by the fact that the operator showed greater difficulty in maneuvering on very small trees, with a consequent increase in MT and BT, compared to those found on bigger trees.

3.3. Productivity and Costs Evaluation Models

On the basis of PT data, productivity and costs were calculated for each tree. The hourly cost of the machine, calculated analytically, was 56.16 EUR h−1, divided into 12.67 EUR h−1 of fixed cost, 22.49 EUR h−1 of variable cost, and 21.00 EUR h−1 of driver cost. The distributions of productivity and costs data are compared in Figure 7. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between groups T8 and T11.
Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 report the curves of the productivity and cost evaluation models, for the two SRC plantations. In particular, the estimate models regard PH (Figure 8), CMg (Figure 9), and CHa (Figure 10). For all regression models shown in the figures, the ANOVA test performed statistically significant results with a p-value < 0.01.
Generally, the PH, as expected, increases with tree weight gain. The anomalous trend of the curves in T8 is justified by the greater working time spent on small trees, due to the greater difficulty of the machine in grabbing the trees and stacking them on the ground once cut. Referring to PH of section T8, the estimation model returns values between 1.02 to 11.60 Mg h−1, when the weight of the tree varies from 17 to 137 kgw, with an average value of 3.80 (±1.71 SD) Mg h−1. In section T11, it increases from 1.09 to 19.90 Mg h−1, when the weight of the tree varies from 20 to 491 kgw, with an average value of 5.56 (±3.88 SD) Mg h−1. The unit cost varies from 4.05 to 49.65 EUR Mg−1 (average 15.98 ± 8.68 SD) and from 2.82 to 51.63 EUR Mg−1 (average 15.31 ± 10.05 SD), corresponding to EUR 922.49–2545.11 ha−1 (average 1542.10 ± 318.60 SD) and EUR 1252.17–3463.78 ha−1 (average 2013.89 ± 423.02 SD), in T8 and T11 respectively.

4. Discussion

The development of SRC poplar plantations for energy purposes in Italy has suffered a setback in recent years, and part of the current surface has been converted by farmers to other crops considered more profitable (in central and southern Italy they have been replaced mainly with hazelnut). The remaining SRC plantations, in many cases, are not harvested, pending more favorable market conditions for biomass. This involves an increase in the size of the trees, and the harvesting cannot be carried out with traditional dedicated forage-based harvesters: it is necessary to use a typical forestry mechanization. Harvesting technology is evolving towards more advanced mechanization [36], which leads to an increase in work productivity and a reduction in costs [37]. Furthermore, and this is a fundamental aspect, the highest mechanization level in harvesting operations contributes to reducing both the severity and frequency of accidents and occupational diseases [38].
Referring to the SRC poplar plantations, it was found that the yields were not very high because these were managed from the beginning with a reduced energy input, with fertilization of the soil and water supply carried out only in the first years and reduced mechanical weeding interventions over the years. The limited yields are also attributable to the progressive increase over the years in the mortality of the stumps within the observed areas, which has reached a share of about 70%. This is also due to the climatic conditions typical of central Italy (dry summers), together with heavy and compact soil. The yields obtained were lower, especially in section T8, than previously observed on the same plantation harvested in 2- and 3-year cycles [10,31], as well as on other similar poplar plantations with longer cycles [14].
From an operational point of view, the felling machine encountered greater difficulties on the smaller trees of the T8 plantation compared to the T11, as shown in Figure 7. On the other hand, even in the T11 plantation, the presence of larger trees led to an increase in working times as the operator was forced to make two cuts per tree, on a third of the plantation, also to facilitate the subsequent extraction of the trees by a forwarder. This has considerably increased the overall working times thanks to the doubling of the approaching, felling, and stacking phases. Furthermore, the operator, having no previous experience in harvesting this type of plantation, in both cases did not exploit the storage capacity of the shear, which would have allowed him to work more trees at the same time before depositing them on the ground, an operation that could have contributed to reducing working time. To this it must be added both the particularly high number of trees to be cut (over 2000 trees per hectare), and the small size of the tree compared to what can be found in a forest yard. These conditions did not allow reaching an average productivity like that observed in other forestry yards. In fact, the average work productivity obtained, about 4.7 Mg h−1, was much lower than that recorded with similar machines and plantations by other authors [27,39,40,41], and more than halved compared to dedicated machines equipped with different felling heads [26,42].
The low average productivity achieved was also strongly influenced by the driver’s lack of work experience on cutting these plantations. The subjective aspect in the work is very important and has also been highlighted in other studies concerning different types of mechanized harvesting on different plantations. It is difficult to quantify the driver’s influence on final work productivity due to the simple fact that his training is not something that can be standardized globally [43,44]. Some of the studies carried out have shown that the technical preparation of the operator can affect up to 40% the final productivity in the use of advanced forestry equipment such as a harvester [44,45,46,47,48].
As clearly evidenced by the proposed cost model, the unit cost tends to be very high as the size of the trees becomes smaller. In this case, the machine does not work optimally and has a very low productivity, making the unit costs become unsustainable. On the other hand, as the trees size increases, the cost of the cutting operation decreases, reaching values that are acceptable and comparable with those observed by other authors [41].
In our study, as expected, hourly productivity increased as the weight of the trees increased. The range of values obtained varied from 1.02 to 11.60 Mg h−1 for the T8 section and from 1.09 to 19.90 Mg h−1, for the T11 section. The average productivity obtained was slightly higher in the T11 section with 5.6 Mg h−1, compared to 3.8 Mg h−1 in the T8 section. As regards unit costs, the differences between the two sections were more attenuated with a range of values between 4.05 to 49.65 EUR Mg−1 in T8 and between 2.82 to 51.63 EUR Mg−1 in T11. The average unit cost is similar in both cases, settling around 15 EUR Mg−1 (15.98 EUR Mg−1 for T8 and 15.31 EUR Mg−1 for T11).
The cost-per-hectare model confirms the anomalous trend referred to as the T8 plantation. In this case, unlike the T11 curve, the cost increases as the tree size decreases due to the greater difficulty of the machine to work on smaller trees. However, the cost per hectare is always lower for the T8 plantation than for the T11, except when the weight of the trees becomes less than 25 kgw, where the break-even point occurs between the two plantations.
The economic sustainability of the use of shears on aged SRC poplar plantations must be evaluated considering that the felling operation represents only a part of the entire harvesting work, as the costs of extraction, chipping, and transport of the biomass must also be considered. This overall cost must then be compared with the market price of the woodchips, which is in any case currently low [14,49]. For this reason, the adoption of the mechanization examined for felling this type of plantation must be considered economically sustainable if its costs are contained within acceptable limits of about 15 EUR Mg−1 for fresh biomass (about 30 EUR Mg−1 DM).
According to the model we have adopted, therefore, the condition of economic sustainability, in the two 8- and 11-year-old SRC poplar plantations, occurs for trees weighing more than 45 and 60 kgw respectively.
Finally, the study highlighted the technical and economic difficulties of using advanced mechanization for the felling of aged SRC poplar plantations. However, the proposed models could still represent a useful tool for farmers to guide their decisions should they need to harvest SRC plantations under similar conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.S.; methodology, G.S.; formal analysis, G.S.; investigation, G.S., A.A., V.C., and A.D.G.; data curation, G.S.; writing—original draft preparation, G.S.; writing—review and editing, G.S., A.A., V.C., and A.D.G.; visualization, G.S.; funding acquisition, G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was developed within the AGROENER “Energia dall’agricoltura: innovazioni sostenibili per la bioeconomia” national project, funded by Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry Policies (MiPAAF, D.D. n. 26329, 1 April 2016).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dimitriou, I.; Rutz, D. Sustainable Short Rotation Coppice. In A Handbook; Wip Renewable Energies: Munich, Germany, 2015; p. 103. [Google Scholar]
  2. Civitarese, V.; Faugno, S.; Picchio, R.; Assirelli, A.; Sperandio, G.; Saulino, L.; Crimaldi, M.; Sannino, M. Production of selected short-rotation wood crop species and quality of obtained biomass. Eur. J. For. Res. 2018, 137, 541–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Civitarese, V.; Acampora, A.; Sperandio, G.; Assirelli, A.; Picchio, R. Production of Wood Pellets from Poplar Trees Managed as Coppices with Different Harvesting Cycles. Energies 2019, 12, 2973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Kizha, A.R.; Han, H.-S. Processing and sorting forest residues: Cost, productivity and managerial impacts. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 93, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Marland, G.; Schlamadinger, B.; Leiby, P. Forest/biomass based mitigation strategies: Does the timing of carbon reductions matter? Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 27, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hall, D.O.; Scrase, J.I. Will biomass be the environmentally friendly fuel of the future? Biomass Bioenergy 1998, 15, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Faasch, R.J.; Patenaude, G. The economics of short rotation coppice in Germany. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 45, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lindegaard, K.N.; Adams, P.W.R.; Holley, M.; Lamley, A.; Henriksson, A.; Larsson, S.; Von Engelbrechten, H.-G.; Lopez, G.E.; Pisarek, M. Short rotation plantations policy history in Europe: Lessons from the past and recommendations for the future. Food Energy Secur. 2016, 5, 125–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. PREPAIR (LIFE 15 IPE IT 013 of European Union). Gli Impatti Ambientali Della Combustione di Biomassa Legnosa per la Produzione di Calore: Le Esperienze Delle Azioni di Comunicazione Nell’area del Bacino Padano e in Slovenia. 2018. Available online: http://www.lifeprepair.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Gli-impatti-ambientali-della-combustione-di-biomassa-legnosa_le-esperienze-di-comunicazione.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  10. Verani, S.; Sperandio, G.; Picchio, R.; Marchi, E.; Costa, C. Sustainability Assessment of a Self-Consumption Wood-Energy Chain on Small Scale for Heat Generation in Central Italy. Energies 2015, 8, 5182–5197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. MISE. Proposta di Piano nazionale Integrato per l’Energia e l’Ambiente. In Ministero per lo Sviluppo Economico—Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare—Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti; MISE: Roma, Italy, 2018; p. 237. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lanzerstorfer, C. Chemical composition and physical properties of filter fly ashes from eight grate-fired biomass combustion plants. J. Environ. Sci. 2015, 30, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bacenetti, J.; Bergante, S.; Facciotto, G.; Fiala, M. Woody biofuel production from short rotation coppice in Italy: Environmental-impact assessment of different species and crop management. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 94, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Manzone, M.; Bergante, S.; Facciotto, G. Energy and economic evaluation of a poplar plantation for woodchips production in Italy. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 60, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Paris, P.; Mareschi, L.; Sabatti, M.; Pisanelli, A.; Ecosse, A.; Nardin, F.; Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. Comparing hybrid Populus clones for SRF across northern Italy after two biennial rotations: Survival, growth and yield. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 1524–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Canesin, C. La Short Rotation Forestry in Nord Italia. Limiti e potenzialità del suo impiego sotto differenti scenari: Produzione di biomassa e prove di fertilizzazione. In Tesi di Dottorato di Ricerca. Ecologia Ciclo XXII; Università degli Studi di Padova: Padova, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  17. Di Matteo, G.; Nardi, P.; Verani, S.; Sperandio, G. Physiological adaptability of Poplar clones selected for bioenergy purposes under non-irrigated and suboptimal site conditions: A case study in Central Italy. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 81, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pignatti, G.; Verani, S.; Sperandio, G. Produzione di legna da ardere da cedui di eucalipto a turno breve: Produttività di lavoro e costi. L’italia For. Mont. 2019, 74, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Soman, H.; Kizha, A.R.; Delgado, B.M.; Kenefic, L.S.; Kanoti, K. Production economics: Comparing hybrid tree-length with whole-tree harvesting methods. For. Int. J. For. Res. 2020, 93, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Costa, C.; Sperandio, G.; Verani, S. Use of Multivariate approaches in biomass energy plantation harvesting: Logistic advantages. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2014, 71–80. [Google Scholar]
  21. Santangelo, E.; Scarfone, A.; Del Giudice, A.; Acampora, A.; Alfano, V.; Suardi, A.; Pari, L. Harvesting systems for poplar short rotation coppice. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2015, 75, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Verani, S.; Sperandio, G.; Picchio, R.; Spinelli, R.; Picchi, G. Poplar harvesting. In Field Handbook; International Poplar Commission Thematic Papers; Forestry Department; Working Paper IPC/8; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2008; p. 54. [Google Scholar]
  23. Verani, S.; Sperandio, G.; Civitarese, V.; Spinelli, R. Harvesting mechanization in plantations for wood production: Working productivity and costs. For. Riv. Selvic. Ecol. For. 2017, 14, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Cielo, P.; Zanuttini, R. La raccolta del legno nei pioppeti. L’Italia For. Mont. 2004, 59, 467–482. [Google Scholar]
  25. Spinelli, R.; Hartsough, B.R.; Magagnotti, N. Productivity Standards for Harvesters and Processors in Italy. For. Prod. J. 2010, 60, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Sperandio, G.; Cielo, P.; Verani, S.; Zanuttini, R. Cost and Productivity of Harvesting High-Value Hybrid Poplar Plantations in Italy. For. Prod. J. 2011, 61, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Picchio, R.; Sirna, A.; Sperandio, G.; Spina, R.; Verani, S. Mechanized harvesting of eucalypt coppice for biomass production using high mechanization level. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2012, 33, 15–24. Available online: https://hrcak.srce.hr/85997 (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  28. Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Facchinetti, D. Logging companies in the European mountains: An example from the Italian Alps. Int. J. For. Eng. 2013, 24, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Stampfer, K. Influence of terrain conditions and thinning regimes on productivity of a track-based steep slope harvester. In Proceedings of the International Mountain Logging and 10th Pacific Northwest Skyline Symposium, Corvallis, OR, USA, 28 March–1 April 1999; pp. 78–87. [Google Scholar]
  30. Proto, A.R.; Sperandio, G.; Costa, C.; Maesano, M.; Antonucci, F.; Macrì, G.; Scarascia Mugnozza, G.; Zimbalatti, G. A Three-Step Neural Network Artificial Intelligence Modeling Approach for Time, Productivity and Costs Prediction. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2020, 41, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Di Matteo, G.; Sperandio, G.; Verani, S. Field performance of poplar for bioenergy in southern Europe after two coppicing rotations: Effects of clone and planting density. iForest-Biogeosci. For. 2012, 5, 224–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Magagnotti, N.; Spinelli, R. Good practice guidelines for biomass production studies. In Cost Action Fp-0902, Wp2 Operations Research and Measurement Methodologies; CNR-IVALSA: Sesto Fiorentino, FI, Italy, 2012; p. 50. [Google Scholar]
  33. Björheden, R.; Apel, K.; Shiba, M.; Thompson, M.A. IUFRO Forest Work Study Nomenclature, Test, ed.; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Operational Efficiency; SLU: Garpenberg, Sweden, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  34. Balimunsi, H.; Grigolato, S.; Picchio, R.; Nyombi, K.; Cavalli, R. Productivity and energy balance of forest plantation harvesting in Uganda. For. Stud. China 2012, 14, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Miyata, E.S. Determining Fixed and Operating Costs of Logging Equipment; General Technical Report NC-55; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  36. Spinelli, R.; Cacot, E.; Mihelic, M.; Nestorovski, L.; Mederski, P.; Tolosana, E. Techniques and productivity of coppice harvesting operations in Europe: A meta-analysis of available data. Ann. For. Sci. 2016, 73, 1125–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Laina, R.; Tolosana, E.; Ambrosio, Y. Productivity and cost of biomass harvesting for energy production in coppice natural stands of Quercus pyrenaica Willd. in central Spain. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 56, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Albizu, P.M.; Tolosana, E.; Roman-Jordan, E. Safety and health in forest harvesting operations. Diagnosis and preventive actions. A review. Forest Syst. 2013, 22, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Verani, S. Utilizzazione di una piantagione di eucalipto. Sherwood 2009, 137, 29–33. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sperandio, G. Eucalyptus coppice for chipwood production. Economic sustainability of an advanced mechanization yard. Sherwood 2010, 167, 39–44. [Google Scholar]
  41. Schweier, J.; Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Becker, G. Mechanized coppice harvesting with new small-scale feller-bunchers: Results from harvesting trials with newly manufactured felling heads in Italy. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 72, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Spinelli, R.; Hartsough, B.R.; Owende, P.M.O.; Ward, S.M. Productivity and Cost of Mechanized Whole-Tree Harvesting of Fast-Growing Eucalypt Stands. Int. J. For. Eng. 2002, 13, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Norihiro, J.; Ackerman, P.; Spong, B.D.; Längin, D. Productivity Model for Cut-to-Length Harvester Operation in South African Eucalyptus Pulpwood Plantations. Croat. J. For. Eng. J. Theory Appl. For. Eng. 2015, 39, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  44. Purfürst, F.T.; Erler, J. The Human Influence on Productivity in Harvester Operations. Int. J. For. Eng. 2012, 22, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hiesl, P.; Benjamin, J.G. A multi-stem feller-buncher cycle-time model for partial harvest of small-diameter wood stands. Int. J. For. Eng. 2013, 24, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kärhä, K.; Rönkkö, E.; Gumse, S.-I. Productivity and Cutting Costs of Thinning Harvesters. Int. J. For. Eng. 2004, 15, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ovaskainen, H.; Uusitalo, J.; Väätäinen, K. Characteristics and Significance of a Harvester Operators’ Working Technique in Thinnings. Int. J. For. Eng. 2004, 15, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Purfürst, F.T.; Lindroos, O. The correlation between long-term productivity and short-term performance ratings of harvester operators. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2011, 32, 509–519. [Google Scholar]
  49. Schweier, J.; Becker, G. Economics of poplar short rotation coppice plantations on marginal land in Germany. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 59, 494–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 12 00954 g001 550
Figure 1. Crawler excavator during the felling of a 11-year-old tree (a) and details of the shear head (b).
Figure 1. Crawler excavator during the felling of a 11-year-old tree (a) and details of the shear head (b).
Forests 12 00954 g001
Forests 12 00954 g002 550
Figure 2. Box plots showing the comparison of the distributions of diameter at breast height (DBH) (cm) and height (m) in plantations T8 and T11.
Figure 2. Box plots showing the comparison of the distributions of diameter at breast height (DBH) (cm) and height (m) in plantations T8 and T11.
Forests 12 00954 g002
Forests 12 00954 g003 550
Figure 3. Relationship between height and diameter at breast height (DBH) in T8 (616 obs.) and T11 (460 obs.) plantations (a), and weight equations as a function of the DBH (30 obs. for each section) (b).
Figure 3. Relationship between height and diameter at breast height (DBH) in T8 (616 obs.) and T11 (460 obs.) plantations (a), and weight equations as a function of the DBH (30 obs. for each section) (b).
Forests 12 00954 g003
Forests 12 00954 g004 550
Figure 4. Percentage incidence of the single working phases per tree in plantations T8 and T11.
Figure 4. Percentage incidence of the single working phases per tree in plantations T8 and T11.
Forests 12 00954 g004
Forests 12 00954 g005 550
Figure 5. Box plots showing the comparison of PT (productive work time), MT (moving time), FT (felling time), and BT (bunching time) distributions in plantations T8 and T11 (in s tree−1).
Figure 5. Box plots showing the comparison of PT (productive work time), MT (moving time), FT (felling time), and BT (bunching time) distributions in plantations T8 and T11 (in s tree−1).
Forests 12 00954 g005
Forests 12 00954 g006 550
Figure 6. Productive work time (PT) as a function of the tree weight for plantations T8 and T11.
Figure 6. Productive work time (PT) as a function of the tree weight for plantations T8 and T11.
Forests 12 00954 g006
Forests 12 00954 g007 550
Figure 7. Box plots showing the comparison of data distributions of PH (work productivity), CMg (unit cost), and CHa (cost per hectare) in plantations T8 and T11.
Figure 7. Box plots showing the comparison of data distributions of PH (work productivity), CMg (unit cost), and CHa (cost per hectare) in plantations T8 and T11.
Forests 12 00954 g007
Forests 12 00954 g008 550
Figure 8. Work productivity (PH) estimate models calculated in relation to the weight of the tree for plantations T8 and T11.
Figure 8. Work productivity (PH) estimate models calculated in relation to the weight of the tree for plantations T8 and T11.
Forests 12 00954 g008
Forests 12 00954 g009 550
Figure 9. Estimation models of the unit cost (CMg) in relation to the weight of the tree for plantations T8 and T11.
Figure 9. Estimation models of the unit cost (CMg) in relation to the weight of the tree for plantations T8 and T11.
Forests 12 00954 g009
Forests 12 00954 g010 550
Figure 10. Cost per hectare (CHa) estimation models in relation to the weight of the tree for plantations T8 and T11.
Figure 10. Cost per hectare (CHa) estimation models in relation to the weight of the tree for plantations T8 and T11.
Forests 12 00954 g010
Table
Table 1. Main economic elements considered to calculate the hourly cost of the machine.
Table 1. Main economic elements considered to calculate the hourly cost of the machine.
Value
Purchace price (EUR)130,000.00
Salvage value (EUR)10,833.00
Life time (years)12
Average Annual Investment (EUR year−1)75,382.00
Total productive time (h)14,400
Scheduled hours (h year−1)1600
Productive hours (h year−1)1200
Fuel consumption (l h−1)13.03
Lubricants consumption (l h−1)0.34
Fuel price (EUR l−1) (*)0.90
Lubricant price (EUR l−1)9.00
Load engine factor (%)65
(*) Subsidized fuel price for the agricultural sector.
Table
Table 2. Dendrometric and productive characteristics of the T8 and T11 plantations (±SD in brackets).
Table 2. Dendrometric and productive characteristics of the T8 and T11 plantations (±SD in brackets).
T8T11
Surface (ha)0.270.22
Trees felled (N.)616460
Trees ha−1 (N.)22812091
Stumps failure (%)68.0571.4
DBH average (cm)9.84 (±2.30)13.20 (±5.51)
Height average (m)8.82 (±1.78)11.39 (±3.79)
Weight average (kgw)50.57 (±18.82)101.41 (±87.48)
Biomass (Mg)31.1546.65
Biomass (Mg ha−1)115.37212.05
Biomass (Mg ha−1 year−1)14.4219.28
Moisture content (%)53.87 (±2.29)52.02 (±2.04)
Dry biomass (MgDM ha−1 year−1)6.659.25
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sperandio, G.; Acampora, A.; Del Giudice, A.; Civitarese, V. Models for the Evaluation of Productivity and Costs of Mechanized Felling on Poplar Short Rotation Coppice in Italy. Forests 2021, 12, 954. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070954

AMA Style

Sperandio G, Acampora A, Del Giudice A, Civitarese V. Models for the Evaluation of Productivity and Costs of Mechanized Felling on Poplar Short Rotation Coppice in Italy. Forests. 2021; 12(7):954. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070954

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sperandio, Giulio, Andrea Acampora, Angelo Del Giudice, and Vincenzo Civitarese. 2021. "Models for the Evaluation of Productivity and Costs of Mechanized Felling on Poplar Short Rotation Coppice in Italy" Forests 12, no. 7: 954. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070954

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop