International Journal of Forest Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tife20

Harvester time consumption in nature

conservation management operations

Raul Fernandez-Lacruz, Örjan Grönlund, Tomas Johannesson, Line B.

Djupström, Jon Söderberg & Lars Eliasson

To cite this article: Raul Fernandez-Lacruz, Örjan Grönlund, Tomas Johannesson, Line B.
Djupström, Jon Söderberg & Lars Eliasson (2023) Harvester time consumption in nature
conservation management operations, International Journal of Forest Engineering, 34:2,
112-116, DOI: 10.1080/14942119.2023.2174353

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14942119.2023.2174353

© 2023 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 08 Feb 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 582

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tife20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOREST ENGINEERING
2023, VOL. 34, NO. 2, 112–116
https://doi.org/10.1080/14942119.2023.2174353

Harvester time consumption in nature conservation management operations

a a,b
Raul Fernandez-Lacruz , Örjan Grönlund , Tomas Johannessona, Line B. Djupström a
, Jon Söderberg a
,
and Lars Eliasson a
a
The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden (Skogforsk), Uppsala, Sweden; bSkogsägarna Mellanskog, Uppsala, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In Sweden, nature conservation management (NCM) is not applied to the extent needed to avoid negative Received 13 October 2022
impacts on biodiversity in voluntary set-asides and formal reserves. A limiting factor is the uncertainty of the Accepted 26 January 2023
costs for the operations caused by a lack of models for estimating costs and revenues in mechanized NCM. KEYWORDS
These may explain why some operations are highly profitable while others result in a net loss. Our aim was to Harvesting; productivity;
compare harvester time consumption in NCM operations to final felling operations and estimate the added forest operations; StanForD;
cost. Harvesting in 14 NCM stands and 399 final felling stands were studied using follow-up data. Harvesting environment; reserve
intensity in NCM treatments varied generally between 25% and 50% of the standing volume. Time
consumption in NCM operations was 1.1 to 1.4 times greater than in final felling, depending on management
goal, machine size, and tree volume. Increased harvester time consumption is not the only factor influencing
logging costs in an NCM operation. Compared to final felling, forwarder time consumption is expected to
increase in the same way as in thinning operations. Field visits during spring 2022 allowed visual inspections
of the stands after harvest and showed that NCM plans were generally followed with minor deviations.

Introduction measures in Swedish NCM comprise the removal of Norway

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) highlights the importance of
forest reserves, protected through legislation (i.e., formal reserves)
or voluntary commitments from forest owners, in order to pre­
serve biodiversity (Díaz et al. 2015). In many cases, the aim of
reserves may be attained through free development (i.e., nonin­
tervention). However, a natural element in all ecosystems is dis­
turbances (Pickett and White 1985). As explored in disturbance
ecology (Turner 2010; Newman 2019), there are both natural
disturbances and disturbances caused by humans, and many spe­
cies are adapted to the conditions created by these disturbances. In
boreal forests, the main natural disturbances are wildfires, storms,
and damage by fungi and insects (Angelstam and Kuuluvainen
2004), while historic human disturbances have been associated
with cutting of meadows and cattle grazing in pastures and forests
(Lagerås 2007).
Mechanization of forestry and agriculture, along with urba­
nization, has changed the above-mentioned disturbance pat­
terns. For instance, wildfires have largely disappeared due to
effective fire suppression (Fredriksson 2021), resulting in loss
of habitats for species adapted for these conditions. In order to
address this, the concept of nature conservation management
(NCM) was introduced (Pickett and White 1985; Attiwill 1994)
as well as similar concepts such as nature disturbance-based
management (Harvey et al. 2002) and natural disturbance emu­
lation (Drever et al. 2006). In essence, “the goal [of NCM] is to
design harvesting patterns to emulate the main ecological out­
comes of natural disturbances” (Kuuluvainen and Grenfell
2012). Since management is determined by its goals, NCM is
a concept that includes many different operations. Common
spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and creation of deadwood, and
many NCM operations are mechanized (Grönlund et al. 2020).
Sweden is covered by 28 million hectares (ha) of forests (69% of
land area), of which 24 million ha is defined as productive forest
land (annual increment greater than 1 m3 ha−1) (Nilsson et al.
2019). Of the productive forest land, 3.1 million ha is preserved by
implementing three strategies: 1.3 million ha in formal reserves,
1.3 million ha in voluntary set-asides, and 0.5 million ha in
retained patches after final felling (Statistics Sweden 2020).
Mapping indicates that approximately 60% of formally protected
areas managed by the Swedish Forest Agency is intended for NCM
(The Swedish Forest Agency 2019). In voluntary set-asides, the
corresponding figure is 20%–40% (Eriksson 2019; Grönlund et al.
2020). Together with NCM in retention areas, between 0.6 and
1.1 million ha of forest land in Sweden is intended for NCM.
Several studies have shown that NCM in Sweden is not applied
to the extent needed to avoid failing conservation values. The
Swedish Government Office (2001) estimated that only 10%–
20% of the NCM needed is applied in formal reserves. Later
mappings indicate that NCM must be substantially increased in
both voluntary set-asides (Grönlund et al. 2020) and formal
reserves (The Swedish Forest Agency 2019) to avoid a negative
impact on biodiversity.
An interview study of forestry staff, contractors, and forestry
officials by Grönlund et al. (2020) examined why NCM is not
being carried out. A limiting factor was found to be the uncer­
tainty and lack of models for estimating costs and revenues in
mechanized NCM, which had a negative impact on the extent to
which NCM is being applied. Interviewees reported that some
NCM operations could be highly profitable while others resulted
in a net loss.

CONTACT Raul Fernandez-Lacruz raul.fernandezlacruz@skogforsk.se The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden (Skogforsk), Uppsala, Sweden
© 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOREST ENGINEERING 113

The cost for an NCM operation is proportional to the time
consumption of a harvester and forwarder to complete the task.
NCM harvesting operations are similar to conventional thin­
ning in cut-to-length forestry, but more time is required for
planning and harvesting (Grönlund et al. 2020). Time con­
sumption of final fellings and thinnings in Sweden has been
studied by, e.g., Eriksson and Lindroos (2014), while few stu­
dies have examined time consumption, costs, and revenues in
NCM operations. Santaniello et al. (2016) found that harvester
time consumption increased with levels of retention. Nordén
et al. (2019) concluded that NCM in oak forests (mainly
removal of spruce) was costly, and that both revenues and
costs varied greatly.
The aim of this study was to compare harvester time con­
sumption in NCM operations to final felling operations in the
same geographical region and using the same fleet of harvest­
ers. The overarching objective was to contribute knowledge
needed to increase NCM operations to the extent needed to
avoid failing conservation values.
Materials and methods
Study sites
Felling in NCM stands and in ordinary final felling stands
(control) was studied in areas harvested by SCA Skog AB in
Jämtland and Västernorrland (northern Sweden). Harvester
data from 14 stands harvested for NCM purposes were col­
lected, and data from 399 conventional final felling stands were
collected as control.
NCM stands were felled during May–June 2018 and
January–August 2019. Besides machine data in the form of
harvester production (HPR) files, the harvest plan, follow-up
inventory, and a shapefile with the stand borders were pro­
vided. Aerial images obtained from “Basic Forest Data”
(Nilsson et al. 2017) and in-field visits during April–
May 2022 helped to complete stand descriptions and provided
an understanding of the aim of the NCM. For the control
stands only the HPR files were collected. These stands were
cut in the same years, using the same fleet of harvesters and the
same group of contractors as the NCM stands.
NCM stands were selected from stands treated in 2018 and
2019 in Jämtland and Västernorrland and classified as NCM in
SCA Skog AB’s stand database. Harvester data was available
from 30 stands, but this data was only partial for 15 stands and
one stand was excluded as it did not fit the NCM classification.
Complete harvester data was therefore obtained for 14 stands
(Table 1).
NCM stands were classified into four groups according to the
stated management goals. This classification relied on quantita­
tive and qualitative indicators describing the stand, such as
initial stand properties, intensity of removal, tree species com­
position, ground moisture, logging conditions, aerial images,
and instructions in the harvest plan. The four groups were:
(1) Broad-leaved forest (BF). Removal of spruce trees to
improve the survival, growth, and reestablishment of
shade-intolerant broad-leaved pioneer species.
(2) Mixed conifer-broad-leaved forest (CBF). Variable den­
sity thinning, especially removal of spruce, to benefit
pine and broad-leaved trees, and to increase structural
complexity by felling trees to create structural hetero­
geneity and other habitat features.

Table 1. Summary of the studied NCM stands.

Removal d e

Total Mean
harvested stem Species
volume volume DBHb mixc
Size Age
m3 Harvester Management
Stand ha years ha−1 %a m3 cm % p/s/b size goal Remarks
1 6.0 - 167 63 0.17 16 7/84/9 XL BF Part of a swamp forest area
2 14.8 111– 246 72 0.24 17 8/74/18 XL BF -
120
3 0.9 61–70 88 46 0.18 17 11/77/12 L BF -
4 3.0 121+ 98 48 0.29 19 47/49/4 XL CBF Adjacent to a woodland key habitat
5 7.1 121+ 41 36 0.27 21 1/95/4 L CBF
6 7.2 111– 30 27 0.14 16 100/0/0 XL PF Adjacent to a woodland key habitat
120
7 6.4 121+ 83 26 0.17 16 7/90/3 XL PF Ancient remains (trapping pits, charcoal pits and house
foundations)
8 8.6 121+ 97 43 0.17 17 21/74/5 XL PF -
9 3.3 121+ 32 47 0.11 16 45/47/8 L PF -
10 2.7 121+ 81 37 0.11 13 28/68/4 L PF Adjacent to an area with high nature value
11 8.0 121+ 39 24 0.27 21 92/8/0 XL PF Adjacent to a woodland key habitat
12 1.4 121+ 77 29 0.25 18 28/59/13 XL PF Ancient remains (trapping pits)
13 0.8 - 126 57 0.18 17 0/83/17 L CF -
14 4.0 111– 100 33 0.28 20 0/94/6 L CF -
120
a Percentage of initial volume harvested.
b Mean DBH = diameter at breast height, i.e. 1.3 m above ground level.
c Percentage of removed trees by species: p, Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), s, Norway spruce (Picea abies), b, Broad-leaved species.
d Size classification of harvester (harvester head in parentheses): large (L) denotes Komatsu 901TX (C93), Komatsu 931 (C123 or 365), John Deere 1170 (H413) or John
Deere 1270 (H415); extra-large (XL) denotes Komatsu 951 (C144) or John Deere 1470 (H415).
e BF: Broad-leaved forest, CBF: Mixed conifer-broad-leaved forest, PF: Pine forest, CF: Mixed conifer forest.
114 R. FERNANDEZ-LACRUZ ET AL.

(3) Pine forest (PF). Removal of spruce and variable density
thinning and/or canopy opening to create structural het­
erogeneity. The management goal is to create a sun-
exposed pine forest with late-successional habitat features,
e.g., cutting high stumps and partly removing bark along
the stem (girdling), to create dying and dead trees.
(4) Mixed conifer forest (CF). Thinning of varying intensity
and creation of dead wood to increase structural com­
plexity, e.g., greater age range, multi-layered canopies,
and other habitat features.
The conventional final felling stands can be placed in a fifth
group of management goals, Commercial management (CM).
Final felling is just one of the harvesting treatments in commer­
cial management stands; all stands are also usually commercially
thinned one or more times. However, time consumption in final
felling operations of commercially managed stands was chosen
as control to the time consumption in NCM treatments.
For each stand, harvester data on tree species, stem volume,
and time consumption (seconds, s) for each tree were automa­
tically registered by the harvester computer and collected in
time-stamped HPR files according to the StanForD 2010 stan­
dard (Möller et al. 2013; Möller 2014). This necessitated filtering
the data to remove trees harvested after a longer break or when
a delay had occurred during the harvest; here, this filtering
involved removing all trees with a processing time equal to or
longer than 600 s (cf. Eliasson et al. 2020). Mean time consump­
tion (s tree−1) and mean stem volume (m3 under bark) per tree
were calculated for all trees with a processing time shorter than
or equal to 600 s. Due to the limited number of stands in NCM
operations, these arithmetic means were calculated per workday
(n = 51). In conventional felling, splitting the data into days was
not considered necessary, and means were calculated per stand
(n = 399). The dataset of NCM fellings comprised 8,134 m3 and
39,585 trees, while the dataset of final fellings consisted of
~0.5 million m3 and 2.5 million trees.
Analyses
Harvester time consumption was analyzed using a general
linear model, formulated in Eq. 1:
y¼ μ þTþMþβ�vþε (1)
where y (mean time per tree) was the response variable, µ was the
overall mean, T was treatment, i.e., “final felling” in CM stands or
“management goal” in NCM stands and M machine size were
factors, β was a constant, v (mean stem volume) was a covariate,
and ε was the residual error. The material was unbalanced, so the
interaction T × M had to be excluded from the analysis.
Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS Enterprise
Guide 8.3 (SAS Institute Inc., USA) and results were regarded
as significant if the p-value was <0.05.
Table 2. ANOVA table for the general linear model explaining harvester time consumption per tree in the NCM stands. The
model explained 42% of the variation.
Source DF Type III SS
Mean stem volume (v) 1 8306.00
Machine size (M) 1 4232.91
Treatment (T) 4 2508.57
The agreement with the data provider (SCA Skog AB) pre­
vented the publishing of any time consumption or productivity
figures, so the results are presented as time differences between
harvester sizes and relative time consumption for the different
NCM treatments compared to conventional final felling.
Results
Harvesting intensity varied somewhat but was generally
between 25% and 50% of the standing volume in the studied
stands. Regardless of NCM management goal, the main objec­
tive of the harvesting operations seems to have been removal of
spruce from the stands (Table 1).
In CM final felling operations, XL harvesters were 6.8 s per
tree faster than large harvesters. This difference was marginally
larger, although not significantly so, at 7.2 s for NCM felling
operations. Mean stem volume, treatment, and machine size
were found to significantly affect mean time consumption per
tree (Table 2). Compared to CM final felling, the average time
consumption of NCM felling was 15%, 15%, 19%, and 27%
greater for the management goals PF, CF, CBF, and BF, respec­
tively, and differences were deemed significant for PF, CBF,
and BF. When comparing between NCM treatments, there
were a significant difference in time consumption between PF
and BF but not between any other treatment combination.
Relative differences in time consumption per tree between
NCM fellings and final fellings are presented in Figure 1 for the
range of harvested mean steam volume observed in NCM stands,
i.e., 0.1–0.4 m3 (under bark). NCM felling operations had a relative
time consumption of 1.1–1.4 times greater than final felling opera­
tions, depending on management goal, machine size, and mean
stem volume. These differences decreased with mean stem volume
and were found to be smaller for large harvesters than XL harvest­
ers if the same stem size was considered. The differences between
harvester sizes are partly a mathematical effect due to the fact that
XL harvesters were faster than large harvesters, which reduces both
the numerator and denominator.
As harvesting costs are expected to be proportional to time
consumed, NCM treatments were 10%–40% more costly than
final felling for stands with an average tree volume from 0.1 to
0.4 m3. The highest cost increases occurred for the “Broad-
leaved forest” (BF) NCM treatment, even though these stands
had high harvesting intensities.
Discussion
Removal of spruce was the most common measure found in
the harvest plans, despite different NCM goals. This is in
accordance with the findings of Grönlund et al. (2020), and it
is considered uncontroversial. Other measures consisted of
creation of lying and standing deadwood (cutting of high
stumps, girdling of standing trees with the purpose of
Mean Square F Value Pr > F
8306.00 211.32 <0.0001
4232.91 107.69 <0.0001
627.14 15.96 <0.0001

Figure 1. Harvester time consumption in NCM fellings with different management goals relative to final fellings as a function of mean stem volume (m3 under bark), for
each machine size. BF: broad-leaved forest, CBF: mixed conifer-broad-leaved forest, PF: pine forest, CF: mixed conifer forest, CM: commercial management (final felling).
Note: management goal CF is only represented in machine size L.
veteranisation), and marking of ancient and cultural remains
by cutting high stumps.
Except for NCM treatment BF, harvesting intensity was mostly
in the 25%–50% range, i.e., in the same range as ordinary com­
mercial thinning. However, the increase in time consumption, and
thereby costs, was lower than the 30% increase often stated for
thinning (cf. Eriksson and Lindroos 2014; Jonsson 2015).
Increased time consumption in all kinds of selective harvesting is
an effect of restrictions caused by residual trees and seedlings and
the amount of care the operator has to take to avoid damaging
them (Eliasson 1998). This could also explain the higher relative
increase in time consumption for BF. Birches and aspens have
wider crowns, and more effort is needed to avoid snagging in these
when a tree is felled, which implies that residual broad-leaved trees
cause greater restrictions to harvester work than spruce trees. In
addition, the BF stands were situated on soils that were normally
wetter than the other stands; this could also be a contributing
factor, as additional time might be required to reinforce machine
trails with slash to avoid soil damage.
XL harvesters were faster than large harvesters, as could be
expected from earlier studies (Eriksson and Lindroos 2014; Liski
et al. 2020). It seems likely that there should be interactions
between NCM treatment and machine size. However, investi­
gating this would require a larger dataset than that available to
us, in order to separate this interaction from the effects of the
operators. This was not possible in our dataset, since all work­
days (observations) during the harvest of one stand are observa­
tions of one or two operators using the same harvester.
In addition to the increase in harvester time consumption due
to the residual stand, time consumption in NCM treatments is also
increased by additional work tasks for the harvester (cf. Santaniello
et al. 2016). These include girdling of standing trees for veteranisa­
tion (Andersson-Tjäder 2017) and increasing the amount of high
stumps and lying dead wood.
Increased time consumption for the harvester work is not the
only thing that affects logging costs in an NCM operation.
Compared to CM final felling operations, forwarder time con­
sumption in these NCM treatments is expected to increase in
a similar way to that in thinning. This is mainly caused by
a reduced wood concentration and increased restrictions due to
the residual stand (Eliasson 1998). However, it may be necessary to
choose a slightly smaller forwarder than the ones used in final
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOREST ENGINEERING 115
felling operations, so this would contribute to reduced
productivity.
In addition, fixed costs per harvested m3 can also be
expected to increase, as the harvested volume is lower than in
final felling. Furthermore, harvest planning becomes more
complicated, as forest planners normally need to specify
a larger number of instructions to machine operators in the
harvest plan to achieve the specific goals of the NCM treat­
ment. This will also contribute to a higher logging cost.
Unfortunately, the data did not enable an analysis of how
revenues were affected by the NCM treatments, as information
on the remaining stand after felling was limited.
The study results are based on NCM treatments of 14 stands,
and the treatments were specific to each stand. This means that
although we managed to classify NCM management goals into
four groups, variations within these groups can be large.
However, the study encompasses all NCM stands treated during
a two-year period where it was possible to retrieve complete
harvester data. Using data from stands with only partial data
was not considered an option, as it would have created difficul­
ties in connecting harvester data to the other data sources. As all
available stands were chosen, there was no intentional bias in the
stand selection. There was another NCM-marked stand that had
all data available, but because this stand consisted of a mix of
conventional harvesting and large set-asides, the harvesting was
considered not to fit our definition of an NCM treatment.
The purpose of this study was not to evaluate the ecological
outcome of the forest operation. However, the field visits during
spring 2022 allowed a visual inspection of the general condition
of the stands after harvest, and enabled a subjective evaluation of
how the aim of NCM was met and how well the instructions in
the harvest plan were followed. The plans were normally fol­
lowed, but with some minor deviations. Instructions varied, even
for similar treatments, and this reveals a need for standardization
of instructions, with clearer definitions of goals and measures in
the harvest plans. A long decision chain involving several
players, with different points of view, increases the risk for
misunderstandings on how NCM treatments should be per­
formed. Therefore, there is a need for greater consensus and
better communication between forest planners, nature conserva­
tion experts, production leaders, and contractors to achieve the
goals of NCM to promote forest biodiversity.
116 R. FERNANDEZ-LACRUZ ET AL.
Conclusions
The study shows that, although all studied NCM-harvesting
operations were more time-consuming and expensive than final
felling, expected direct cost increases were in most cases lower than
those previously reported for selection cutting. This indicates that
the studied NCM treatments should provide a positive net revenue
and that managers could use predicted thinning costs as an esti­
mate of the cost when planning NCM operations. All NCM stand
types and measures are of equal importance, and the benefit for
biodiversity should not be valued against the cost of performing
the measures. However, knowledge about the costs can improve
planning, which facilitates greater goal achievement and higher
cost-effectiveness, i.e., a higher ecological benefit for a given cost.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express gratitude to the representatives at the
forest company SCA Skog AB for providing machine and stand data. The
financiers of this work are also acknowledged.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the Swedish Energy Agency under Grant
number [45923-1].
ORCID
Raul Fernandez-Lacruz http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9284-8911
Örjan Grönlund http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8320-5161
Line B. Djupström http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4536-7765
Jon Söderberg http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9401-1410
Lars Eliasson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2038-9864
References
Andersson-Tjäder N. 2017. Prestationer vid naturvårdshuggning med
maskinell NS-skötsel [Performance in environmental cutting with
mechanical NS-care]. Bachelor Thesis. Skinnskatteberg (Sweden):
School for Forest Management, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences. 10 p. 63. Swedish with English abstract.
Angelstam P, Kuuluvainen T. 2004. Boreal forest disturbance regimes,
successional dynamics and landscape structures – a European perspec­
tive. Ecol Bull. 51:19.
Attiwill PM. 1994. The disturbance of forest ecosystems: the ecological
basis for conservative management. For Ecol Manage. 63(2):247–300.
Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N,
Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, et al. 2015. The IPBES
conceptual framework — connecting nature and people. Curr Opin
Environ Sustainability. 14:1–16.
Drever CR, Peterson G, Messier C, Bergeron Y, Flannigan M. 2006. Can
forest management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological
resilience? Can J For Res. 36(9):2285–2299.
Eliasson L. 1998. Analyses of single-grip harvester productivity. Umeå Nr.
Ph.D. Silvestria 80. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty
of Forestry; p. 24.
Eliasson L, Ö G, Lundström H, Sonesson J. 2020. Harvester and forwarder
productivity and net revenues in patch cutting. Int J For Eng. 32(1):3–10.
Eriksson A. 2019. Frivilliga avsättningar och certifierad areal
[Voluntary set asides and area under forest management
certification schemes]. Jönköping (Sweden): The Swedish Forest
Agency. Statistical announcements JO1404 SM 1901; p. 14.
Swedish, summary in English.
Eriksson M, Lindroos O. 2014. Productivity of harvesters and forwarders
in CTL operations in northern Sweden based on large follow-up
datasets. Int J For Eng. 25(3):179–200.
Fredriksson E. 2021. Decadal effects of forest fire on biodiversity and
browsing: a comparison between wildfire and prescribed burning.
Doctoral Thesis. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae. Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences. p. 82.
Grönlund Ö, Erlandsson E, Djupström LB, Bergström D, Eliasson L. 2020.
Nature conservation management in voluntary set-aside forests in Sweden:
practices, incentives and barriers. Scand J For Res. 35(1–2):96–107.
Harvey BD, Leduc A, Gauthier S, Bergeron Y. 2002. Stand-landscape
integration in natural disturbance-based management of the southern
boreal forest. For Ecol Manage. 155(1):369–385.
Jonsson R. 2015. Performance and costs in selective harvesting with harvester
and forwarder. Arbetsrapport Nr. 863. Uppsala: Skogforsk; p. 28.
Kuuluvainen T, Grenfell R. 2012. Natural disturbance emulation in boreal
forest ecosystem management — theories, strategies, and a comparison
with conventional even-aged management. Can J For Res. 42
(7):1185–1203.
Lagerås P. 2007. The ecology of expansion and abandonment: medieval
and post-medieval agriculture and settlement in a landscape perspec­
tive. Lund (Sweden): Riksantikvarieämbetet; p. 267.
Liski E, Jounela P, Korpunen H, Sosa A, Lindroos O, Jylhä P. 2020.
Modeling the productivity of mechanized CTL harvesting with statis­
tical machine learning methods. Int J For Eng. 31(3):253–262.
Newman E. 2019. Disturbance ecology in the anthropocene. Front Ecol
Evol. 7:147.
Nilsson M, Nordkvist K, Jonzén J, Lindgren N, Axensten P, Wallerman J,
Egberth M, Larsson S, Nilsson L, Eriksson J, et al. 2017. A nationwide
forest attribute map of Sweden predicted using airborne laser scanning
data and field data from the National forest inventory. Remote Sens
Environ. 194:447–454.
Nilsson P, Roberge C, Fridman J, Wulff S 2019. Skogsdata 2019. Aktuella
uppgifter om de svenska skogarna från SLU Riksskogstaxeringen.
Tema: skogens struktur [Forest data 2019. Current information on
the Swedish forests from the Swedish National forest inventory.
Theme: forest structure]. p. 138.
Nordén B, Rørstad PK, Magnér J, Götmark F, Löf M. 2019. The economy
of selective cutting in recent mixed stands during restoration of tem­
perate deciduous forest. Scand J For Res. 34(8):709–717.
Pickett STA, White PS. 1985. The ecology of natural disturbance and
patch dynamics. Academic Press; p. 472.
Santaniello F, Djupström LB, Ranius T, Rudolphi J, Widenfalk O,
Weslien J. 2016. Effects of partial cutting on logging productivity,
economic returns and dead wood in boreal pine forest. For Ecol
Manage. 365:152–158.
Statistics Sweden. 2020. Formally protected forest land, voluntary
set-asides, consideration patches and unproductive forest land
2020.
The Swedish Forest Agency. 2019. Eftersatt skötsel av skyddad skog
[Neglected management of protected forests]. [Accessed 2022 Oct 13]
https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/pressmeddelanden/ReadArticle?id=
3262396
The Swedish Government Office. 2001. En samlad naturvårdspolitik [A
comprehensive nature conservation policy]. Stockholm, Sweden:
Report 2001/02:173. Regeringskansliet; p. 145. In Swedish.
Turner MG. 2010. Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing
world. Ecology. 91(10):2833–2849.
Möller J, Arlinger J, Nordström M. 2013. Test av StanForD 2010-
implementation i skördare. [StanForD 2010 - Implementation and
test ofharvester]. Uppsala (Sweden): Forestry Research Institute of
Sweden. Report 798-2013. p. 72. In Swedish with English
summary.
Möller J. 2014. StanForD project page on Skogforsk webpage; [accessed
2022 Oct 1]. https://www.skogforsk.se/english/projects/stanford/