It's literally explained at the end of the abstract: > Our research illustrates the compatibility of dendrochronological studies with musealisation of shipwrec

It's literally explained at the end of the abstract: > Our research illustrates the compatibility of dendrochronological studies with musealisation of shipwreck assemblages, and the results demonstrate that the VOC successfully coped with timber shortages in the early 17th century through diversification of timber sources (mainly Baltic region, Lübeck hinterland in northern Germany, and Lower Saxony in northwest Germany), allocation of sourcing regions to specific timber products (hull planks from the Baltic and Lübeck, framing elements from Lower Saxony), and skillful woodworking craftmanship (sapwood was removed from all timber elements). These strategies, combined with an innovative hull design and the use of wind-powered sawmills, allowed the Dutch to produce unprecedented numbers of ocean-going ships for long-distance voyaging and interregional trade in Asia, proving key to their success in 17th-century world trade. They solved a logistics problem (timber shortage), the issue of lumber from different regions having different qualities (using it for different parts of the ship), and had wind-powered proto-industrialization (wind-powered sawmills). Of course, the paper ends with reinforcing the idea that the VOC was the key to the Dutch economy, totally ignoring the part where grain trade with the Baltics was a much more significant source of income than the VOC ever was, but that not as flashy as colonialist exploitation bringing in the spices and inventing capitalism I guess.