Abstract

In economically optimal management, trees that are removed in a thinning treatment should be selected on the basis of their value, relative value increment and the effect of removal on the growth of remaining trees. Large valuable trees with decreased value increment should be removed, especially when they overtop smaller trees. This study optimized the tree selection rule in the thinning treatments of continuous cover management when the aim is to maximize the profitability of forest management. The weights of three criteria (stem value, relative value increment and effect of removal on the competition of remaining trees) were optimized together with thinning intervals. The results confirmed the hypothesis that optimal thinning involves removing predominantly large trees. Increasing stumpage value, decreasing relative value increment, and increasing competitive influence increased the likelihood that removal is optimal decision. However, if the spatial distribution of trees is irregular, it is optimal to leave large trees in sparse places and remove somewhat smaller trees from dense places. However, the benefit of optimal thinning, as compared to diameter limit cutting is not usually large in pure one-species stands. On the contrary, removing the smallest trees from the stand may lead to significant (30–40 %) reductions in the net present value of harvest incomes.

Highlights

  • In economically optimal management, trees that are removed in a thinning treatment should be selected on the basis of their value, relative value increment and the effect of removal on the growth of remaining trees

  • The results show that systematic diameter limit cutting was not much worse than optimal tree selection

  • The results suggest that it is nearly optimal to select the trees that are removed in a thinning treatment on the basis of breast height diameter, starting from the largest tree

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Trees that are removed in a thinning treatment should be selected on the basis of their value, relative value increment and the effect of removal on the growth of remaining trees. Large valuable trees with decreased value increment should be removed, especially when they overtop smaller trees. A tree is financially mature for cutting when its relative value increment falls below the guiding rate of interest (Davis and Johnson 1987; Knoke 2012). Duerr et al (1956) advice to calculate the relative value increment for several coming time periods and classify the tree as financially mature if the highest projected rate of value increase is smaller than the guiding rate of interest. Removing a large tree leads to improved value increment in smaller trees. The removal of a large tree may improve the productivity of several remaining trees and increase the relative value increment of the whole residual stand

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.