Next Article in Journal
Internal Decay in Landscape Oaks (Quercus spp.): Incidence, Severity, Explanatory Variables, and Estimates of Strength Loss
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) from a Thermoelectric Power Plant on Morpho-Functional Traits of Rhizophora mangle L. Leaves
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/f14050977
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

Impact of MHT9002HV Tracked Harvester on Forest Soil after Logging in Steeply Sloping Terrain

by
Mariusz Kormanek
1,*,
Jiří Dvořák
2,
Paweł Tylek
1,
Martin Jankovský
2,
Ondřej Nuhlíček
2 and
Łukasz Mateusiak
1
1
Department of Forest Utilization Engineering and Forest Technology, Faculty of Forestry, University of Agriculture in Krakow, Al. 29 Listopada 46, 31-423 Krakow, Poland
2
Department of Forestry Technologies and Construction, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycká 129, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2023, 14(5), 977; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14050977
Submission received: 15 April 2023 / Revised: 30 April 2023 / Accepted: 4 May 2023 / Published: 9 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Operations and Engineering)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The article presents the results of measurements regarding the impact of the MHT9002HV tracked harvester on surface deformations and changing the physical parameters of the soil of three operational trails. The measurements were made in the terrain with a longitudinal slope of up to 14.9° (33.2%) and a transverse slope of up to 8.8° (17.9%). Spruce deadwood trees in mountain forest habitats were harvested. Static Eijkelkamp Penetrologger 0615SA and dynamic own design penetrometer were used to measure penetration resistance, soil samples were taken to determine bulk density, moisture content, and ground deformations on the trails were measured with a laser profilometer. A statistically significant increase in soil penetration resistance measured with penetrometers occurred for trails in the left rut at a depth of 16–20 cm. The change in the bulk density and moisture content proved statistically insignificant. The maximum ground deformation on the trails reached an average of 5.9 cm. The selection of a machine with low unit pressures (33 kPa), under the given favorable atmospheric conditions (there was a high temperature reaching 35 °C), with low soil moisture, protective organic layer of high thickness, and post-limbing residues, was optimal. The comparison of the results of the compactness measurements made with different penetrometers shows that the values obtained for the static penetrometer 0615SA are lower than those of the dynamic penetrometer of our own design. This is due to the lack of registration of high compactness in the memory of the 0615SA device. In the case of the impact penetrometer measurement, this problem does not occur, however, the presented solution does not allow performing a large number of measurements, and data processing in the case of such a simple solution is tedious. There is a need to develop a new penetrometer useful for determining soil compaction under similar difficult measurement conditions.

1. Introduction

In 2020, 38.0 mil. m3 net coarse wood was harvested in Poland. This is a decrease from the highest harvest in recent years in 2018, which was 43.9 mil. m3, and the value had been steadily increasing over the previous years (in 1990 it was 17,617 thousand m3, in 2005—29.7 mil. m3, in 2010—33.6 mil. m3, and in 2015—38.3 mil. m3) [1]. In Czechia the logging volume has an increasing trend for the incidental fellings caused by Ips typographus. The logging volume has increased from 15–18 mil. m3 to 30–35 mil. m3 in recent years [2]. Since harvesting is usually associated with activities that are dangerous for humans and difficult to carry out, due to the heavy physical loads involved [3,4], modern mechanization of timber harvesting in Eastern European countries, so also in Polish forests, is carried out using highly efficient technical means, primarily harvesters, and forwarders [5,6]. The first harvesters were imported to Poland in the late 1980s. In the year 2011, 351 harvesters were in operation in Poland, and in the year 2014—365 units, and in 2015—530 units [6,7]. Currently, machine harvesting in Poland using harvesters and forwarders is estimated at 30%, and in some locations more [6,8]. The first harvesters were in the Czech Republic in the year 1977 [9]. In 2011, 380 harvesters were in operation in Czechia, in 2014—494 units, and in 2015—531 units [10,11,12]. The share of the CTL method in Czechia was 51% in the year 2021 [13].
Most of the damage that occurs with the use of machine harvesting occurs in the ground in the immediate vicinity of skidding or operating trails. As the literature indicates, the growth of trees up to 15 m, on either side of a skidding trail, can be reduced by 10 to 15 percent; while production losses can be up to 17% [14], wood defects may also occur [15]. The cause of this decline, in addition to abiotic factors such as altered access to water, light, and nutrients, are factors related to soil physical parameters, including excessive soil compaction caused by passing machinery [16,17,18]. Compaction increases the volumetric density and penetration resistance of the soil, while it reduces the size of free spaces inside the soil, i.e., soil total porosity, which reduces water permeability and air capacity. In the soil, the infiltration capacity as well as the storage of rainwater deteriorates, which causes rapid runoff and increasing soil erosion [17,19,20,21]. Soil compaction caused, for example, by repeated vehicle passes causes shallow rooting of plants and changes in the morphological characteristics of the roots [14,22], in turn, lack of oxygen in the soil is the cause of stunted plant growth. Plants growing in compacted soil conditions have less vitality, and the fact that root systems lie shallower, developing toward the more air-saturated topsoil, also affects plant stability [21,23,24,25]. Heavily compacted soil can require higher energy from the plant for root system development, potentially reducing total plant growth and impairing development. The effects of excessive soil compaction are not universal and depend on soil type, climate, and level of soil compaction [14,19]. As early as 2002, the European Commission identified soil compaction as one of the eight major threats to the environment and plant development [26].
A measure of soil compaction beyond bulk density is penetration resistance. This parameter is used in many areas such as civil engineering, construction, agriculture, as well as forestry [27,28,29,30]. Penetration resistance of soil is defined as the resistance of the soil against pressing a standardized indenter into it. Penetration resistance depends mainly on the soil structure, granulometric composition, and moisture content of the soil [25,31,32,33,34]. The soil penetration resistance parameter can characterize the soil in its current state. Penetration resistance is considered a very good indicator of the changes that have occurred in the soil under the influence of passing machinery [35,36].
Penetration resistance measurement is done with penetrometers of various designs. The most commonly used are static penetrometers, in which a conical indenter with a standardized opening angle is pressed into the soil at a constant speed [32,37,38]. Other quite often used solutions of instruments for measuring penetration resistance, especially in geoengineering, are dynamic penetrometers [32]. These types of devices operate on the basis of a freely falling weight, which, acting on the indenter via the insertion rod, causes the indenter to be impaled to a depth depending on the compactness of the soil. The advantage of this type of solution is that the operator who performs the measurement does not affect the measurement result, because the force of gravity is responsible for the force and speed of penetration into the soil. Another advantage of the device is a relatively small expenditure of physical force put into the measurement, which is spent only on lifting the weight of the device. It seems that such devices could be used especially in difficult soil conditions, where there are problems with measuring penetration resistance with static penetrometers due to the skeletal nature of the soil, and a large number of elements hindering the measurement of compactness, such as roots and stones.
The aim of this study was to analyze the changes in selected physical and mechanical parameters and deformation of the soil surface after harvesting operations with the MHT9002HV harvester in terrain with a steep slope. It was assumed that soil compaction measurements will be made with two types of penetrometers, i.e., static and dynamic, and then compare the obtained measurement results and assess the validity of using a dynamic penetrometer in difficult measurement conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

Measurements were taken in the Český Šternberk, aristocratic forests of Mr. Filip Sternberg (49°49′08.1″ N 14°58′34.8″ E). In the working area, the harvester carried out the harvesting of spruce deadwood trees (incidental felling, forests destroyed by Ips typographus) moving along the operational trails marked out on a regular basis by the machine operator. Remains of delimbing were left by the operator in front of the machine on the route of its passage. The slope of the terrain at the measurement site was 14.9° (33.2%). The habitat type of the forest is fresh oak-beechwood, the soil is medium deep to deep, freshly moist, loamy-sandy to sandy-loamy, and slightly gravelly to gravelly. the soil type is cambium. The humus layer is moder. In the research area, a total of 190.49 m3 of timber was harvested, in the form of rolls of 1.5 m in length. Harvesting was carried out with an MHT9002HV tracked harvester equipped with a LOGMAX 928 head (Figure 1, Table 1).
After the harvester carried out its work, on horizontal transects of three operational trails (Opt1, Opt2, Opt3), according to Figure 2, penetration resistance measurements were taken with the use of two penetrometers: static (four measurements) and dynamic (one measurement). Measurements were made in the left ruts (LeR), between ruts (BeR), in right ruts (ReR), and at a distance of 1.0 m from the right (ContP) and left (ContL) ruts, to a depth of 40 cm at distances, every 20 cm along the trace. Three measuring cylinders each were also taken (vol. Vc 250 cm3, height 7 cm, diameter 6.8 cm) from depths of 10 cm; from 11 to 20 cm, and from 21 to 30 cm. The mapping of three terrain profiles perpendicular to the axis of each operational trail was also carried out, with 2.8 m wide trails and 0.25 m apart using a laser profilometer (measuring across the trail’s width, every 2.5 cm) [40].
As a static penetrometer to determine soil penetration resistance PRstat [Pa], it was used Eijkelkamp Penetrologger 0615SA (Figure 3a), equipped with a standardized cone with an opening angle of α = 30° and a base diameter of 1.25 cm.
As a dynamic penetrometer to determine soil penetration resistance PRdyn [Pa], it was used as a device built on the basis of a solution presented in a publication by Harrick and Jones [32], Figure 3b,c. This penetrometer held by the handle (1) was equipped with a freely falling weight (2) m = 2 kg along the guide rod (3) length L = 0.3 m hitting the bumper (4). The mass of the penetrometer m′ without weight m was 2.5 kg. As the indenter was used cone (5) with an opening angle of α = 30° and a base diameter of D = 2.03 cm, introduced into the soil through the insertion rod (6) [31,32]. After each impact of the weight causing gradual immersion of the indenter into the soil, the indentation depth was measured thanks to the indicator (7) and measuring scale (8) with accuracy ± 1 mm.
The substrate from the cylinders was analyzed to determine the relative moisture content by weight MC [%] and dry bulk density BD [g·cm−3] [41]. After measurements, the measured parameters were averaged for individual trails (Opt1; Opt2; Opt3), measurement points (ContR; LeR; BeR; RaR; ContR), and depths. For penetration resistance, the depths were SoL1: 0–5 cm; SoL2: 6–10 cm; SoL3: 11–15 cm; SoL4: 16–20 cm; SoL5: 21–25 cm; SoL6: 26–30 cm; SoL7: 31–35; and SoL8: 36–40, while for moisture content and bulk density SmL1: 0–10 cm; SmL2: 11–20 cm; and SmL3: 21–30 cm. Using analysis of variance with main effects, the measured parameters were first compared by the operational trail on which the measurements were taken (Opt1–3). Then, the analysis of variance and the NIR test of least significant differences of compactness, bulk density, and moisture content at each depth level were performed due to the place where the measurements were taken.

3. Results

The results of the analysis of variance (Table 2) indicate that there was no variation in mean bulk density BD, moisture content MC and penetration resistance measured with dynamic penetrometer PRdyn due to the trail (Opt1–3), while there was variation in penetration resistance measured with static penetrometer PRstat. Therefore, for further analysis, the results of bulk density BD, moisture content MC and penetration resistance measured with dynamic penetrometer PRdyn were combined while the results of penetration resistance measured with static penetrometer PRstat were considered for each trail separately.
Moisture content was low during the study (Table 3). In layers SmL2 and Sml3 it was generally lower than SmL1 (the exception is LeR). In the case of bulk density, the deeper one layer, the higher the density value, this is due to the change of granulometric composition in the soil profile. The difference in moisture content for SmL1 and SmL2 was evident in the areas where the machine passed in the left rut (LeR) compared to the moisture content in the right rut (RaR) next to the ruts (ContL and ContR) and between the ruts (BeR), where the values were higher. A similar trend was noted for volumetric density. These differences were not confirmed by analysis of variance, the differences were statistically insignificant.
As indicated by the results of the analysis of variance (Table 4) of the penetration resistance PRstat due to the place of measurement at different depths, only for the Opt1 trail at a depth of 16 to 20 cm, there was a statistical difference in the compactness determined at the places of passage of the left harvester track (LeR), compared to the compactness measured at the other places. The course of changes in compactness from the averaged values for all trails (Opt1–3) is shown in Figure 3 and indicates a significant increase in PRstat with the depth of measurement where the maximum values reach 3.35 MPa on the level SoL6. In the case of the Eijkelkamp penetrometer, the number of measurements recorded by the penetrometer decreases significantly with the depth, reaching only 25%–40% of the theoretically possible number of 100 measurements to be recorded for one trail and a depth of SoL1–3 (5 places × 4 repetitions × 5 depth levels because the device records the measurement results with a resolution of 1 centimeter).
In the case of the measurement results obtained with the dynamic penetrometer (Table 5), statistical differences in PRdyn were noted for individual measurement locations depending on the depth and also for SoL4 (16–20 cm). The results of the PRdyn measurements made with the impact penetrometer (Table 5) were usually higher than those obtained with the static penetrometer PRstat (Table 4) and reached 1.28 MPa at depths of up to 10 cm, 2.19 MPa at depths of 11–20 cm, up to 3.38 MPa for 21–30 cm, and up to 3.62 MPa for 31–40 cm. The highest value of PRdyn was 3.75 MPa also on the level SoL6. The course of changes in PRstat and PRdyn (Figure 4 and Figure 5) was similar.
The course of the profiles of the individual trails, visualized in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 shows the inclination of the operating trails perpendicular to the axis of the trails on the left side of the trail. This inclination is particularly evident on trail Opt1, where it reached 8.08° (17.9%) for the other trails it was 5.2° (11.5%) for Opt2 and 7.1° (15.8%) for Opt3. The maximum local terrain deformation after the machine’s passage depended on the trail and the location on the trail profile and reached 7.2 cm (mean 3.95 cm) for Opt1, up to 3.4 cm (mean 2.51 cm) for Opt2, and up to 16.3 cm (mean 5.9 cm) for Opt3. Differences in depth over the entire width of the operational trail before and after the run were statistically insignificant F(1688) = 0.0748, p = 0.785.

4. Discussion

As indicated by the results of the measurements (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5), a single pass of the tracked harvester had little effect on the measured soil parameters. In this case, tracked chassis may have been significant, which, despite the considerable mass of the machine (11,420 kg) with wide (0.425 m) and long (3.35 m) tracks, caused the average unit pressure exerted on the ground to be at a very low level of 33 kPa [39]. These values, under conditions of significant machine inclination, are significantly higher in the part of the crawler that is more heavily loaded at the bottom of the incline [42], but this did not result in significant changes in the ground during the route up the slope. A factor that also minimized changes in the physical parameters of the forest floor was the very low moisture content of the forest floor in topsoil SmL1 (39.7%–44.3%) due to high air temperatures at the time of the study reaching 35 °C (the study was performed on 28 July 2020) and the rapid drying associated with the exposure of the area after tree felling. This is similar to the publication presented by Pandur et al. [43]. In addition, the protective factor of the soil was the significant amount of needles from the withered spruce trees that were harvested, felling residues after delimbing left by the operator on the machine’s route, as well as the remaining organic material included in the fragmentation layer, the thickness of which reached 10 cm, as confirmed by the results of volumetric density measurements (0.52–0.7 g∙cm−3) (Table 3). This protective effect of the top organic layer of soil, together with the low unit pressures exerted by the harvester’s track, resulted in the absence of significant differences in soil penetration resistance in the different layers of the profile. The only significant difference on the trail Opt1 at a depth of 16 to 20 cm, in the left rut, is consistent with the transverse slope of the trail that became apparent in the trail OpT1 profile of 8.08° (17.9%) in Figure 6, which most likely influenced the local increase in unit pressures on the loaded track and caused an increase in soil penetration resistance in this rut (LeR) compared to the other measurement sites (ConL, BeR, ReR, ConR). This is consistent with the results obtained by Kormanek and Gołąb [40] or Kulak et al. [44]. Similarly, an increase in penetration resistances after a single pass of the machine in a layer up to 20 cm was shown by Moskalik [5], while Sakai et al. [45] point to multiple passes as an important factor in the increase in penetration resistance, which did not occur in this case. Thus, the recorded changes are at a low level and should not be of significant importance for growing plants in the future in the operational trail plots, which generally occurs when the soil is significantly compacted [25,32,46,47]. Measurements were taken on a complete clearcut devoid of vegetation and only planned for afforestation. Soil with excessive soil penetration resistance caused by machinery affects reforestation [23,48,49], but is not noted in this case. The selection of the MHT9002HV tracked harvester (type and size of machine) was justified by the type and size of work performed, but also by the conditions in which the work was performed (type of soil, terrain, meteorological conditions) [45,46,50]. The route of travel in the stand was carefully planned by the operator, who was very experienced in logging.
Comparing the results of penetration resistance measurements obtained using different types of penetrometers, lower values obtained with the Eijkelkamp Penetrologger 0615SA static penetrometer (PRstat) are noticeable compared to the dynamic penetrometer of our own design (PRdyn). This is due to the omission of high compaction values by the 0615SA device, as evidenced by the drastic decrease in depth in the recorded values in the device’s memory (Table 3), despite the penetration for each measurement always being made to the same maximum depth of 0.4 m. The technical solution of the device is not suitable for taking measurements in conditions where there are places, even at small depths, with high compactness values. This is especially important in the case of measurements in the conditions of a large slope of forest areas, where there are always obstacles that may result in not saving any compactness value in the vertical profile. In addition, in the case of this type of penetrometer, the method of introducing the cone into the soil by exerting a force from above by the operator of the device is associated with considerable physical effort and with the lack of proper control of the speed of inserting the cone into the soil. The recommended speed for penetration should be constant at 3 cm × s−1 [31], and in this case, it is closely related to the measured penetration resistance, the greater the resistance, the slower the cone is pushed into the soil. The solution to the problem of physical effort and cone penetration speed is usually the use of mechanical, electric- or hydraulic-driven penetrometers [51,52,53]. However, in this case, due to the inaccessible location of the measurements (high slope of the terrain, considerable distance from access roads, terrain, and obstacles), such solutions are difficult to use.
The presented solution of the dynamic penetrometer is devoid of the problem of lack of registration of measurement data and significant physical effort, but its use is limited due to the long measurement time associated with compactness because the greater the compactness, the more strokes must be performed. Another problem is the tedious processing of the obtained results due to the variable depth during penetration for a single impact of the falling weight [27,53,54,55].

5. Conclusions

A single pass of the MHT9002HV tracked harvester induced little change in the soil during logging in a terrain with a steep slope of 14.9° (33.2%). At the site of the machine’s track passage, only at a depth of 16 to 20 cm of the operating trails a significant increase in penetration resistance was noted. This was due to:
  • low unit pressure exerted on the ground by the machine’s tracks (33.0 kPa) despite its high weight (11,420 kg);
  • low level of soil moisture content and granulometric composition of the soil;
  • weather factors conducive to harvesting (high air temperature) in conjunction with the date of harvesting (July);
  • protective effect of the top organic layer of soil, with a high content of harvested spruce needles, and post-limbing residues.
The use of the MHT9002HV harvester for the work in the presented case was undoubtedly beneficial, and the impact on the forest floor was small.
Comparing the applied penetrometers, i.e., static Eijkelkamp 0615SA and the dynamic of our own design, it can be concluded that:
  • there were large differences in the results of the compactness measurement depending on the penetrometer used;
  • because the Eijkalkamp Penetrologger 0615SA penetrometer, when exceeding the maximum measurement value, does not record measurement data, the determined compactness values (especially in deeper soil layers) are lower than in reality;
  • the impact penetrometer enables measurements to be taken even with high values of compactness, but the use of such a device as described in the work, is limited when performing a larger number of measurements;
  • there is a need to develop a new penetrometer that would allow us to perform measurements in difficult forest soil conditions with greater compactness.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K. and J.D.; methodology, M.K., J.D. and P.T., software, O.N. and Ł.M.; validation, M.J., M.K. and J.D.; formal analysis, M.K., M.J. and P.T.; investigation, M.K., J.D., P.T. and Ł.M.; resources, M.K., J.D. and P.T.; data curation, M.K., J.D., P.T. and Ł.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K. and J.D.; writing—review and editing, P.T.; visualization, M.K. and J.D.; supervision, M.K. and J.D. project administration, M.K. and J.D.; funding acquisition, M.K. and J.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Agency for Academic Exchange (Poland) and the Ministry of Youth Education and Sports (Czech Republic) as part of the project titled “Analysis of the impact of harvester machinery technology on forest ecosystems in the context of labor productivity”. Ref: PPN/BCZ/2019/1/00013 (Poland) and 8J20PL062 (Czech Republic), and QK22020146—Guidelines for Water Management on Forest Transportation Network.

Data Availability Statement

Data available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. CSO. Rocznik Statystyczny Leśnictwo w Polsce. In Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2021; Zakład Wydawnictw Statystycznych Warszawa Statistics Poland: Warszawa, Poland, 2021; 57p, ISSN 2657-3199. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  2. MZe. Zpráva o stavu lesa a lesního hospodářství České republiky v roce 2021. In Information on Forests and Forestry in the Czech Republic by 2021; Ministerstvo zemědělství ČR: Praha, Czech Republic, 2021; 140p, ISBN 978-80-7434-669-9. [Google Scholar]
  3. Szewczyk, G.; Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Tylek, P.; Sowa, J.M.; Rudy, P.; Gaj-Gielarowiec, D. The mental workload of harvester operators working in steep terrain conditions. Silva Fenn. 2020, 54, 10355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Szewczyk, G.; Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Mitka, B.; Tylek, P.; Kulak, D.; Adamski, K. Perception of the harvester operator’s working environment in windthrow stands. Forests 2021, 12, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Moskalik, T. Techniki i Technologie Prac w Użytkowaniu Głównym ze Szczególnym Uwzględnieniem Zastosowania Maszyn Wielooperacyjnych (Techniques and Technologies of Work in the Main Use with Particular Emphasis on the Use of Multi-Operational Machines); SGGW: Warsaw, Poland, 2009; p. 289. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  6. Moskalik, T.; Borz, S.A.; Dvořák, J.; Ferencik, M.; Glushkov, S.; Muiste, P.; Lazdiņš, A.; Styranivsky, O. Timber Harvesting Methods in Eastern European Countries: A Review. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2017, 38, 231–241. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mederski, P.S.; Karaszewski, Z.; Rosińska, M.; Bembenek, M. Dynamika zmian liczby harwesterów w Polsce oraz czynniki determinujące ich występowanie (Dynamics of harvester fleet change in Poland and factors determining machine occurrence Dynamics of harvester fleet change in Poland). Sylwan 2016, 160, 795–804. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bodył, M. Rozmiar pozyskania maszynowego w Polsce (Machine acquisition volume in Poland). Drwal 2019, 3, 5–10. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  9. Dvořák, J.; Bystrický, R.; Hošková, P.; Hrib, M.; Jarkovská, M.; Kováč, J.; Krilek, J.; Natov, P.; Natovová, L. The Use of Harvester Technology in Production Forests; Lesnická práce s.r.o.: Kostelec nad Černými lesy, Czech Republic, 2011; 156p, ISBN 978-80-7458-018-5. [Google Scholar]
  10. MZe. Zpráva o Stavu Lesa a Lesního Hospodářství České Republiky v Roce 2011. In Information on Forests and Forestry in the Czech Republic by 2011; Ministerstvo zemědělství ČR: Praha, Czech Republic, 2011; 138p, ISBN 978-80-7434-063-5. [Google Scholar]
  11. MZe. Zpráva o Stavu Lesa a lesního Hospodářství České Republiky v Roce 2014. In Information on Forests and Forestry in the Czech Republic by 2014; Ministerstvo zemědělství ČR: Praha, Czech Republic, 2015; 57p, ISBN 978-80-7434-242-4. [Google Scholar]
  12. MZe. Zpráva o stavu lesa a lesního hospodářství České republiky v roce 2015. In Information on Forests and Forestry in the Czech Republic by 2015; Ministerstvo zemědělství ČR: Praha, Czech Republic, 2015; 134p, ISBN 978-80-7434-324-7. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dvořák, J.; Jankovský, M.; Chytrý, M.; Nuhlíček, O.; Natov, P.; Kormanek, M.; Löwe, R. Operational Costs of Mid -Performance Forwarders in Czech Forest Bioeconomy. Forests 2021, 12, 435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ulrich, R.; Neruda, J.; Valenta, J. Wpływ układów jezdnych wybranych maszyn na glebę Impact of chassis systems of selected machines on soil. Inżynieria Rol. 2003, 11, 229–235. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  15. Bembenek, M.; Giefing, D.F.; Karaszewski, Z.; Łacka, A.; Mederski, P.S. Strip road impact on selected wood defects of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst). Drewno 2013, 56, 63–76. [Google Scholar]
  16. Alameda, D.; Anten, N.P.R.; Villar, R. Soil compaction effects on growth and root traits of tobacco depend on light, water regime and mechanical stress. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 120, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bejarano, M.D.; Villar, R.; Murillo, A.M.; Quero, J.L. Effects of soil compaction and light on growth of Quercus pyrenaica Willd. (Fagaceae) seedlings. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 110, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pérez-Ramos, I.M.; Gómez-Aparicio, L.; Villar, R.; García, L.V.; Maranon, T. Seedling growth and morphology of three oak species along field resource gradients and seed-mass variation: A seedling-age-dependent response. J. Veg. Sci. 2010, 21, 419–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Blouin, V.M.; Schmidt, M.G.; Bulmer, C.E.; Krzic, M. Effects of compaction and water content on lodgepole pine sidling growth. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 255, 2444–2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cudzik, A.; Białczyk, J.; Czarnecki, J.; Jamrozy, K. Traction properties of the wheel-turfy soil system. Int. Agrophysics 2010, 24, 343–350. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lipiec, J.; Hajnos, M.; Świeboda, R. Estimating effects of compaction on pore size distribution of soil aggregates by merkury porosimeter. Geoderma 2012, 179–180, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lipiec, J.; Hatano, R. Quantification of compaction effects on soil physical properties and crop growth. Geoderma 2003, 116, 107–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bartholomew, P.W.; Williams, R.D. Effects of soil bulk density and strength on seedling growth of annual ryegrass and tall fescue in controlled environment. Grass Forage Sci. 2010, 65, 348–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lipiec, J.; Horn, R.; Pietrusiewicz, J.; Siczek, A. Effects of soil compaction on root elongation and anatomy of different cereal plant species. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 121, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. De Moraes, M.T.; Da Silva, W.R.; Zwirtes, A.L.; Carlesso, R. Use of penetrometers in agriculture: A review. Eng. Agric. 2014, 34, 179–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lipiec, J.; Rejman, J. Gleba pod kołami. [Soil under the wheels]. Academia 2007, 3, 38–39. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  27. Byun, Y.H.; Hong, W.T.; Lee, J.S. Application of dynamic and static cone penetrometer for characterization of railway substructure. Jpn. Geotech. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2016, 2, 1628–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kormanek, M.; Walczyk, M.; Walczyk, J. Wpływ obciążenia i liczby przejazdów ciągników zrywkowych na zwięzłości wybranych gleb leśnych (Influence of the load and the number of skidding tractor passes on the compactness of selected forest soils). Sylwan 2008, CLII, 48–55. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  29. Kormanek, M.; Małek, S.; Banach, J.; Durło, G.; Jagiełło-Leńczuk, K.; Dudek, K. Seasonal changes of perlite–peat substrate properties in seedlings grown in different sized container trays. New Forests 2021, 52, 271–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, J.I. Terramechanics and Off-Road Vehicle Engineering: Terrain Behaviour, Off-Road Vehicle Performance and Design; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2009; p. 397. ISBN 9780080942537. [Google Scholar]
  31. ASAE S313.3 FEB1999 (R2018); Soil Cone Penetrometer. ASAE Standards: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; pp. 820–821.
  32. Herrick, J.E.; Jones, T.L. A dynamic cone penetrometer for measuring soil penetration resistance. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2002, 66, 1320–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kormanek, M.; Dvořák, J. Use of impact penetrometer to determine changes in soil compactness after Entracon Sioux EH30 timber harvesting. Corat. J. For. Eng. 2022, 43, 325–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kees, G. Hand–Held Electronic Cone Penetrometers for Measuring Soil Strength. In USDA Forest Service Technology and Development Program Missoula, MTDC; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; p. 12. [Google Scholar]
  35. Cambi, M.; Certini, G.; Neri, F.; Marchi, E. The impact of heavy traffic on forest soils: A review. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 338, 124–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kleibl, M.; Klvac, R.; Lombardini, C.; Porhaly, J.; Spinelli, R. Soil compaction and recovery after mechanized final felling of Italian coastal Pine Plantations. Corat. J. For. Eng. 2014, 35, 63–71. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jones, D.; Kunze, M. Guide to Sampling Soil Compaction Using Hand-Held Soil Penetrometers; TPS 04-1; Center for Environmental Management of Military Land Colorado State University Fort Collins: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2004; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  38. Vaz, C.M.P.; Manieri, J.M.; De Maria, I.C.; Tuller, M. Modeling and correction of soil penetration resistance for varying soil water content. Geoderma 2011, 166, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Advertising Brochure MHT9002HV, Druckversion 03/09 Brochure; Neuson Ecotec GmbH: Ansfelden, Austria, 2009; p. 2.
  40. Kormanek, M.; Gołąb, J. Analysis of Surface Deformation and Physical and Mechanical Parameters of Soils on Selected Skid Trails in the Gorce National Park. Forests 2021, 12, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Myślińska, E. Laboratoryjna Badania Gruntów (Laboratory Soil Testing); PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 1998. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  42. Kormanek, M.; Dvořák, J. Ground Pressure Changes Caused by MHT 8002HV Crawler Harvester Chassis. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2021, 42, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pandur, Z.; Kopseak, H.; Šušnjar, M.; Landekić, M.; Šporčić, M.; Bačić, M. Effect of forwarder multipassing on forest soil parameters changes. Iforest-Biogeosciences For. 2022, 15, 476–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kulak, D.; Stańczykiewicz, A.; Szewczyk, G.; Lubera, A.; Strojny, T. Czynniki wpływające na zmiany zwięzłości gleb leśnych podczas pozyskiwania surowca drzewnego [Factors affecting the changes in penetration resistance of forest soils during timber harvesting]. Sylwan 2015, 159, 318–325. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sakai, H.; Nordfjell, T.; Suedicani, K.; Talbot, B.; Bollehuus, E. Soil compaction on Forest soils from different kinds of tires and tracks and possibility of accurate estimate. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2008, 29, 15–27. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kremer, J.; Matthies, D.; Borchert, H. The impact of different carriages on soil and roots–wheels and tracks in comparison. In Proceedings of the Austro2007/FORMEC’07: Meeting the Needs of Tomorrows’ Forests–New Developments in Forest Engineering, Vienna, Austria, 7–11 October 2007; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  47. Dvořák, J.; Natov, P.; Kašpar, J.; Szewczyk, G.; Kormanek, M. Comparison of standing timber sorting with bucking by harvesters. In From Theory to Practice: Challenges for Forest Engineering, Proceedings of the 49th Symposium on Forest Mechanization, Warsaw, Poland, 4–7 September 2016; SGGW: Warsav, Poland, 2016; pp. 13–18. ISBN 9788394388997. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kormanek, M.; Banach, J.; Sowa, P. Effect of soil bulk density on forest tree seedlings. Int. Agrophysics 2015, 29, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kormanek, M.; Głąb, T.; Banach, J.; Szewczyk, G. Effects of soil bulk density on sessile oak Quercus petraea Liebl. seedlings. Eur. J. For. Res. 2015, 134, 969–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Visser, R.; Stampfer, K. Expanding Ground-based Harvesting onto Steep Terrain: A Review. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2015, 36, 321–331. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kees, G. Hand-Held Electronic Cone Penetrometers for Measuring Soil Strength; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center: Missoula, MT, USA, 2005; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  52. Minasny, B. Contrasting soil penetration resistance values acquired from dynamic and motor-operated penetrometers. Geoderma 2012, 177–178, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sun, T.; Cheng, Q.; Schulze, L.P.; Berg, A.; Meng, F.; Zeng, Q.; Li, L. 2011: Energy- based comparison between a dynamic cone penetrometer and a motor-operated static cone penetrometer. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 115–116, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Vanags, C.; Minasny, B.; McBratney, A.B. The Dynamic Penetrometer for Assessment of Soil Mechanical Resistance. Super Soil. Published on CDROM. 2004. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237557382_The_dynamic_penetrometer_for_assessment_of_soil_mechanical_resistance (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  55. Stolf, R.; Reichardt, K.; Vaz, C.P.M. Response to “Comments on ‘Simultaneous Measurement of Soil Penetration Resistance and Water Content with a Combined Penetrometer–TDR Moisture Probe’ and ‘A Dynamic Cone Penetrometer for Measuring Soil Penetration Resistance’. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2005, 69, 927–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 14 00977 g001 550
Figure 1. MHT9002HV harvester in the research area [Phot. Kormanek].
Figure 1. MHT9002HV harvester in the research area [Phot. Kormanek].
Forests 14 00977 g001
Forests 14 00977 g002 550
Figure 2. Diagram of the measurements performed on a single trail.
Figure 2. Diagram of the measurements performed on a single trail.
Forests 14 00977 g002
Forests 14 00977 g003 550
Figure 3. Soil compactness measurement: static penetrometer Eijkelkamp Penetrologger 0615SA (a); dynamic penetrometer (b); schematic of dynamic penetrometer (c): 1—handle, 2—weight, 3—rod, 4—bumper, 5—cone, 6—guide for weight, 7—indicator, and 8—measuring scale.
Figure 3. Soil compactness measurement: static penetrometer Eijkelkamp Penetrologger 0615SA (a); dynamic penetrometer (b); schematic of dynamic penetrometer (c): 1—handle, 2—weight, 3—rod, 4—bumper, 5—cone, 6—guide for weight, 7—indicator, and 8—measuring scale.
Forests 14 00977 g003
Forests 14 00977 g004 550
Figure 4. Average penetration resistance PRstat for all trails Opt1–3.
Figure 4. Average penetration resistance PRstat for all trails Opt1–3.
Forests 14 00977 g004
Forests 14 00977 g005 550
Figure 5. Average penetration resistance PRdyn for all trails Opt1–3.
Figure 5. Average penetration resistance PRdyn for all trails Opt1–3.
Forests 14 00977 g005
Forests 14 00977 g006 550
Figure 6. Profiles of the Ot1 operational trail before and after the passage of the harvester.
Figure 6. Profiles of the Ot1 operational trail before and after the passage of the harvester.
Forests 14 00977 g006
Forests 14 00977 g007 550
Figure 7. Profiles of the Ot2 operational trail before and after the passage of the harvester.
Figure 7. Profiles of the Ot2 operational trail before and after the passage of the harvester.
Forests 14 00977 g007
Forests 14 00977 g008 550
Figure 8. Profiles of the Ot3 operational trail before and after the passage of the harvester.
Figure 8. Profiles of the Ot3 operational trail before and after the passage of the harvester.
Forests 14 00977 g008
Table
Table 1. Basic technical data of the harvester [39].
Table 1. Basic technical data of the harvester [39].
DescriptionSymbolUnitValue
Harvester with crane MHT9002HV
Engine powerP(kW)74
Mass with cabinGm(kg)11,000
Transport height/width/lengthH; W; Lt(m)3.08/2.15/7.4
Speedv(km·h−1)2.44–4.16
Length/width of trackL; t(m)3.35/0.425
ClearanceC(m)0.425
Max. longitudinal/side inclinationαmax(°)/(%)21/40
Average unit pressurePAV(kPa)33.0
Maximum crane reachR(m)9.3
Harvester head LOGMAX 928
Mass with rotatorGh(kg)420
Cutting diameterDc(m)0.41
Trimming diameterDd(m)0.34
Table
Table 2. Analysis of variance of measured parameters due to trail.
Table 2. Analysis of variance of measured parameters due to trail.
Factor ** Significant Differences Are Marked “**” for p < 0.01
Penetration
Resistance
PRstat
(MPa)		Penetration
Resistance
PRdyn
(MPa)		Relative
Moisture Content MC
(%)		Bulk
Density
BD
(g·cm−3)
Trail
(Opt)		FpFpFpFp
2.2950.009 **1.2520.38850.3770.6870.0170.983
Table
Table 3. Average weight moisture content and bulk density of soil.
Table 3. Average weight moisture content and bulk density of soil.
LevelDepth
cm		Relative Moisture Content MC (%)
ContLLeRBeRRaRContR
SmL10–1044.3 ± 6.558.7 ± 14.140.9 ± 2.835.0 ± 8.139.7 ± 5.1
SmL211–2029.9 ± 5.458.4 ± 1.727.6 ± 4.428.4 ± 4.323.2 ± 3.5
SmL321–3025.8 ± 2.623.1 ± 1.826.4 ± 7.528.7 ± 9.320.0 ± 1.5
Bulk density BD (g·cm−3)
SmL10–100.59 ± 0.230.70 ± 0.440.53 ± 0.240.61 ± 0.290.52 ± 0.28
SmL211–200.91 ± 0.171.05 ± 0.350.92 ± 0.231.03 ± 0.031.12 ± 0.048
SmL321–301.10 ± 0.271.26 ± 0.141.24 ± 0.121.29 ± 0.301.34 ± 0.12
Designations: ContL—left of the left rut, LeR—left rut, BeR—between ruts, RaR—right rut, ContR—right of the right rut.
Table
Table 4. Penetration resistance measured with a static penetrometer depending on the depth.
Table 4. Penetration resistance measured with a static penetrometer depending on the depth.
LevelDepth (cm)Trail (Opt)Measure
Result		Soil Penetration Resistance PRstat (MPa)
Statistical Differences Are Marked “*” for p < 0.05
nContLLeRBeRRaRContR
SoL10–511000.32 ± 0.220.51 ± 0.390.60 ± 0.570.44 ± 0.380.52 ± 0.66
21000.34 ± 0.320.20 ± 0.120.20 ± 0.100.53 ± 0.700.49 ± 0.41
31000.27 ± 0.280.42 ± 0.240.34 ± 0.390.45 ± 0.260.33 ± 0.27
SoL26–101970.86 ± 0.481.30 ± 0.691.27 ± 0.951.20 ± 0.781.08 ± 0.77
21000.99 ± 0.940.86 ± 0.850.35 ± 0.180.83 ± 0.701.29 ± 0.79
31000.72 ± 0.500.92 ± 0.590.89 ± 0.700.82 ± 0.660.70 ± 0.37
SoL311–151891.38 ± 0.701.75 ± 0.861.81 ± 0.881.89 ± 0.721.70 ± 0.94
2981.57 ± 1.051.59 ± 1.210.98 ± 0.671.49 ± 0.701.57 ± 0.68
3981.15 ± 0.731.28 ± 0.701.30 ± 0.921.04 ± 0.711.21 ± 0.56
SoL416–201691.67 ± 0.82 a,*2.05 ± 0.76 b,*2.23 ± 0.81 a,*2.59 ± 0.91 a,*2.02 ± 0.92 a,*
2851.45 ± 1.141.83 ± 1.411.74 ± 0.942.42 ± 0.941.77 ± 0.63
3811.54 ± 0.502.18 ± 0.771.42 ± 0.760.99 ± 0.441.47 ± 0.72
SoL521–251622.13 ± 0.872.25 ± 0.872.30 ± 0.852.80 ± 0.751.90 ± 0.94
2651.77 ± 1.081.90 ± 0.922.09 ± 0.862.54 ± 0.721.44 ± 0.86
3691.86 ± 0.242.08 ± 0.671.73 ± 0.951.36 ± 0.481.67 ± 0.80
SoL626–301432.19 ± 0.942.42 ± 0.842.53 ± 0.802.88 ± 1.152.08 ± 0.96
2542.61 ± 0.672.54 ± 0.342.55 ± 0.672.88 ± 0.833.30 ± 0.33
3551.81 ± 0.531.94 ± 0.362.13 ± 1.161.65 ± 0.561.96 ± 0.59
SoL731–351342.35 ± 0.842.90 ± 0.572.64 ± 1.043.43 ± 0.262.17 ± 0.73
2412.40 ± 0.572.63 ± 0.412.59 ± 0.793.35 ± 0.352.03 ± 0.27
3342.09 ± 0.471.80 ± 0.143.07 ± 0.481.94 ± 0.921.89 ± 0.80
SoL836–401272.54 ± 0.462.82 ± 0.662.80 ± 1.193.43 ± 0.262.26 ± 0.63
2402.80 ± 0.202.30 ± 0.422.64 ± 1.153.35 ± 0.353.35 ± 0.70
3252.85 ± 0.641.90 ± 0.302.20 ± 0.302.78 ± 1.182.39 ± 0.29
Designations as in Table 3; n—is the number of penetration resistances values recorded by the penetrometer at a given depth level with a measurement every 1 cm, ab—uniform groups.
Table
Table 5. Penetration resistance measured with a dynamic penetrometer depending on the depth.
Table 5. Penetration resistance measured with a dynamic penetrometer depending on the depth.
LevelDepth
(cm)		Trail (So)Soil Penetration Resistance PRdyn (MPa)
Statistical Differences Are Marked “*” for p < 0.05
ContLLeRBeRRaRContR
SoL10–51–30.46 ± 0.010.66 ± 0.020.43 ± 0.010.79 ± 0.070.53 ± 0.02
SoL26–101–31.77 ± 0.061.93 ± 0.381.76 ± 0.011.66 ± 0.131.51 ± 0.01
SoL311–151–31.92 ± 0.042.19 ± 0.291.73 ± 0.152.12 ± 0.091.72 ± 0.16
SoL416–201–31.93 ± 0.06 a2.87 ± 0.18 b2.50 ± 0.04 a2.22 ± 0.14 a2.28 ± 0.09 a
SoL521–251–32.65 ± 0.132.95 ± 0.163.38 ± 0.023.24 ± 0.212.84 ± 0.05
SoL626–301–33.09 ± 0.143.15 ± 0.203.60 ± 0.163.25 ± 0.053.62 ± 0.02
SoL731–351–33.57 ± 0.073.22 ± 0.073.40 ± 0.153.35 ± 0.123.31 ± 0.25
SoL836–401–33.08 ± 0.063.09 ± 0.203.32 ± 0.083.39 ± 0.153.11 ± 0.15
Designations as in Table 3, ab—uniform groups.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kormanek, M.; Dvořák, J.; Tylek, P.; Jankovský, M.; Nuhlíček, O.; Mateusiak, Ł. Impact of MHT9002HV Tracked Harvester on Forest Soil after Logging in Steeply Sloping Terrain. Forests 2023, 14, 977. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14050977

AMA Style

Kormanek M, Dvořák J, Tylek P, Jankovský M, Nuhlíček O, Mateusiak Ł. Impact of MHT9002HV Tracked Harvester on Forest Soil after Logging in Steeply Sloping Terrain. Forests. 2023; 14(5):977. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14050977

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kormanek, Mariusz, Jiří Dvořák, Paweł Tylek, Martin Jankovský, Ondřej Nuhlíček, and Łukasz Mateusiak. 2023. "Impact of MHT9002HV Tracked Harvester on Forest Soil after Logging in Steeply Sloping Terrain" Forests 14, no. 5: 977. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14050977

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