Table 1.
Characteristics of the research object.
| No. of the research plot | Location | Area, ha | Year of felling | Harvestable volume, m3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forestry district | Forest range | Forest compartment | Forest subcompartment | total | per ha | |||
| 1 | Vygoda | Shevchenkivske | 15 | 33.4 | 0.8 | 2023 | 174 | 217.5 |
| 2 | Vygoda | Shevchenkivske | 15 | 33.5 | 0.9 | 2023 | 86 | 95.6 |
| 3 | Vygoda | Shevchenkivske | 26 | 14.0 | 1.0 | 2023 | 190 | 190.0 |
| 4 | Vygoda | Slobidske | 10 | 13.2 | 1.0 | 2023 | 110 | 110.0 |
| 5 | Vygoda | Slobidske | 23 | 12.1 | 0.9 | 2023 | 111 | 123.3 |
| 6 | Broshnivske | Lypovetske | 40 | 23.2 | 0.7 | 2023 | 178 | 254.3 |
| 7 | Vygoda | Slobidske | 23 | 27.4 | 1.0 | 2024 | 131 | 131.0 |
| 8 | Broshnivske | Luhivske | 4 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2024 | 70 | 70.0 |
| 9 | Osmolodske | Perehinske | 25 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 2024 | 66 | 110.0 |
| 10 | Osmolodske | Perehinske | 17 | 6.2 | 1.0 | 2024 | 48 | 48.0 |
| 11 | Osmolodske | Perehinske | 23 | 14.4 | 0.6 | 2024 | 63 | 105.0 |
Figure 1.
Damaged roots (photo: A. Malon).
Figure 2.
Damaged trunk and root collar (photo: A. Malon).
Figure 3.
Outer bark layer damaged (photo: A. Malon).
Figure 4.
Exposed but undamaged wood (photo: A. Malon).
Note: Time of documented damage – June 2025; time of logging activity – March 2023 and October 2024.
Figure 5.
Damaged wood (photo: A. Malon). Malon).
Table 2.
Overview of damage results in the studied plots.
| No. of the research plot | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Average value | Standard Deviation/Standard Error | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of appraised trees, pcs | in the area | 150 | 231 | 320 | 278 | 351 | 254 | 410 | 389 | 154 | 279 | 201 | 274.27 | 87.84/26.50 |
| per 1ha | 187.5 | 256.7 | 320.0 | 278.0 | 390.0 | 362.9 | 410.0 | 389.0 | 256.7 | 279.0 | 335.0 | 314.98 | 69.69/21.02 | |
| Number of damaged trees, pcs | in the area | 16 | 35 | 26 | 24 | 35 | 26 | 32 | 35 | 21 | 14 | 16 | 25.45 | 7.97/2.40 |
| per 1ha | 20.0 | 38.9 | 26.0 | 24.0 | 38.9 | 37.1 | 32.0 | 35.0 | 35.0 | 14.0 | 26.7 | 29.78 | 8.25/2.49 | |
| Damage intensity, % | 10.67 | 15.15 | 8.13 | 8.63 | 9.97 | 10.24 | 7.80 | 9.00 | 13.64 | 5.02 | 7.96 | 9.28 | 2.81/0.85 | |
Table 3.
Proportion of damaged trees depending on the location and severity of damage.
| No. of the research plot | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Average value | Standard deviation/standard error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location of damage | |||||||||||||
| Trunk and root collar | 75.0 | 71.5 | 80.8 | 75.0 | 68.6 | 71.4 | 65.6 | 80.0 | 71.4 | 78.6 | 74.9 | 74.75 | 4.83/1.46 |
| Roots | 25.0 | 28.5 | 19.2 | 25.0 | 31.4 | 28.6 | 34.4 | 20.0 | 28.6 | 21.4 | 25.1 | 25.25 | 4.83/1.46 |
| Degree of damage | |||||||||||||
| The outer layer of bark is damaged | 3.8 | 19.0 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 17.1 | 7.7 | 6.3 | 37.5 | 22.9 | 28.6 | 28.6 | 19.00 | 11.37/3.43 |
| Complete destruction of the bark without damage to the wood | 34.6 | 57.1 | 43.8 | 41.7 | 40.0 | 23.1 | 37.5 | 43.8 | 51.4 | 57.1 | 42.9 | 43.00 | 10.57/3.19 |
| The wood is damaged | 61.5 | 23.8 | 43.8 | 33.3 | 42.9 | 69.2 | 56.3 | 18.8 | 25.7 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 38.00 | 17.06/5.14 |
| The distribution share of damage by wound size | |||||||||||||
| up to 10 cm2 | 15.4 | 47.6 | 18.8 | 29.2 | 22.9 | 11.5 | 15.6 | 37.5 | 34.3 | 42.9 | 40.0 | 28.70 | 12.60/3.80 |
| 11 to 100 cm2 | 30.8 | 38.1 | 37.5 | 50.0 | 37.1 | 38.5 | 37.5 | 56.3 | 51.4 | 42.9 | 51.4 | 42.85 | 8.75/2.64 |
| more than 100 cm2 | 53.8 | 14.3 | 43.8 | 20.8 | 40.0 | 50.0 | 46.9 | 6.3 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 8.6 | 28.45 | 17.90/5.40 |
| Proportion of damaged trees depending on the distance from the skid trail | |||||||||||||
| up to 1 m | 57.7 | 23.8 | 62.5 | 22.9 | 45.7 | 76.9 | 46.9 | 12.4 | 33.2 | 28.6 | 22.9 | 39.40 | 20.23/5.84 |
| 1 to 5 m | 23.1 | 71.4 | 25.1 | 57.1 | 22.9 | 19.2 | 21.9 | 62.4 | 33.2 | 36.0 | 42.9 | 37.75 | 18.98/5.48 |
| more than 5 m | 19.2 | 4.8 | 12.4 | 20.1 | 31.4 | 3.9 | 31.3 | 24.7 | 33.2 | 36.0 | 34.3 | 22.85 | 11.56/3.34 |
Figure 6.
Relationship between the location of wood damage and the volume of felled and transported timber.
Figure 7.
Relationship between the distance of damaged wood and the volume of felled and transported timber.
Figure 8.
Relationship between the degree of wood damage and the volume of felled and transported timber.
Figure 9.
Relationship between wood wound size and the volume of felled and transported timber.