Operational and Environmental Comparison of Two Felling and Piling Alternatives for Whole Tree Thinnings in Quercus Coppices for Bioenergy Use

A comparative study of motor-manual and mechanized felling and bunching was conducted when thinning dense coppice stands of the two most important oak species in Spain to obtain biomass for bioenergy use. In particular, the study matched chainsaw felling and manual piling against the work of a drive-to-tree feller-buncher in the very same sites. Productivity functions for felling and piling are fitted for each species. The derived unit cost functions show that the felling-bunching costs are lower for the motor-manual option in both species stands, particularly for the smaller tree sizes. Nevertheless, when the strongly reduced loading times in forwarding associated to the mechanization are taken into account, the total harvesting cost is often lower for the mechanized option. That is true for all tree sizes Q. ilex, and for trees larger than 13 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) for Q. pyrenaica. Residual stand damage was low to moderate, but always significantly greater for the mechanized option compared with the motormanual one. Soil damage was very low for both alternatives. The stumps experimented significantly greater damages in the mechanized felling and bunching, but further research is needed to determine if those damages have any impact on stump mortality, sprouting capability and future plants vigor. The greater productivity and level of tree damages found in Q.ilex when compared to Q. pyrenaica are likely due to the narrower and lighter crown of the latter.