Acorn Review: Focus on ground-based extraction systems: Is skidding really more impactful than forwarding?

• Skidding and forwarding are the two options for ground-based forest operations. • Among practitioners, skidding is generally considered more impactful than forwarding. • Skidding in actually more impactful regarding the damages to residual stand. • Forwarding causes stronger soil compaction than skidding. • Application of Best Management Practices is fundamental to limit the impacts of both skidding and forwarding. The disturbance that ground-based extraction operations can imply on the forests ecosystem is an issue which demands more attention. Skidding and forwarding are the two most common ground-based extraction systems. While skidding implies to partially or fully dragging the logs on the ground, in forwarding, timber is transported on a deck thus avoiding direct contact with the soil. Generally, skidding is considered to be more impactful than forwarding in relation to the amount of disturbance on forest soil and residual stand. However, the framework depicted in current literature is not so strict. While skidding actually implies a higher level of damage to residual stand, the situation concerning disturbance to forest soil is much more complex. The dissimilarities in the results from various studies on this topic have shown the level of complexity. The lack of research investigating the consequences of the two extraction systems on the overall forest ecosystem is evident. Only a few studies were focused for example on the implications on biodiversity. However, the beneficial effects of best management practices, such as the application of snatch blocks during winching or positioning brush mats on the skid trails/strip roads to reduce soil compaction, have been clearly demonstrated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]