Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Spatially-constrained harvest scheduling with respect to environmental requirements and silvicultural system / Prostorové plánování mýtních těžeb zahrnující environmentální požadavky a hospodářské způsoby Cover

Spatially-constrained harvest scheduling with respect to environmental requirements and silvicultural system / Prostorové plánování mýtních těžeb zahrnující environmentální požadavky a hospodářské způsoby

Central European Forestry Journal
Volume 61 (2015): Issue 2 (June 2015)
By: Róbert Marušák and  Jan Kašpar  
Open Access
|Aug 2015

References

  1. Barrett, T. M., Gilless, J. K., Davis, L. S., 1998: Economic and fragmentation effects of clearcut restrictions. Forest Science, 44:569-577.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. Baskent, E. Z., Jordan, G. A., 1991: Spatial wood supply simulation modelling. Forestry Chronicle, 67:610-621.
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. Bavlšík, J., Antal, P., Kočik, L., Kominka, V., Kučera, J., Machanský, M. et al., 2008: Pracovné postupy hospodárskej úpravy lesov. Zvolen, NLC, 147 p.
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. Borges, J. G., Hoganson, H. M., 2000: Structuring a landscape by forestland classification and harvest scheduling spatial constraints. Forest Ecology and Management, 130:269-275.
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. Boston, K., Bettinger, P., 2001: The economic impact of greenup constraints in the southeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 145:191-202.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. Dahlin, B., Sallnas, O., 1993: Harvest scheduling under adjacency constraints: a case study from the Swedish sub-alpine region. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 8:281-290.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Field, R. C., Dress, P. E., Fortson, J. C., 1980: Complementary linear and goal programming procedures for timber harvest scheduling. Forest Science, 26:121-133.
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. Green Report, 2006: Správa o lesnom hospodárstve v Slovenskej republike 2006. Bratislava, Ministry of Agriculture of the Slovak Republic, 148 p.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Green Report, 2010: Zpráva o stavu lesa a lesního hospodářství České republiky 2010. Praha, Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, 136 p.
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. Green Report, 2013: Správa o lesnom hospodárstve v Slovenskej republike 2013. Bratislava, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic, 83 p.
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. Green Report, 2013: Zpráva o stavu lesa a lesního hospodářství České republiky 2013. Praha, Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, 210 p.
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. Greguš, C., 1976: Forest Management of Small Area Silviculture System. Bratislava, Príroda, 304 p.
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. Greguš, C., 1983: Allowable cut calculation by empiric exploitation percentage. Lesnícky časopis, 29:251-267.
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. Hof, J., Joyce, L. A., 1993: A mixed integer linear programming approach for spatially optimizing wildlife and timber in managed forest ecosystem. Forest Science, 39:816-834.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. Hof, J., Bevers, M., 2000: Optimal timber harvest scheduling with spatially defined sediment objectives. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 30:1494-1500.
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. Jamnick, M. S., Walters, K. R., 1993: Spatial and temporal allocation of stratum-based harvest schedules. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 23:402-413.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, K. N., Scheurman, H. L., 1977: Techniques for prescribing optimal timber harvest and investment under different objectives-discussion and synthesis. Forest Science Monography, 18:31 p.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. Kašpar, J., Marušák, R., Vopěnka, P., 2013: Comparison of two alternative optimization techniques for spatial harvest planning. Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica, 44:90-96.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. Kašpar, J., Marušák, R., Sedmák, R., 2014: Spatial and non-spatial harvest scheduling versus conventional timber indicator in over -mature forests. Lesnícky časopis - Forestry Journal, 60:81-87.
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. Kašpar, J., Marušák, R., Hlavatý, R., 2015: A Forest Planning Approach with respect to the Creation of Overmature Reserved Areas in Managed Forests. Forests, 6:328-343.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. Konôpka, J., Konôpka, B., 2008: Prognóza náhodných ťažieb v smrečinách v dôsledku mechanicky pôsobiacich abiotických škodlivých činiteľov v oblasti Kysuce a Orava, Tatry, Spiš, Slovenské rudohorie. Lesnícky časopis - Forestry Journal, 54:325-346.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. Konoshima, M., Marušák, R., Yoshimoto, A., 2011a: Spatially constrained harvest scheduling for strip allocation under Moore and Neumann neighbourhood adjacency. Journal of Forest Science, 57:70-77.
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. Konoshima, M., Marušák, R., Yoshimoto, A., 2011b: Harvest scheduling with spatial aggregation for two and three strip cut system under shelterwood management. Journal of Forest Science, 57:271-277.
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. Kurttila, M., 2001: The spatial structure of forests in the optimization calculations of forest planning: a landscape ecological perspective. Forest Ecology and Managament, 142:129-142.
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. Lohmander, P., Helles, F., 1987: Windthrow probability as a function of stand characteristics and shelter. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 2:227-238.
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Majoroš, Š., 1999: Overenie možnosti adaptívnej regulácie obnovných ťažieb súboru podrastovo obhospodarovaných porastov. Acta Facultatis Forestalis Zvolen, XLI:211-224.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. Majoroš, Š., 2001: Alternatívne možnosti ťažbovej úpravy adaptívnymi ukazovateľmi. Acta Facultatis Forestalis Zvolen, XLIII:209-218.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Marušák, R., 2001: Possibilities of using of allowable cut indicators in shelterwood system. In: Gadow, K. V., Nagel, J., Saborovski, J. (ed.): Continuous Cover Forestry - Assessment, Analysis, Scenarios. International IUFRO Conference, 19. - 21. 9. 2001, Göttingen, Germany, p. 195-202.
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. Marušák, R., 2003: Harvest scheduling and close to nature forestry. In: Novotný, J. (ed.): Close to nature forestry. Zvolen, Forest Research Institute Zvolen, p. 28-37.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Marušák, R., 2007: Alternative harvest scheduling for final cut with respect to silvicultural requirements. Lesnícky časopis - Forestry Journal, 53:117-127.
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. Marušák, R., Kašpar, J., Vopěnka, P., 2015: Decision Support System (DSS) Optimal - A case study from the Czech Republic. Forests, 6:163-182.
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Murray, A. T., Weintraub, A., 2002: Scale and unit specification influences in harvest scheduling with maximum area restrictions. Forest Science, 48:779-789.
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. Nelson, J., Brodie, J. D., 1990: Comparison of a random search algorithm and mixed integer programming for solving areabased forest plans. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 20:934-942.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. Öhman, K., Lamas, T., 2003: Clustering of harvest activities in multiobjective long-term forest planning. Forest Ecology and Management, 176:161-171.
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. Öhman, K., Lamas, T., 2005: Reducing forest fragmentation in long-term forest planning using mixed integer programming. Forest Ecology and Management, 212:346-357.
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. Öhman, K., Wikström, P., 2008: Incorporating aspects of habitat fragmentation into ling-term forest planning using mixed integer programming. Forest Ecology and Management, 255:440-446.
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Pukkala, T., Nuutinen, T., Kangas, J., 1995: Integrating scenic and recreational amenities into numerical forest planning. Landscape Urban and Planning, 32:185-195.
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. Richards, E. W., Gunn, E. A., 2003: Tabu search design for difficult forest management optimization problems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33:1126-1133.
    Search in Google Scholar
  39. Roise, J. P., 1990: Multicriteria nonlinear programming for optimal spatial allocation of stands. Forest Science, 36:487-501.
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. Šuška, M., Majoroš, Š., 1997: Teoretické princípy a využitie adaptívnej regulácie a kontroly rubných ťažieb. Vedecké štúdie 10/1997/A, TU Zvolen, 57 p.
    Search in Google Scholar
  41. Vopěnka, P., Kašpar, J., Marušák, R., 2015: GIS tool for optimization of harvest-scheduling. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 113:254-259.
    Search in Google Scholar
  42. Yoshimoto, A., Brodie, J. D., 1994: Comparative analysis of algorithm to generate adjacency constraints. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 24:1277-1288.
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. Žíhlavník, A., 2000: Ťažbová regulácia v lesných užívateľských celkoch s podrastovým hospodárskym spôsobom. Acta Facultatis Forestalis Zvolen, XLII:213-225.
    Search in Google Scholar
  44. Žíhlavník, A., 2005: Vplyv vlastníckych vzťahov k lesu na metódy ťažbovej úpravy lesa. Vedecké štúdie 10/2004/A, TU Zvolen, 62 p.
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/forj-2015-0015 | Journal eISSN: 2454-0358 | Journal ISSN: 2454-034X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 71 - 77
Published on: Aug 13, 2015
Published by: National Forest Centre and Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
environmental limits,
shelterwood silvicultural system,
mathematical programming,
adjacency constrains
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Plant science,
Ecology,
Life sciences, other

© 2015 Róbert Marušák, Jan Kašpar, published by National Forest Centre and Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 61 (2015): Issue 2 (June 2015)Next article