Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Recovering Energy Biomass in Conventional Forest Operations: a Review of Integrated Harvesting Systems

  • Forest Engineering (R Spinelli, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Forestry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Integrated harvesting (i.e., the combined harvesting of roundwood and residues) has a large potential for replication, since all operations produce residues, which could be turned into a collateral product. For this reason, much work has been produced over the years about the subject, and the current bibliography is abundant, fragmented, and occasionally contradictory. The goal of this paper was to analyze both recent and older fundamental studies about integrated harvesting and extract the essential concepts, which may inform managers as they plan for harvesting roundwood and forest residues together.

Recent Findings

The analysis showed that integrated harvesting would generate additional revenue with a little extra effort, provided it is rationally implemented. In particular, residue recovery must be planned in advance to avoid residue dispersal and contamination. Roundwood is generally the main product, and therefore, the characteristics of the main harvesting systems and the value of the additional harvest limit the options for energy wood recovery. The system adopted for collecting forest residues must not incur a higher cost than the value of the energy product and must be compatible with the conditions imposed by the roundwood harvesting operation.

Summary

Successful implementation of the integrated harvesting concept requires skillful management of machine interaction, landing space requirement, and residue handling, to minimize cost and avoid product contamination. Residue processing is a crucial step of energy wood harvesting and can be performed with chippers, grinders, or balers, depending on site and market conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. •• Díaz-Yáñez O, Mola-Yudego B, Anttila P, Röser D, Asikainen A. Forest chips for energy in Europe: current procurement methods and potentials. Ren Sust Energ Rev. 2013;21:562–71 This study offers a comprehensive overview of forest biomass harvesting systems used across Europe, indicating eventual regional preferences and discussing the main conditions for deployment.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. • Pottie M, Guimier D. Harvesting and transport of logging residuals and residues. FERIC Special Report SR-33. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada, Pointe-Claire, Canada; 1986. 100 p. This is the fundamental reference text for integrated harvesting, still unsurpassed after over 30 years.

  3. Hudson B, Mitchell P. Integrated harvesting systems. Biomass Bioenergy. 1992;2:121–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gellerstedt S, Dahlin B. Cut-to-length: the next decade. J For Eng. 1999;10:17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson L. Recovery of forest residue in the Intermountain region. ASAE Paper 83–1598; 1983. 41 p.

  6. Stokes BJ. Harvesting small trees and forest residues. Biomass Bioenergy. 1992;2:131–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tolosana E, Laina R, Martínez-Ferrari R, Ambrosio Y. Recovering of forest biomass from Spanish hybrid poplar plantations. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011;35:2570–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Björheden R. Integrating production of timber and energy - a comprehensive view. New Zeal J For Sci. 2000;30:67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ghaffariyan MR, Brown M, Acuna M, Sessions J, Gallagher T, Kühmaier M, et al. An international review of the most productive and cost effective forest biomass recovery technologies and supply chains. Ren Sust Energ Rev. 2017;74:145–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Spinelli R, Lombardini C, Magagnotti N. The effect of mechanization level and harvesting system on the thinning cost of Mediterranean softwood plantations. Silva Fenn. 2014;48(1):1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hytonen K, Moilanen A. Effect of harvesting method on the amount of logging residues in the thinning of Scots pine stands. Biomass Bioenergy. 2014;67:347–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cuchet E, Roux P, Spinelli R. Performance of a logging residue bundler in the temperate forests of France. Biomass Bioenergy. 2004;27:31–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ghaffariyan MR, Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Brown M. Integrated harvesting for conventional log and energy wood assortments: a case study in a pine plantation in Western Australia. South Forests. 2015;77:249–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ghaffariyan MR. Assessment of harvesting residues from different harvesting operations sites in Australia. CRC Bulletin; 2012. no. 31. 3 p.

  15. Smethurst P, Nambiar. Distribution of carbon and nutrients and fluxes of mineral nitrogen after clearfelling a Pinus radiata plantation. Can J For Res. 1990;20:1490–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Aminti G, De Francesco F, Lombardini C. The effect of harvesting method on biomass retention and operational efficiency in low-value mountain forests. Eur J For Res. 2016;135:755–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Palacka M, Vician P, Holubčik M, Jandačka J. The energy characteristics of different parts of the tree. Procedia Eng. 2017;192:654–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Singh T, Kostecky M. Calorific value variations in components of 10 Canadian tree species. Can J For Res. 1986;16:1378–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ranius T, Hämäläinen A, Egnell G, Olsson B, Eklöf K, Stendahl J, et al. The effects of logging residue extraction for energy on ecosystem services and biodiversity: a synthesis. J Environ Manag. 2018;209:409–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nilsson B, Nilsson D, Thörnqvist T. Distribution and losses of logging residues at clear-felled areas during extraction for bioenergy: comparing dried- and fresh-stacked method. For. 2015;2015(6):4212–27.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Peltola S, Kilpeläinen H, Asikainen A. Recovery rates of logging residue harvesting in Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karsten) dominated stands. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011;35:1545–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. •• Thiffault E, Béchard A, Paré D, Allen D. Recovery rate of harvest residues for bioenergy in boreal and temperate forests: a review. WIREs Energ Environ. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.157 23 p. A vast review work that analyzes the recovery rates reported in a large array of previous studies. It provides essential reference figures.

  23. Hall P. Dismantling accumulations of logging residues around hauler landings. LIRO Report 18; 1993. 6 p.

  24. Rawlings C, Rummer B, Seeley C, Thomas C, Morrison D, Han HS, et al. A study of how to decrease the costs of collecting, processing and transporting slash. Missoula. 21 p: Montana Community Development Corporation; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Röser D. Operational efficiency of forest energy supply chains in different operational environments. Dissertationes forestales; 2012. p 146.

  26. Kärhä K. Integrated harvesting of energy wood and pulpwood in first thinnings using the two-pile cutting method. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011;35:3397–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N. Strategies for the processing of tree tops from hybrid poplar plantations. Balt For. 2011;17:50–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N. Comparison of two harvesting systems for the production of forest biomass from the thinning of Picea abies plantations. Scand J For Res. 2010;25:69–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Suadicani K. Industrial round-wood or fuel-chips in medium-aged Norway spruce. Int J For Eng. 2004;15:95–101.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Vangansbeke P, Osselaere J, Van Dael M, De Frenne P, Gruwez R, Pelkmans L, et al. Logging operations in pine stands in Belgium with additional harvest of woody biomass: yield, economics, and energy balance. Can J For Res. 2015;45:987–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Han HS, Lee H, Johnson L. Economic feasibility of an integrated harvesting system for small-diameter trees in southwest Idaho. For Prod J. 2004;54:21–7.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Suadicani K. Production of fuel chips in a 50-years old Norway spruce stand. Biomass Bioenergy. 2003;25:35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Spencer S, Röser D. Best management practices for integrated harvest operations in British Columbia. FPInnovations Special Publication SP-531; 2017.

  34. Routa J, Asikainen A, Björheden R, Laitila J, Röser D. Forest energy procurement: state of the art in Finland and Sweden. Wiley Interdiscipl Rev: Energ Environ. 2013;2:602–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. McMinn JW, Clark A. Harvesting small trees and forest residues. In: Stokes BJ, editor. Proceedings from an International Symposium; June 5–7. Auburn: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1989. p. 184–9.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Desrochers L, Puttock D, Ryans M. The economics of chipping logging residues at roadside: a case study of three systems. Biomass Bioenergy. 1993;5:401–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kizha A, Han HS. Processing and sorting forest residues: cost, productivity and managerial impacts. Biomass Bioenergy. 2016;93:97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hall P, McMahon S. Logging residue at hauler landings - results from an indiustry survey. Liro Rep. 1990;22(2):6.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pearce A, Hodgkiss P. Erosion and sediment yield from a landing failure after a moderate rainstorm. Tairua forest New Zeal J For. 1987;32:19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Amishev D, Baker L, Phillips C, Hill S, Marden M, Bloomberg M, Moore J. New forest management approaches to steep hills. Ministry of Primary Industries, Technical Paper No. 2014/39. Wellington, New Zealand. 108 p. 2014.

  41. Jones G, Loeffler D, Calkin D, Chung W. Forest treatment residues for thermal energy compared with disposal by onsite burning: emissions and energy returns. Biomass Bioenergy. 2010;34:737–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Lee E, Han H. Air curtain burners: a tool for disposal of forest residues. For. 2017;8:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8080296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pottie M, Guimier D. Preparation of forest biomass for optimal conversion. In: FERIC Special Report SR-32. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada, Pointe-Claire, Canada; 1985. 122 p.

  44. Aman A, Baker S, Greene D. Productivity and product quality measures for chippers and grinders on operational Southern US timber harvests. Int J For Eng. 2011;22:7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  45. • Spinelli R, Cavallo E, Facello A, Magagnotti N, Nati C, Paletto G. Performance and energy efficiency of alternative comminution principles: chipping versus grinding. Scand J For Res. 2012;27:393–400 So far, the only study that quantifies the pros and cons of the two main comminution principles. It offers fundamental information for estimating the trade-offs between the two systems.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Strelher A. Technologies of wood combustion. Ecol Eng. 2000;16:25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Facello A, Cavallo E, Magagnotti N, Paletto G, Spinelli R. The effect of chipper cut length on wood fuel processing performance. Fuel Proc Technol. 2013;116:228–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N. Logging residue bundling at the roadside in mountain operations. Scand J For Res. 2009;24:173–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Asikainen A. Integration of work tasks and supply chains in wood harvesting. Int J For Eng. 2004;15:11–7.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Petterson M, Nordfjell T. Fuel quality changes during seasonal storage of compacted logging residues and young trees. Biomass Bioenergy. 2007;31:789–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Johansson J, Liss JE, Gullberg T, Björheden R. Transport and handling of forest energy bundles—advantages and problems. Biomass Bioenergy. 2006;30:334–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kalaja H. An example of terrain chipping system in first commercial thinning: Esimerkki Ensiharvennuspuun Korjuusta Palstahaketusmenetelmällä, Ministry of Agriculture and forestry, Finnish Forest Research Institute. 1984.

  53. Kühmaier M, Erber G. Research trends in European forest fuel supply chains: a review of the last ten years (2007–2016) – part two: comminution, transport & logistics. Croat J For Eng. 2018;39:139–52.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kofman P. Flishugning. Dokumentation af nuværende systemer [Chipping. Documentation of existing systems]. Maskinrapport 12 Miljøministeriet, Skov-og Naturstyrelsen. København. 39 p. 1993. ISBN 87-601-3947-1 (In Danish).

  55. Marchi E, Magagnotti N, Berretti L, Neri F, Spinelli R. Comparing terrain and roadside chipping in Mediterranean pine salvage cuts. Croat J For Eng. 2011;32:587–98.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Stampfer K, Kanzian C. Current state and development possibilities of wood chips supply chains in Austria. Croat J For Eng. 2006;27:135–45.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Björheden R. Optimal point of comminution in the biomass supply chain. Proceedings of the OSCAR Nordic-Baltic conference on forest operations, Copenhagen, Denmark; 2008.

  58. Eliasson L, Eriksson A, Mohtashami S. Analysis of factors affecting productivity and costs for a high-performance chip supply system. Appl Energy. 2017;185:497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Eriksson L, Björheden R. Optimal storing, transports and processing for a forest fuel supplier. Eur J Oper Res. 1989;43:26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Freppaz D, Minciardi R, Robba M, Rovatti M, Sacile R, Taramasso A. Optimizing forest biomass exploitation for energy supply at a regional level. Biomass Bioenergy. 2004;26:15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Spinelli R, Di Gironimo G, Esposito G, Magagnott N. Alternative supply chains for logging residues under access constraints. Scand J For Res. 2014;29:266–74.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hudson JB, Mitchell CP, Storry P. Costing integrated harvesting systems in Proceedings of the IEA/BA Task 6th Activity Integrated Harvesting Systems, Hudson JB Ed., vol. 2, pp. 46–52, Aberdeen University Forestry Research Paper, Copenhagen, Denmark, May 1990.

  63. Stuart W, Porter D, Walbridge T, Orderwald R. Economics of modifying harvesting systems to recover energy wood. For Prod J. 1981;31:37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Puttock D. Estimating cost for integrated harvesting and related forest management activities. Biomass Bioenergy. 1995;8:73–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hall P, Gigler J, Sims R. Delivery systems of forest arisings for energy production in New Zealand. Biomass Bioenergy. 2001;21:391–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Röser D, Pasanen K, Asikainen A. Decision-support program “EnerTree” for analyzing forest residue recovery options. Biomass Bioenergy. 2006;30:326–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kanzian C, Kühmaier M, Zazgornik J, Stampfer K. Design of forest energy supply networks using multi-objective optimization. Biomass Bioenergy. 2013;58:294–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Van Dyken S, Bakken BH, Skjelbred HI. Linear mixed-integer models for biomass supply chains with transport, storage and processing. Energ. 2010;35:1338–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Zamora-Cristales R, Boston K, Sessions J, Murphy G. Stochastic simulation and optimization of mobile chipping and transport of forest biomass from harvest residues. Silva Fenn. 2013;47: Id 937: 22 p.

  70. Zamora-Cristales R, Sessions J. A collection model for forest biomass residues. Croat J For Eng. 2016;32:287–96.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Ranta T, Rinne S. The profitability of transporting uncomminuted raw materials in Finland. Biomass Bioenergy. 2006;30:231–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Jylhä P. Feasibility of an adapted tree section method for integrated harvesting of pulpwood and energy wood in early thinning of Scots pine. Int J For Eng. 2004;15:35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Meadows S, Gallagher T, Mitchell D. A new slash bundling concept for use in a southern US logging system. For Prod J. 2011;2011(61):210–5.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Spinelli R, De Francesco F, Eliasson L, Jessup E, Magagnotti N. An agile chipper truck for space-constrained operations. Biomass Bioenergy. 2015;81:137–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Nilsson B, Blom Å, Thörnqvist T. The influence of two different handling methods on the moisture content and composition of logging residues. Biomass Bioenergy. 2013;52:34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Pajkoš M, Klvač R, Neruda J, Mishra P. Comparative time study of conventional cut-to-length and an integrated harvesting method—a case study. For. 2018;9:194, 10 p.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Flisberg P, Frisk M, Rönnqvist M. FuelOpt: a decision support system for forest fuel logistics. J Oper Res Soc. 2012;63:1600–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Hall P, Evanson T. Forest residue harvesting for bio-energy fuels. Scion Report, Rotorua, New Zealand; 2007. 50 p.

  79. Visser R, Hall P, Raymond K. Good practice guide: production of wood fuel from forest landings. EECA. New Zealand Government, EECA Business, Wellington, New Zealand; 2010. 44 p.

  80. Van Belle JF, Temmerman M, Schenkel Y. Three level procurement of forest residues for power plant. Biomass Bioenergy. 2003;24:401–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Gruscheky S, Wang J, McGill D. Influences of site characteristics and costs of extraction and trucking on logging residue utilization in southern West Virginia. For Prod J. 2007;57:63–7.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Jernigan P, Gallagher T, Aulakh J, Tufts R, McDonald T. Implementing residue chippers on harvesting operations in the southeastern U.S. for biomass recovery. Int J For Eng. 2013;24:129–36.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Westbrook MD, Greene WD, Izlar RL. Utilizing forest biomass by adding a small chipper to a tree-length southern pine harvesting operation. South J Appl For. 2007;31:165–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Thorsén Å, Björheden R, Eliasson L. Efficient Forest fuel supply systems—composite report from a four year R & D Programme 2007–2010; Skogforsk: Uppsala, Sweden; 2011.

  85. Gustavsson L, Eriksson L, Sathre R. Costs and CO2 benefits of recovering, refining and transporting logging residues for fossil fuel replacement. Appl Energy. 2011;88:192–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Spinelli R, Pari L, Magagnotti N. New biomass products, small-scale plants and vertical integration as opportunities for rural development. Biomass Bioenergy. 2018;115:244–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Huber C, Kroisleitner H, Stampfer K. Performance of a mobile star screen to improve woodchip quality of forest residues. For. 2017;8:14 p.

  88. Spinelli R, Nati C, Magagnotti N. Recovering logging residue: experiences from the Italian Eastern Alps. Croat J For Eng. 2007;28:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ghaffariyan MR, Acuna M, Brown M. Analysing the effect of five operational factors on forest residue supply chain costs: a case study in Western Australia. Biomass Bioenergy. 2013;59:486–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Baker S, Westbrook M, Greene D. Evaluation of integrated harvesting systems in pine stands of the Southern United States. Biomass Bioenergy. 2010;34:720–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Visser R, Spinelli R, Stampfer K. Integrating biomass recovery operations into commercial timber harvesting: the New Zealand situation. Proceedings of the Council on Forest Engineering, June 15–18th, Lake Tahoe, USA; 2009.

  92. Spinelli R, Visser R. Analyzing and estimating delays in wood chipping operations. Biomass Bioenergy. 2009;33:429–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Hall P. Forest residue recovery study: hogging direct to truck versus hogging to ground – fibre loss and cost issues. Scion Report, New Zealand; 2008. 6 p.

  94. Spinelli R, Hartsough B, Owende P, Ward S. Productivity and cost of mechanized whole-tree harvesting of fast-growing eucalypt stands. Int J For Eng. 2002;13:49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Aulakh J. Implementing residue chippers on harvesting operations for biomass recovery. M.Sc. Thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA; 2008. 94 p.

  96. Blair C. Using a chip storage bin to improve in-woods chipper efficiency and reduce chip van cycle times. FERIC Technical Note TN-274, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 1998. 8 p.

  97. Spinelli R, Hartsough B. Harvesting SRF poplar for pulpwood: experience in the Pacific Northwest. Biomass Bioenergy. 2006;30:439–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Kärhä K, Vartiamäki T. Productivity and costs of slash bundling in Nordic conditions. Biomass Bioenergy. 2006;30:1043–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Picchi G, Eliasson L. Chip truck utilization for a container handling chipper truck when chipping logging residues and the effect of two grapple types on chipping efficiency. Int J For Eng. 2015;26:203–11.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Picchi G. A supply chain evaluation of slash bundling under the conditions of mountain forestry. Biomass Bioenergy. 2012;36:339–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Visser R, Spinelli R, Magagnotti N. Landing characteristics for harvesting operations in New Zealand. Int J For Eng. 2011;22:23–7.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Angus-Hankin C, Stokes B, Twaddle A. The transportation of fuelwood from forest to facility. Biomass Bioenergy. 1995;91:191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Harrill H, Han HS. Productivity and cost of integrated harvesting of wood chips and sawlogs in stand conversion operations. Int J For Res. 2012; Article ID 893079. 10 p. doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/893079.

  104. Sosa A, Acuna M, McDonnell K, Devlin G. Managing the moisture content of wood biomass for the optimisation of Ireland’s transport supply strategy to bioenergy markets and competing industries. Energ. 2015;86:354–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Talbot B, Suadicani K. Road transport of forest chips: containers vs. bulk trailers. For Stud. 2006;45:11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Visser R, Berkett H, Spinelli R. Determining the effect of storage conditions on the natural drying of radiata pine logs for energy use. New Zeal J For Sci. 2014;44:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Erber G, Huber C, Stampfer K. To split or not to split: feasibility of pre-storage splitting of large poplar fuelwood logs. Fuel. 2018;220:817–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Röser D, Mola-Yudego B, Sikanen L, Prinz R, Gritten D, Emer B, et al. Natural drying treatments during seasonal storage of wood for bioenergy in different European locations. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011;35:4238–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Hakkila P. Forest chips as a fuel for heating plants in Finland. Folia Forestalia 586, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, Finland; 1984. 62 p.

  110. Saidur R, Abdelaziz EA, Demirbaş A, Hossain MS, Mekhilef SA. Review on biomass as a fuel for boilers. Renew Sustain Energ Rev. 2011;15:2262–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Kofman P. Quality wood chip fuel. COFORD Connect Harvesting/Transportation no. 6. COFORD, Dublin, Ireland; 2006. 4 p.

  112. Spinelli R, Hartsough B, Magagnotti N. Testing mobile chippers for chip size distribution. Int J For Eng. 2005;16:29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Spinelli R, Ivorra L, Magagnotti N, Picchi G. Performance of a mobile mechanical screen to improve the commercial quality of wood chips for energy. Bioresour Technol. 2011;102:7366–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Nati C, Magagnotti N, Spinelli R. The improvement of hog fuel by removing fines, using a trommel screen. Biomass Bioenergy. 2015;75:155–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Sturos J. Predicting segregation of wood and bark chips by terminal velocities. Research Note NC-90. USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, USA; 1973. 8 p.

  116. Sharp J. The in-woods cleaning of whole-tree chips. MSc. Thesis. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA; 1989. 150 p.

  117. Sturos, J. A., Bark, foliage, and grit removal from whole-tree-chips - results and economics. TAPPI Pulping Conference Proceedings, New Orleans, USA; 1978. p. 121–134.

  118. Werkelin J, Skrifvars BJ, Zevenhoven M, Holmbom B, Hupa M. Chemical forms of ash-forming elements in woody biomass fuels. Fuel. 2010;89:481–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Paletto G, Preti C. Determining the impact of some wood characteristics on the performance of a mobile chipper. Silva Fenn. 2011;45:85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CNR IVALSA, Via Madonna del Piano 10, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy

    Raffaele Spinelli

  2. University of Canterbury, Forestry Rd, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Rien Visser

  3. Skogforsk, Uppsala Science Park, Uppsala, Sweden

    Rolf Björheden

  4. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Dominik Röser

Authors
  1. Raffaele Spinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rien Visser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rolf Björheden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dominik Röser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raffaele Spinelli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Forest Engineering

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spinelli, R., Visser, R., Björheden, R. et al. Recovering Energy Biomass in Conventional Forest Operations: a Review of Integrated Harvesting Systems. Curr Forestry Rep 5, 90–100 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-019-00089-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-019-00089-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation