Agriculture and forestry

Ivan Mykolayovych Sopushynskyi, Doctor of Agricultural Sciences, Professor of the Department of Forestry and Sustainable Nature Management of Cherkasy State University of Technology (18006, Cherkasy, Shevchenko Boulevard, 460. e-mail: i.sopushynskyi@chdtu.edu.ua, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7392-93-85).

Ruslan Tarasovych Maksymchuk, Doctor of Philosophy in Forestry, Associate Professor of the Department of Forestry and Sustainable Nature Management of the Cherkasy State University of Technology (18006, Cherkasy, Shevchenko Boulevard, 460. e-mail: maksymchuktaras@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5297-4542).

Yaroslav Mykhailovych Kopolovets, Doctor of Philosophy in Forestry, Associate Professor of the Forestry Department of the Uzhgorod National University (88000, Uzhgorod, Pidhirna St., 46. e-mail: yaroslav.kopolovets@uzhnu.edu.ua, https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4008-4052).

The paper presents the results of a comprehensive study of the physical properties of the trunk wood of common hornbeam (Carpinus betula L.) in hornbeam-beech stands of the Ukrainian Carpathians. Structural and qualitative differences in wood between dominant and suppressed trees growing within the same type of forest-vegetation conditions were determined. The relevance of the study is due to the need to optimize the use of hornbeam wood raw materials, which is an important component of the forests of the Forest-Steppe and the Carpathian region and is characterized by valuable, dense and high-calorific wood. The study analysed the change in wood density, wood porosity and indicators of wood shrinkage anisotropy by stem height and tree categories in the stand. It was established that the average density of wood in a completely dry state in dominant trees is 728±3.33 kg•m-3, which is 4.0% higher than in suppressed trees (702±2.69 kg•m-3). A similar pattern is observed for the basic and green wood density. The results obtained indicate that the wood of dominant trees has a denser structure, lower porosity (П₀ = 51±0.23 %), but higher humidity and a slightly greater tendency to deformation during drying. For suppressed trees, on the contrary, increased porosity (Пo = 53±0.17 %) and lower anisotropy of drying are characteristic, which makes their wood more stable during technological processing. The tangential (βt) and radial (βr) shrinkage rates are 10.3±0.04 % and 7.0±0.05% for dominant trees and 9.6±0.03 % and 6.7±0.05 % for suppressed trees, respectively. Volumetric shrinkage (βV) in dominant trees is 18.6 %, while in suppressed trees it is 17.4 %. The anisotropy coefficient (kβt/βr) is on average 1.49 and 1.43, respectively, which indicates a moderate difference in the directions of shrinkage. Linear relationships were found between the basic density of wood and its tangential shrinkage, as well as between the basic wood density and absolute wood porosity. For dominant trees, the dependence equation has the form βt = 0.01ρб + 1.10, and for suppressed trees - βt = 0.01ρб + 4.70, which confirms the different intensity of changes in the dimensions of wood during shrinkage. The results of the study indicate that dominant trees form denser, less porous, but anisotropic wood, while suppressed trees form less dense, with higher porosity and more uniform drying. The established patterns are the basis for further differentiation of hornbeam wood according to technological purposes, requiring dimensional stability or for energy purposes. The results obtained are of important practical importance for optimizing technological processes of drying and processing hornbeam wood, as well as for assessing its quality, structure and deposited carbon in different types of stands.

1.Vintoniv I.S., Sopushynskyi I.M., Teischinger A. (2007). Derevynoznavstvo [Wood Science]: navch. posib. Vyd. 2-he, pererobl. i dopov. Lviv : Apriori. [in Ukrainian].

2.Cziczer M., Báder M., (2024). Comparitive study of different hornbeams (Carpinus betulus L). Gradus. Vol 11, № 3. P. 1−9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47833/ 2024.3.ENG.014 [in English].

3.Kiaei M., Abadian Z. (2018). Physical and Mechanical Properties of Hornbeam Wood from Dominant and Suppressed Trees. Drvna Ind 69:63–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5552/drind.2018.1705 [in English].

4.Meier E. (2024). European Hornbeam. In: Wood Database. Accessed 22.05.2024. DOI: https://www.wooddatabase.com/european-hornbeam.  [in English].

5.Meusel H., Jager E., eds. (1998). Vergleichende Chorologie der Zentraleuropäischen Flora - Band I, II, III (Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena, 1998). [in English].

6.Normen für Holz (2009): DIN-Taschenbuch 31: 8te Aufl. Berlin : Beuth. 604 s. [in English].

7.Paridari C.I., Jalali S.G., Sonboli A., Zarafshar M., Bruschi P. (2013). Carpinus betulus in Europe: distribution, habitat, usage and threats. Journal of Forestry Research 24, 301 [in English].

8.Sikkema R., Caudullo G., de Rigo D. (2016). Carpinus betulus in Europe: distribution, habitat, usage and threats. In: San-MiguelAyanz J., de Rigo D.,  Caudullo G., Houston Durrant T., Mauri A. (Eds.), European Atlas of Forest Tree Species. Publ. Off. EU, Luxembourg, 2 p. [in English].