United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern

Research Station

General Technical

Report SRS–108

A Half Century of

Sustainable Uneven-Aged

Forest Management in 

the Missouri Ozarks

PIONEER FOREST
Cover Photo:

Ed Woods observing old growth white oak at Pioneer’s Randolph 

Tract along the Current River. (Courtesy of Pioneer Forest)

DISCLAIMER

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and 

does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

of any product or service.

Papers published in these proceedings were submitted by authors 

in electronic media. Some editing was done to ensure a consistent 

format. Authors are responsible for content and accuracy of their 

individual papers and the quality of illustrative materials.

July 2008

Southern Research Station

200 W.T. Weaver Boulevard

Asheville, NC 28804
A Half Century of 

Sustainable Uneven-Aged 

Forest Management in 

the Missouri Ozarks

Edited by

James M. Guldin, Greg F. Iffrig, and Susan L. Flader

PIONEER FOREST
iv Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 
v

PREFACE....................................................................................................................................................................... vii

HISTORY

A History of Forest Management in the Ozark Mountains ................................................................................................3

James M. Guldin

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry ..............................................................................................9

Susan L. Flader

SILVICULTURE AND ECOLOGY

Silviculture and the Long-Term Dynamics of Single-Tree Selection on Pioneer Forest............................................43

Edward F. Loewenstein

Describing Single-Tree Selection Harvests in Missouri Ozark Forests ...........................................................................49

Greg F. Iffrig, Clinton E. Trammel, and Terry Cunningham

Pioneer Forest: In the Heart of Roughness..........................................................................................................................61

Richard P. Guyette and Michael C. Stambaugh

Invertebrate Community Structure and Forest Management in the Missouri Ozark Landscape...........................65

Gerardo Camilo and Nick San Diego

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL VALUES

An Analysis of the Benefits and Profits of Single-Tree Selection Silviculture: 

A Case Study of Pioneer Forest in Missouri’s Ozarks.........................................................................................................77

Makoto Hamatani and Katherine M. Goslee

Natural Areas Protection and Recreation Opportunities on Pioneer Forest and 

Other Properties of the L-A-D Foundation............................................................................................................................84

John A. Karel

Personal Reflections ..................................................................................................................................................................90

Glenn D. Weaver, Bill Terry, David Bedan, David R. Larsen, David Hamilton, Gerardo Camilo, 

David Russell, Gene Maggard, Hank Dorst, Victoria Grant, Caroline Pufalt, and Mary Chapman

APPENDIX

Annotated Bibliography of Research and Information on Pioneer Forest....................................................................101

Greg F. Iffrig

CONTENTS

Contents
vi Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 
vii

This collection of papers analyzes the Pioneer Forest, 

a privately owned 150,000-acre working forest in the 

Missouri Ozarks on which the science and art of forest 

management has been practiced for more than 50 years. 

The papers discuss how this half century of management 

has contributed to forest restoration and sustainability 

on the forest itself and, through its example undergirded 

by a remarkable body of research, throughout the Ozark 

region and beyond.

Pioneer Forest embodies the stewardship ethic of its 

founder and long-time owner, Leo Drey. Much more than 

a working forest producing timber and jobs on a sustained 

basis, Pioneer Forest has contributed to the local 

economy, served as a working demonstration for other 

private forest landowners, cooperated imaginatively with 

an array of public agencies, conducted its own research 

and been widely available to outside researchers, and 

been open for hunting, fishing, and a wide variety of 

primitive recreational pursuits. Through his leadership 

and commitment, Leo Drey has influenced many 

developments in conservation by pioneering in landscape 

restoration, natural areas preservation, forest recreation, 

and sustainable ecosystem management. In his daily 

activities and in his remarkably consistent, public-spirited 

vision over the half century of his ownership, Leo Drey 

has set a new standard for what it means to be a private 

forest landowner, not only in the Ozark Mountains but 

also in the Nation.

In July 2004, Leo Drey and his wife Kay donated the lands 

of Pioneer Forest L.L.C., along with its offices, staff, and 

long-standing management and research experience, to 

the L-A-D Foundation. With this magnificent gift—valued 

at $180 million, one of the top philanthropic gifts in the 

Nation that year—the work of Leo Drey’s lifetime will 

continue to be available as a living embodiment of his 

stewardship ethic and as a working model for all who 

are interested in innovative approaches to sustainable 

management of private forest lands throughout the 

Nation.

Most of the research and discussion papers in this volume 

grew out of a symposium held in October 2001 in St. 

Louis, MO, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of 

the founding of Pioneer Forest. The Missouri Botanical 

Garden and Tower Grove Park hosted the event. The 

symposium was an opportunity for nearly 200 individuals 

to gather and reflect on this forest’s long history of 

accomplishment.

PREFACE

Following the symposium, the authors of several of the 

principal papers substantially rewrote and augmented 

their analyses, and the editors commissioned a number 

of additional papers to round out a volume that highlights 

the wide reach of the forest and its most important 

influences. As a result, there is a spectrum of academic 

rigor and scope in these papers. A few have been 

developed into much more ambitious treatments than the 

original presentations. Despite the mixed character of the 

final product, we feel that it is worthwhile for the sake of 

the overall record to include all of the presentations. 

The volume opens with two papers offering historical 

perspective. Forest ecologist James Guldin traces 500 

years of change in the forests of the Ozark Mountains and 

in people’s attitudes toward and management of them 

from pre-European conditions through exploitation and 

recovery to the era of modern forestry. Environmental 

historian Susan Flader follows with an extensive analysis, 

grounded in original archival records, of the establishment 

and management of Pioneer Forest over the past half 

century and its influence on regional development 

in the Ozarks, including both private and public land 

management.

The next four papers analyze the uneven-aged silviculture 

by single-tree selection that has been practiced 

consistently on Pioneer Forest over the years and some 

of its ecological context and implications. Silviculturist 

Edward Loewenstein, who has studied the science and 

art of forest management on Pioneer for more than 

a decade, discusses the evidence from quantitative 

analysis and practical observation that suggests the 

methods being applied on Pioneer are both sustainable 

and productive over time. Greg Iffrig, Clinton Trammel, 

and Terry Cunningham, the senior management 

staff of Pioneer, present a detailed description of the 

implementation of single-tree selection on the ground, 

in the context of the development of the technique and 

the scholarly debate about its efficacy. Dendrochronologist 

Richard Guyette and research specialist Michael 

Stambaugh analyze the degree of topographic roughness 

of Pioneer Forest lands and discuss the effect of that 

roughness on the long-term history of local disturbance 

factors and the implications this has for the efficacy of 

silvicultural practices on the forest in mimicking historical 

vegetation regimes. Biologists Gerardo Camilo and Nick 

San Diego report that the single-tree selection method 

practiced by Pioneer Forest has benefits to forest and leaf 

litter arthropod communities by creating conditions that 

maximize diversity.

Preface
viii Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

The final group of papers explores the economic 

and social values fostered by Pioneer Forest. Forest 

economist Makoto Hamatani and Katherine Goslee 

of Appalachian Voices analyze the profitability of the 

single-tree selection management practiced on Pioneer 

over the past half century and consider its implications 

for smaller landholdings. John Karel, president of the 

L-A-D Foundation, surveys the roles of Leo Drey, Pioneer 

Forest and the L-A-D Foundation in the protection of 

natural areas and the provision of public recreational 

opportunities, not only on Pioneer but also on several 

thousand acres of other L-A-D properties. The third 

paper is a compilation of personal reflections from the 

50th anniversary symposium that evokes a wide range 

of values fostered by the forest. They represent the 

perspectives of many who have studied, worked on, 

thought about, enjoyed, or lived near the lands of Pioneer 

Forest.

An appendix presents an annotated bibliography 

of scholarly research publications and nontechnical 

information on Pioneer Forest and other properties of the 

L-A-D Foundation. The bibliography contains more than 

150 entries that further substantiate the breadth and 

depth of research and the range of values fostered by the 

forest.

The scientific process would be incomplete without 

peer review of papers. We are grateful to the following 

scientists and professionals for providing reviews of the 

manuscripts contained in this volume: Don Bragg, Leon 

Cambre, John Dwyer, Tom Foti, John Groninger, John 

Kabrick, Bill Kurtz, Earnest Lovett, Ross Melick, Rose-Marie 

Muzika, Paul Nelson, Tim Nigh, Walter Schroeder, Steve 

Shifley, Martin Spetich, Rick Thom, James Trager, and Don 

Voth. We are especially grateful for the collaboration of 

the Southern Research Station of the Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, that enabled the publication of 

this volume.

In addition to the Missouri Botanical Garden and Tower 

Grove Park, the following organizations contributed 

significantly to the success of the 50th anniversary 

symposium and represent a fair sampling of the range 

of organizations with which Pioneer Forest and the L-A-D 

Foundation have cooperated over the years, and we 

would like to thank them here: Akers Ferry Canoe Rental, 

Antioch College, Appalachian Voices, Auburn University, 

Forest Stewards Guild, John Burroughs School, Mark Twain 

Forest Watchers, Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri 

Chapter–Society of American Foresters, Missouri Coalition 

for the Environment, Missouri Consulting Foresters’ 

Association, Missouri Department of Conservation, 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Missouri 

Forest Heritage Center, National Park Service–Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways, Ozark Regional Land Trust, 

Saint Louis University, Sierra Club–Ozark Chapter, Southern 

Illinois University–Edwardsville, Trees L.C., U.S. Forest 

Service–North Central Research Station, U.S. Forest 

Service–Southern Research Station, and University of 

Missouri–Columbia.

We also wish to acknowledge and thank the following 

individuals for their efforts in making the symposium 

a success and for their cooperation with Pioneer Forest 

over the years: Mike Adams, Paul Brunkow, Leon Cambre, 

Robert Devine, Eleanor Drey, Laura Drey, Leo and Kay 

Drey, Louis Drey, Tim Dyer, Dorothy Ellis, Robert Fishbone, 

Gregg Galbraith, Bob Gestel, Wayne Goode, David 

Hamilton, Eric Hanson, Mike Hoffman, Jim Jackson, Elena 

LaVigne, D.B. Mabry, Sheri Pena, Alex Primm, Nick San 

Diego, Randy Sarver, Jo Schaper, Debbie Schnack, Dan 

Skaggs, Aaron Smith, Jon Smith, Richard Smith, Claudia 

Spener, Bob Todd, Clint Trammel, George Yatskievych, Jim 

Vandyke, Jerry Vineyard, Pat Waterston, and, of course, all 

the authors of papers or reflections in this volume. 

JAMES M. GULDIN

U.S. Forest Service

Southern Research Station

P.O. Box 1270

Hot Springs, AR 71902

 

GREG F. IFFRIG

L-A-D Foundation and Pioneer Forest

705 Olive, Room 724

St. Louis, MO 63101

 

SUSAN L. FLADER

Professor of History

Department of History

University of Missouri

Columbia, MO 65211 
ix

Leo A. Drey with an ancient white oak, ca. 1950s. (Courtesy of Leo Drey) 

Preface

Distribution of Pioneer Forest lands. (Source: R. Guyette and M. Stambaugh, Missouri Tree Ring 

Laboratory, University of Missouri)

HISTORY
2 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 
3

A HISTORY OF FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE OZARK MOUNTAINS

James M. Guldin1

Abstract—The origins of modern forest management in the Ozark Mountains go back roughly 500 years. This history has five 

stages: pre-European conditions (prior to 1750), European settlement (1750–1880), the era of exploitation (1880–1920), forest 

recovery (1920–1950), and the era of modern forestry (1950–present). The greatest adverse influence on Missouri forests was the 

era of exploitation, during which virtually all of the presettlement forest of the Ozarks was commercially liquidated. Fire control and 

the creation of large forest reserves triggered the period of recovery, which includes the establishment of Pioneer Forest in 1951. 

Highlights of the era of modern forestry include management of forests for productive value and aesthetic appeal, use of voluntary 

best management practices, and a commitment to forest stewardship. The private owner and professional staff of Missouri’s 

Pioneer Forest have long embraced and applied these progressive attitudes and practices. 

INTRODUCTION

To fully appreciate the past 50 years of management on the 

Pioneer Forest, one must consider the past 500 years of Missouri 

history. Throughout that 500–year period, Missouri’s human 

inhabitants have looked at forests from a series of different 

perspectives. Five stages of Missouri forest history can be 

recognized, and each has vastly different implications for its own 

and subsequent generations. 

The accomplishments for which we honor Pioneer Forest in 

this volume are even more meaningful when one considers 

the disruptive influences to which Missouri Ozark forests were 

subjected in the past. The goal of this paper is to briefly recount 

the history of the Missouri Ozark forests, describing earlier eras 

of forest disruption as a background for the progressive forest 

stewardship practiced at Pioneer Forest.

PRE-EUROPEAN CONDITIONS PRIOR TO 1750

As recently as 20,000 years ago, the Ozarks were under 

the influence of glaciers from the Wisconsinan period, and 

supported boreal flora. Oaks became established in the region 

about 14,000 years ago. During the past several thousand years, 

climatic trends have given rise to a forest-dominated landscape 

with prairie inclusions (Foti and others 1999). 

It is estimated that in 1500 forests covered 70 percent of the 

State of Missouri; that oak savannas covered an estimated 13 

million acres, or one-third, of Missouri; and that vast herds of 

elk and buffalo were common (Palmer 1991). According to early 

descriptions, forests were previously much more open, ranging 

from open woodlands to closed forests. These open woodlands 

and closed forests had grasses and forbs in the understory, and 

little midstory. 

However, forests were under human influence—that of the 

native American inhabitants in the region. Historical documents 

note the widespread occurrence of fire, and summary accounts 

generally conclude that presettlement conditions were much 

influenced by fire (Nigh 1992). Other evidence supports the 

notion that native populations set fire to the woodlands, 

possibly for territorial defense or hunting purposes, and cleared 

small areas for subsistence agriculture (Spetich and others 

1999). The open understory that would result from this activity 

can still be seen in photographs from the turn of the century 

(fig. 1).

Exposure to European explorers was the beginning of the end 

of these native civilizations, and the decline probably began 

between 1500 and 1600. DeSoto is known to have explored 

the Arkansas and Ouachita Rivers, reaching Hot Springs in 1542; 

French traders came into the region from the north during the 

1600s. Native populations are believed to have declined as 

a result of these and other contacts with Europeans, through 

exposure to diseases for which the indigenous peoples had little 

or no immunity (Strausberg and Hough 1997). 

1 James M. Guldin, Supervisory Ecologist and Project Leader, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Hot Springs, AR 71902. 

Figure 1—Native shortleaf pine stand, Missouri Ozarks. (Courtesy of 

American Lumberman)

A History of Forest Management in the Ozark Mountains
4 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

The early recorded descriptions of forest vegetation reflect the 

waning influence of the native American cultures as well as 

the early influence of European settlement. Schoolcraft (1821) 

published the best and most accessible of these, based on 

a journal kept during his journey through the Missouri and 

Arkansas Ozarks in 1818–1819. His description of the vegetation 

in the vicinity of the White River in the northern Arkansas Ozarks 

conveys the general presettlement forest condition:

“. . . One of the most conspicuous objects among the trees 

and vegetables which skirt the banks of the river, is the 

sycamore, (Platanus occidentalis) rearing its lofty branches 

into the air, and distinguished from other forest-trees by 

its white bark and enormous size . . . Another vegetable, 

scarcely less conspicuous, and occupying a similar soil and 

situation, in the latitude in which it grows, is the reed, 

called cane in this region, and which I take to be the 

Cinna arundinacea of botanists. This plant is common to 

all the streams of the valley of the Mississippi below the 

38 deg. of north latitude . . . The other forest-trees and 

plants noticed at this place, and which may be set down 

as composing, the forests of White River generally, are 

the following: Cotton-wood (Populus angulata); white 

elm (Ulmus Americana); red elm (Ulmus fulva); buckeye 

(Aesculus hippocastanum); black walnut (Juglans nigra); 

white walnut (Juglans tomentosa); white ash (Fraxinus 

acuminata); swamp-ash (Fraxinus juglandifolia); white oak 

(Quercus alba); red oak (Quercus rubra); sugar maple (Acer 

saccharinum); mulberry (Callicarpa Americana); dogwood 

(Cornus florida); sassafras (Taurus sassafras); persimmon 

(Diospyros virginiana).

To these the valleys will add spice-wood, papaw, wild 

cherry, hemlock, several species of grapes, the wild pea, 

etc.; and the bluffs and high-lands, white and yellow pine, 

mountain-ash, post-oak, and cedar. The wild hop is also 

indigenous to the river alluvion, and the crab-apple, red 

plumb, and black haw, upon the plains. Many others might 

be added, but these are the most conspicuous on passing 

through a White River forest, and such as would readily 

attract the eye.”2

EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT, 1750–1880

The first Europeans to tour the territory that would become 

Missouri found a rich land with few human inhabitants. Settlers 

arrived by the rivers and cut wood for houses, for fuel, and to 

sell. Timber was cut and floated downstream to mills in larger 

settlements, where it might be used for lumber or as cordwood 

to fuel the boilers of steam-powered riverboats. 

About the time that Missouri became a State (1821), settlers 

began trickling in from the South. Subsistence farms were 

established in the river valleys and larger hollows. Timber 

cutting was largely limited to forest stands that were readily 

accessible to homesteads, farms, and towns; and domestic 

livestock was allowed to roam the forest freely. Tree cutting and 

stump removal created agricultural fields and improved pasture; 

selective cutting of selected tree species in the woods met 

local needs for lumber, for related wood products (such as oak 

baskets), and for fuel. The aboriginal use of fire was continued 

by early Missouri settlers, probably both to promote grasses and 

to control ticks and chiggers. 

Regarding the abundance of pestiferous insect fauna, the 

best record comes from Thomas Nuttall (Lottinville 1999), the 

botanist, who explored the southern Ozarks during a journey up 

the Arkansas River during 1819:

“. . . Returning from my rambles today. . . . I picked off my 

skin and clothes more than 50 ticks, which are here more 

abundant and troublesome than any part of America in 

which I have yet been . . .” 

The seeds of the demise of buffalo and elk populations were no 

doubt sown in the early 1800s, as European settlement slowly 

expanded. Schoolcraft noted that: 

“The Indian considers the forest his own, and is careful 

in using and preserving every thing which it affords. He 

never kills more meat than he has occasion for. The white 

hunter destroys all before him, and cannot resist the 

opportunity of killing game, although he neither wants the 

meat, nor can carry the skins . . . this is one of the causes 

of the enmity existing between the white and the red 

hunters of Missouri.”3

As early as 1816, sawmills were established along the Big Piney 

River in Texas County to manufacture lumber from shortleaf pine 

(Pinus echinata). By 1860 logging was one of the dominant 

industries of the region. With the coming of the railroad, the 

making and shipment of railroad ties became an important 

industry.

In 1860 the population of Missouri was about 1.2 million people 

(U.S. Census Office 1864), about 21 percent of the 5.595 million 

people tallied in the State’s 2000 census. Estimates of forested 

area in Missouri in 1860 are difficult to obtain, but the available 

data suggest that < 20 percent of the arable land in Missouri’s 

forested counties was farmed at that time (Maizel and others 

1998). Conversion of forests to pastures and harvest of trees 

used to meet specific needs were no doubt locally important, 

but the impact of subsistence farming and the beginnings of 

industrial activity was probably not widespread. The activities of 

early settlers probably had a greater immediate impact on the 

State’s fauna, and especially on game species. Nevertheless, it 

probably did not take long for some settlers to realize that a rich 

timber resource covered the region and awaited exploitation.

ERA OF EXPLOITATION, 1880–1920

The Ozark lumber industry boomed from 1880 to 1920 

(Cunningham and Hauser 1992). Lumbermen bought vast 

acreages of forest land, sometimes for a few cents an acre, and 

2 Henry R. Schoolcraft, 15 January 1819.

3 Henry R. Schoolcraft, 30 December 1818.
5

cut, graded, and trestled hundreds of miles of narrow-gauge 

railroad track into the steep hills and hollows (fig. 2). Logs were 

carried to mills by train and by rivers and streams. Any tree that 

had value was cut (Palmer 1991).

At its peak in 1899, production from Missouri sawmills exceeded 

724 million board feet of lumber annually (Cunningham and 

Hauser 1992), a level of production not seen since that time. 

The sawmill at Grandin, east of the Current River (fig. 3), 

consumed 70 acres of woodland a day, and produced in excess 

of 250,000 board feet of dimension lumber (fig. 4) and related 

products (mostly lath and shingles) daily (Cunningham and 

Hauser 1992). 

Although these mills consumed enormous quantities of timber, 

they supported the industrialization of Missouri at the turn of 

the century. Comparable figures for Missouri are not available, 

but the lumber industry employed 73 percent of all factory 

wage earners in Arkansas in 1909.4

 Many small towns came 

into existence in rural Missouri during that time. While some 

disappeared with the mills, others remain to this day. But 

without question, industrialization came at a cost—the loss of all 

but a few acres of Missouri’s virgin forests.

FOREST RECOVERY, 1920–1950

By 1920, the pine forests, and the mills, and the jobs were 

gone. Those who had come to work the woods tried to stay and 

eke out a living from the thin soils of the deforested hills. Their 

efforts only produced meager crops and more erosion (fig. 5). 

Forest recovery was further inhibited by the common practice 

of allowing domestic livestock to wander over the countryside, 

foraging for any available vegetation. By 1928, large areas of 

the once rich timberland had become wasteland. 

In 1929, the Missouri National Forest Association successfully 

lobbied the Legislature to permit the Federal government to 

purchase land in Missouri for a national forest. Eight purchase 

units were set up in 1934–35, and the Mark Twain and Clark 

National Forests became a reality. Eventually, 1.5 million acres of 

cut-over forest land was acquired in these two national forests—

the land that nobody else wanted.

Figure 2—Log train. (Courtesy of American Lumberman)

Figure 3—Grandin mill. (Courtesy of American Lumberman)

4 Gray, John. Cited on http://arkforests.org/favorite-history.html.

A History of Forest Management in the Ozark Mountains
6 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

By the mid–1930s, Missouri forest and wildlife resources were 

at an all-time low. The forests were burned and abused. Gravel, 

eroded from the hillsides, choked the once-clear streams. 

An estimated 2,000 deer remained in the entire State, and 

turkeys declined to a few thousand birds in scattered flocks. 

An additional factor that reduced harvesting pressure on the 

recovering forest in the 1930s was a sharp drop in building and 

corresponding lumber demand. And over the 1930s and 1940s, 

there was a shift away from the use of wood as a home heating 

and cooking fuel. 

Forests benefited greatly from services provided by the 

Depression era Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Program. 

Enrollees in the CCC helped fight forest fires, built fire lookout 

towers, and, on the national forests, constructed roads, 

campgrounds, picnic areas, and swimming lakes. Enrollees also 

planted trees on thousands of acres of worn out and eroded 

highland farmland in national forests in the 1930s.

Fire control was the first step in restoring forest cover. Voters 

approved the Missouri constitutional amendment creating the 

Conservation Commission in 1936. This new Agency included 

a forestry division—an innovative idea at a time when most 

other fish and wildlife agencies were separate from forestry 

departments. Missouri’s early conservationists recognized that a 

healthy forest resource was essential to healthy fish and wildlife 

populations. 

By World War II, fire prevention programs began to pay off. 

Once fires were reduced, efforts could be turned to managing 

the forest. Foresters planted thousands of seedlings, harvested 

trees damaged by fire, and removed undesirable trees. Private 

landowners were taught how to improve their forests and 

Figure 4—Shortleaf boards, from the Grandin Mill. (Courtesy of American 

Lumberman)

Figure 5—Missouri hillbilly farm, U.S. Forest Service photo 380537. (Photo by Leland J. Prater, April 1939)
7

wildlife habitat. Among the more interesting social events 

in small towns during that time was the arrival of a State or 

Federal forester in a truck equipped to show movies about fire 

control and forest management.

ERA OF MODERN FORESTRY, 1950–PRESENT

Tremendous progress in forest management has been made in 

Missouri since the late 1940s (Law 1992). The once impossible 

task of fire control in the Ozarks has been accomplished. Today 

less than one-tenth of 1 percent of Missouri burns each year. 

Deer and turkey are found in record numbers. Restoration 

programs have reintroduced ruffed grouse and river otters 

(Palmer 1991).

Since the 1940s, Missouri Ozarks forests have had to meet major 

increases in demand for all forest values. There has been a 

strong increase in demand for lumber and other wood products. 

In response to the increasing worth of Missouri forest products 

and values, public and private forest landowners have made 

capital and resource investments to improve timber productivity, 

grow wildlife populations and expand wildlife habitat, protect 

watersheds, and promote forest vigor and health.

Among the most important products of Missouri forests is highquality water. Water use in Arkansas increased by 200 percent 

over the past 20 years and is expected to increase by another 

140 percent by the year 2035; trends in water use in Missouri 

are likely to be similar. This has focused attention on effective 

protection of forested watersheds and on the adequacy and 

application of voluntary best management practice standards 

as a tool for minimizing nonpoint source water pollution caused 

by logging and other forest operations (Missouri Department of 

Conservation 1997).

Finally, forest management includes a large measure of 

government and private support for the practice of forestry, 

especially on private lands. Since 1950, there has been 

extensive public and private investment in forestry. This has 

included investments not only in the forests themselves, but 

also in the intellectual capital of forestry—forestry education, 

research in forestry and natural resources, and improvements in 

the manufacture of forest products and the efficiency with which 

they are produced. These advances have been applied on public 

lands and forest industry lands, where professional foresters and 

biologists translate research into practice. 

For nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners, who in 1989 

owned 83 percent of Missouri’s timberland area, technical 

assistance and public cost sharing have been important 

incentives to participate in forest management. But perhaps the 

most important determinant of NIPF landowner activity in forest 

management has been, simply, the landowner’s knowledge 

of forest management and his or her desire to apply that 

knowledge.

THE PIONEER FOREST, 1951–2001

This is where Pioneer Forest merits special attention. Not only 

is it the largest NIPF ownership in Missouri, it is also second to 

none in the dedication of the owner and professional staff to 

the art and science of forestry. It stands as a testament to the 

recovery of Missouri Ozark forests under a program of modern 

forestry that embraces wood products, wildlife, recreation, 

aesthetics, and water resources. Three elements of modern 

forestry receive special emphasis at the Pioneer Forest.

First, the Pioneer forest staff and owners are committed to 

productive forest management. They employ an uncommon 

form of forestry—uneven-aged silviculture and the single-tree 

selection method, whose goal is the production of large, highquality logs of desired species (fig. 6). Competition least as 

concerned about what remains after the cut as they are about 

what is removed. Finally, Pioneer Forest maintains long-term 

inventory plots to ensure that the management program in 

fact meets the goal of maintaining and improving species 

composition, stand volume growth, and successful regeneration 

over time.

Figure 6—Three age classes of oak on Pioneer Forest property. 

(Photo by J.M. Guldin)

A History of Forest Management in the Ozark Mountains
8 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Second, the forest management practiced on Pioneer Forest 

maintains the forest canopy on every acre throughout the forest. 

Such practices provide continuous protection of water quality 

and go beyond the traditional best management practices 

referenced earlier. Examples of the practices employed include 

keeping all logging equipment out of stream bottoms, leaving 

a forested stream buffer in which only high-value trees are 

considered for removal, and removing less than one-half of the 

volume on any given acre to be harvested. Further protections 

are used where significant areas of the forest are adjacent to 

the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers and the Ozark Scenic Riverways 

National Park. Here, a no harvest zone extends a minimum of 

300 feet from the river center.

Finally, these activities speak to a larger element of the success 

of Pioneer Forest over the past 50 years—a stewardship ethic. 

Both the forest owner and the professionals who manage 

the forest are personally and professionally committed to the 

highest standards of land stewardship. The financial stakes 

that drove the period of exploitation are still in play; NIPF 

landowners can get more quick cash by liquidating their forests 

than they can get by managing them. 

Resisting the impulse to liquidate forests for this short-term 

cash potential is perhaps the most difficult test that NIPF 

landowners face—and they face that test daily. The founder of 

Pioneer Forest, Leo Drey, and his committed staff of professional 

resource managers have met that test daily for 50 years. There 

is no better example of enlightened and abiding stewardship of 

NIPF land, or any timberland, than the stewardship practiced at 

the Pioneer Forest.

LITERATURE CITED

Cunningham, B.; Hauser, C. 1992. The decline of the Missouri 

Ozark forest between 1880 and 1920. In: Journet, A.R.P.; 

Spratt, H.G., Jr., eds. 1992. Toward a vision for Missouri’s 

public forests: a conference held on the campus of Southeast 

Missouri State University. Unnumbered publication. Cape 

Girardeau, MO: Department of Biology, Southeast Missouri 

State University: 14-19.

Foti, T.; Richards, L.L.; Andre, J.; Voeller, J.E. 1999. Prehistoric 

and historic ecological changes. In: Ozark-Ouachita Highlands 

assessment: terrestrial vegetation and wildlife. Report 5 of 

5. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-35. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 7-20. 

Chapter 2.

Law, J. 1992. The development of modern management.In: 

Journet, A.R.P.; Spratt, H.G., Jr., eds. 1992. Toward a vision for 

Missouri’s public forests: a conference held on the campus of 

Southeast Missouri State University.Unnumbered publication. 

Cape Girardeau MO: Department of Biology, Southeast Missouri 

State University: 20-34. 

Lottinville, S. 1999. A journal of travels into the Arkansas 

territory during the year 1819, by Thomas Nuttall. Fayetteville, 

AR: University of Arkansas Press. 361 p.

Maizel, M.; White, R.D.; Root, R. [and others]. 1998. Historical 

interrelationships between population settlement and 

farmland in the conterminous United States, 1790 to 1992. 

In: Sisk, T.D., ed. 1998. Perspectives on the land-use history 

of North America: a context for understanding our changing 

environment. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources 

Division, Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR 1998-0003 

(Revised September 1999). 104 p. Chapter 2.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 1997. Missouri watershed 

protection practice. 1997 management guidelines for 

maintaining forested watersheds to protect streams. Jefferson 

City, MO: Missouri Department of Conservation. 

Nigh, T. 1992. The forests prior to European settlement. In: 

Journet, A.R.P.; Spratt, H.G., Jr., eds. Toward a vision for 

Missouri’s public forests: a conference held on the campus of 

Southeast Missouri State University. Unnumbered publication. 

Cape Girardeau, MO: Department of Biology, Southeast 

Missouri State University: 6-12.

Palmer, B. 1991. Missouri forests—their history, values and 

management. Unnumbered publication. Jefferson City, MO: 

Missouri Department of Conservation. 24 p.

Schoolcraft, H.R. 1821. Journal of a tour into the Interior of 

Missouri and Arkansaw, from Potosi, or Mine a Burton, in 

Missouri territory, in a south-west direction, toward the Rocky 

Mountains, performed in the years 1818 and 1819. London: 

Richard Phillips and Co. 170 p.

Spetich, M.A.; Shifley, S.R.; Parker, G.R. 1999. Regional 

distribution and dynamics of coarse woody debris in 

Midwestern old-growth forests. Forest Science. 45(2): 302-

313.

Strausberg, S.; Hough, W.A. 1997. The Ouachita and Ozark-St. 

Francis National Forests: a history of the lands and U.S. Forest 

Service tenure. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-121. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 45 p.

U.S. Census Office. 1864. Eighth census of the United States in 

1860. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
9

ASSEMBLING A FOREST

Leo Drey purchased his first tract of Ozark timberland in eastern 

Shannon County near the Reynolds County line on March 8, 

1951, from Doc Jim Buford of Ellington. It was 1,407 acres of 

oak, much of it butt rotten, but it had some pine reproduction 

plus some larger pines, and there was not much grazing. There 

were no squatters or tenants, and theft was not bad. Buford 

wanted about $4 an acre. So said Drey’s notes, scratched in 

pencil on an envelope along with a sketch map of 80’s that 

were included or not. He had been impressed by the pines 

when he walked the tract with Buford on January 17, but, in 

retrospect, he decided he must have seen the same pines more 

than once that day.2

Drey was 34 years old, a 1939 graduate of Antioch College 

whose founder, Horace Mann, had entreated students, “Be 

ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.” 

The son of a St. Louis manufacturer of plate glass and canning 

jars—Drey Perfect Mason—he served 5 years in World War II and 

then as assistant to the treasurer of the Wohl Shoe Company 

before deciding to follow his calling to forest conservation. His 

father had died when Leo was a child, and the glass company 

was sold, so he had an inheritance with which to work (fig. 1).

The postwar years witnessed a turn to emphasis on private 

forest management after nearly half a century of preoccupation 

with the role of government in forest conservation. The U.S. 

Forest Service had been established in 1905, joining forestry 

programs previously established in a number of states, but 

Missouri was still in the throes of its greatest era of exploitative 

logging and would not see establishment of public forests 

until the depression years of the 1930s. The general assembly 

authorized acquisition of national forests in the early 1930s, and 

Missouri citizens, in 1936, approved a constitutional amendment 

for a new conservation commission with responsibility for 

MISSOURI’S PIONEER: A HALF CENTURY 

OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY

Susan L. Flader1

Abstract—Pioneer Forest, at some 150,000 acres Missouri’s largest private landholding, has been a lodestar of sustainability during 

more than half a century of dramatic oscillation in the goals and techniques of forest management nationwide. Initially intended by 

its owner, Leo Drey, to demonstrate the potential for developing a viable natural resource-based economy in the Missouri Ozarks, 

the forest, through Drey’s remarkably consistent vision and well-documented management by single-tree selection came, over 

time, to represent a workable alternative to even-aged management regimes being promulgated on federal and state forests as 

well as a model of sustainability for other private forest holdings. 

This historical analysis, based largely on original unpublished archival records, explores the history of the forest from its acquisition 

by Leo Drey beginning in 1951 to its donation to the L-A-D Foundation in 2004; it considers not only the development and 

management of the forest over more than a half-century of Leo Drey’s ownership but also its relationship to other public and 

private lands in Missouri and to related conservation efforts of Leo Drey, such as the preservation of natural streams and natural 

areas, in the context of the history of conservation in Missouri and the nation.

forests as well as for fish and wildlife, which had previously 

been overseen by a politically appointed game and fish 

commissioner. By then, most public officials nationwide had 

1

 Susan L. Flader, Professor, Department of History, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. 2

 This history is based largely on original unpublished correspondence, reports, and other records from the files of Leo Drey, Pioneer Forest, the L-A-D 

Foundation, other repositories, and on author interviews with various participants, as indicated at the beginning of the Literature Cited section. Only a few of 

the thousands of unpublished sources are separately listed in General References.

Figure 1—Leo A. Drey with an ancient white oak. (Courtesy of Leo Drey)

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry
10 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

given up on private land management, and a succession of 

New Deal reports and plans called for half the timberland in the 

country to enter public ownership; in Missouri, 8 million acres of 

public forests were proposed—7 million federal and 1 million in 

state forests—out of about 15 million acres of forest land (Flader 

2004). About 1.25 million acres of national forest and 125,000 

acres of state forest had been acquired when the pressure 

for public purchase abated, and acquisition funds dried up 

during and after World War II. In 1946, the legislature adopted 

a forward-looking State Forestry Act, which was intended to 

encourage the practice of forestry on private lands.

Leo Drey invested in Missouri timberland with his eyes open 

but also with a large measure of faith. Most Ozark timberland 

was badly cut over and had been further degraded by timber 

trespass and by frequent fires set by locals to encourage 

forage for their cattle and hogs still roaming wild under the 

longstanding tradition of open range. He had considered buying 

land in Florida or Tennessee but decided against it because land 

titles ran back to old Spanish grants that could be devilishly 

troublesome, whereas in the parts of Missouri in which he was 

interested the titles were tied to the original federal rectangular 

survey. Professional foresters and industry leaders with whom 

he had consulted—among them state foresters George White 

and Bill Towell, University of Missouri professor R.H. Westveld, 

forest manager Ed Woods of National Distillers Products 

Corporation, and John Mabry of the T.J. Moss Tie Company—told 

him he would need about 25,000 acres profitably to employ 

one forester. With a liberal arts and business background, he 

was determined to rely on professional advice, so he sought 

assistance in land locating and management from Lee Paulsell, 

who resigned from his position as forestry instructor at the 

university to work for him (fig. 2). With Paulsell’s help, Drey 

bought about 10,000 additional acres in 1951 and 7,000 in 

1952, mostly in Carter and Reynolds counties. Then, in 1953, 

he bought nearly 14,000 acres, including large purchases of 

9,099 and 2,812 acres from the Moss Tie Co. in Carter and Ripley 

counties. The Moss acquisitions would be warm-ups for the big 

opportunity to come.

Drey was taking a break from fighting fire on state land at Peck 

Ranch at about 3 a.m. one morning in the fall of 1953 when 

Charlie Kirk, a forester for National Distillers, flopped in the 

weeds beside him to say that the company was liquidating its 

Missouri timber—nearly 90,000 acres, much of it in a nearly 

contiguous block in northeastern Shannon County that was 

considered the largest tract of old-growth white oak in the 

United States—and then would sell its land. Knowing that Drey 

had been buying up timberland, Kirk undoubtedly hoped that he 

would come to the rescue of the Distillers’ tract. And Drey did 

not disappoint. He began an intense negotiation at corporate 

headquarters in New York City, in his own “hole-in-the-wall 

office” in St. Louis, and out on the land that ended on June 1, 

1954, after more than 6 months of hard bargaining, with the 

purchase of 89,906 acres.

Much of the new acreage had been assembled over the course 

of 40 years by the Pioneer Cooperage Company of St. Louis, 

which was interested in oak for barrel staves. Pioneer had in 

turn sold to the Millman Lumber Company in 1937 the right to 

cut its yellow pine timber totaling about 60 million board feet, 

an operation that required some 11 years (Millman c. 1981). 

In 1940, Pioneer sold a 400-foot-wide strip of old growth pine 

along Highway 19 south of Round Spring to the state highway 

department for motorists to enjoy (warranty deed, PF). At about 

the same time, the firm asked the U.S. Forest Service to study 

the potential for operating its acreage as a business venture 

with good forestry practice (Anon. c. 1940). The findings were 

not encouraging; nearly two-thirds of the land was completely 

cut over and half of the remainder partly cut over, with the trees 

below average in thrift and a large quantity overmature. The 

forest was “decidedly understocked” with a shortage of “woodmaking machines,” said the report, the result of repeated 

fires having destroyed the young material and a small though 

exasperating amount of timber theft. “As a result, production 

suffers, and the factory may operate in the red.” Nevertheless, 

much of the white oak in the old growth or partly cut stands 

was of medium or higher quality and vigor, and the climate and 

soils were relatively good. Instead of the current clearcutting, 

the report recommended hiring an experienced professional 

forester and staff to inventory, classify, and post the lands, 

develop management policy, and mark timber for “the business 

man’s cut,” or selection cutting of about 30 percent of the 

lowest quality and at-risk trees in order to allow better growth 

in the residual stand.

In 1945, Pioneer Cooperage decided to hire a professional 

forester, securing the services of Ed Woods, a forestry graduate 

of Washington State University who had come to Missouri with 

the U.S. Forest Service in 1933, and then local surveyor Paul 

Faulkenberry and M.G. “Gus” Hoyer from the Iowa Forest School. 

Woods advocated better forest management practices, and he 

was soon put in charge of production. On his recommendation 

the firm contracted with Millman to allow Pioneer to mark and 

reserve up to 200,000 board feet of mature yellow pine seed 

trees on the yet uncut pine acreage—eventually amounting to 

1,076 trees on 3,200 acres—to provide for natural reproduction 

(PF corres. 1955, tract notes). The pathbreaking reservation of 

Figure 2—Lee Paulsell, Leo Drey’s first forester. (Courtesy of 

Pioneer Forest)
11

seed trees in what was regarded as the only substantial tract 

of virgin pine left in the state created widespread interest, 

resulting in a request from Charles Callison of the Missouri 

Conservationist to publicize the effort—a cause of consternation 

to company officials who regarded their long-range 

management policies as still unsettled. To Woods’s dismay, 

company officials caved in to Millman’s complaints about underscaling by letting Millman cut the 65 largest pines from the list 

of those reserved (PF corres. 1946).

In July 1946, control of Pioneer Cooperage was sold to the 

National Distillers Products Corporation of New York, and its 

business reorganized as the Pioneer Cooperage Division, with 

most of its staff intact. The focus of cutting thereupon shifted 

from red oak to white oak cooperage for whiskey barrels. In 

the next 2 years, the firm cut some 6 million board feet of 

white oak, a rate far in excess of growth; but Ed Woods and his 

staff persuaded cooperage department head Leonard Steidel 

of the wisdom of selective cutting, taking the timber that 

was overmature or at risk with a goal of improving the stand 

(NDPC 1948, Woods 1965). During the same period, the firm 

abandoned plans for four of six intended stave mills, and, in 

1948, added another professional forester, Charles Kirk, formerly 

with the U.S. Forest Service in Minnesota and then one of the 

original foresters for the Missouri Conservation Commission, 

now called the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), to 

complete an inventory of the forest. Woods also won approval 

from Steidel and other corporate officials for designation of the 

Pioneer tract as Missouri’s first official tree farm under a national 

program sponsored by American Forest Products Industries, and 

Arthur Meyer, chairman of the Missouri committee overseeing 

the program, wrote a laudatory history of Pioneer as a model of 

forest management (Meyer 1949). Missouri Tree Farm Number 

One was dedicated in September 1949 before close to 100 

people, including some 70 professional foresters from Missouri 

and other states (PF).

As Ed Woods and his staff continued their cutting and began an 

ambitious program of tree planting for regeneration of pine and 

hardwoods on old fields and other vacant acreage, Woods also 

continued to work with Steidel to make the case to corporate 

officials for continued conservative management of the forest 

(fig. 3). In spring 1951, the firm renamed the Pioneer tract 

the Seton Porter Forest, after a former conservation-minded 

chairman of the board. In July, H.H. Chapman, Yale professor 

emeritus and one of the most influential foresters in America, 

accepted an invitation to examine the practicability of managing 

the forest for a continuous yield of white oak and other 

products (fig. 4). After traveling 1,500 miles by jeep and on foot 

through the forest, he pronounced the white oak reproduction 

“nothing short of spectacular,” though fire control remained 

the most urgent problem; he recommended guidelines for 

selective harvest, silvicultural improvement, and establishment 

of permanent sample plots to track future growth (Chapman 

1951). The firm began a continuous forest inventory in 1952, 

and it advertised its conservation consciousness and the whiteoak-enhanced quality of its whiskies in the Wall Street Journal 

and other national publications: “90,000 Acres of Natural Beauty 

. . . and Barrel Staves, Too!” (fig. 5).

In March 1953, the chairman of the Society of American 

Foresters Committee on Natural Areas, John Shanklin, asked 

the firm to consider setting aside a tract of old growth white 

oak in the Current River Hills as a virgin-type association for 

white oak under a natural areas program SAF had established in 

1947 (Shanklin 1953). In November, the forestry staff and five 

SAF members from Missouri selected a 10-acre plot in an area 

previously identified by Dr. Julian Steyermark of the Missouri 

Botanical Garden and began negotiations for the release of 

cutting rights (LD). In his enthusiasm for more conservative 

management of the forest, Woods even asked the Missouri 

Conservation Department to reintroduce beavers into the wild 

backcountry block in Shannon County (PF).

Figure 3—Ed Woods and radio operator with a map of Seton Porter 

Forest. (Courtesy of Pioneer Forest)

Figure 4—H.H. Chapman and Ed Woods in Salem headquarters, July 1951. 

(Courtesy of Pioneer Forest)

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry
12 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

But Steidel died unexpectedly and was replaced by an 

accountant, after which Distillers decided to liquidate the book 

value of its white oak, apparently for tax reasons; officials told 

Woods to cut 19 million board feet, including all trees over 

12 to 14 inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), within 

3 years (LD, Woods 1965). Woods challenged the plan as “a 

cutting program not a forestry program” (Woods 1953) and 

alerted H.H. Chapman, who replied, “Damn all accountants!” 

(Chapman 1953). Probably because of the ongoing natural area 

negotiations and Distillers’ advertising campaign touting its 

model forest, the destructive cutting resulted in considerable 

furor in professional circles in Missouri and beyond, including 

letters to corporate headquarters and a sharply critical editorial, 

“Not as Claimed,” in Nature Magazine (1955). After castigating 

the “butchering” of the virgin white oak, the editorial noted that 

Distillers had sold off the forest, apparently to distance itself 

from the furor. The editorial did not say to whom the forest had 

been sold, implying that it was a lost cause in any case.

The buyer, of course, was Leo Drey. In his negotiations with 

Distillers, Drey was determined to salvage as much as possible 

of the integrity of the forest despite the ongoing liquidation. 

He sought at first to purchase the entire forest intact, with an 

agreement to supply Distillers with 18 million feet of cooperage 

stock over a period of 9 years, but the firm insisted on retaining 

the right to cut all remaining white oak (LD). The best he could 

do was to limit the cutting to trees over 15 inches in d.b.h. and 

to reserve 300,000 board feet in large trees of his own choosing 

(fig. 6). He selected several stands of white oak, including some 

in the vicinity of the 300-year-old trees already under discussion 

with SAF, and within a year, following conveyances by both Drey 

and Distillers, the 10-acre Current River Natural Area would be 

dedicated as the first official natural area in Missouri (Shanklin 

1955).3

 Drey also bargained for the equipment and the 

headquarters building in Salem and retained five of the forestry 

staff—Ed Woods, Charlie Kirk, Russel Noah, Rayborn Skaggs, 

and Paul Corder. Just as the negotiations were concluding, Drey 

would later recall, Distillers added another request—to reserve 

a one-half interest in any minerals that might be found. After 

checking with a geologist and hearing no intimation of any 

minerals of value, he agreed to the provision.

3 In May 2005, the L-A-D Foundation, Pioneer Forest and representatives of the Missouri Natural Areas Committee and the Society of American Foresters would 

celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first natural area in Missouri by dedicating an additional 255 acres for an expanded Current River Natural Area equal in 

quality to the original 10-acre tract (Drees and others 2005).

Figure 6—Large white oaks on Pioneer Forest, early 1950s. (Courtesy of 

Pioneer Forest)

Figure 5—National Distillers advertisement in the Wall Street Journal, 

1953. (Courtesy of Leo Drey)
13

As of June 1, 1954, Drey had nearly 123,000 acres that he 

renamed Pioneer Forest out of respect for its history and in 

anticipation of his intent to pioneer in private land management 

in the Ozarks (Drey 1963). The land had cost him an average 

of $4.12 an acre, he calculated; the cost was a measure of the 

limited economic potential for forest land in the Ozarks at the 

time. To manage the operation he had a team of five headed 

by Woods as general manager and Kirk as forester, Lee Paulsell 

having left to take over the University Forest near Poplar Bluff 

shortly before Drey had begun negotiating for the Distillers’ 

tract.

In an article some years later, Ed Woods (1965) would be able 

to cite a long list of pioneering “firsts” for the forest—”the first 

private forest to undertake the job of maintaining itself solely by 

the sale of stumpage [standing timber] from its lands,” the first 

to adopt the International Log Rule in its sales and also in the 

cruising of its own timber, the first in Missouri with its own radio 

frequency, the first to adopt the mechanical tree planter, chain 

saws, four-wheel drive vehicles, crawler tractors, and 6 by 6 

army trucks in the rugged terrain of the Ozarks. Most important, 

it pioneered in what Woods called “the unceasing job of timber 

stand improvement,” tracked and documented by a system 

of sample plots covering its entire acreage. And it pioneered 

in maintaining about 20 active timber sales per year, which in 

turn maintained about 100 families and their communities. It 

also opened its lands to public recreation and designated some 

tracts as samples of uncut old growth. “I could cut out and get 

back the purchase price of the land,” Drey told a reporter for 

the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Leeman 1956). “The challenge is 

whether I can spend money on it at the present rate and come 

out successfully.”

The early years of the new Pioneer Forest were a struggle. It 

could not have been easy for Drey or his foresters to witness 

the cutting of nearly 12 million board feet of white oak worth 

an estimated $1 million by National Distillers in 1954 alone, 

and the heavy cutting would continue. Hints of Ed Woods’s 

angst may be found here and there in notes on his tract records: 

“butchered for bolts by NDPC contractors,” or “National Distillers 

crew slobbered around over the section trying to cut the bolts 

but only got the easy ones” (PF). Early in 1955, H.H. Chapman 

wrote to Richard H. Pough of the American Museum of Natural 

History that his recommendations for the management of the 

forest had been “totally ignored and violated.” He went on to 

charge, “The practices now pursued in this supposed ‘Tree Farm’ 

are . . . grossly and criminally wasteful of the material in the 

trees cut, in every possible respect, so that it can be truthfully 

stated that nowhere even in the heyday of destructive logging 

practices was there a worse example of wood butchery than is 

now taking place in the Seton Porter Forest” (Chapman 1955, 

LD). It was no longer National Distillers’ Seton Porter Forest, 

however, but Leo Drey’s Pioneer Forest, and Drey had a more 

durable set of values.

PIONEER IN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 1955–1976

Ever the idealist, Leo Drey was probably more dedicated to 

pioneering a course of regional development for the benighted 

Ozarks than he was in turning a personal profit. His vision for 

the future of the region was not essentially different than that 

of many Ozarkers in that it built on the woods, waters, and 

wildlife that had always sustained the area. But, at a time of 

postwar change nationwide and in Missouri, the means Drey 

would favor to secure that future would sometimes risk conflict 

with his new neighbors.

The heavy-handed harvesting by contractors for National 

Distillers coincided with a period of major drought and fires 

that resulted in the loss of yet another 12 million board feet of 

timber to natural causes. To make matters worse, the Shannon 

County tax assessor greatly overvalued the land, in Drey’s view, 

leading Drey to enter a protracted and widely reported legal 

dispute with the county. Drey had entered some of his holdings 

under the state’s Forest Crop Program, by which landowners 

were allowed to defer part of their annual taxes while timber 

was regenerating in exchange for following management 

guidelines and paying a yield tax when the timber was 

harvested; but, he had not done so in Shannon County, where 

his holdings amounted to nearly 20 percent of the county’s 

taxable land. He believed in supporting the local economy, 

but he was willing to fight for the principle of fair and equal 

taxation.

When the assessor in 1955 valued Drey’s 87,414 acres in 

Shannon County at $376,655—more than the $360,692 he had 

paid for it—Drey succeeded in winning an order from a circuit 

judge in Clayton, in St. Louis County, reducing the assessment 

to $108,207, based on the usual assessment at 30 percent of 

fair market value (SLPD 1956). But Shannon County continued 

to assess the land at nearly $5 an acre, arguing that it was 

worth $15-20, and the State Tax Commission of Missouri and 

another circuit judge supported the county (Leeman 1960). 

When a case involving taxes due for 1957-1959 was heard by 

the Missouri Supreme Court in 1961, the court sent it back to 

the tax commission, asking it to investigate whether there was 

an intent to discriminate against Drey since it was obvious that 

property in the county was not being assessed uniformly (SLPD 

1961). Drey and the county agreed in July 1962 to a compromise 

worked out by the tax commission whereby Drey paid about 

$52,000 plus penalties and interest for 5 years of back taxes, 

down from about $78,000, and the land would be assessed at 

an average of $4.50 an acre. Both sides expressed satisfaction, 

with Drey explaining that the long litigation had “established 

the important principle that timberland should be treated 

the same as any other property in assessments” (CW 1962). 

The reality, of course, is that Drey drove a hard bargain in his 

purchase of timberlands and his sound management constantly 

increased their value.

The protracted and highly public dispute with Shannon County 

was an irritant in Drey’s effort to establish Pioneer Forest as a 

good corporate citizen of the Ozarks, but it did not prevent him 

from undertaking other initiatives during those years to advance 

his vision of sound private forest management. In addition to 

fighting for the principle of equitable taxation, he decided to 

extend the inventory system established by National Distillers 

to his entire holdings in order to track improvements in timber 

stands. He also led an effort through a new Missouri 

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry
14 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Forest Industries Committee to increase public awareness of 

the problems of fire and open-range grazing and the promise 

of forest conservation, chairing a major conference on Missouri 

forest resources in 1958. He cooperated with The Nature 

Conservancy and other groups to promote the concept of wild, 

free-flowing rivers protected by national legislation, beginning 

with the Current River that flowed through some 35 miles of 

his holdings. In each effort, his stance was that of a private 

landowner advancing programs and policies favorable to sound 

private forest management and regional development.

From the start, Drey was determined to measure and 

demonstrate the effectiveness of his management through 

a continuous forest inventory (CFI). The U.S. Forest Service, 

under authorization from the McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928, 

had completed its first intensive survey of Missouri forest 

resources in the late 1940s (King and others 1949). Following 

H.H. Chapman’s recommendation, Woods and Kirk, in 1952, 

had sought assistance from Calvin B. Stott, who had begun 

developing CFI methodology for the U.S. Forest Service in the 

1930s (Stott 1968), to mark out a system of 1/5-acre circular 

survey plots in order to maintain an inventory of volume, 

growth, harvest, and mortality on National Distillers’ holdings. 

In 1957, Drey and his managers resolved to repeat the inventory 

every 5 years on the entire holdings of Pioneer Forest, with 

sample plots to represent each 320 acres. Stott helped them 

set up a complex, 152-step system to track some 12,000 

individual trees, using IBM punch cards that could be processed 

in a new “mechanical brain” (SLPD 1957) at the Ford Forestry 

Center in L’Anse, MI (fig. 7). The Pioneer inventory was a more 

comprehensive and intensive system than that of the U.S. 

Forest Service in that it would track each individual tree over 

5 inches in d.b.h. on the same plots every 5 years, whereas 

the service inventories would be more sporadic (1947, 1959, 

1972, 1989) and more schematic, utilizing a much less dense 

system of ground plots that varied from survey to survey. The 

Pioneer Forest inventory, conducted religiously every 5 years at 

considerable expense, would become the longest continuous 

forest inventory in the central hardwood region, and it would 

gain increased credibility and value with the years (fig. 8).

Drey began working with other private timberland owners and 

wood-processing industries in 1955 to form a Missouri Forest 

Industries Committee affiliated with American Forest Products 

Industries, Inc. (AFPI), an educational and public relations 

organization spun off from the National Lumber Manufacturers 

Association that coordinated the American Tree Farm System 

and sought to increase public awareness of the need for forest 

fire prevention. As the owner of the first officially designated 

tree farm in Missouri, constituting the bulk of the 141,000 acres 

in the state system at the time, Drey was the natural choice 

for chairman. He hosted the committee at his headquarters in 

Salem and at a barbecue at Randolph Hole on the bank of the 

Current River chronicled by St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist 

Leonard Hall (1956). The new committee ran a “Keep Missouri 

Green” campaign and worked through schools to “preach the 

gospel of forest conservation” (DP 10-12-55). AFPI claimed 

credit nationally in the 1950s for a 90-percent reduction in the 

Figure 7—Ed Woods and Charlie Kirk (left) view a blackboard schematic 

of the continuous forest inventory system for Pioneer Forest developed 

by Cal Stott (right) in April 1957. (Courtesy of Pioneer Forest)

Figure 8—The 1957 inventory following National Distillers’ heavy harvest 

indicated there were fewer than 1200 board feet per acre on Pioneer 

Forest. (Courtesy of Pioneer Forest)
15

incidence of forest fire, though in Missouri the credit for an 

even more dramatic reduction by that time was attributable 

largely to the efforts of the forestry division of the new Missouri 

Conservation Commission.

Under Drey’s energetic leadership, the Missouri Forest 

Industries Committee in 1957 began planning for a statewide 

fire conference, its focus later broadened to forest resources 

more generally, including wildlife, water, and recreational as 

well as industrial potential (DP f8-37). They cast a wide net in 

their organizing, endeavoring to engage not only landowners, 

businesses, and forestry groups but youth groups (scouts, 

4-H, Future Farmers of America), conservation organizations 

(Audubon, Conservation Federation, Izaak Walton League, Nature 

Conservancy), recreational interests, women’s and men’s clubs, 

social and educational organizations, federal and state agencies, 

and the media. It was the first major forestry conference in 

Missouri. Held October 18, 1958, in Jesse Hall Auditorium on 

the University of Missouri Campus, it featured a headline array 

of speakers, including the governor and attorney general, a 

U.S. senator, and federal and state forestry officials. A business 

leader from Chicago talked about the outlook for an Ozark 

pulp and paper industry; the outlook was good, he said, but 

dependent on an adequate supply of wood from small private 

owners. Leonard Hall addressed the scourge of open range 

grazing, which would not finally be terminated statewide by law 

until 1967, despite years of dogged campaigning by Spencer 

Jones, Drey, Hall and other conservationists. In his own speech, 

Leo Drey encouraged landowners and policymakers to “convert 

lazy acres into busy acres” through sound forest management 

(Drey 1958).

If there was a subtext for the conference beyond raising public 

support for forest conservation, it was to build political support 

for protection of the Current and Eleven Point rivers as national 

rivers in order to defeat proposed dams and reservoirs. Senator 

Stuart Symington, undoubtedly with prior encouragement, 

called for “thoughtful attention” to the proposal; other speakers 

commented favorably, and it was reportedly a topic of discussion 

during breaks (DP f11, Drey to Idol f28, f36, f231). Leonard 

Hall’s book about the Current River, Stars Upstream, had just 

appeared with its argument for a free-flowing stream. Within 

a few years, Drey and Hall would be pitted against each other 

with competing proposals for how to protect the rivers, but, in 

1958, they and most others at the conference were united in 

their desire to protect the streams from dams by some sort of 

national designation.

Dams on the Current and Eleven Point had been among dozens 

authorized in Missouri in the 1930s. Two dams at Blair Creek and 

Doniphan on the Current, proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers in the 1940s, had been beaten back by an unusually 

strong coalition of local and statewide interests, both public and 

private, but, in the early 1950s, the dam proposals resurfaced in 

the course of further flood-control studies. Blair Creek was the 

major drainage of the National Distillers’ holdings purchased by 

Leo Drey, who now owned nearly 35 miles of frontage along the 

Current River in the vicinity of the proposed dam. Drey had been 

an avid floater of Ozark streams even before he owned land 

there, so he was supportive of efforts to forestall the dams and 

preserve the rivers by developing the recreational resources of 

the region, as proposed in a National Park Service led, federalstate cooperative plan issued in 1956 (MDRD 1956), but he had 

some misgivings about the extent of public ownership and the 

scope of mass recreation development focused on the narrow 

river corridor in subsequent National Park Service proposals 

(fig. 9).

As a bandwagon for National Park Service development of 

the rivers gained steam, Drey began meeting with the Ozark 

Committee of the Nature Conservancy and other Ozarkers to 

shape an alternative proposal more sensitive to the concerns 

of local residents who wanted more sustained economic 

development and less interference with their way of life. They 

formed a Current-Eleven Point Rivers Association that sought to 

forge a consensus among a wide array of local groups around a 

multiple-use program that would emphasize forestry and woodusing industries, locally controlled watershed conservancies, and 

small impoundment recreational areas (f 1, 231). In a lengthy 

1959 letter to Governor James T. Blair, Jr., (f 172), Drey made 

the case for comprehensive planning for “the wise, harmonious 

development of the two great natural assets of the Ozarks—the 

region’s forested watersheds and their running rivers,” with 

full local participation. He advised only limited additional public 

land acquisition—without resort to eminent domain—and more 

creative use of individually negotiated scenic easements tailored 

to the natural values, land uses, and appropriate recreation 

patterns along particular stretches of rivers or highways 

and near springs, caves, and other natural features. He also 

advocated safeguarding the unique wild values of the rivers by 

dispersing recreation to the extensive woodlands of the region; 

this could be accomplished by developing hiking, riding, and 

jeep trails, small impoundments and scenic overlooks—not 

only on public lands “but on private as well if the owners are 

agreeable.” Surely the owner of Pioneer Forest was agreeable, 

so long as his forestry operations could continue (fig. 10).

Figure 9—Leo Drey owned 35 miles of frontage along the Current and 

Jack’s Fork Rivers. Left to right: Leo Drey, Ed Woods, and Charlie Kirk. 

(Courtesy of Pioneer Forest)

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry
16 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

In his effort to find an alternative to the National Park Service 

and encourage more extensive planning for economic 

development in the region, Drey engaged in intense 

correspondence with Sigurd Olson of Ely, Minnesota, ecologist 

Robert McDermott of Pennsylvania State University, economist 

Mason Gaffney of the University of Missouri, forest consultant 

August Beilmann, and many others, most of whom sought 

gently to temper Drey’s optimism about the willingness of 

Ozarkers to accept the sort of comprehensive planning he 

envisioned (DP f 199, 204, 226, 232). With little support 

for regional planning, Drey and his colleagues developed a 

proposal for management of the rivers by the U.S. Forest Service 

that incorporated their notion of scenic easements, dispersed 

recreation and other aspects of multiple use management, 

including continued timber production and mining (Drey 

1960). By 1961, there were two contending bills in Congress, a 

measure providing for a National Park Service-managed Ozark 

Rivers National Monument introduced by Congressman Richard 

Ichord in the House and Senators Stuart Symington and Edward 

Long in the Senate, all Democrats, and a bill drafted by Drey 

and St. Louis attorney Davis Biggs to establish a U.S. Forest 

Service-managed Ozark Scenic Riverways, introduced by St. 

Louis Congressman Thomas Curtis, a Republican (Stevens 1997; 

see also Senate 1961, 58-80). Though neither bill made it out 

of committee, the contest opened a rift between Leo Drey and 

his friend Leonard Hall, who supported the National Park Service 

bill.

The election of 1960, which brought the Kennedy Administration 

to office, had made a victory for Drey’s alternative considerably 

less likely, introduced as it was by a Republican. Secretary of 

the Interior Stewart Udall, who floated the Current with Ichord, 

Hall, and National Park Service officials in September 1961, 

became an advocate for National Park Service management and 

won President Kennedy’s endorsement, effectively defusing 

the objections of the U.S. Forest Service, the major landholder 

Figure 10—Pioneer Forest (tree crowns) in relationship to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (diagonals within corridors), Missouri Conservation Department 

land (cross-hatch), and national forests (shaded). Source: Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (Stokes 1976).
17

in the region (Sarvis 2002, 47). Even the Missouri Conservation 

Commission agreed to endorse the National Park Service bill 

after negotiating assurances that their land would not be taken 

without their consent and that hunting would be allowed along 

the rivers, prompting charges from Drey that they were thereby 

undermining the future of forestry and markets for forest 

products in the region (DP f 227).

By 1962, it was clear that Missouri would be a proving ground 

for a new concept of national rivers advocated in the report of 

the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (1962). 

At Senate field hearings in June 1962 at Big Spring State Park, 

Drey forcefully argued for preservation of the quality rather than 

quantity of the recreational experience along the riverways 

by developing economic incentives for management of their 

forested watersheds along conservation lines. Using diagrams 

drawn by his sister-in-law (fig.11), he charged that the National 

Park Service proposal, though seemingly—when viewed from 

“celestial heights”—aimed at regional development through 

preservation of the rivers, would actually—when viewed from 

a proper perspective with one’s feet on the ground—overshoot 

preservation and fall short of development by its emphasis 

on mass recreation (DP f 177). Several months later, Drey 

circulated his own proposal for a system of national riverways, 

explaining that many more rivers could remain wild and 

natural if they were secured through conservation easements 

to restrict development in riparian corridors, rather than 

through government ownership; the easements could be held 

by whatever agency—federal, state, or private—was most 

appropriate for the particular river, whatever agency was best 

able to encourage and demonstrate proper management and 

productive use of timbered watersheds by private owners 

(House 1963, 65-67; DP f 232). Along the Current and Eleven 

Point, that would be the U.S. Forest Service. 

Though Ozark voters in the November 1962 elections favored 

local candidates opposed to the National Park Service approach, 

most of the significant political players at the national level 

supported a considerably revised National Park Service measure 

in the 1963 Congress. The new bill removed the entire Eleven 

Point River and the Ripley County portion of the lower Current, a 

region of significant national forest ownership, good farm land, 

and strong local opposition to the National Park Service; on the 

remaining land it provided for easements as well as outright 

acquisition, the easements intended, perhaps, as a sop to Drey, 

and it contained language satisfactory to the MDC providing for 

hunting, fishing, and retention of their lands.

In a last ditch effort to forestall passage, Drey and 41 other 

riverway landowners signed “letters of intent” by which they 

would offer voluntary scenic easements to the state, not to the 

federal government, and Drey himself toyed with the idea of 

donating a recreation easement of some 50,000 acres to the 

state as a Current River Remote Area (Senate 1963, 74, 84-85; 

DP f 232). Knowing that National Park Service officials were

Figure 11—Park Service proposal overshooting preservation and falling short of development, as sketched by Leo 

Drey’s sister-in-law. (Courtesy of Leo Drey)

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry
18 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

distrustful of easements, he also worked with his foresters, 

Ed Woods and Charlie Kirk, on a statement on the “possible 

effects on Pioneer Forest of the loss of approximately 10 percent 

of its present area” (DP f 177). The 13,000 acres of Pioneer 

lands within the proposed boundaries held some of the finest 

standing timber on the richest, deepest soil, according to the 

statement. Moreover, some 30 of the 400 permanent sample 

plots in Pioneer’s continuous forest inventory would be lost, 

including nearly all of the fast-growing bottomland hardwoods 

type, potentially invalidating the comparative value of the 

inventory. And Pioneer’s heavy investment in timber stand 

improvement would be interrupted before its benefits could be 

realized either by the firm or by the local economy. But there 

is no evidence Drey ever circulated the statement or spoke in 

public hearings about his own potential personal losses.

The bill for National Park Service administration of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways passed Congress in August 1964 and 

was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on August 27, 

thereby establishing the country’s first national river. By that 

time, the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture had already 

appointed a study team to establish criteria and suggest rivers 

for a national system of wild rivers. Four years later, Congress 

followed through with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act which, 

much as Leo Drey had suggested, provided for administration by 

whichever federal agency was most appropriate in the region. 

Missouri’s Eleven Point was included among the first nine rivers 

designated, and it was placed under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

Forest Service. 

In the immediate aftermath of enactment of the National Park 

Service bill, Drey was understandably upset, even shell-shocked, 

about the divisiveness within the conservation community and 

the beating he himself had taken. In a letter to MDC Director 

William Towell intended to mend badly frayed personal 

relations, he even suggested, “I’m no longer sure that I know 

what conservation means, or that there is any longer a place for 

me in the pic[t]ure. . . . If the emphasis is to be on recreation 

throughout the region, there is no point in pouring money into 

the sort of intensive forestry we’ve been practising[sic] because 

it won’t pay off. Mind you, I’m not saying I won’t make money 

out of our land, because I will, one way or another. I’m only 

saying it can no longer be taken for granted that forestry should 

be, can be, or will be practiced by private landowners in the 

Ozarks.” After adding that he was even thinking of devoting 

his efforts to other interests such as education and health 

rather than conservation, he pulled back a bit: “I haven’t quite 

decided to pick up my marbles and quit, but I’m giving it serious 

consideration because it seems that the basic premise on which 

I’ve been operating in the Ozarks—that the timber should be 

developed and the rivers preserved—is about to be reversed” 

(DP f 227).

But even as he expressed his dismay and seeming 

uncertainty about his own future in conservation, Drey, with 

his characteristic idealism, had been engaged in educating 

gubernatorial candidates about Missouri’s conservation 

needs—especially a statewide system of scenic rivers (DP f227). 

The winner of the 1964 contest, Warren Hearnes, appointed 

a Governor’s Wild Rivers Advisory Committee that included 

Drey and other members he had suggested. Drey immediately 

offered a list of 19 rivers for the committee to study and, 

months later, suggested draft language for a state wild rivers bill 

that emphasized protection of streams by scenic easements (DP 

f 152, 167, 170, 164). 

After 4 years of meetings and failed legislative efforts, a 

coalition of urban environmentalists in 1970 launched an 

initiative petition campaign aimed at voter enactment of a 

state system of scenic rivers by simple zoning of some 850 

miles along 20 Ozark streams against further development 

(Adams 1970). The initiative campaign put Drey on the spot, 

as he was then president of the Coalition for the Environment, 

a St. Louis umbrella organization he had helped found in 

1969 whose board agreed to endorse the initiative, whereas 

Drey himself had long been committed to working with local 

landowners in the Ozarks and protecting their rights. Now urban 

environmentalists were urging him to jump into the campaign 

to put it over, on the grounds that no bill could satisfy the more 

recalcitrant Ozarkers (DP f 155). But sober second thoughts 

following the bombing of a campaign leader’s car led finally 

to abandonment of the initiative; and, after a thousand angry 

landowners packed a hearing on yet another attempt at a 

legislative bill, the scenic rivers measure was dead (Wolf 1971).

In retrospect, it is likely that condemnation of lands and other 

management problems of the National Park Service along the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways in its early years helped to 

fuel landowner opposition to the state scenic rivers bill (Sarvis 

2000). Drey himself was disturbed that the National Park 

Service was using easements opposite the way he thought 

appropriate, offering perpetual easements for lands with cabins 

and other nonconforming developments that should have been 

condemned, or, at most, granted life tenure, but buying out 

farmers by insisting on public right of access to easements, 

which in practice forced most farmers to sell or be condemned. 

On his own Pioneer Forest, while Drey preferred to offer 

easements, the National Park Service insisted on condemning 

his most valuable land near Round Spring State Park, for which 

he received $100 an acre, and trading interior lands formerly 

owned by other condemned landowners to him for some of his 

other riverine lands. He was able to retain only 961 acres along 

the river under easement (DP f 149, 157). Meanwhile, public 

use of the rivers, including motorized equipment, burgeoned out 

of control, so much so that by 1973 even Leonard Hall, glossing 

over his own role in the conflict, bemoaned the overemphasis 

on recreation: “Thus the Riverways, except as an area for mass 

boating, is failing its purpose to preserve the stream, its fauna 

and flora, and its scenery in their natural condition.”

In spite of his misgivings about the National Park Service, Drey 

began discussions as early as 1965 with the regional director of 

the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, a sister agency established 

in 1962, regarding ways in which the recreational opportunities 

on Pioneer Forest might be coordinated with those of the 

riverways, the national forests, and state agencies to better 

serve the public (DP f 523). Drey had not given up his dream 

of more dispersed recreation in the region—focused on trails, 
19

primitive camping, and related activities back from the rivers—

and he was willing to cooperate by making his land available, 

especially on the big block east of Current River near Round 

Spring. Perhaps owing to bureaucratic rivalries and the desire 

of the National Park Service to get its feet on the ground in 

the riverways before branching out, a BOR study was put off 

until 1974, when recreation planner Gerald Stokes prepared a 

broad—some thought even grandiose—range of proposals for 

development of recreation on Pioneer Forest (DP f 512).

When Stokes subsequently reported that National Park Service 

officials were not interested in participating in recreation 

management on Pioneer Forest, viewing their responsibility as 

confined solely to the river corridor, Drey contracted with the 

Coalition for the Environment in St. Louis, MO for yet another 

study that would help in assessing priorities for recreational 

development in light of federal and state agency attitudes 

(DP f 513). From the two recreation studies (Stokes 1976, 

Bedan and Goetz 1976), and especially from the mapping of 

Pioneer lands in juxtaposition with public lands, grew plans 

for an Ozark Trail extending from St. Louis, MO to Arkansas, a 

proposal enthusiastically supported by staff in Missouri’s newly 

established Department of Natural Resources (DP f 523-25). 

The first segment of this trail to be completed, with help from 

Sierra Club volunteers, traversed Pioneer Forest for nearly 

13 miles along Blair Creek (fig. 12), providing a critical link 

between the Mark Twain National Forest to the north and the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways to the south (Creighton 1979).

THE PIONEER SYSTEM OF FOREST MANAGEMENT, 

ca. 1970

During all the turmoil over the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways, the proposed state scenic rivers bill, and the 

Pioneer Forest recreational studies, forest management 

activities continued on Pioneer very much as they had from 

the start (fig. 13). At nearly 150,000 acres by 1970, the forest 

was still operated by five foresters and technicians—the same 

five who had transferred to Drey from National Distillers—

though a sixth would soon be added in anticipation of the 

retirement of Ed Woods, who had suffered a series of strokes. 

Three of the staff were assigned to supervise districts at 

some distance from the Salem headquarters—Russ Noah at 

Eminence in Shannon County, Rayborn Skaggs at Bunker on 

the Reynolds-Dent county line, and Paul Corder at Ellington in 

Reynolds County—while Woods and Kirk handled the Salem 

district and other administrative and supervisory matters (SLPD 

1962, Merritt 1962).

In each district, foresters monitored the forest, marked 

boundaries, marked and scaled trees for timber sales, and 

supervised sales, visiting each active sale at least once a week 

to ensure that the harvest, skidding, and transport of trees were 

not causing unnecessary damage. Sales were put out on bid to 

local sawmills or loggers, and staff made an effort to schedule 

sales fairly evenly in the areas worked by certain loggers and 

mills so as to help keep them in business. They generally 

marked trees only about a week in advance of harvest, placing 

paint both at breast height and at the base of the stump, so 

they could check regularly to make sure the proper trees were 

being cut. And they asked loggers to harvest from the bottom of 

the slope toward the top, using marked trees as fulcrums for the 

skidding cables, so as not to damage trees intended to remain. 

In those years there were 10 to 15 active timber sales on the 

forest, each harvesting about 40 percent of the standing volume 

for a total harvest of about 1 to 3 percent of standing volume on 

the forest as a whole (Iffrig and others 2004).

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry

Figure 12—The route of the Ozark Trail through Pioneer Forest, 

connecting the Mark Twain National Forest with the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways, from a 1980 Pioneer Forest brochure. (Courtesy of 

Pioneer Forest)
20 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

In the early years of their single-tree selection system, there 

was a good deal of trial and error experimentation in the 

marking of timber and scheduling of sales. Woods and Kirk 

apparently intended to return to each unit approximately every 

12 years, but, by 1970, they were beginning to realize that 

once every 20 years was more realistic. In the beginning, they 

removed a large amount of rotten or deformed material, as 

relatively few trees were fully mature and ready for harvest. In 

marking trees for removal, they had to be cognizant of slope 

and soil conditions and the desirability of creating sufficient 

space and light to favor young reproduction of desired species 

as well as continued growth of the best specimens in a range 

of species and size classes. But, in truth, there was little to 

go on except observation and instinct. Despite the fact that 

selection cutting had been standard procedure in the U.S. Forest 

Service for decades, and both Woods and Kirk, as well as Noah, 

had experience with it elsewhere in the country, there had 

been little work on the rotation for oak-hickory in Missouri and 

virtually no long-term research.

The paucity of long-term data made the Pioneer staff more 

committed than ever to keep up their continuous forest 

inventory, even though it required a great deal of effort every 5 

years for their small field staff to painstakingly locate, measure, 

and record individual trees on each of the more than 450 1/5-

acre sample plots (fig. 14). By the 1972 inventory, the average 

board-foot volume per acre had increased from about 1,200 in 

1952 to more than 1,750 (Trammel 1998), in spite of all the 

white oak harvested by National Distillers as well as Pioneer’s 

improvement cuttings and losses from drought, fire, ice, and 

windthrow. If Pioneer was not yet fully paying its way, at least 

the quantity of standing timber was increasing. 

As owner of the forest, Leo Drey operated out of an 

unpretentious room in the Syndicate Trust Building in downtown 

St. Louis, MO handling all financial transactions and keeping 

records, which he stored in an office safe. Though he had spent 

weeks on end in the Ozarks in the early 1950s when he was 

getting started, his marriage to Kay Kranzberg of St. Louis in 

1955, followed within 7 years by the arrival of three children 

(Laura, Leonard, and Eleanor), led him to cut back on his time 

away from home. In any case, his involvement in conservation 

issues and his myriad land transactions and forestry activities 

required massive paperwork—Drey never employed a 

secretary—as well as countless meetings with fellow activists 

and lawyers in the city. But, he loved spending days afield with 

his foresters, and he rarely missed monthly meetings and field 

trips of the Karkhagne Club, an association of foresters and other 

Ozarkers founded by Ed Woods to discuss land management 

issues. The Karkhagne, a figment of Woods’s imagination, was 

a mythical beast with a habit of eating section corners (Woods 

1964); it was reputed to make its home in the wilder reaches of 

Pioneer Forest (fig. 15).

In addition to his efforts on the Ozark Riverways and the scenic 

rivers bill, Drey was also deeply involved in conservation 

campaigns nearer home. He was a founder and first president of 

Figure 13 (right)—

Pioneer Forest. By 

1970 the forest had 

reached nearly its 

extent as of 2000, 

when this map was 

made. (MoRAP)
21

the St. Louis Open Space Council in 1964 and worked tirelessly 

for passage of a proposed $25 million bond issue to acquire 

5,000 acres of land for 24 major parks in St. Louis County that 

fell a heartbreaking 376 votes short of a required two-thirds 

majority in 1966. He was also a founder and president of the 

Missouri Coalition for the Environment, which fought against 

encroachment of development on flood plains, against pollution 

and sprawl, and for environmental quality and parks, joining 

the Open Space Council in a successful effort in 1969 to secure a 

smaller bond issue to enable purchase of 2,800 acres. Through 

both organizations he also promoted a national recreation area 

along the lower Meramec River, in part to forestall proposed 

dams (Sanford 1970, Drey c.1984).

On his own, Drey established the L-A-D Foundation in 1962 to 

acquire, protect, and promote forests and natural areas. Some of 

his own forest contained significant sites, and he was also a soft 

touch for conservationists seeking a savior for other threatened 

areas. In December 1970, concurrent with adoption by the 

Missouri Conservation Commission of a new policy providing 

for establishment of a state system of natural areas, Drey 

announced the availability of four sites—Cave Spring in Shannon 

County, Clifty Creek Natural Arch in Maries County, Balancing 

Rock Narrows on the Piney River in Texas County, and Grand 

Gulf in Oregon County—for lease to any public agency that could 

protect them while allowing public access (Adams 1970). The 

following year the foundation contributed funds to a survey of 

natural areas being coordinated by Professor William H. Elder of 

the University of Missouri. Two L-A-D sites, Clifty Creek and Piney 

River Narrows, were included in the first set of natural areas 

designated by the state in 1971, a number that would grow to 

eight by the end of the decade (Kramer and others 1996). In 

1974, Drey transferred to the L-A-D Foundation the ownership 

of the 961 acres along the Current and Jacks Fork rivers under 

scenic easement to the National Park Service. And, in 1975, the 

foundation began funding a county-by-county survey of natural 

areas headed by R. Roger Pryor (1980).

As owner of Pioneer Forest, hoping to demonstrate that he 

could make a profit through conservative land management, 

Drey must have been somewhat disheartened by his prospects 

after 20 years of operating experience. During the entire period 

from the mid-1950s to the early 1970s, stumpage prices for 

timber remained stagnant, not even keeping pace with inflation, 

so that in real terms, they declined (Hamatani and Goslee 2008: 

fig. 7). In 1970 and for several years thereafter, prices were

Figure 14—Russ Noah and Paul Corder measuring a tree during the 

Pioneer Forest inventory. (Courtesy of Pioneer Forest)

Figure 15—A drawing of the Karkhagne by Ward Degler from Ed Woods’ 

description. Source: Woods, Missouri Log, 1964.

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry
22 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

lower than at any time since 1954-55, when severe drought had 

thrown a glut of salvaged timber on the market. The stagnant 

prices in the 1960s and early 1970s probably resulted from 

weak economic conditions during the Vietnam War, exacerbated 

by massive clearing of forest land for pasture in the Ozarks that 

further glutted the market for sawlogs; the U.S. Forest Service 

reported that more than 1.7 million acres of commercial forest 

land had been converted to other uses between its 1959 and 

1972 surveys in Missouri.

By an ironic twist of fate, the Pioneer enterprise during these 

years was buoyed by substantial revenue from an unexpected 

source—royalties from the mining of newly discovered veins 

in the rich new lead belt known as the Viburnum trend, which 

became the leading lead-producing area in the world. When 

Drey was first asked by an exploration firm to allow wildcatting 

on his land, he said no. But he was soon informed by William 

Blunt of National Distillers, with whom he had originally 

negotiated for the land, that he was not being fair; under 

terms of his contract to purchase the Distillers’ land, the firm 

had reserved a one-half interest in any minerals found on the 

property and now wished to profit from it. So, Drey reluctantly 

signed an option agreement with Bear Creek Mining Co., the 

exploration subsidiary of Kennecott Copper Co. He eventually 

bought out National Distillers’ half interest in order to forestall 

mining on any additional land, but mining continued under a 

50-year lease he had signed in 1969 with Ozark Lead Company, 

another subsidiary of Kennecott (later Doe Run), in return for 

which he would receive substantial mineral royalties (LD).

THE CHALLENGE OF SILVICULTURAL REVOLUTION, 

1965–1985

The early 1970s were a time of transition in the Ozarks to a 

more intensive form of forestry characterized by even-aged 

management, or clearcutting, rather than uneven-aged 

management of the sort long practiced on Pioneer and on 

federal and state lands up to that time. The shift came later to 

the Ozarks than to other forests in the West, South, and East. It 

began on private industrial lands during World War II when firms 

such as Weyerhaeuser in the Pacific Northwest began practicing 

tree farming, using clearcutting to prepare land for new 

high-yield stock that would grow quickly to maturity. During 

the dramatic housing boom after the war, private operators 

sought permission to harvest timber by clearcutting on national 

forests, but the U.S. Forest Service adamantly insisted on the 

time-honored practice of single-tree selection and, in fact, 

advocated public regulation to forestall destructive clearcutting 

on private lands. As political pressures to increase the cut from 

public forests mounted, the U.S. Forest Service finally in 1955 

authorized clearcutting on the Boise National Forest in Idaho. 

Clearcutting was soon being practiced on national forests 

throughout the West, where it was said by its proponents to be 

necessary for regeneration of Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and 

other species that are intolerant of shade (Hirt 1994: 137).

In the East, U.S. Forest Service officials initiated the new practice 

of even-aged management in 1964; one of the earliest national 

forests to see extensive clearcutting was the Monongahela 

National Forest in West Virginia. An early intimation of the 

applicability of the new technique to the oak-hickory forests of 

the Ozarks came in a 1962 article by U.S. Forest Service research 

forester Benjamin Roach on “Practical Silviculture for Central 

Hardwood Stands,” published in the Southern Lumberman. 

“With the silviculturist obligated primarily to growing products 

for industry,” Roach wrote, “it follows that he should do so as 

efficiently as possible. . . . And to keep silvicultural costs low, he 

must be satisfied with doing only what is necessary to produce 

the required products, not what might be desirable to produce 

the ideal forest.” Researchers in Missouri conducted a 40-acre 

clearcut on the Sinkin Experimental Forest near Bunker in the 

mid-60s, but the first commercial clearcut on a public forest 

in Missouri did not occur until 1969, in a sale near Eminence 

overseen by District Forester Charles Santhuff on MDC land 

(Trammel 6-24-02).

As public outrage erupted nationwide over clearcutting on 

national forests as far flung as Montana, West Virginia, and 

Alaska, and as millions of acres of hardwoods on public and 

private lands in Missouri were being converted to pine or to 

pasture by aerial spraying and planting, wildlife biologists in 

the MDC, concerned about adverse impacts on wildlife, began 

working with foresters in MDC and on the Mark Twain to 

develop a cooperative program to assure a variety of wildlife 

habitat in each management unit (Evans 1974). Specially funded 

by Congress in 1974, it was called the Missouri Plan owing to 

its pace-setting cooperative elements. Along with the later 

onset of clearcutting in Missouri, the Missouri Plan may have 

had the effect of forestalling controversy of the sort witnessed 

elsewhere, even though the plan was fundamentally grounded 

in even-aged management.

Most of the silvicultural research that was being done in the 

1960s and 1970s, almost all of it funded by the U.S. Forest 

Service or by private industry, focused on highly specialized 

studies of the most efficient way to grow timber volume and 

enhance present net worth through even-aged management, 

with little emphasis on tree size and quality (Boyce and Oliver 

1999: 430). That was also what was being taught in forestry 

schools. Clint Trammel visited Pioneer Forest on a forestry 

field trip during his junior year at the University of Missouri in 

1967 and was so impressed by Ed Woods and his uneven-aged 

management system that he came back on his own two weeks 

later, pitched his tent on Big Creek, and spent the weekend 

exploring the forest. But when he raved about it to a professor 

he was told, “Don’t worry about it. It’s just an experiment. It 

won’t work.” This was the attitude that pervaded the ranks 

of professional foresters at the university, in the conservation 

department, and on the Mark Twain all during the 1970s and 

into the 1980s, Trammel recalled (interview). To them, Leo Drey 

was just cutting timber, not managing the forest; he would 

find out in time that he wasn’t getting reproduction of oak and 

that his forest would become increasingly dominated by less 

valuable, shade-tolerant maple (fig. 16). 
23

But, regardless of prevailing attitudes, Trammel jumped at the 

chance to apply for a rare opening on the Pioneer Forest staff in 

1970 and was hired. In 1972, when Ed Woods retired and Charlie 

Kirk took over as forest manager, Trammel was promoted to 

chief forester. That fall, Terry Cunningham, who had experienced 

similar attitudes at MU during his quest for a degree, was hired 

as a temporary to help with the 1972 forest inventory and then 

was kept on to handle operations near Van Buren. Rayborn 

Skaggs retired in 1975 and was succeeded by his son Danny, 

who had learned the trade and the forest by accompanying his 

father. Trammel became forest manager in 1979 when Charlie 

Kirk retired, and Cunningham took over as chief forester. Another 

veteran, Paul Corder, became ill and died in 1980. So, except 

for Russ Noah at Eminence, who would continue until 1985, the 

forest, by 1980, witnessed a turnover of the original staff that 

had come from Distillers—and from Pioneer Cooperage before 

that—and a new generation was in charge on Pioneer, none of 

them yet out of their 30s.

The 1970s and early 1980s must have been lonely years for 

the staff on Pioneer, especially for the younger recruits whose 

entire education had emphasized the virtues of even-aged 

management and detailed the myriad problems of older 

uneven-aged approaches. They kept doing what they had been 

doing—what they learned from the seasoned staff and what 

their boss, Leo Drey, wanted them to do: continue to individually 

mark trees by single-tree selection. But, Drey was dubbed 

“conservation’s Don Quixote” in the popular media (Stevens 

1971) because of his leadership in environmental causes as 

well as his dreams for Pioneer, and professional foresters, 

most of whom were circling the wagons to ward off attacks by 

environmentalists, began to look askance at the management 

of Pioneer as well. Trammel and Cunningham in particular, after 

they were left in charge by the retirements of Woods, Kirk, and 

the other veterans, admitted they felt quite isolated from the 

professional forestry fraternity, wondering whether, in fact, their 

system would work in the long run. Virtually all the silvicultural 

studies published in those years, and there were hundreds of 

them, were saying one couldn’t expect to get oak reproduction 

without clearcutting. There was virtually no research on unevenaged management in the central hardwoods region.

Charlie Kirk, who had begun his career in the 1930s and had 

come to Missouri in 1938, the first year of the new state forestry 

division, had been socialized into the profession in a different 

era when single-tree selection was the norm. It was not until 

the last decade of his career that he witnessed the wholesale 

revolution in silvicultural orthodoxy. Shortly before he retired, 

he wrote a moving rumination on his own management 

philosophy born of 40 years of experience in the Ozark woods: 

“I Think on It Often” (Kirk 1979). There was a spot high under 

his right shoulder blade that itched off and on for years. It finally 

occurred to him, he said, “that this itch occurs only when the 

mind is wrestling with questions that have, at least to me, no 

immediate, concrete answer. I have learned the hard way that 

whenever this shoulder itches, I should rethink my answers.”

For 30 years, he admitted, he had been haunted by something 

Cal Stott said: “There is little doubt that man has the authority 

to say what will happen to a wild woods. The question is, does 

he have the wisdom?” Kirk compared rings in cross-sections of 

two 16-inch black oaks recently cut on Pioneer, one of which 

was 14 inches in diameter at age 22 but grew only 2 inches 

in its final 12 years, whereas the other was only 11 inches at 

age 68 but had grown a full 5 inches in the next 7 years. His 

shoulder itched as he pondered the imperfect art of marking 

timber. He ended with a litany of altered ideas in a “strange 

half-century of forestry,” from condemnation to acceptance of 

fire and clearcutting, to the shift from multiple to single use, to 

the glib notion of preservation, and the “silvicultural suicide” of 

diameter-limit cutting. “I am older now—I have come to know 

that things are not always as they seem,” he concluded; “I am 

older now—my shoulder continues to itch.”

The new young crew on Pioneer soldiered on into the 1980s, 

conducting the seventh forest inventory in 1982. Trammel 

decided to save money by doing his own computer work rather 

than sending the raw data to Michigan, so he bought a Radio 

Shack Model 3, taught himself programming, and then waited 

anxiously for 2 full days while the machine crunched the data. 

Volume was up to more than 2,000 board feet per acre from 

only about 1,200 in 1952. Even more heartening, growth per 

acre per year had again started to rise after stagnating and 

then falling during the late 1970s, a time of rather significant 

losses from oak decline (Trammel and others 1998: 4). Prices 

for timber also began to rise in the late 1970s after decades 

of stagnation, leading to a more profitable enterprise. The 

inventory seemed to suggest that the various commercial tree 

species were maintaining their relative proportion of the forest 

mix and that the various diameter classes were also maintaining 

themselves or increasing (Iffrig and others 2004). But 30 years 

of data were hardly enough to answer long-range questions of 

oak reproduction, especially in view of the deluge of skepticism 

about uneven-aged management in the silvicultural literature. 

Figure 16—Pioneer Forest Manager Ed Woods, Owner Leo Drey, and Chief 

Forester Charlie Kirk. (Courtesy of Pioneer Forest)

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry
24 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

There had been an independent study of the Pioneer data 

by David Larsen for a 1980 masters thesis in forestry at 

the University of Missouri, but it did not directly assess the 

management system on Pioneer. Larsen, who had grown up 

in Salem near the Pioneer headquarters and participated in 

the 1977 inventory, utilized CFI data and experimental plots on 

Pioneer to test the applicability of a growth and yield model 

developed for loblolly pine to upland oak-shortleaf pine stands 

in Missouri. But, aside from anecdotally noting the inability of 

pine to compete well with oak, the study did not address the 

issue of even versus uneven-aged management. Another MU 

master’s thesis in forest ecology by Tim Nigh and others (1984, 

1985), which sampled sites on Pioneer as well as other forests 

in the Ozarks and along the Missouri River, found widespread 

invasion of sugar maple, especially in the loess hills along the 

Missouri River but also in scattered areas across the Ozarks, 

and a striking paucity of oak regeneration, a pattern largely 

attributable to a reduction in site disturbance through fire, 

grazing, and heavy logging. Surely such findings must have 

been unsettling to the Pioneer staff.

PIONEER’S ROLE IN CONTROVERSIES OVER PUBLIC LAND 

MANAGEMENT, 1985–1995 

The prospects for uneven-aged management in the Ozarks 

were addressed in a limited way during a planning process 

for the Mark Twain National Forest under the leadership of 

Forest Supervisor Leon Cambre, which began in 1980 and 

led to an approved Land and Resource Management Plan in 

1986. The process had been mandated by the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976, which in turn had been precipitated 

by a 1975 federal appeals court decision that clearcutting on 

the Monongahela National Forest violated a requirement in 

the 1897 Organic Act to harvest only “dead, matured, or large 

growth” trees that had been individually marked, a practice the 

U.S. Forest Service had religiously followed for more than half a 

century before switching to clearcutting. The 1976 act repealed 

the 1897 act and legalized clearcutting, but it also expanded 

requirements for protection of environmental quality and for 

broad public involvement in the planning process. Every forest 

in the nation engaged in NFMA planning during the 1980s, and 

in virtually all there was a contest of interests. Before coming to 

the Mark Twain, Cambre had been in Washington, DC helping to 

shape the 1976 act, so he was committed to making a success 

of the planning process in Missouri.

In the 1970s and early 80s, Missouri had an unusually effective 

coalition of environmental groups and individuals—the 

Missouri Wilderness Coalition—that established a good working 

relationship with Cambre and the staff of the Mark Twain during 

its successful effort to secure congressional approval of seven 

wilderness areas on the forest totaling more than 63,000 acres 

between 1976 and 1984 (Karel 1978, Farmer 1999). During 

the forest planning process, the coalition was especially intent 

on securing more protective management for seven additional 

areas totaling 39,000 acres that could also qualify as wilderness. 

When the U.S. Forest Service issued its draft plan in 1985, 

environmentalists were generally pleased with recognition of the 

seven de facto wilderness areas as “sensitive” and with efforts 

to protect other special areas and scenic rivers, though they 

favored suspension of timber harvest in all such areas. They also 

appreciated the plan’s emphasis on management for wildlife 

values, but they challenged the emphasis on deer, rabbits, and 

turkeys—all ubiquitous species that thrive under clearcutting—

rather than interior forest species such as bears, mountain 

lions, certain hawks, and red-cockaded woodpeckers. And, they 

indicated a general preference for uneven rather than even-aged 

management (Sierra Club 1985).

If environmentalists were generally supportive of the proposed 

plan, the forest industry and local Ozarkers were outraged, 

believing that the plan would unduly restrict future timber 

harvests and access roads. In one newspaper account (Auchly 

1985), the reporter even managed to cast Pioneer Forest 

Manager Clint Trammel with the industry opposition when 

Trammel rated the plan at best a C- and questioned the closing 

of some access roads. In fact, Trammel, unlike the industry, 

was also opposed to the plan’s increased goals for timber 

harvest—up to an average 105 million board feet per year, from 

78 million in 1984—fearing that smaller diameter trees would 

be taken before they were mature. And he must also have been 

dismayed by the emphasis on even-aged management, though 

he apparently did not publicly question it. 

The final plan for the Mark Twain issued in 1986 increased 

the acreage on which uneven-aged management would be 

applied to 166,000 acres, or about 11 percent of the forest, 

even though it argued that “research does not support the 

wide-spread use of the uneven-aged system in the Ozark area 

when perpetuation of the oak forest is the objective.” The U.S. 

Forest Service pledged, however, to evaluate the effectiveness 

of the uneven-aged system during the next 10 to 15 years 

and, if results were positive, to analyze its potential for greater 

application (USDA-FS 1986).4

It was the first chink in the armor of the clearcutting juggernaut, 

and it came in the only possible place on public lands in 

Missouri, as the MDC at the same time was taking a turn toward 

even more adamant insistence on even-aged management. 

Relations between Leo Drey and his foresters, on the one hand, 

and the forestry leadership of MDC, on the other, had grown 

increasingly testy during the 1970s and early 1980s, in part 

over differences in management philosophy exacerbated by a 

decade-long, unsuccessful effort to effect a mutually beneficial 

land exchange (PF). Then in 1985, a new governor, John 

Ashcroft, appointed his campaign manager, Rolla lumberman 

John Powell, to the conservation commission. Powell, whose 

4 In 2005 the USDA Forest Service would issue a revised forest plan and accompanying environmental impact statement for the Mark Twain grounded 

in principles of ecosystem management (USDA–FS 2005). About 29 percent of the forest would be managed with an emphasis on restoration of natural 

communities by prescribed fire and other techniques; about 67 percent would be identified as suitable for timber management. But with an emphasis on 

adaptive management and flexibility of techniques, the balance of even- and uneven-aged management under the new plan would be somewhat unclear and 

hence a matter of concern to the staff of Pioneer Forest and others (Trammel and others. 2005).
25

own 18,000-acre tree farm was a model of conservative, 

even-aged management, had long been a fierce opponent of 

wilderness and an unabashed advocate of clearcutting, and he 

would become the dominant force on the commission for the 

next 12 years. The commission in turn promoted state forester 

Jerry Presley to department director and Presley appointed 

the longtime head of the Missouri Forest Products Association, 

Gerald Ross, as state forester; both remained strongly committed 

to even-aged management of state forests.

Following through on the Mark Twain’s commitment to move 

forward with uneven-aged management, U.S. Forest Service 

officials arranged for 39 employees including foresters, rangers, 

wildlife biologists, and technicians to visit Pioneer Forest in 

June 1987 to view and discuss its management system with 

Trammel, Cunningham, and Leo Drey (fig.17). The group toured 

eight sites on the forest, discussing everything from Pioneer’s 

objectives and history to its strategies for marking, the history of 

cutting in the various stands, methods for working with loggers, 

the CFI system, and the prospects for reproduction of various 

species (Melick 1987).

In addition, two silviculturists on the Mark Twain, Jay Law and 

Ross Melick, worked more closely with Pioneer staff in the 

course of special studies of how they might implement the 

new approach. Pioneer was the only forest in Missouri with 

substantial experience in uneven-aged management and, 

as Law and Melick now increasingly appreciated, there was 

precious little other research or experience to use as a guide. 

What published research there was dealt almost entirely with 

failures of the method elsewhere in the country, so they would 

of necessity have to start with an examination of the Pioneer 

system. The two had somewhat different assignments. Law, 

who had experience with single-tree selection early in his career 

in the Lake States and drafted the sections of the revised forest 

plan dealing with uneven-aged management, put in some 

measured plots on the Salem district and worked with Craig 

Lorimer at the University of Wisconsin to develop brief “how-to” 

guidelines for applying the method (Law and Lorimer 1989). 

Though the guidelines drew on the Pioneer methodology, 

they recommended group selection to create openings of up 

to .35 acre if oak regeneration was desired. Melick, as part of 

his quest for advanced silvicultural certification, was preparing 

to recommend silvicultural prescriptions for the first 68 acres 

selected for uneven-aged management on the Mark Twain, 

three stands near the Mill Creek Recreation Area in the Rolla 

District (interviews, Law and Melick).

Melick’s more discursive unpublished report (1989) began 

with an unusual “apologia” in which he acknowledged that his 

project design had been influenced by “political realities”—the 

need to move expeditiously toward initiating and evaluating 

uneven-aged management “as directed in the Forest Plan”—and 

hence his report included more detail than usual about various 

questions related to fire, insects and disease, regeneration, 

herbicides, genetics, logging damage, and economics under 

uneven-aged management, and it omitted formal evaluation 

of a complete range of silvicultural alternatives. Melick 

recommended “selection with groups” as the harvest method 

for all three stands, evidently drawing on Law’s guidelines 

and seeking a compromise between shelterwood, which was 

already being utilized as an even-aged technique on the Mark 

Twain, and single-tree selection as practiced on Pioneer. 

Melick’s report acknowledged the greater difficulties of applying 

uneven-aged management on a public forest with lack of prior 

experience in the techniques, frequent staff turnover, and 

more restrictive contracting requirements. Pioneer foresters, 

by contrast, were able to work closely with loggers to prevent 

damage to unmarked trees, and they could terminate contracts 

immediately if excessive damage occurred. Nevertheless, Melick 

concluded that uneven-aged management had substantial 

applicability not only in visually sensitive areas or in riparian 

or other fragile environments but also on upland sites with 

some of the best potential for high-value timber products such 

as white oak, which was often cut prematurely in even-aged 

rotations. Although there were as yet no detailed economic 

comparisons of the two regimes in management of central 

hardwoods, and the staff on Pioneer was unable to provide a

Figure 17—Forest Manager Clint Trammel leading a tour on Pioneer 

Forest. (Photo by Susan Flader)

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry
26 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

benefit/cost analysis, there were some data emerging from 

southern pines (Guldin and Baker 1988) that suggested an 

advantage for uneven-aged management in producing and 

sustaining large good-quality sawtimber yields, especially from 

cutover stands; and virtually all the oak-hickory forests in the 

Missouri Ozarks had been cut over. The prospects for unevenaged management obviously did not appear as bleak to Melick 

as they did to most other professional foresters in Missouri.

While Mark Twain foresters—now under a new supervisor, B. 

Eric Morse—were taking initial steps toward implementation 

of uneven-aged management in limited areas, they continued 

with clearcuts on the bulk of their acreage. In early 1988, 1,100 

people in southern Missouri signed a petition of protest against 

the clearcuts, winning considerable media coverage. Several 

of them formed a group called Mark Twain Forest Watchers, 

which began studying federal law and the 1986 forest plan 

to find leverage points for citizen action (Dorst 1988). They 

also visited Pioneer Forest to study and photograph unevenaged management, after which they filed an official appeal 

with the U.S. Forest Service contending that environmental 

assessments for proposed timber sales had to be site specific 

and assess the effects of uneven-aged as well as even-aged 

management. To their amazement, not only did they win on 

the Mark Twain, but Forest Service Chief F. Dale Robertson on 

February 6, 1989, issued a directive to all regional foresters 

nationwide to undertake site-specific analysis for all timber 

sales in implementing forest plans (Dorst 1989). By 1991, the 

Mark Twain reported a shift from 70 percent even-aged and less 

than 1 percent uneven-aged sale acres in 1988 to 29 percent 

even-aged and 32 percent uneven-aged sales (USDA-FS 1991).

The larger context of the Missouri struggle and the relatively 

rapid shift toward uneven-aged management on the Mark 

Twain included renewed public uproar over clearcutting on 

national forests nationwide combined with the ready example 

of successful single-tree selection technique on the neighboring 

lands of Pioneer Forest. Missouri foresters including Clint 

Trammel and environmentalists, including Hank Dorst of Forest 

Watchers, traveled to a number of conferences in Arkansas, 

where foresters and environmentalists had been debating 

clearcutting for years. Trammel found himself so disgusted 

by the attitude of Arkansas foresters at one meeting that he 

walked out (interview). 

In 1990, beleaguered U.S. Forest Service Chief Robertson 

announced a shift nationwide to a new ecosystem-based 

management approach called “New Perspectives.” When 

Arkansas’s Ouachita was designated a “new perspective” forest 

with a moratorium imposed on the use of clearcutting, MDC 

Director Presley (1990) roiled the waters in Missouri with a 

widely circulated letter of protest to Robertson, suggesting the 

decision was largely based on “the emotionalism of ill-informed 

preservationists” and asking that MDC be notified in ample 

time to provide input if anything similar were contemplated for 

the Mark Twain. Commission Chair John Powell (1990) backed 

him up, railing against environmental fanatics who dared to 

challenge “good sound professional resource management 

expertise.” 

In numerous meetings and debates in Missouri around that 

time, Trammel was invited to present the prospects for 

single-tree selection, leading to much greater visibility for 

Pioneer Forest with environmentalists, in the media, and even 

among professional foresters. But there is some evidence 

that even Trammel, who was working on a master’s degree 

in forestry at the University of Missouri at the time, was not 

entirely convinced of the greater benefits of uneven-aged 

management. In private correspondence with Drey (LD 9-18-

90), he acknowledged his “very real concern” about “the 

increasing effort to eliminate even-aged management as an 

option because of emotional rather than biological reasons.” 

“Leo,” he explained, “even-aged management is the ‘best’ way 

to manage oak-hickory forest. The silvics of the species call 

for open sunny areas for best growth of regeneration. . . . Your 

decision to use uneven-aged management means you have 

decided to accept the trade-offs necessary to make the system 

work. Both Ed and Charlie must have discussed this with you 

in the past. We get less regeneration. We get a slower rate of 

growth. We get a reduced volume per acre. . . . I can easily show 

on Pioneer that uneven-aged management works. It would be 

far more difficult to show that it works ‘best.’” 

Drey, however, was not dissuaded: “Nothing we do will 

ever eliminate the use of even-aged management by the 

government. No fear of that, and that’s not our purpose, which 

I’d say is rather to demonstrate that individual tree selection 

is a viable option, so land managers can then make informed 

decisions in accordance with their priorities.” Ed and Charlie 

had already established the parameters of the operation before 

he bought out National Distillers, Drey explained (LD 9-21-90). 

“Realizing that they were operating in a complicated field with 

many unknown interrelationships, I believe both felt that they 

didn’t want to be as manipulative as the government is, with 

their installation of food plots, their construction of watering 

holes, and their clear-cutting. In fact, if I understood them, 

they thought it best to go light on the land and to try to follow 

nature’s lead rather than to clear cut and then regenerate after 

such heavy manipulation.” And then the kicker: “I’m not sure 

about Charlie, but I know Ed was fully convinced that his method 

was not uneconomic, and he had it as one of his basic goals to 

show that such was indeed the case.”

Leo Drey himself was frequently in the spotlight during the late 

1980s and early 1990s, owing to his involvement in two other 

hotly contested issues, the disposition of the most pristine of 

Missouri’s big springs and a second major effort to secure an 

act to protect the state’s remaining natural streams. A media 

frenzy erupted over Greer Spring (fig. 18) and its surrounding 

7,000-acre tract when Anheuser-Busch negotiated to purchase it 

in 1987 with assistance from The Nature Conservancy, intending 

to extract more than 2 million gallons of water a day to bottle 

and sell. Drey, a longtime member of TNC’s Missouri board, was 

so incensed by this threatened “commercial exploitation and 

degradation” that he eventually stepped forward with an offer 

of $4.5 million to buy and hold the Greer Spring tract himself, 

arranging a creative deal with Busch for each of them to donate 

$500,000 through the Trust for Public Lands to reduce the price 

for eventual U.S. Forest Service acquisition of the land as an 
27

addition to the Eleven Point National Wild River (Bertelson 

1988). Congress finally appropriated funds, and the tract was 

conveyed to the Mark Twain in 1992, after an intense political 

effort to prevent leaving a large part of it open to clearcutting.

There were numerous articles on Drey in state media at the 

height of the Greer issue, including one that reached back to 

the Shannon County tax battle of the 1950s to suggest that Drey 

was still regarded as “public enemy number one” in Shannon 

County for fighting against economic development. Drey 

responded that he felt he was helping the economy through 

all his local contracting for Pioneer, then admitted feeling a 

bit hurt by the negative attitudes of some Ozarkers, saying 

quietly to the reporter, “I respect them and admire them. . . . 

They value their independence and their freedom. You have to 

respect that” (Lemons 1988). The most appreciative account 

of Drey’s management of Pioneer and his efforts for Greer and 

other causes appeared in the magazine of the National Audubon 

Society under the title, “Every State Should Have a Leo Drey” 

(Jackson 1988).

When the Greer Spring issue heated up, Drey was already 

involved—quietly behind the scenes—in strategizing and 

financing an effort to win support in Missouri through yet 

another initiative petition campaign for a system to protect 

the state’s remaining natural streams: “The greatest unfinished 

piece of conservation business in Missouri,” supporters called it 

(Bradley 1996). The measure would have designated stretches 

of 52 streams on which dams, bankside clearcutting, all-terrain 

vehicles, and loud motors would be prohibited. At Drey’s 

insistence, owing to his respect for Ozarkers’ desire to control 

their own destiny, it also offered local governments and citizens 

the opportunity to prepare management plans enforceable by a 

review commission within the Department of Natural Resources.

But the MDC, having several times promised Drey to remain 

neutral on the issue, came out publicly in strong opposition 

to the initiative, citing potential interference with its own 

management prerogatives; and, after a raucous campaign with 

charges and countercharges from angry partisans on both sides, 

the Natural Streams Act went down to resounding defeat in 

November 1990, an election in which environmental initiatives 

nationwide were turned down by voters. So upset was Drey 

with the ethics of the foresters running MDC that he refused 

to participate in several forestry conferences, allowed his 

membership in the Society of American Foresters to lapse, and 

removed Pioneer Forest from the Tree Farm Program. He had 

joined at a time when the Ozarks were ravaged by fire, openrange grazing, grandmawing, and overcutting, he explained, but 

he had always been managing for biodiversity and ecosystem 

sustainability and was “no longer comfortable” with the 

program’s heavy emphasis on timber production (LD).

Yet another environmental initiative in which Leo Drey and 

Pioneer Forest became deeply involved also eventually blew 

up. As scientists worldwide began developing an international 

system of Man and the Biosphere reserves under the auspices 

of UNESCO in the 1980s, scientists in the Midwest became more 

aware of the globally significant biodiversity of the Ozarks. A 

National Park Service biologist at the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways, David Foster, took the lead in developing a proposed 

Ozark Highlands Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Reserve in 

Missouri and Arkansas, centered in the Current and Jack’s Fork 

River region in which Pioneer Forest was located and along 

the Buffalo River in Arkansas. He enlisted various entities in 

the two states including state and federal natural resource 

agencies, the Nature Conservancy, and Pioneer Forest in a 

cooperative planning effort to prepare a nomination. Drey and 

his staff, including Greg Iffrig—a naturalist hired in January 1992 

as a sixth employee to handle recreation, natural areas, and 

various research and writing projects for Pioneer—were keen to 

partner in the biosphere effort, as their lands would be the only 

substantial privately managed forest included in an otherwise 

largely public effort, and they would be able to demonstrate the 

feasibility of protecting biodiversity while engaging in profitable 

forestry on private land.

In January 1993, they submitted nomination papers (Iffrig 1993) 

for the entire acreage of Pioneer Forest and, in addition, for eight 

properties owned by the L-A-D Foundation in the biosphere area. 

Seven of the L-A-D properties totaling 910.5 acres, most of them 

already officially designated as Missouri Natural Areas, and six 

additional reserves on Pioneer Forest totaling 1,963 acres were 

proposed for management as strict nature reserves. Another 

L-A-D property, Grand Gulf, was already a registered National 

Natural Landmark; the 159-acre tract in Oregon County near the 

Arkansas line, known as “Missouri’s Little Grand Canyon” and 

promoted as a park since 1939, had been acquired by Drey in 

1970 for preservation and leased to the state for one dollar a 

year for inclusion in the state park system in 1984. The 350-acre 

Laxton Hollow Reserve, an old growth remnant that Pioneer was 

protecting for research and comparison with the surrounding 

second-growth forest, was proposed in the resource reserve 

category. And the remaining 154,279.5 acres of Pioneer were 

proposed as a multiple-use management area that could help 

promote local participation, regional planning, and integrated 

rural development—efforts in which Leo Drey had been interested 

ever since his earliest days as a forest owner. 

Figure 18—Leo Drey at Greer Spring. (Courtesy of Leo Drey)

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry
28 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Unfortunately, by the time the complex interagency nomination 

was completed and nearing approval, a backlash began in the 

Ozarks among property rights activists who charged that the 

biosphere project was a United Nations conspiracy to confiscate 

Ozark land and herd Ozarkers into concentration camps in an 

effort to implement an environmental world government. The 

leadership of the opposition was well organized and linked to 

similar “wise use” and property rights movements elsewhere 

in the nation. It may have been emboldened by the stunning 

election victory in November 1994 of the Republican ‘Contract 

for America,’ and it successfully appealed to Ozarkers’ traditional 

distrust of government in mass meetings throughout the region 

(Rikoon and Goedeke 2000). The result was that not only the 

biosphere nomination but also other promising cooperative 

planning, resource management, and ecosystem restoration 

efforts among federal and state agencies and private groups 

in Missouri were quietly killed by the agencies responsible for 

them.

VINDICATION, 1990–2000

In spite of all the turmoil in the Ozarks, for Pioneer Forest 

the decade of the 1990s was a period not only of increasing 

profitability of forest operations but also of more widespread 

professional recognition of the viability of its management 

system. Prices for oak stumpage had begun to increase 

substantially in the late 1970s. With an increasing export market 

for oak, a strong domestic economy spurring demand for lumber 

(Hoover 1985), and continuing investment in management 

to enhance the quality of standing timber especially in larger 

dimensions, Pioneer Forest was beginning to repay its owner’s 

faith and commitment.

As the last decade of the century began, the jury was still out on 

the viability of Pioneer’s system of uneven-aged management 

for securing oak reproduction for the long term, as opposed to 

the even-aged system practiced by most public and industrial 

forests. But, enough student and professional interest had been 

piqued by the clearcutting issue of the late 1980s to result 

finally in some research. Owing in part to the need of the Mark 

Twain for a more solid basis on which to apply the unevenaged approach being demanded by citizens and mandated by 

U.S. Forest Service officials, the North Central Research Station 

and the forestry program at the University of Missouri initiated 

a project in the early 1990s to describe the methods used on 

Pioneer Forest, analyze its continuous forest inventory data, and 

assess the results on the ground. Three graduate students would 

focus on different aspects of the study: Edward Loewenstein 

came first (fig. 19), and began working immediately on age 

and size structure; Zhiming Wang investigated predictability 

of diameter distributions; and Monty Metzger focused on oak 

regeneration. 

Clint Trammel recalled a visit to Pioneer, probably in the fall 

of 1991, by Loewenstein and several professors in which he 

asked Loewenstein what he would write if he found evidence 

that the Pioneer system worked and whether he expected his 

professors to sign the dissertation. Such was the level of trust 

at the time (though Trammel might have worn a grin, as he 

was himself finishing up a master’s thesis with one of the same 

professors). As Loewenstein recalled, Trammel was looking 

for an advocate, whereas he and the other researchers were 

committed to scientific inquiry and would report the results just 

as they found them. Loewenstein has also admitted, however, 

that he originally thought he would work 6 months, prove the 

system did not work, and then move on to something more 

interesting. Instead, he would devote more than a decade to 

studies of Pioneer.

In 1993, when the research had scarcely begun, silviculturist 

Paul Johnson, who was coordinating the study for the research 

station in Columbia, published an assessment of oak ecology 

and silviculture as a contribution to resolving the conflict 

over management of oak forests (Johnson 1993). In it he 

acknowledged, for perhaps the first time in a U.S. Forest Service 

research publication, that single-tree selection, though generally 

“considered inappropriate for managing oak forests,” has 

“nonetheless been used successfully for 50 years on a large 

industrial forest in the Missouri Ozarks.” Though he did not name 

Figure 19—Edward Loewenstein at work on Pioneer Forest. (Courtesy of 

Edward Loewenstein)
29

the forest, he cited personal communication with Clint Trammel; 

and he went on to describe the method, to suggest there was 

evidence it could be sustainable, and to call for further study.

As the three students began their fieldwork on Pioneer, yet 

another graduate student, Michael Jenkins, completed a 

master’s thesis in 1992 that utilized sites on Pioneer as well 

as on the University Forest and the Mark Twain to study the 

vexing problem of widespread oak decline. Oak decline was a 

consequence of the rapid exploitation of the pine and pine-oak 

forests of the Ozarks around the turn of the century, which had 

been followed by the establishment of fairly homogeneous 

even-aged stands of scarlet and black oak on sites formerly 

dominated by pine. These aging and dense, unthinned stands, 

stressed by drought, were now dying synchronously over large 

areas; more than 35 million board feet of dead or dying timber 

had been harvested in salvage sales on the Mark Twain alone 

between 1980 and 1986. Although Pioneer, too, had suffered 

some losses, its losses were not as severe or continuing as on 

the Mark Twain and the University Forest, and its regeneration 

was more favorable. At the Central Hardwood Conference in 

1993, Jenkins and his professor, Stephen Pallardy, suggested that 

the uneven-aged management practiced on Pioneer not only 

harvested substantial numbers of oaks before they died but also 

reduced stress on the remaining trees and opened the canopy to 

allow regeneration (Jenkins and Pallardy 1993).

While the Missouri graduate students were engaged in their 

research, U.S. Forest Service Chief F. Dale Robertson in June 

1992 officially announced a new policy direction, ecosystem 

management, to guide the national forest system in its second 

century. Appropriately ambiguous and crafted to address political 

exigencies in the continuing controversy over clearcutting 

(Freeman 2002), the new policy emphasized an ecological 

approach and a broader range of values than the older policy of 

sustained yield management with its emphasis on timber.

Whether to explore the implications of ecosystem management 

or in continuation of its effort to develop a viable approach 

to uneven-aged management as mandated by the 1985 

forest plan, the Mark Twain in summer 1994 asked a team 

of silviculturists, wildlife biologists, and an ecologist, among 

them Paul Johnson and David Larsen, to spend a week visiting 

various sites where Mark Twain staff had initiated uneven-aged 

and other types of vegetation management and comment 

on their practices. One of the scheduled stops was at Pioneer, 

but a thunderstorm intervened, and the team left after only 

a few minutes. Although their report (Johnson and others 

1994) recommended a full spectrum of silvicultural systems 

including uneven-aged, it questioned the applicability of the 

Pioneer system of single-tree selection, noting there was 

“no written prescription or procedure for this method” and 

it was “scientifically unproven and entails risks that may be 

unacceptable”—a finding that produced substantial tension 

between Trammel and team members. In his comments on the 

report, Trammel (1994) asked rhetorically, “How can a group 

of such influential people in research and academia, fields 

of supposedly open-mindedness, make favorable comments 

about uneven-aged management and, in the same breath, 

discredit the longest applied study in Missouri and probably 

in the eastern United States.” Instead of single-tree selection, 

the review team recommended “group selection with thinning 

between groups,” a method they said could draw on “guidelines 

based on years of research on regenerating oak in clearcuts.” 

The review team, which included ecologist Douglas Ladd of the 

Missouri Nature Conservancy, also endorsed and encouraged 

the use of fire on the Mark Twain to control competing 

vegetation, prepare sites, and restore natural processes to 

the landscape. Most scientists and land managers had come 

relatively late to an appreciation of the role of fire in Missouri 

ecosystems, probably because of the long and intense effort 

to stamp out woodsburning by Ozarkers, but, by the 1990s, 

the use of prescribed burning was accepted practice in the 

Nature Conservancy, in Missouri state parks, and in the natural 

history and wildlife divisions of the conservation department to 

restore prairies, glades, savannas, and other ecosystems. Most 

forest managers, however, whether on the Mark Twain, in the 

conservation department, or on the staff of Pioneer Forest, still 

resisted the use of fire in working forests, believing they could 

accomplish the same results more efficiently through timber 

harvest. When Pioneer’s Greg Iffrig asked Ladd to comment on 

the silvicultural issues regarding uneven-aged management and 

single-tree selection, Ladd (1994) said he was unqualified, but 

he volunteered the observation that the woodlands on Pioneer 

“appeared relatively low in vegetational diversity per unit area,” 

saying: “I think it will be difficult for Pioneer to exemplify a high 

quality, upland timbered landscape without including fire as an 

ecological tool.” The skepticism that summer was coming from 

both ends of the professional conservation spectrum. It was a 

low point for the Pioneer staff.

The sole support for the Pioneer model that summer came 

from Carolyn Pufalt of the Sierra Club, who expressed her 

disappointment in the review team’s dismissal of the Pioneer 

system to Mark Twain supervisor Randy Moore, adding: “It is 

somewhat ironic that the research team judges consideration 

of single- tree selection to entail unacceptable ‘risks.’ Oh that 

such voices of caution could have been raised within the agency 

years ago against clearcutting” (PF).

The first substantial scientific analysis of the Pioneer system 

was completed by Ed Loewenstein in May 1996 when his 

dissertation, with its analysis of Pioneer’s CFI data and 

measurements from a random field sample of 600 oaks, was 

officially accepted. Testing CFI plots aggregated in three groups 

by time since harvest to determine the minimum spatial scale 

at which the forest could be said to exhibit a balanced unevenaged distribution, he found the minimum to be a remarkably 

small 0.6 acres; that is, any randomly selected 0.6-acre plot 

would likely exhibit the distribution of the forest as a whole. 

A year earlier, he and three of his advisors had presented 

preliminary results of his study at the Central Hardwood 

Conference (Loewenstein and others 1995). It was the first 

report of an extensive examination of single-tree selection in 

an oak-hickory forest west of the Mississippi River and the most 

sophisticated independent analysis of Pioneer Forest data up to 

that time, and it demonstrated that the forest was not shifting 

toward shade-tolerant species, that the density of the most 

valuable species, white oak, had increased three-fold since 1954

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry
30 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

while basal area more than doubled, and that the other species 

held their relative proportions (fig. 20). Hence the conclusion: 

“The single-tree selection system can be used to sustain an 

uneven-aged oak forest.”

When Ross Melick of the Mark Twain invited Loewenstein and 

Johnson on another tour of management sites in June 1996, 

the three collectively found themselves backing away from 

the earlier emphasis on group selection under the formally 

structured approach developed by Law and Lorimer in 1989 and 

edging toward the more flexible single-tree selection system 

applied on Pioneer, recognizing, as Melick (1996) put it, that 

uneven-aged management “requires a different mindset than 

even-aged.” But they also recognized that Pioneer and the Mark 

Twain had very different forest conditions when they began 

uneven-aged management. Mark Twain lands had in general 

been cut over somewhat earlier than Pioneer, which was in 

more remote and rougher terrain, and the oak that sprouted on 

former pine lands in the Mark Twain had been protected from 

cutting and fire since the early 1930s. By the 1990s, many of 

the stands were mature with tightly closed canopies, many 

were suffering from oak decline, and there was relatively little 

oak reproduction in the understory. It would not be easy to 

convert such fully stocked stands to uneven-aged management. 

Much of Pioneer Forest, by contrast, had been quite heavily 

harvested in the 1940s and 1950s by Pioneer Cooperage and 

National Distillers so that Drey’s management system began 

with a relatively open, understocked forest. Moreover, Pioneer 

foresters had religiously been doing improvement cuttings 

during which they consciously removed a higher proportion 

of scarlet, black and other red oak species—especially weak 

or deformed trees—in order to favor reproduction of the more 

valuable white oak. They were thus using regular cutting to 

mimic the function of natural fire and had maintained the forest 

in diverse, uneven-aged stands at the lower end of the stocking 

range.5

 Hence, the hesitance of some professional foresters to 

recommend direct application of Pioneer’s methods to the Mark 

Twain. Nevertheless, Melick accepted with gratitude 15 bound 

copies of Loewenstein’s dissertation for distribution to Mark 

Twain staff.

In April 1997, at Melick’s invitation, Loewenstein organized an 

uneven-aged management training session for some 20 U.S. 

Forest Service staff and a few MDC foresters at which discussion 

again turned to the applicability of the Pioneer system to the 

Mark Twain. MDC was initiating uneven-aged management 

with a group-selection system on three of nine 1000-acre study 

sites devoted to a cooperative Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem 

Project; the other sites would be managed by even-aged and 

no-harvest treatments. With the applicability of single-tree 

selection to similar relatively dry ecosystems of the Ozarks 

now less in doubt, discussion at the training session turned to 

more managerial and functional questions of how to take a 

system developed on private land and apply it to public land. 

When Johnson, Larsen and other instructors, for example, said 

the place to start was an inventory of stands to be managed, 

national forest trainees said they didn’t have the staff or budget 

to do it (interviews: Johnson, Larsen, Loewenstein, Melick). 

This led the group to compare staffing levels on Pioneer and 

the Mark Twain. Pioneer had long operated with five foresters 

and technicians plus ecologist Iffrig to manage 154,000 acres, 

while the Mark Twain in the mid-90s had a staff of some 280 on 

1.5 million acres. The Mark Twain thus had four to five times as 

many staff hours per acre as Pioneer, though, to be sure, many 

were wildlife, fisheries, recreation, or planning specialists rather 

than foresters, and a good many were clerical or maintenance 

personnel; the Mark Twain also had far more physical 

infrastructure and a much higher level of public use. The 

disparity in staffing led in turn to top-of-the-head calculations 

of how much time people with forestry training actually spent 

in the field per acre of forest on the Mark Twain as compared 

with Pioneer; here virtually everyone was astounded to realize 

that Pioneer staff likely spent as much as four times more time 

per acre on the ground as Mark Twain foresters, who were 

often chained to their desks doing environmental assessments 

and legal compliance. It was a graphic illustration of the costs 

of public service, accountability, and bureaucracy on national 

forests as compared with private land (interviews). 

There were other consequences of U.S. Forest Service 

bureaucracy, especially in the new era of ecosystem 

management. On Pioneer, unlike the Mark Twain, there was 

very little staff turnover, and all its people spent years of 

apprenticeship; they were intimately familiar with the forest 

and the marking system and spent at least a day per month in 

the field together to cross-check their judgments and calibrate 

their work, advantages that could hardly be expected on a 

national forest. When the instructors suggested that perhaps 

uneven-aged management could be implemented by a single 

silvicultural team that would handle marking and supervision 

Figure 20—Pioneer Forest, 1996. (Photo by Susan Flader)

5 These practices closely parallel management of uneven-aged stands elsewhere in the Nation, such as the well-documented research in southern pines at 

Crossett (Baker et al. 1996).
31

of timber sales for the entire Mark Twain, trainees pointed out 

that no district ranger would let someone from outside the 

district come in to do the management. And besides, money 

was allocated in separate pots by Congress for inventory, 

marking, timber stand improvement, sale administration and 

regeneration as well as other functions such as wildlife and 

fish, soil and water, recreation, roads, and fire protection, 

and the funds were not interchangeable, making integrated 

management such as that practiced on Pioneer virtually 

impossible. It was a bureaucratic system inherited from the 

postwar era when the emphasis shifted to maximum timber 

production by the most efficient possible means—even-aged 

management—and all could agree it was poorly suited to the 

new emphasis on ecosystem values (interviews). The U.S. Forest 

Service, and, even in time, the MDC, would develop their own 

more standardized versions of uneven-aged management, but 

many observers—especially environmentalists—would argue 

that they were not the same as on Pioneer. 

In the second half of the 1990s, several additional publications 

based on the Pioneer research appeared, each confirming and 

supplementing the others (Wang 1997, Larsen and others 

1997, Larsen and others 1999, Lootens and others 1999, 

Loewenstein and others 2000). These studies, several published 

in the Canadian Journal of Forest Research, were a major 

confirmation through the methods and language of science of 

the management approach being applied on Pioneer. Perhaps 

most significant was the 1999 U.S. Forest Service report by 

Larsen, Loewenstein, and Johnson that summarized the findings 

and made silvicultural recommendations for others wishing to 

pursue uneven-aged management in the Ozarks, based almost 

entirely on what was learned on Pioneer. 

Meanwhile, in an effort to learn more about other components 

of the ecosystem, perhaps in part to get at the concerns raised 

by TNC forest conservationist Doug Ladd and others about 

the difficulty of enhancing ecosystem quality and biodiversity 

without the use of fire, Pioneer’s Greg Iffrig made deliberate 

efforts to recruit other nonforestry research projects from 

colleges and universities in the region and beyond. The first was 

a 1995 M.S. thesis in biology by E.M. Annand at the University of 

Missouri-Columbia measuring the relative abundance of migrant 

songbirds in response to different managed forest treatments 

(Annand and Thompson 1997). L.A. Herbeck (Herbeck and 

Larsen 1998, 1999), also at the university in Columbia, found 

that plethodontid salamanders maintained relatively higher 

densities on Pioneer than in forests elsewhere under even-aged 

management. Several years later, N.M. San Diego of St. Louis 

University completed an M.S. thesis (2001) on the diversity of 

leaf-litter arthropod communities under different management 

treatments that demonstrated the benefits of Pioneer’s unevenaged management in generating a spatial gradient throughout 

the landscape that maximized diversity. Several other St. Louis 

University students began related studies conceived as part of 

a long-term ecological research project, one of which (LaVigne 

2002) calculated the average turnover rate for Pioneer’s canopy 

to range from 189 to 228 years. Pioneer Forest developed 

a long-term relationship with the Cave Research Foundation 

concerning critical habitat for endangered species. And other 

studies of black bears and the potential for red-cockaded 

woodpeckers were also in the works.

Perhaps most significant was new research about the historical 

role of fire in the Current River watershed where the bulk 

of Pioneer Forest lands are located. University of Missouri 

geography graduate student Michael Batek completed a 

thesis on presettlement vegetation of the watershed in 1994, 

grounded in detailed analysis of Public Land Survey notes from 

the early 19th century. Batek and others (1999) then extended 

the analysis by combining with dendrochronology-based fire 

histories to reconstruct disturbance regimes and utilizing GIS to 

relate to geological parent material, topography, and mean fire 

intervals. The results revealed a distinct fire ‘shadow’ northeast 

of the Current River above its junction with the Jack’s Fork, 

where Pioneer’s big block is located. Dendrochronologist Richard 

Guyette, who had participated in the Batek study, then extended 

the analysis in a series of papers (2000, 2002, 2003) that 

developed implications of the concept of topographic roughness. 

As he writes (this volume), “Here lies Pioneer Forest ‘in the 

heart of roughness,’ a landscape that has resisted the pressures 

of human population and disturbance for millennia.” He goes 

on to suggest that Pioneer’s management system effectively 

mimics historic disturbance regimes, as supported by studies 

of forest interior wildlife species, especially those sensitive to 

disturbance.

At a symposium to commemorate the 50th anniversary of 

Pioneer Forest in 2001, Loewenstein observed (SF notes) that he 

had spent the last decade trying to figure out just what it is that 

the foresters on Pioneer do, but they themselves are not able to 

tell you; they can only show you on the ground. The book has 

not yet been written, he said—though a book on The Ecology 

and Silviculture of Oaks that drew in part on the Pioneer data 

was even then nearing publication (Johnson and others 2002). 

The system works on Pioneer, Loewenstein explained, because 

of its dedicated staff and its extremely low turnover. So instead 

of trying to describe what the Pioneer foresters were doing, he 

had designed his research to see if they were accomplishing 

what they said they were trying to accomplish. And they are, 

he concluded: “Every argument that has been leveled against 

Pioneer Forest seems to be invalid from the data we have 

collected.” As he put it, the Pioneer foresters were practicing as 

much art as science. “They are magicians,” he said, but there 

was no gainsaying their success. 

PIONEER AND THE MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE 

FOREST LANDS, 1997–2004

Just as the uneven-aged management practiced on Pioneer 

began to gain professional credibility and even to be applied, 

to some extent, on public forests in Missouri, a new threat 

to private forests of grave concern to Leo Drey and his staff 

appeared on the horizon: the entry of two high-capacity chip 

mills to the Missouri Ozarks with the likelihood of more to 

come. There were already 140 such mills operating elsewhere 

in the southeastern states, each capable of gobbling 10 times as 

much wood as an ordinary sawmill. Though the MDC and many 

professional foresters tended to view chip mills as opening a

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry
32 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

significant new market opportunity, especially for low-grade or 

‘cull’ material that needed to be cleared out in order to establish 

a vigorous new forest, Drey and his foresters were concerned 

that the very scale of demand could result in a wave of 

destructive clearcutting, watershed erosion, and land conversion 

not seen in Missouri since the logging era a century earlier. In 

Drey’s view, the market problem was no longer as severe as in 

years past, and the voracious new chip mills might ‘steal’ the 

timber that smaller local mills needed to operate. With the new 

industrial-style logging equipment used to supply chip mills, 

there would be increased pressure on individual landowners 

and speculators to allow complete clearing of their land (Vaughn 

1997, Drey 1997, Gray and Guldin 2001). 

The threat loomed especially large to Clint Trammel, who had 

begun cooperating with the Dogwood Alliance, a coalition of 

60 grassroots organizations across the South that was working 

to document the problems caused by chip mills and to protect 

forests from the devastation of clearcutting. He wrote a number 

of articles for the organization’s newsletter on his experiences 

with Pioneer, most of which were subsequently incorporated 

in a report, Forest Management for the 21st Century (Smith 

1999), fully a quarter of which was devoted to the alternative 

represented by Pioneer Forest. 

As they began seeing large-scale clearcuts of material 

apparently headed for the new mills, Drey and his staff 

invited property owners, foresters, loggers, politicians and 

environmentalists on a field trip in May 1998 to view the 

devastation, compare with management on Pioneer, and debate 

the issue on the ground (Uhlenbrock 1998). A fact sheet the 

Pioneer staff produced for the tour contrasted the low value, low 

employment (10 mill workers) and devastated land resulting 

from a year’s operation of one of the chip mills with the higher 

value product, higher employment (35-40 sawmill workers) 

and healthy forest on an equal number of acres in a year 

of Pioneer’s operations. A few days later, the St. Louis PostDispatch (1998) editorialized on Missouri’s need for sustainable 

forestry on private lands, spotlighting the Spencer family of 

loggers, three generations of whom had cut timber on Pioneer 

Forest—responsibly—since the 1950s. 

Though many professional foresters, especially in the 

conservation department, continued to support the chip mills for 

their market potential, Drey joined other concerned landowners, 

higher value producers, and environmentalists in appealing to 

Governor Mel Carnahan for a moratorium on new chip mills until 

the state had a proper program in place to lessen their impact. 

The governor responded in September with an executive order 

establishing an Advisory Committee on Chip Mills, ordering state 

agencies to refrain from providing any further incentives to mills 

until the committee reported, and directing a more restrictive 

permitting process.

Deliberating for nearly 2 years in a remarkably open process 

with public participation, the governor’s committee began by 

considering chip mills but moved inevitably to the problem of 

forest management—or rather, the lack of it—on private lands, 

which constituted 85 percent of Missouri’s 14 million acres of 

forest land. The committee heard presentations and received 

statements from a spectrum of individuals, many of whom had 

previously prepared materials for a conference on sustainability 

of the state’s private forests convened at the University of 

Missouri-Columbia by the Environmental Studies Program and 

various co-sponsors in March 1999 (Flader 2004). Included was 

a paper by the Pioneer Forest staff (Iffrig and others 2004) 

explaining their approach and methods and, for the first time, 

making a case for the economic advantages of uneven-aged 

management over even-aged. 

Unlike the debate over the Mark Twain Forest Plan in the 

mid-1980s, when Pioneer may have been in certain people’s 

minds but was not discussed publicly as an example, during the 

deliberations of the governor’s committee there was scarcely 

a session when the Pioneer experience was not invoked by 

someone. In June, the advisory committee and its entourage 

traversed the southeastern Ozarks, visiting a chip mill, lands 

clearcut for the mill, and other harvest sites, and ending at 

Pioneer, which a reporter described as looking “more like a state 

park” (Leonard 1999). The Pioneer staff submitted a six-page 

letter of commentary on the committee’s draft report, making 

the case yet again for more attention to single-tree selection 

in Missouri and arguing that even-aged management carried 

more uncertainties than uneven-aged for the long-range future 

of Ozark forests, especially in view of the frequent turnover of 

ownership on most private lands and the chip mill-induced spur 

to clearcutting and land conversion (Trammel and others 1999). 

But, though all members of the governor’s committee agreed 

about the evident need for better management of private 

lands and though Missouri was one of the few states without 

any forest practices regulatory programs whatever, when it 

came down to voting, a majority was unwilling to approve 

any recommendations that encroached in the least on private 

property rights (Lewis 2004).

As it became obvious that little of substance would come from 

the governor’s committee—and as independent research on 

Pioneer vindicated the viability of uneven-aged management—

the Pioneer staff, with the full encouragement and support of 

Leo Drey, formed a new entity, Pioneer Consulting Group, to 

promote the benefits of their system of single-tree selection 

and help other private landowners with management planning, 

timber marking, and sale services. Some 97 percent of the 

timber sold from private land in Missouri was harvested without 

a forest management plan or advice from a forester, making it 

vulnerable to exploitative logging. Trammel and Cunningham 

had offered their services as consulting foresters on their own 

time for years, but the new consulting group had an important 

educational mission and promoted the staff’s services as a 

viable economic alternative to clearcutting for the chip market. 

In December 1999, they began test mailings to all private 

landowners in Reynolds County with 400 acres or more, then 

expanded to include owners with more than 200 acres in the 

procurement area of the currently operating chip mills. They 

produced a flier and a primer on uneven-aged management, 

offered landowners an initial visit and consultation at no cost 

or obligation, and invited them to field days on Pioneer Forest, 

the first of which was at Ellington in June 2000 (PF, PCG 2000). 

In an effort to keep in touch with landowners who expressed 
33

interest in management assistance, they also developed a 

Pioneer website and began issuing a periodic newsletter, The 

Acorn, with news from the consulting group and the forest. By 

early 2001, a Google search for “single-tree selection forest 

management” on the worldwide web brought up the Pioneer 

Forest site first. 

In summer 2000, in the wake of the disappointing results of 

the governor’s advisory committee and a lack of legislative 

enthusiasm for any action on forest practices, Clint Trammel, 

Terry Cunningham, and several landowners, forest products 

manufacturers, and environmentalists in the Ozarks met to lay 

the groundwork for a new organization, Value Missouri, that 

would work to improve forest management on private lands and 

develop new markets for higher quality timber and value-added 

manufacturing. The idea was to develop public support and 

an infrastructure in Missouri for ecologically responsible forest 

management and certification of timber products along the 

lines of an international movement that had been developing 

since 1993 under the leadership of the Forest Stewardship 

Council (FSC). Clint Trammel had already been deeply involved in 

establishing a parallel effort for responsible forestry, the Forest 

Stewards Guild, founded in 1997 by forest managers across 

the nation who were dedicated to an approach similar to that 

on Pioneer; and he participated on a committee that refined 

FSC certification standards for forests in the United States. 

These and related efforts had already resulted in independent 

third-party certification of some 6 million acres of public and 

private forest in the United States and some 38 million acres 

worldwide (Kerasote 2001). The idea was not only to maintain 

the ecological integrity of the forest environment but also to 

assure responsible handling throughout the entire chain of 

custody from harvest through production to the point of retail 

sale, in the hope of commanding a better price at market 

from consumers willing to pay. Supporters saw Value Missouri 

as a way both to encourage environmental stewardship and 

to improve markets for higher value-added forest products in 

Missouri.

As they geared up to promote more responsible management 

of private forest lands in the Ozarks in the late 1990s, Leo 

Drey and the Pioneer staff also redoubled their efforts to 

provide education and recreation for the general public on 

Pioneer Forest itself. Shortly after Greg Iffrig was hired as staff 

naturalist in 1992, he had begun efforts to develop a selfguiding interpretive drive in the forest off heavily traveled 

Highway 19 south of Round Spring. The Missouri Department 

of Transportation offered to sell Drey the bulk of the adjoining 

strip of virgin pine that had been sold to them unharvested by 

Pioneer Cooperage in the 1940s as a sample of Ozark pinelands 

before the great cutover. It was reportedly (Eddleman and 

Clawson 1987) in these remnant virgin pines that the last redcockaded woodpeckers in Missouri were sighted back in 1946. 

The way was cleared for purchase of the excess right-of-way 

from the state by the L-A-D Foundation in 1996, and by 1998 

Iffrig had developed a marked walk through the pines and a 

drive through several miles of managed forest, complete with 

marker posts and an interpretive leaflet (fig. 21).

Another effort in which Drey had been interested for more 

than three decades also came to fruition around the turn of 

the century—the establishment of a 60,000-acre backcountry 

recreational area on managed forest in the huge, nearly roadless 

block of Shannon County land he had acquired from National 

Distillers in 1954. After the Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

declined to accept responsibility for provision of public recreation 

on the tract in the 1970s, Drey and the Pioneer staff had gone 

ahead with plans for the Ozark Trail, which had been built and 

maintained across 13 miles of the forest largely with volunteer 

labor from the Sierra Club and other organizations. Drey had 

always allowed public access for hunting, fishing, picnicking 

and hiking, and he had leased a small tract within the area 

to his alma mater, the John Burroughs School in St. Louis, for 

construction of bunkhouses and a lodge at which they could 

conduct an environmental camp for their students and, he 

hoped, for the use of local school groups and others. But he 

was also willing to provide for somewhat greater recreational 

utilization of the area, if only he could gain cooperative 

assistance from some public agency without relinquishing 

ultimate authority. State park director Fred Lafser back in 

1978 had proposed a recreational easement and a visitor 

center, perhaps with an interpretive museum and outdoor 

education programming, but Drey had concerns about overuse, 

regimentation, and “who will be in charge.” 

In 1990, Drey had broached the matter again with the director 

of the Missouri DNR, in view of the positive relationship he 

had developed with the agency for management of Grand Gulf 

and Dillard Mill as state parks. The agency responded with a 

proposal to restore “an original Ozark wilderness ecosystem” 

similar to what Henry Schoolcraft would have seen when 

traversing the Ozarks nearly two centuries earlier. They would 

restore the landscape to pre-settlement conditions through 

prescribed burning to create savanna and woodland meadows, 

and reintroduce elk, bear, and mountain lions, an effort that 

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry

Figure 21—Interpretive drive on Pioneer Forest near highway 19 south of 

Round Spring, 1998. (Photo by Susan Flader)
34 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

would probably require fee title to all or a substantial part of 

the restoration area approximating 50,000 acres (DNR 1990). 

Drey and his advisors regarded the plan as grandiose and out 

of keeping with Pioneer’s objectives as a working forest, and 

discussion again stopped.

When Drey’s protégé and environmentalist alter ego Roger 

Pryor suddenly passed away in spring 1998, Drey and his staff 

resolved to move ahead with designation of 61,000 acres in 

the Shannon County block as a backcountry recreational area 

in honor of Pryor, whether or not a cooperative management 

arrangement could be struck with a public agency. Drey 

announced the Roger Pryor Pioneer Backcountry at a Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment dinner in Pryor’s memory in 

fall 1999. Two areas within the backcountry would also honor 

Pioneer foresters Ed Woods and Charlie Kirk for their dedication 

to and vision for the forest. Two years later, in conjunction 

with the forest’s 50th anniversary, Drey and the Pioneer staff 

dedicated the backcountry in honor of Pryor, Woods, and Kirk, 

and DNR Director Stephen Mahfood announced his agency’s 

intention to conclude a cooperative recreation agreement 

between the forest and the Division of State Parks (fig. 22). 

The agreement, which took the form of a lease of trails and 

by-ways for hiking and overnight primitive camping with 

maintenance and enforcement by DNR, would be signed in 

March 2002, and by 2004 the park division would have staff on 

the ground in the backcountry.

A few days after the Pryor Pioneer Backcountry dedication, the 

Pioneer staff hosted a symposium at the Missouri Botanical 

Garden in St. Louis to commemorate the 50th anniversary of 

Drey’s management of the forest (fig. 23). The St.Louis PostDispatch ran a touching editorial cartoon of an oak with a limb 

embracing Drey, and many papers ran special accounts of the 

occasion and of Drey’s contributions over the years (Sherffius 

2001, Allen 2001, Todd 2001).

Not content to rest on laurels, Leo Drey decided in spring 2002 

to fund the certification of forestry operations on the entire 

acreage of Pioneer Forest through the SmartWood Program of 

the Rainforest Alliance, according to procedures and criteria 

for ecological and social sustainability approved by the Forest 

Stewardship Council (Brown and others 2001). An independent 

team of four specialists in forestry, ecology, and sociology from 

Arkansas, Tennessee, and Mississippi spent a week visiting field 

sites on Pioneer in June 2002, conducting public meetings and 

interviewing Pioneer staff, loggers, millers, and neighbors about 

the environmental, silvicultural and socioeconomic aspects of 

Pioneer’s operations. Obviously impressed by the quality of 

forest management on Pioneer and the compelling historical 

record of its success, the team focused on helping Pioneer staff 

put in place a more detailed system of documentation to assure 

that knowledge of the system could be passed successfully to 

new staff who would one day take over on Pioneer (Trammel 

and others 2003).

SmartWood announced Pioneer as the first forest in Missouri to 

be granted FSC certification in February 2003, and a documented 

chain of custody through certified loggers and sawmills to 

Smith Flooring in Mountain View would soon be in place to 

make wood from Pioneer available to consumers as the first 

Missouri-produced and certified forest products (Acorn, 2003). 

With Pioneer’s large volume undergirding the economic viability 

of the process, the way was now paved for Pioneer Consulting 

and Value Missouri to encourage other landowners, foresters, 

loggers, sawmills, and producers to join the system (fig. 24).

Even as the certification was underway, a graduate student in 

forest economics at Duke University, Makoto Hamatani, spent 

several weeks at Pioneer’s Salem headquarters analyzing 

inventory and sale records to assess the profitability of the 

operation over the years. Though the stagnant or decreasing 

prices for Ozark timber for the first two decades of Drey’s 

ownership had been masked by increases in standing volume 

Figure 22—Dedication of the Roger Pryor Pioneer Backcountry, October 

14, 2001. Left to right: Forest Manager Clint Trammel, Randy Skeeter 

(grandson of Ed Woods), Linda Pryor (widow of Roger), Leo Drey, L-A-D 

Foundation President John Karel, DNR Director Stephen Mahfood. (Photo 

by Susan Flader)

Figure 23—Sherffius cartoon from St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 19, 

2001. (Courtesy of Leo Drey)
35

per acre and the continuing purchase of land, beginning with 

the 1972 inventory the acreage of Pioneer Forest was roughly 

constant and the price of timber began to rise, increasing 

substantially in the 1990s. Hamatani found that the standing 

volume in the three decades since 1972 had increased about 

2.5 times whereas the sale price of timber had risen more 

than four-fold, especially in the 1990s, for an asset value 

approximately 9 times as high in 2001 as it had been in 1972. 

In the last 6 years, moreover, income had been exceeding 

expenses by an average of more than 50 percent (Hamatani 

and Goslee 2008). Clearly the single-tree selection method 

was profitable for Leo Drey and presumably could be also for 

other Ozark landowners who had sufficient acreage or joined 

cooperatives of the sort encouraged by Pioneer Consulting and 

Value Missouri. 

In Fall 2002, the Pioneer staff began field work for their 11th 

forest inventory, which would give them a 50-year record of 

growth and change on Pioneer’s permanent 1/5-acre plots, now 

numbering 486. For the first time, they entered data directly 

into laptop computers in the field, saving substantial time, and 

their PC now crunched the data in 7 seconds rather than 2 days. 

Some of the more than 15,000 trees in the inventory plots 

had been individually measured every 5 years since the first 

inventory in 1952, whereas others had been cut, and new trees 

had grown into the 5-inch diameter sample range. Beginning 

with the 1997 inventory, however, at the suggestion of Ed 

Loewenstein and other researchers on Pioneer, the inventory 

now included all other trees and shrubs between 1.6 and 5 

inches in diameter (an additional 20 to 25,000 trees), in order to 

better track reproduction success (Acorn 2003). Standing volume 

had nearly tripled in the half century of Drey’s stewardship 

whereas species composition had remained relatively stable, 

except for an increase in the more valuable white oak and pine 

(fig. 25).

The 50-year record of continuous inventory on Pioneer coupled 

with the financial results of forest operations and the university 

studies of forest structure and reproduction success amply 

confirmed Leo Drey’s vision when he began acquiring land in 

the Ozarks a half century earlier. It was possible to manage 

Ozark timberlands in a conservative, sustainable fashion for a 

full array of ecological, social, and cultural values and make a 

profit besides. Drey and his staff had persevered in a remarkably 

consistent system of management and documentation for over 

half a century, during which the standard practices taught in 

forest schools, applied on public lands, and documented in 

thousands of research papers had turned 180 degrees from 

uneven to even-aged management. Through their openness 

to independent research and their willingness to share their 

experience and results—even with those who openly doubted 

their methods and, on occasion, even their professional 

competence—Drey and his staff had demonstrated the viability 

of a management system that could yield an array of ecological, 

social, and esthetic values increasingly appreciated by many. 

Pioneer Forest had played a significant role in the adoption of 

new management approaches on national and even, to some 

extent, state forests in the region. The greatest challenge for 

the future would continue to be that on which Leo Drey had 

embarked a half century earlier, to encourage other owners of 

private lands in the Ozarks to follow Pioneer’s lead (fig. 26).

It was time to look to the future. On July 6, 2004, after nearly 

a year of legal effort to sort out land titles, descriptions, and 

myriad other details, Leo Drey and his wife Kay signed over 

nearly the entire forest, valued at some $180 million, to the 

L-A-D Foundation (L-A-D 2004, Lewis 2005). Their intent was that 

the not-for-profit foundation would ensure the management 

of the working forest as well as the natural areas through 

environmentally sound and sustainable practices, much as 

Leo Drey himself had done, for long-term public benefit. Not 

only would the forest continue to serve as a demonstration 

of ecologically and socially sustainable management, but the 

income stream from its operations would be available to mount 

a more substantial educational and public outreach effort. It was 

the most spectacular gift of real estate in Missouri and perhaps 

ever in the annals of American forestry, and it was Leo and Kay 

Drey’s way of perpetuating the Pioneer tradition.

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry

Figure 24—Certified oak flooring, harvested from Pioneer Forest, coming 

off the line at Smith Flooring in Mountain View, Missouri, bound for the 

new LEED-certified headquarters of the Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources in Jefferson City, 2004. (Photo by Susan Flader)

Figure 25—Board feet per acre on Pioneer Forest, 1952-2002, from 

continuous forest inventory data. (Pioneer Forest)

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

1952 1962 1972 1982 1992 2002

Year

Board feet, International 1/4" rule
36 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

LITERATURE CITED

Archive and Manuscript Collections

Drey, Leo A. Papers. 1957-1991. Collection 531. St. Louis, 

MO: University of Missouri Western Historical Manuscripts 

Collection. [cited DP f (folder number)]

Drey, Leo A. Personal office files, 1950-2001. St. Louis, MO. [cited 

LD]

Flader, Susan L. Personal files, 1973-2002. Regarding Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways, Mark Twain National Forest, forest 

management, Greer Spring, Natural Streams Act, Pioneer 

Forest, chip mills, conservation history, etc. [cited SF]

Pioneer Forest Files, c. 1940-2004. Salem, MO. Includes local 

forest management files of Pioneer Cooperage and National 

Distillers. [cited PF]

Society of American Foresters Records. Durham, NC: Forest 

History Society Archives. [cited SAF]

Interviews

Leo Drey, Clint Trammel, Terry Cunningham, and Greg Iffrig, 

Pioneer Forest; Leon Cambre, Paul Johnson, Jay Law, and Ross 

Melick, USDA-Forest Service retired; David Larsen, University 

of Missouri-Columbia School of Natural Resources; Edward 

Loewenstein, Auburn University School of Forestry and Wildlife 

Studies; Hank Dorst, Mark Twain Forest Watchers; John Karel, 

Missouri Wilderness Coalition. All interviews 2001-2003.

General References

Acorn. 2003. Occasional publication, distributed to the public. 

Salem, MO: Pioneer Forest. March 2003. 4 p. Available from: 

Pioneer Forest, Salem, MO.

Adams, James E. 1970. Petition seeks to keep 20 Ozark streams 

pristine. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. January 25.

Allen, William. 2001. After 50 years, Missouri forest has grown 

into a model of timber management. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 

October 17.

Annand, E.M. 1995. Habitat relationships of migrant songbirds in 

a managed forest. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. 73 p. 

M.S. thesis.

Annand, E.M.; Thompson, F.R. 1997. Forest bird response to 

regeneration practices in central hardwood forests. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 61(1): 159-171.

Anonymous [hdw. note FS c. 1940]. Report of analysis on 

Pioneer Cooperage Division forest lands – Shannon County, 

Missouri. 11+8p. tps. PF.

Auchly, Bruce. 1985. Mark Twain forest plan strikes a 

compromise. Columbia Tribune. June 30.

Batek, Michael J.; Rebertus, Alan J.; Schroeder, Walter A. [and 

others]. 1999. Reconstruction of early nineteenth-century 

vegetation and fire regimes in the Missouri Ozarks. Journalof 

Biogeography. 26: 397-412.

Bedan, David E.; Goetz, Robert E. 1976. Pioneer Forest recreation 

study. St. Louis: Coalition for the Environment. 54 p.

Bertelson, Christine. 1988. Greer Spring bought by U. City man. 

St. Louis Post-Dispatch. (Feb. 6).

Boyce, Stephen G.;Oliver, Chadwick D. 1999. The history of 

research in forest ecology and silviculture. In: Steen, Harold K., 

ed. Forest and wildlife science in America: a history. Durham, 

NC: Forest History Society: 414-453.

Bradley, Karen A. 1996. Unfinished business: Missouri’s 

natural streams campaign and the changing conditions of 

environmental action/research. Columbia: University of 

Missouri. 326 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Brown, Nicholas R. [and others]. 2001. Conservation biology 

and forest certification: working together toward ecological 

sustainability. Journal of Forestry. 99(8): 18-25.

Chapman, H.H. 1951. Report on examination of forest property 

in Shannon County, Missouri, for the National Distillers 

Products Corporation. July 5-13. 8 p. tps. On file with: Pioneer 

Forest files.

Chapman, H.H. 1953. Letter to Ed Woods. July 31. Leo Drey 

personal files.

Chapman, H.H. 1955. Letter to Richard H. Pough. [undated c. 

March]. Leo Drey personal files.

Creighton, Jim. 1979. Patching together the Ozark Trail. St. Louis 

Post-Dispatch. (July 22): 14-21.

[CW]. 1962. Drey pays county taxes. Current Wave. August 23.

[DNR]. 1990. Restoring an original Ozark wilderness ecosystem 

on Pioneer Forest. 7p. tps. David Bedan and author files.

Dorst, Hank. 1988. Mark Twain Forest watchers. The Ozark 

Sierran. (Nov.-Dec.). 

Dorst, Hank. 1989. Mark Twain Forest watcher update. The Ozark 

Sierran. (July-Aug.). 7.

Drees, Dan; Hughes, Lee; Flader, Susan. 2004. Proposed 

expansion nomination for the Current River natural area, 

12/21/04. 38 p. tps. Author file.

Figure 26—Pioneer Forest staff (left to right): Dan Skaggs, Tim Dyer, Terry 

Cunningham, Mike Adams, Clint Trammel, L-A-D Foundation President 

John Karel, Leo Drey, Greg Iffrig. (Courtesy of Pioneer Forest)
37

Drey, Leo A. 1958. The forest industries and the forest resource. 

In: Drey, Leo A., chairman. Proceedings: Missouri Forest 

Resource Conference. Columbia, MO: October 18. 48 p. tps. DP 

f 11.

Drey, Leo A. 1960. A plan for further development of Current 

River Basin. Ozark Mountaineer. (March).

Drey, Leo A. 1963. Pioneer of Shannon. The Current Wave. 

October 31. p 1E.

Drey, Leo A. [c. 1984]. The Open Space Council of the Greater St. 

Louis Region. 4 p. tps. Drey f2.

Drey, Leo. 1997. Letter to Governor Mel Carnahan re chip mills. 

November 21. Copy in author’s files.

Eddleman, William R.; Clawson, Richard L. 1987. Population 

status and habitat conditions for the red-cockaded 

woodpecker in Missouri. Transactions, Missouri Academy of 

Science. 21: 105-117.

Evans, Ray D. 1974. Wildlife habitat management program: 

a concept of diversity for the public forests of Missouri. In: 

Slusher, John P.; Hinckley, Thomas P., eds. Timber-wildlife 

management symposium. Occasional Paper 3. Columbia, MO: 

Missouri Academy of Science. p. 73-84.

Farmer, Charles J. 1999. Unspoiled beauty: a personal guide to 

Missouri wilderness. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri 

Press. 265 p.

Flader, Susan L. 2004. History of Missouri forests and forest 

conservation. In: Flader, Susan L., ed. 2004. Toward 

sustainability for Missouri forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-239. St. 

Paul, MN: USDA-FS North Central Research Station: 20-59.

Freeman, Richard. The ecofactory: the United States Forest 

Service and the political construction of ecosystem 

management. Environmental History 4. (4): 632-658.

Guldin, James M.; Baker, James B. 1988. Yield comparisons from 

even-aged and uneven-aged stands of loblolly-shortleaf pine. 

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 12(2): 107-114.

Guyette, R.P.; Dey, D.C. 2000. Humans, topography, and wildland 

fire: the ingredients for long-term patterns in ecosystems. In: 

Yaussey, D.A., comp. Proceeding: workshop on fire, people, 

and the central hardwood landscape. March 12-14, 2000. GTR 

NE-274. 129 p.

Guyette, R.P.; Muzika, R.M.; Dey, D.C. 2002. Dynamics of an 

anthropogenic fire regime. Ecosystems. 5(5): 472-486.

Guyette, R.P.; Kabrick, J. 2002. The legacy and continuity of 

forest disturbance, succession, and species at the MOFEP sites. 

In: Shifley, S.R.; Kabrick, J., eds. Proceedings of the Missouri 

Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project Symposium: post-treatment 

results of the landscape experiment, Oct. 17-18, 2000, St. 

Louis, MO. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-277. St. Paul: USDA-FS North 

Central Research Station: 26-44.

Guyette, R.P.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Dey, D.C. 2003. A riparian fire 

history along the Current River corridor. National Park Service 

Report for the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Van Buren, 

MO.

Guyette, Richard P.; Stambaugh, Michael C. 2008. Pioneer Forest: 

in the heart of roughness. This volume.

Hall, Leonard. 1956. Pleasant way to help ‘keep Missouri green.’ 

St. Louis Post-Dispatch. September 27.

Hall, Leonard. 1958. Stars upstream: life along an Ozark river. 

Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

Hall, Leonard. 1973. Last respects for a man of the river. St. Louis 

Globe-Democrat. April 3.

Hamatani, Makoto; Goslee, Katherine M. 2008. An analysis of 

the benefits and profits of single-tree selection silviculture: a 

case study of Pioneer Forest in Missouri’s Ozarks. This volume.

Herbeck, L.A. 1998. Ecological interactions of plethodontid 

salamanders and vegetation in Missouri Ozark forests. 

Columbia: University of Missouri. 78 p. M.S. thesis.

Herbeck, L.A.; Larsen, D.R. 1999. Plethodontid salamander 

response to silvicultural practices in Missouri Ozark forests. 

Conservation Biology. 13(3): 623-632.

Hirt, Paul W. 1994. A conspiracy of optimism: management of 

the national forests since World War II. Lincoln: University of 

Nebraska Press. 416 p.

Hoover, William L. 1985. Historical price trends for oak logs 

and lumber, and the outlook. In: Johnson, James E., ed. 

Challenges in oak management and utilization: proceedings 

of a conference held in Madison, Wisconsin on March 28-29, 

1985. Madison: Cooperative Extension Service, University of 

Wisconsin Extension: 81-95.

Iffrig, Greg F. 1993. Supplementary form for existing 

administrative areas recommended for inclusion within a 

proposed biosphere. 47 p. tps. with cover letter, Iffrig to Dave 

Foster, January 12, 1993. Pioneer Forest files.

Iffrig, Greg F.; Trammel, Clinton E.; Cunningham, Terry. 

2004. Pioneer Forest: a case study in sustainable forest 

management. In: Flader, Susan L., ed. 2004. Toward 

sustainability for Missouri forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-239. St. 

Paul, MN: USDA-FS, North Central Research Station: 193-204. 

Jackson, Donald Dale. 1988. Every state should have a Leo Drey. 

Audubon. (July): 78-83.

Jenkins, Michael A.; Pallardy, Stephen G. 1993. A comparison 

of forest dynamics at two sites in the southeastern Ozark 

Mountains of Missouri. In: Gillespie, Andrew R. [and others] 

eds. 1993. Proceedings, 9th central hardwood forest 

conference: West Lafayette, IN, March 8-10, 1993. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NC-161. St. Paul, MN: USDA-FS North Central Forest 

Experiment Station: 327-341.

Johnson, Paul S. 1993. Perspectives on the ecology and 

silviculture of oak-dominated forests in the central and eastern 

states. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-153. St. Paul: USDA-FS North Central 

Forest Experiment Station. 28 p.

Johnson, Paul S. [and others]. 1994. Mark Twain National Forest 

vegetation management practices review: final report, June 

10, 1994. 11p tps. Author file.

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry
38 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Johnson, Paul S.; Shifley, Stephen R.; Rogers, Robert. 2002. The 

ecology and silviculture of oaks. New York: CABI Publishing. 

544 p.

Karel, John. 1978. Building Missouri citizen support. The Living 

Wilderness (Oct-Dec): 7-8. 

Kerasote, Ted. 2001. Goodwood. Audubon (January-February): 

54-57.

King, D.B.; Roberts, E.V.; Winters, R.K. 1949. Forest resources and 

industries of Missouri. Res. Bull. 432. Columbia, MO: University 

of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station. (A contribution of 

the Central States Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, 

USDA.)

Kirk, Charles H. 1951. Some business aspects of private forestry. 

Missouri Log. 4: 10-11, 88-89.

Kirk, Charles. 1979. I think on it often. [Missouri] Conservationist, 

40: 7 (July), 20-23; reprinted in American Forests 85:12 

(December), 34-35, 55-57.

Kramer, Karen [and others]. 1996. Directory of Missouri natural 

areas. Jefferson City: Missouri Natural Areas Committee. 155 p.

Ladd, Douglas. 1994. Letter to Greg Iffrig. August 17. PF files.

L-A-D Foundation. 2004. Missouri’s largest privately owned forest 

donated to L-A-D Foundation. Press release, July 6. SF.

Larsen, David R. 1980. A growth and yield model for managed 

upland oak – shortleaf pine stands in Missouri. Columbia: 

University of Missouri. 83 p. M.S. thesis.

Larsen, D.R.; Loewenstein, E.F.; Johnson, P.S. 1999. Sustaining 

recruitment of oak reproduction in uneven-aged stands in the 

Ozark Highlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-203. St. Paul, MN: USDAFS North Central Forest Experiment Station. 11 p.

Larsen, D.R.; Metzger, M.A.; Johnson, P.S. 1997. Oak regeneration 

and overstory density in the Missouri Ozarks. Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research. 27(6): 869-875.

LaVigne, E.M. 2002. Heterogeneity within and among selectively 

harvested forest stands in the Missouri Ozark Mountains. St. 

Louis: St. Louis University. 94 p. M.S. thesis.

Law, Jay R.; Lorimer, Craig G. 1989. Managing uneven-aged 

stands. In Clark, F. Bryan and Jay G. Hutchinson, eds. Central 

Hardwood Notes. St. Paul, MN: USDA-FS North Central Forest 

Experiment Station: note 6.08. 6 p.

Leeman, Wayne. 1956. 127,000-acre Missouri timber tract run 

for sustained yield. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. October 3.

Leeman, Wayne. 1960. Shannon County tax fight draws 

attention, ties up funds. Ellington Courier-Press. March 10.

Lemons, Terry. 1988. ‘The man who owns the Ozarks’: saint to 

environmentalists, villain to developers, Leo Drey fights to 

preserve his beloved Greer Spring. Springfield News-Leader 

(Sept 11): 5B, 8B.

Leonard, Christopher. 1999. Cutting-edge debate. Columbia Daily 

Tribune. July 11. p. D-1, 4.

Lewis, Bernard J. 2004. Chip mills and Missouri forests: a case 

study in policy development. In Susan L. Flader, ed. Toward 

sustainability for Missouri forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-239. St. 

Paul, MN: USDA-FS North Central Research Station. p. 228-248.

Lewis, Nicole. 2005. Couple’s giving is rooted in their passion for 

the great outdoors. The Chronicle of Philanthropy (March 3): 

7, 22.

Loewenstein, Edward F.; Garrett, Harold E.; Johnson, Paul S.; 

Dwyer, John P. 1995. Changes in a Missouri Ozark oak-hickory 

forest during 40 years of uneven-aged management. In K. 

W. Gottschalk and Sandra L.C. Fosbroke, eds. Proceedings, 

10th central hardwood forest conference: Morgantown, WV, 

March 5-8, 1995. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-197. Radnor, PA: USDA-FS 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. p. 159-164.

Loewenstein, Edward F. 1996. An analysis of the size- and agestructure of a managed uneven-aged oak forest. Columbia: 

University of Missouri. 167 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Loewenstein, Edward F.; Johnson, Paul S.; Garrett, Harold E. 

2000. Age and diameter structure of a managed uneven-aged 

forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 1060-1070.

Lootens, J.R.; Larsen, D.R.; Loewenstein, E.F. 1999. A matrix 

transition model for an uneven-aged, oak-hickory forest in 

the Missouri Ozark Highlands. A paper presented to the 1999 

Missouri Natural Resources Conference, Lake of the Ozarks, 

February 1-3, 1999.

Melick, Ross. 1987. Pioneer Forest field trip for the Mark Twain 

NF, June 9, 1987—note excerpts. Author file.

Melick, Ross A. 1989. Uneven-aged management opportunities 

in upland oak – hickory stands in the Missouri Ozarks, with 

silvicultural prescriptions for three stands near the Mill Creek 

Recreation Area, Rolla Ranger District, Mark Twain National 

Forest. A paper presented to the U.S. Forest Service, Region 

9, to meet one of the requirements for the Program for 

Advanced Silvicultural Studies and Silviculturist Certification 

(November), 103 p. tps.

Melick, Ross A. 1996. Letter to Paul Johnson and Ed 

Loewenstein. June 19. Author file.

Merritt, Allan. 1962. Missouri’s big-time ‘tree-farmer.’ St. Louis 

Globe-Democrat, Nov. 24-25.

Meyer, Arthur B. 1949. Pioneer Forest. Missouri Conservationist. 

(August): 1-3, 16.

Millman, Ellen. [c. 1981]. A history of Deloss Lovine Millman and 

Millman Lumber Company, 1890-1981. 33 p. tps.

[MDRD]. 1956. Plan for Preservation and Development of 

Recreation Resources—Current and Eleven Point River Country 

Missouri. Report prepared by Missouri Division of Resources 

and Development, Missouri Conservation Commission, 

Missouri State Park Board and the National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Jefferson City: Missouri Division of 

Resources and Development.

[Nature]. 1955. Not as claimed: an editorial. Nature Magazine 

(June-July): 313.
39

[NDPC]. 1948. Pioneer timber. 3p. tps. portion of cooperage 

division report to National Distillers Products Corporation, with 

cover letter of November 17. PF.

Nigh, Timothy A. 1984. An ecological assessment of sugar 

maple in the upland oak-hickory forests of Missouri. Columbia: 

University of Missouri. 191 p. M.S. thesis.

Nigh, T.A.; Pallardy, S.G.; Garrett, H.E. 1985. Sugar maple—

environment relationships in the river hills and central Ozark 

mountains of Missouri. American Midland Naturalist. 114(2): 

235-251.

[ORRRC]. 1962. Outdoor recreation for America. The report of 

the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission to the 

President and the Congress. Washington: GPO.

Pioneer Consulting Group. 2000. Managing your forest using 

uneven-aged forest management. Salem, MO: Pioneer 

Consulting Group. 12 p.

Pioneer Forest. 1998. The chip mill industry—briefly: here are 

the facts for Missouri Ozark forests. Field trip fact sheet, 3p. 

tps.

Pioneer Forest. 2001. Missouri’s virgin pine walk & Pioneer 

Forest interpretive drive. Salem, MO: Pioneer Forest. 16 p.

Pioneer Forest. 2001. Roger Pryor Pioneer Backcountry. Salem, 

MO: Pioneer Forest. 12 p.

Pioneer Forest. 2003. The Acorn. An occasional publication [ca. 3 

times/year, 2000-2003]. March 2003 issue, 4 p.

Powell, John. 1990. Beware the environmental fanatics: 

overeducated zealots have money, media behind them. St. 

Louis Post-Dispatch. (October 20).

Presley, Jerry J. 1990. Letter to F. Dale Robertson. August 17. 

Author file.

Pryor, R. Roger. 1980. Natural areas in Missouri—report of the 

Missouri Natural Area Survey. Report to L-A-D Foundation, St. 

Louis, Missouri. 381p.

Rikoon, J. Sanford; Goedeke. 2000. Anti-environmentalism 

and citizen opposition to the Ozark Man and the Biosphere 

Reserve. New York: Edwin Mellen Press. 207 p.

Roach, B.A. 1962. Practical silviculture for central hardwood 

stands. Southern Lumberman. October: 34-35, 38.

Robertson, F. Dale. 1992. Ecosystem management of the 

national forests and grasslands. Memorandum to regional 

foresters and station directors, June 4. Author file.

San Diego, N.M. 2001. Management regime, scale, and the 

diversity of leaflitter arthropod communities of an Ozark 

forest. St. Louis: St. Louis University. 56 p. M.S. thesis.

Sanford, Robert. 1970. A woodsman who spares his trees. St. 

Louis Post-Dispatch, March 22, 3F.

Sarvis, Will. 2000. Old eminent domain and new scenic 

easements: land acquisition for the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. Western Legal History, 13:1 (Winter-Spring): 1-37.

Sarvis, Will. 2002. A difficult legacy: creation of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. Public Historian, 24:1 (Winter): 

31-52.

[Senate]. 1961. Ozark Rivers National Monument. Hearing 

before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee 

on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, EightySeventh Congress, First Session, on S. 1381, a bill to authorize 

the establishment and development of the Ozark Rivers 

National Monument in the State of Missouri, and for other 

purposes, July 6, 1961. Washington: GPO.

[Senate]. 1963. The Ozark National Rivers. Hearings before 

the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on 

Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, EightyEighth Congress, First Session, on S. 16, a bill to provide for 

the establishment of the Ozark National Rivers in the State of 

Missouri, . . April 8, 9, and May 22, 1963. Washington: GPO.

Shanklin, John F. 1953. Letter to John Bierwirth, President, NDPC. 

March 19. SAF.

Shanklin, John F. 1955. Current River Natural Area. Journal of 

Forestry, 53:7 (July): 532-536.

Sherffius. 2001. Happy 50th, Leo Drey [cartoon]. St. Louis PostDispatch. October 19.

Sierra Club Ozark Chapter. 1985. The future of the Mark Twain 

National Forest: it’s up to you! (c. June). 20 p.

[SLPD]. 1956. Court reduces timber tract’s tax value 71 pct. St. 

Louis Post-Dispatch. November 16.

[SLPD]. 1957. Mechanical brain for Missouri forest. St. Louis PostDispatch. April 12. 

[SLPD]. 1961. Court orders tax board to set rates by statutes. 

April 7.

[SLPD]. 1962. Owner, assistants checking Pioneer Forest. The 

Everyday Magazine in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. February 26. 

p 1B.

[SLPD]. 1998. Sustainable forestry: it’s time to steward our 

forests (editorial). St. Louis Post-Dispatch. June 6.

Smith, Danna, ed. 1999. Forest management for the 21st 

century: perspectives of southern foresters, loggers, sawmill 

owners, and landowners. Brevard, NC: Dogwood Alliance. 33 p.

Stevens, Donald L., Jr. 1997. The establishment of America’s 

first national river: from homeland to Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. Draft typescript, April. Author file.

Stevens, Jean. 1971. Leo Drey: conservation’s Don Quixote. 

Missouri Today. 1(1): 14-17.

Stokes, Gerald. 1976. A recreation plan for Pioneer Forest, 

Missouri. Mid-Continent Regional Office, Bureau of Outdoor 

Recreation, USDI. January.

Stott, Calvin B. 1968. A short history of continuous forest 

inventory east of the Mississippi. Journal of Forestry. 66:834-

837.

Missouri’s Pioneer: A Half Century of Sustainable Forestry
40 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Todd, Bob. 2001. Leo Drey, Pioneer Forest, impacted 

outdoorsmen. River Hills Traveler. November 1.

Trammel, Clinton E. 1994. Letter to Ross Melick. August 10. PF.

Trammel, Clinton E. 1996. Pioneer Forest: a kinder, gentler way. 

International Journal of Ecoforestry. 12 (2): 235-237.

Trammel, Clinton E.; Cunningham, Terry J.; Iffrig, Greg F. 1998. 

A report on the 1997 forest inventory and a five year budget 

plan. Salem, MO: Pioneer Forest. 35 p. tps.

Trammel, Clint; Cunningham, Terry; Iffrig, Greg. 1999. Letter to 

Governor’s Advisory Committee on Chip Mills, 31 December. 

Author file.

Trammel, Clinton E.; Cunningham, Terry J.; Iffrig, Greg F. 2003. 

Pioneer Forest management plan and budget, 2003 through 

2007. 147 p. tps. Author file.

Trammel, Clinton; Cunningham, Terry; Iffrig, Greg F. 2005. 

Comments from Pioneer Forest, L-A-D Foundation, 5 May 2005 

(re Mark Twain National Forest—draft environmental impact 

statement). PF.

Uhlenbrock, Tom. 1998. Which forest do you prefer? (this is a 

test). St. Louis Post-Dispatch. May 31: B-1, 6. 

USDA-Forest Service Eastern Region. 1986. Record of decision: 

final environmental impact statement, land and resource 

management plan: Mark Twain National Forest. Milwaukee: 

46 + ii p. 

USDA-Forest Service. 1991. Mark Twain National Forest annual 

report fiscal year 1991. Rolla, MO: Mark Twain National Forest. 

6 p. 

USDA-Forest Service Eastern Region. 2005. Record of decision 

for 2005 land and resource management plan: Mark Twain 

National Forest. Milwaukee: 34 p. Also associated volumes: 

2005 forest plan and Final environmental impact statement, 

appendices, and maps.

U.S. House of Representatives. 1963. Ozark National Rivers, 

Missouri. Hearings before the Subcommittee on National Parks 

of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of 

Representatives, Eighty-Eighth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 

1803 and H.R. 2884, bills to provide for the establishment 

of the Ozark National Rivers in the State of Missouri, and for 

other purposes, April 9 and May 6, 1963. Washington: GPO.

Vaughn, Denise Henderson. 1997. Prediction: landowner 

decisions will determine if chip mill friend or foe. West Plains 

Daily Quill. August 8. 

Wang, Z. 1997. Stability and predictability of diameter 

distributions in a managed uneven-aged oak forest. Columbia: 

University of Missouri. 147 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Wolf, Jacob H. 1971. 1000 oppose scenic rivers. St. Louis PostDispatch. March 11.

Woods, E.W. 1953. Memo to V.B. Maneval. July 24, 1953. Leo 

Drey personal files.

Woods, Ed. 1964. The Karkhagne. Missouri Log. 17: 34-36.

Woods, E.W. 1965. ‘Trees for today & tomorrow’ is slogan of 

Pioneer Forest. Salem Post and Democrat Bulletin. (October 7).
Forest Manager Terry Cunningham collecting regeneration data on one of Pioneer’s 

Comprehensive Forest Inventory (CFI) plots. (Photo by G. F. Iffrig, courtesy of Pioneer Forest).

SILVICULTUR

& ECOLOGY E
42 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 
43

SILVICULTURE AND THE LONG-TERM DYNAMICS OF 

SINGLE-TREE SELECTION ON PIONEER FOREST

Edward F. Loewenstein1

Abstract—The uneven-aged silvicultural prescriptions being applied to oak-hickory stands on the Pioneer Forest contain elements 

of both art and science. The scientific element is found in the quantitative analysis of long-term inventory information to guide 

marking decisions, as stands currently receive their third and, in some cases, fourth cutting cycle harvest. The artistic element 

is borne of experience, as newly hired foresters and technicians serve the equivalent of an apprenticeship under the watchful 

guidance of the senior forest management staff. Contrary to popular belief, quantitative evidence and practical observation suggest 

that the uneven-aged methods being applied in Pioneer Forest are both sustainable and productive over time.

INTRODUCTION

What silvicultural approach do Pioneer Forest managers 

use (is it classical single-tree selection), and how has this 

approach affected the forest structure over the last 50 years 

on this 154,000+ acre, privately owned, oak-dominated 

forest? Answering these two simple questions might seem 

straightforward. However, I have been wrestling with the 

answer to these questions for over a decade. This has been a 

good exercise because it finally dawned on me why it is so hard 

to describe what they do on the Pioneer Forest. It all goes back 

to the basics of silviculture.

Silviculture has been defined as the art and science of producing 

and tending a forest stand to meet a landowner’s objectives 

on a sustainable basis (Smith 1986). It seems that foresters 

on the Pioneer tend toward the artistic side of silviculture. 

Newly hired foresters at the Pioneer Forest essentially serve an 

apprenticeship; the new forester follows an experienced one 

around the woods observing and asking questions for about 

6 months before they’re allowed to mark their first stand for 

harvest. Even then, they work only under the watchful eye 

of their mentor until they have shown they understand and 

can properly apply the system. All the Pioneer foresters are 

educated professionals with a good background in the science of 

forestry. The trouble is that a textbook on scientific application 

of selection silviculture in oak-dominated ecosystems has not 

yet been written, so the only way to learn the system is from 

someone who already knows how to apply it. In other words, 

their practice is quintessentially an art and a science, passed 

down from master to apprentice.

Several years ago, when asked about their approach to marking 

stands, Pioneer Forest Manager Clint Trammel stated that their 

goal upon entry into a stand is to create or maintain a threetiered canopy composed of an overstory, a midstory, and a 

sapling/reproduction layer. Assuming that the three canopy 

tiers represent three broad age classes, the textbook definition 

of an uneven-aged stand is attained. However, that still says 

little about how individual trees are selected for harvest. 

What are the marking rules? Are trees marked from across the 

entire range of diameter classes with each entry? Is the stand 

marked to a target diameter distribution? The answers to these 

questions would help to determine whether the Pioneer Forest 

managers were practicing classical selection silviculture. Over 

time, through a series of discussions, the answers provided 

by the Pioneer Forest staff indicate an empirical rather than 

an academic approach. Four general rules are followed on the 

Pioneer Forest:

1. Cut on a 20-year cycle by section (1 square mile; this is the 

operational unit on the forest). The harvest is scheduled when 

basal area reaches 95 to 100 square feet per acre rather than by 

strict adherence to the cutting cycle. 

2. Only merchantable trees are harvested. 

3. Culls are felled if suppressing crop trees. Snags are left. 

4. Removal is based on vigor, canopy position, site/species 

relationships, and potential for increase in value.

Typically, there are four issues raised that suggest single-tree 

selection is an inappropriate silvicultural system for regenerating 

shade-intolerant tree species, in general, or oaks, in particular. 

First is the concern that oaks will not develop under the shade 

of a continuous canopy (Sander 1980). Therefore, with singletree selection it is not possible to develop the age structure 

necessary for an uneven-aged stand (e.g., three separate age 

classes). Second, it is thought that an oak-dominated stand 

cannot develop or maintain the reverse J-shaped diameter 

structure indicative of a balanced uneven-aged stand (Sander 

1980). Third, when single-tree selection is applied in an 

oak-dominated stand, the result in other situations has been 

a shift in species composition toward more shade-tolerant 

tree species (Trimble 1970, Della-Bianca and Beck 1985, 

Schlesinger 1976). This is related to the first argument. Oak 

cannot become established beneath the shade of a continuous 

canopy and so will be replaced by more tolerant species such 

as red maple (Acer rubrum L.) or hickory (Carya sp.) that can 

tolerate these conditions. Fourth, if the data show an age 

structure, diameter structure, or species composition indicative 

of a sustainable silvicultural system, then there must be an 

alternative explanation. Either the long-term results of the 

current management practices are not yet apparent or the data 

were collected over too large an area. The response to these 

concerns by the staff of the Pioneer Forest has always been to 

invite skeptics out to the forest to see what they are doing, and 

to witness the results of their management.

1 Edward F. Loewenstein, Assistant Professor of Silviculture, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849.

Silviculture and the Long-Term Dynamics of Single-Tree Selection on Pioneer Forest
44 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Unfortunately, not everyone is able to make the trip to south 

central Missouri, nor is seeing necessarily believing. Objective 

scientific data were required. The purpose of this paper is to 

quantitatively explore four questions relative to silviculture on 

the Pioneer Forest. Has the Pioneer Forest staff been able to 

create uneven-aged stands in an oak-dominated system? Has 

the species composition of the stands continued to be oakdominated? Finally, were Pioneer foresters able to create the 

stand diameter structure necessary to sustain an uneven-aged 

stand? Only if the answers to these three questions were yes 

would it make sense to address the final issue. Is the silvicultural 

system in practice on the Pioneer Forest single-tree selection 

or is regeneration occurring in distinct even-aged groups better 

described as group-selection or patch clearcutting? Answering 

each of these questions required a definition of the unevenaged state that was much more rigorous than that which is 

currently in use by the forestry profession. However, it also 

required an evaluation of the Pioneer system in a manner to 

which accepted successful applications of a single-tree system 

had never been subjected.

The Pioneer Forest offers a unique opportunity to see the longterm results of a silvicultural system rarely attempted in an 

oak-dominated ecosystem. This is possible because a continuous 

forest inventory (CFI) has been maintained on the forest since 

the 1950’s. The CFI plot network consists of two, 1/5-acre fixedradius plots per square mile on the forest. These are permanent 

plots, and all trees larger than 5 inches in d.b.h. are uniquely 

identified and remeasured at 5-year intervals. This dataset 

makes it possible to track change through time so that the effect 

of the Pioneer system on stand diameter structure and species 

composition can be examined relative to a known starting point. 

The examination of spatial scale was made with only the most 

recent inventory (1992), and the dataset used to examine forest 

age structure was collected apart from the CFI plot network 

(Loewenstein 1996, Loewenstein and others 2000).

AGE STRUCTURE

In order to determine whether the Pioneer management system 

created an uneven-aged stand structure, a statistically testable 

definition of age structure had to be developed. By definition, 

an uneven-aged stand is one that contains at least three age 

classes either intimately intermixed or occurring in small groups 

(Helms 1998). To conduct a statistical test, age class was defined 

within the context of an even-aged stand where the range of 

ages is expected to be within 20 percent of the rotation length. 

One assumption had to be made because the concept of rotation 

does not apply to uneven-aged silviculture (Meyer 1943); an 

uneven-aged stand is managed by diameter structure, and 

tree age is of little or no importance. For purposes of the test, 

however, a rotation length of 90 years was assumed. This gave 

an age-class range of 18 years. Based on these assumptions, 

the test of a binomial proportion was then used to categorize 

sampled stands as either even-aged, two-aged, or unevenaged.

Ten 1-acre plots were sampled across one section (1 square 

mile) on the Pioneer Forest. The section was chosen at 

random from all Pioneer holdings that had been entered for 

treatment at least three times since the property was acquired 

by the forest in the 1950’s. This restriction ensured that the 

observed age structure was influenced as little as possible by 

management practices applied prior to acquisition by Pioneer 

Forest. Sample plots were limited to an acre in size to ensure, to 

the extent possible, that silvicultural treatments were applied in 

a fairly uniform manner across each plot. Age was determined 

for 60 oaks on each plot. Our interest was in determining 

whether the Pioneer system can sustain an uneven-aged oakdominated forest with oaks maintained in all age classes. If the 

oak component is unable to establish and periodically recruit 

additional age-classes into the stand, it is not sustainable in the 

long-term.

Seven of ten 1-acre plots were classified as uneven-aged, two as 

two-aged, and a single plot was determined to be even-aged. 

However, in order to adequately interpret these data, some 

additional information is required. First, the test used was very 

conservative. Had an alternative definition of an age class been 

used (e.g., Schnur (1937) defined an age class as spanning not 

more than 8 years) or a less conservative statistical test, at least 

9 of the 10 samples would have been classified as uneven-aged. 

It must also be noted that although the Pioneer Forest has been 

under the current management strategy since the 1950s, trees 

are very long lived and many of the trees currently standing 

in the forest were established prior to commencement of the 

current silvicultural system. The total range in age of the trees 

sampled was from 12 years to 233 years; but, 87 percent of 

the sampled trees germinated prior to the creation of Pioneer 

Forest. Even so, on eight of the ten 1-acre plots, a new age class 

has been recruited under the current management regime. 

Given that the Pioneer silvicultural system is recruiting oak into 

the stand and that on at least 70 percent of the forest sampled 

the age structure was found to be uneven-aged, it appears that 

the three age classes required for the uneven-aged state can be 

developed in this oak-dominated system and that the Pioneer 

Forest silvicultural system is able to create/maintain this age 

structure.

DIAMETER STRUCTURE

A reverse J-shaped diameter distribution is considered indicative 

of an uneven-aged stand because it allows for ingrowth, natural 

mortality, crop tree selection, and harvest while maintaining a 

stable diameter structure (Schlesinger 1976). However, it has 

been suggested that oaks and other shade intolerant species 

are unable to maintain this reverse J-shaped distribution 

because they are unable to successfully reproduce or recruit into 

successively larger size classes under the shade of a continuous 

canopy (Sander 1980). From the time active management 

started on the Pioneer Forest in the early 1950s, the composite 

diameter structure on the forest has maintained a reverse-J 

shape (fig. 1). However, the forest has been steadily changing. 

With each succeeding CFI inventory, the stocking percent 

increased markedly, and the number of stems in each diameter 
45

class increased as evidenced by the increased height of each 

subsequent distribution (fig. 1). On average, the forest has 

changed from an open woodland structure (32 percent stocking) 

to a closed canopy forest.

A sustainable forest structure is expected to be stable over an 

extended period of time. Forest stocking levels have steadily 

increased on the Pioneer Forest, so, in a strict sense, forest 

structure has changed. However, examining the Pioneer Forest 

diameter distributions on a relative scale rather than an absolute 

scale produces a somewhat different picture (fig. 2). Even with 

a marked increase in stocking levels, the relative diameter 

structure on the Pioneer Forest has remained remarkably stable 

over time. The forestwide q-value, defined as the proportion of 

trees in one diameter class relative to the number of trees in 

the next smaller diameter class, has not varied by more than 

0.02 over the 40-year period illustrated. Whether this diameter 

structure will remain constant as stocking levels on the forest 

continue to rise is subject to ongoing discussion. However, its 

stability across the first 40 years of management under the 

Pioneer system is a matter of record.

SPECIES COMPOSITION

The single-tree selection method has been successfully used to 

manage shade-tolerant species, which are able to establish and 

develop in the shade cast by a continuous cover of overstory 

trees. However, oaks tend to be intolerant to moderately 

tolerant of shade, and it has been suggested that they cannot 

be regenerated using the single-tree selection system (Sander 

and Clark 1971, Sander and Graney 1993). The common 

perception among foresters is that when selection silviculture 

is practiced in an oak-dominated ecosystem, a shift in species 

composition occurs toward more shade-tolerant species that 

are often of lesser commercial value (Johnson 1977, Niese and 

Strong 1992). Further, such shifts in composition have been 

shown in numerous studies (e.g., Trimble 1970, Della-Bianca 

and Beck 1985, Schlesinger 1976). It should be noted, however, 

that these studies were conducted in highly productive forests 

that tend to receive adequate rainfall during the growing 

season. In those mesic forests, regeneration of oak species can 

be difficult. Shade-tolerant competitors often overwhelm and 

out-compete oak reproduction regardless of the silvicultural 

method employed. However, the Pioneer Forest is located in the 

Ozark Highlands of Missouri where moisture is limited, and the 

drought-tolerant oaks are easily regenerated.

In the early 1950s when selection silviculture was first applied 

on the Pioneer Forest, seven principal species (or species 

groups) comprised over 90 percent of both the standing basal 

area and tree density (number of trees per acre). These species 

were white oak (Quercus alba L.), black oak (Q. velutina Lam.), 

scarlet oak (Q. coccinea Muenchh.), northern red oak (Q. rubra

L.), post oak (Q. stellata Wangenh.), the hickories (Carya sp.), 

and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.). By the early 1990s, 

the average basal area on the Pioneer Forest had increased by 

approximately 50 percent, and the number of trees per acre (all 

stems > 5 inches in d.b.h.) had increased by over 70 percent. 

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Trees per acre

Diameter class (inches d.b.h.)

1992 55%

1982 46%

1967 39%

1957 32%

Stocking

Figure 1—Diameter distributions of all trees inventoried on the Pioneer 

Forest in 1957, 1967, 1982, and 1992.

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Diameter class (inches d.b.h.)

Trees (percent)

1992 q-value = 1.3

1982 q-value = 1.3

1967 q-value = 1.3

1957 q-value = 1.3

Figure 2—Relative diameter frequency distributions of all trees inventoried 

on the Pioneer Forest in years 1957, 1967, 1982, and 1992.

Silviculture and the Long-Term Dynamics of Single-Tree Selection on Pioneer Forest
46 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Even with this marked increase in both volume and density, 

the seven species that dominated the forest in the 1950s still 

accounted for over 90 percent of both basal area and trees 

per acre (Loewenstein and others 1995). It is true that the 

proportion of trees among these species has shifted somewhat 

with white oak increasing in prominence at the expense of 

the others. However, even this small change in the relative 

proportions of the oak species only serves to bring the current 

species mix closer in line with that which is thought to have 

occurred historically across the region.

Although there were no large shifts in the overstory species 

composition (trees > 5 inches in d.b.h.), demonstrating that the 

species composition is sustainable also requires an examination 

of trees in the understory. Based on a 1992 inventory of 

subcanopy trees (1.6 to 4.9 inches in d.b.h.), six of the seven 

principal overstory species were among the 10 most abundant 

subcanopy species. Only northern red oak was not; it ranked 

16th in understory tree abundance (Loewenstein 1996). White 

oak was the most abundant subcanopy tree, accounting for 

over 75 stems per acre. Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida L.), 

a shade tolerant, was the second most abundant subcanopy 

tree. Flowering dogwood, however, rarely reaches the overstory; 

stems greater than 4.6 inches in d.b.h. were found on less 

than 7 percent of all CFI plots. The only other subcanopy shade 

tolerant species of significance were black gum (Nyssa sylvatica

Marsh.) and maples (Acer sp.). Combined with dogwood, these 

three species groups comprised 98 percent of the subcanopy 

shade-tolerant species and accounted for 87 percent of the 

total density of overstory shade-tolerant species. Approximately 

two-thirds of all shade-tolerant species inventoried in 1992 

were in the 2-inch d.b.h. class, and more than 90 percent were 

less than 4.6 inches in d.b.h. (fig. 3). In general, there is little 

or no evidence that shade-tolerant species have increased in 

importance in the overstory. Moreover, and more importantly, 

the accumulation of shade-tolerant trees in the smallest 

diameter classes does not appear to have suppressed the 

establishment and growth of intolerant species including the 

oaks. In the 2-inch diameter class, which included the greatest 

proportion of shade-tolerant species, the combined oaks and 

other intolerants outnumbered the shade-tolerant species nearly 

two to one.

SPATIAL SCALE

Finally, the issue of spatial scale must be addressed to 

determine whether or not single-tree selection, as opposed to 

group selection, can sustain oak recruitment on the Pioneer 

Forest. Oaks are intolerant to moderately tolerant of shade. 

Therefore, successful oak reproduction may require small evenaged groups or patches that are larger than those provided by 

the single-tree selection system.

Beginning with the accepted definition of an uneven-aged 

stand as one with at least three age classes either intimately 

intermixed or occurring in small groups (Helms 1998), an 

attempt was made to develop a test of spatial scale for unevenagedness. Unfortunately, this definition is unsatisfactory from 

both a scientific and a statistical perspective. It is too ambiguous 

to be tested directly for two reasons: first, the maximum size 

of a single stand is undefined, and, second, the size at which a 

group opening becomes large enough to be considered a small 

clearcut (and by definition, a separate stand), is debatable 

as well. These two issues become problematic only because 

without spatial limits, it is possible to define group and stand 

in such a way that three age classes are always included within 

an arbitrary boundary, thus meeting a ‘minimal’ definition of an 

uneven-aged stand.

With any of the even-aged silvicultural reproduction methods 

(i.e., clearcutting, seed-tree, or shelterwood), regeneration 

occurs across the entire stand at the start of the rotation. Thus, 

age and size structure are consistent across the entire area. 

In group selection, regeneration occurs in small even-aged 

patches that are periodically created at each cutting cycle. 

The age structure and diameter structure of a group-selection 

stand combine measurements from each group into a single 

distribution. Individually, trees in each group are fairly uniform 

in both age and diameter. Only when combined across the 

stand does a recognizable uneven-aged structure appear 

(a reverse J-shaped distribution is typical). In single-tree 

Figure 3—Diameter distributions by species group of all trees in 1992 

(stocking, 67 percent).
47

selection, however, regeneration is distributed much more 

uniformly across the stand. The age (size) classes are intimately 

intermixed. For this reason, under single-tree selection the 

diameter structure of the stand should be more uniform and 

occur at a smaller spatial scale than might be expected with 

either group selection or by combining separate even-aged 

stands.

By examining the spatial scale at which a stable reverse 

J-shaped diameter distribution occurs, it should be possible 

to place the silvicultural method employed by Pioneer Forest 

managers along the continuum from single-tree selection, 

through group selection or into any of the even-aged systems. If 

this spatial scale is relatively small (1 acre or less, for instance) 

there could be little question that the diameter structure was 

stable, sustainable, and occurring in a pattern suggestive of 

the single-tree selection system. If, however, the spatial scale 

at which the forest wide diameter distribution reoccurs were 

fairly large (several acres or more), then the likelihood that 

this distribution consists of accumulated even-aged groups of 

trees increases dramatically. On the Pioneer Forest, it was found 

that the forestwide, reverse J-shaped diameter distribution 

reoccurred on average at a spatial scale of only 0.6 acres 

(Loewenstein 1996). Given that the most intensively managed 

even-aged plantations cover at least 1 acre (Smith 1986) and 

extensively managed forest stands may be several hundred 

acres in size (the operational unit or stand size on the Pioneer 

Forest is one section, 640 acres), this is strong evidence that 

single-tree selection is indeed the silvicultural system employed 

on the Pioneer Forest, and it is maintaining a stable diameter 

structure at a very small spatial scale.

SUMMARY

Despite a widely held belief that oaks regenerate most easily 

using clearcutting or shelterwood methods, this knowledge 

leads many to discount the use of uneven-aged methods to 

manage oaks. However, the data in this paper show that the 

staff of the Pioneer Forest has successfully used single-tree 

selection over the past 50 years. The efficacy of the Pioneer 

system was evaluated in four ways:

1. The age structure of the oak component was found to be 

uneven-aged across 70 percent of the area sampled.

2. The diameter structure was found to exhibit a stable, reverse 

J-shaped distribution that has not changed over time. Such a 

distribution is considered indicative of a balanced, uneven-aged 

stand.

3. The species composition on the forest has changed little over 

the past 50 years and shows no evidence of a compositional 

shift toward shade-tolerant species. The oak component has 

been maintained in the overstory and understory, and the white 

oaks are increasing in prominence.

4. Finally, the forestwide diameter structure appears stable at a 

spatial scale of 0.6 acres. This scale strongly suggests that the 

entire range of size/age classes is well distributed across the 

landscape and not occurring in distinct even-aged groups.

The evidence from these studies collectively indicates that the 

single-tree selection system can be used to sustain an unevenaged oak-dominated forest in this Ozark ecosystem, and that 

single-tree selection is indeed the system applied on the 

Pioneer Forest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to express sincere appreciation to Leo 

Drey, Clint Trammel, and all of the Pioneer Forest staff for their 

assistance during the conducting of this ongoing research and 

for making their CFI database available for analysis. He would 

also like to thank U.S. Forest Service scientists, Steve Shifley and 

Jim Guldin, for their review of this manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

Della-Bianca, L.; Beck, D.E. 1985. Selection management in 

Southern Appalachian hardwoods. South. J. Appl. For. 9(3):191-

196.

Helms, J.A., ed. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Society of 

American Foresters, Bethesda, MD. 210 p.

Johnson, R.L. 1977. Planning for natural regeneration of 

hardwoods in the Coastal Plain. p 114-119. In: Proceedings—

Second Symposium on Southeastern Hardwoods. USDA For. 

Ser. State and Priv. For. SE. Area, Atlanta, GA.

Loewenstein, E.F. 1996. An analysis of the size- and agestructure of an uneven-aged oak forest [Ph.D. Dissertation]. 

Univ. of MO, Columbia, MO. 167 p .

Loewenstein, E.F.; Garrett, H.E.; Johnson, P.S.; Dwyer, J.P. 1995. 

Changes in a Missouri Ozark oak-hickory forest during 40 years 

of uneven-aged management. p 159-164. In: Proceedings, 

10th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. Gottschalk KW, 

Fosbroke SLC (eds.). Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-197. USDA For. Ser. NE. 

For. Exp. Stn., Radnor, PA. 577 p.

Loewenstein, E.F.; Johnson, P.S.; Garrett, H.E. 2000. Age and 

diameter structure of a managed uneven-aged oak forest. 

Can. J. For. Res. 30:1060-1070.

Meyer, H.A. 1943. Management without rotation. J. For. 41:126-

32.

Niese, J.N.; Strong, T.F. 1992. Economic and tree diversity tradeoffs in managed northern hardwoods. Can. J. For. Res. 22:1807-

1813.

Sander, I.L.; Clark, F.B. 1971. Reproduction of upland hardwood 

forests in the Central States. U.S. Forest Service Agric. Hdbk. 

405, Washington, D.C. 25 p.

Sander, I.L.; Graney, D.L. 1993. Regenerating oaks in the Central 

States. p 174-183. In: Oak regeneration: serious problems, 

practical recommendations. Loftis DL, McGee CE (Eds.). Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SE-84. USDA For. Serv. SE. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, 

NC. 319 p.

Silviculture and the Long-Term Dynamics of Single-Tree Selection on Pioneer Forest
48 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Sander, I.L. 1980. Some silvicultural and management 

options for upland hardwoods of the Midsouth. p 88-96. In: 

Proceedings, Mid-South Upland Hardwoods Symposium for 

the Practicing Forester and Land Manager. Tech Pub. SA-TP 12. 

Southeast Area State and Priv. For., Atlanta, GA.

Schlesinger, R.C. 1976. Sixteen years of selection silviculture in 

upland hardwood stands. Res. Note NC-125. USDA For. Ser. NC. 

For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, MN. 6 p.

Schnur, G.L. 1937. Yield, stand, and volume tables for even-aged 

upland oak forests. Tech. Bull. No. 560. USDA, Washington, 

D.C. 87 p.

Smith, D.M. 1986. The practice of silviculture. 8th ed. Wiley, New 

York. 525 p.

Trimble, G.R., Jr. 1970. Twenty years of intensive unevenaged management: effect on growth, yield, and species 

composition in two hardwood stands in West Virginia. Res. 

Pap. NE-154. USDA For. Ser. NE For. Exp. Stn. Upper Darby, WV. 

12 p.
49

DESCRIBING SINGLE-TREE SELECTION HARVESTS 

IN MISSOURI OZARK FORESTS

Greg F. Iffrig, Clinton E. Trammel, and Terry Cunningham1

Abstract—The European debate about uneven-aged forest management has been described as comparable to the religious wars 

of the Middle Ages. Likewise, here in the American Midwest, the forestry community has been largely unreceptive to the unevenaged system of management, particularly the single-tree selection technique. Whereas a religious war may be more descriptive 

than accurate, disagreement is almost certain to continue in the literature as well as on the front lines within the forests. Despite 

that, we present evidence that use of the single-tree selection cutting technique for forests of the Lower Ozarks Region is an 

appropriate and successful management and restoration application. Drawing on more than a half-century of management 

experience and continuous forest inventory information, we trace the early development of single-tree selection harvesting, review 

its use as the harvesting technique on Pioneer Forest, and describe its implementation in detail.

EUROPEAN ORIGINS OF UNEVEN-AGED 

FOREST MANAGEMENT

The system of forest management, used on Pioneer Forest 

since the early 1950s, is a very old one, originating in the 

mountainous regions of Europe in the 1700s (Schutz 1997) in 

mixed beech-fir forests. As practiced at that time, the system 

represented an accumulation of knowledge among generations 

of private forest owners. Europeans viewed forests as an 

important economic asset that, through careful management, 

could yield income to be used for important and periodic family 

needs. Harvest revenues could be used for building construction 

or repairs, education, weddings, or emergency revenue. Through 

this experience, beginning nearly 300 years ago, European 

families passed along what developed into a recognized practice 

of periodically selecting trees from the forest for harvest. 

In the late 1800s, a harvest technique known as singletree selection was developed as a part of the more formal 

description of uneven-aged forest management by Henri Biolley 

(1901) in Switzerland and Adolph Gurnaud (1882, 1884) in 

France. From Gernaud came the idea of the sustainability of 

forests through the application of single-tree selection harvests 

whereas Biolley developed the technical rules for its use as a 

formal management tool. 

Despite these advances, there has been a great deal of debate 

in European circles about the use of uneven-aged management. 

Schutz (1997) likened that debate as “comparable to the 

religious wars of the Middle Ages”, with deeply held beliefs 

about even-aged forestry versus uneven-aged forestry, often 

to the point where dispassionate assessment of the respective 

methods on their own merits is difficult to find. But, the 

European experience is clear in one respect—that in certain 

forest types, when applied with a combination of scientific 

analysis and practical experience, uneven-aged management 

can be successfully implemented in the long term.

UNEVEN-AGED MANAGEMENT IN MISSOURI

In the central United States, the earliest literature describing 

either uneven-aged management or the practice of singletree selection first appeared in the 1980s. Larsen (1980) 

developed a growth and yield model for mixed oak-pine forests 

using the Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI) information from 

Pioneer Forest as a database. Melick (1989) presented some 

of the earliest silvicultural prescriptions for the uneven-aged 

management of three specific forest stands on the Mark Twain 

National Forest. At this same time, Law and Lorimer (1989) 

prepared their own analysis for managing stands to achieve an 

uneven-aged character across the landscape. 

In a series of research projects spanning the 1990s, a more 

specific analysis of uneven-aged forest management in 

oak-hickory forests was conducted on Pioneer Forest. Such a 

thorough analysis was possible primarily because of the longterm database from the CFI established on Pioneer Forest in 

1952. Jenkins (1992) and Jenkins and Pallardy (1993) studied 

oak-hickory stands and suggested that the red oak group in 

uneven-aged stands on Pioneer Forest were less susceptible to 

mortality than similar stands under other management systems 

elsewhere. While not exclusive to Pioneer Forest, Johnson 

(1992) mentions the use of single-tree selection harvesting in 

his review of alternatives to clearcutting, although, at the time, 

only reluctantly recommending it as a prescription. Shortly after 

Johnson’s review was completed, he and other researchers at 

the University of Missouri-Columbia continued to analyze the 

single-tree selection method and reported positive results. 

Loewenstein (1996) and Loewenstein and others (1995, 2000) 

investigated age/diameter relationships, as well as long-term 

changes in species composition and basal area (summary of 

the number and size of trees per acre). Results from this series 

of papers clearly demonstrated the success of the method over 

a 50-year period. Wang (1997) and Wang and others (1996) 

reported on the stability of diameter distributions, confirming 

that the diameter distributions for scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea

Muenchh.), northern red oak (Q. rubra L.), and white oak 

(Q. alba L.) conformed to the expected negative exponential 

diameter distribution (described by Johnson and others 2002); 

1

 Greg F. Iffrig, Chief of Recreation and Reserves, Clinton E. Trammel, Retired Forest Manager, and Terry Cunningham, Forest Manager, Pioneer Forest, Salem, 

MO 65560.

Describing Single-Tree Selection Harvests in Missouri Ozark Forests
50 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

namely, with more trees in the small size, young age classes 

and fewer trees in the larger size, older age classes. 

Two attempts in the recent past describe how the method 

applied on the ground. One was an initial work by Larsen and 

others (1997) where the authors, using regression models, 

projected height and density classes for regeneration based 

upon given residual basal area of the overstory. Then Larsen and 

others (1999) presented criteria for selecting the residual stand 

structure and density necessary to sustain a forest dominated 

by oaks. The basis for both of these treatments was a 40-year 

portion of the data-set from Pioneer Forest. More recently, 

Johnson and others (2002) thoroughly reviewed uneven-aged 

silvicultural methods, including an extensive discussion of the 

principles and some of the theory of the single-tree selection 

cutting technique. In this paper, we present in more detail the 

successful practice of marking and decision-making, which has 

been developed by a group of foresters who have applied the 

single-tree selection technique of uneven-aged management in 

Ozark forests since the 1950s. 

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE LANDS 

OF PIONEER FOREST

Leo Drey began acquisition of the lands that are now Pioneer 

Forest in March 1951. Today these forests extend over 154,000 

acres. He recognized that these forested landscapes could be 

productive while they were managed using a more conservative 

harvesting technique. Prior human-induced disturbance on much 

of these lands included fire, cutting, and grazing. Drey’s goal 

was to establish a demonstration method of harvesting trees 

while retaining the structure and character of the forest across 

the landscape. The long-range objective for Pioneer Forest is to 

develop and manage native tree species of large diameter and 

high quality for wood products while also providing a host of 

recreational and ecosystem benefits.

There is significant information on the history of these forests 

prior to Drey’s earliest acquisition. This history is not only 

interesting, but is also instructive in developing and then 

validating a successful prescription for single-tree selection 

harvesting. 

Pioneer Forest is located in the oak, hickory, and pine region 

of the Ozark Highlands. Aside from scenic beauty, these forests 

provide recreation, water and soil conservation, watershed 

protection, timber products, fuel, and essential habitat for 

characteristic wildlife species. The topography was formed 

largely through a process of erosion with areas of greatest relief 

reaching a difference in elevation of 700 feet. This area of the 

Ozarks, and the lands of Pioneer Forest specifically, have many 

classic features of karst-influenced landscapes, including large 

springs, sinkholes, losing streams and numerous caves, plus 

bluffs, glades, fens, and clear streams. 

We can only speculate as to the condition of these old and 

mature forests just prior to their first cutting, but we can learn 

a great deal from those who have examined, studied, and 

written about the condition of the Ozarks landscape at that time. 

Their observations, as well as what we know about the cutting 

during this early period are particularly helpful in understanding 

the subsequent results of the harvest method that has been 

researched and practiced on Pioneer Forest.

The earliest information we have comes from the study of 

tree ring chronologies. Guyette and others (2002) developed 

a method for constructing fire and disturbance models 

extending hundreds of years back in time through pre-European 

settlement. Study of disturbance regimes resulting from the 

long-term interactions between humans and their environment 

can provide specific information on forest succession and species 

abundances. 

In the region of Pioneer Forest, evidence suggests that the 

highly dissected and heavily forested topography reduces the 

frequency of fire-related disturbance. Guyette and others (2002) 

noted that the interval between surface fires ranged from 9.8 to 

17 years within the forested uplands immediately north of the 

Current River, compared to 16 to 29 years for the more mesic 

mixed-oak forests along the river during the period 1700 to 

1850. Thus, the 15- to 30-year entry period that has evolved 

operationally for single-tree selection harvest parallels the 

earlier frequency of disturbance from fire in the region. 

There also appear to be differences in the scale of disturbance 

locally versus regionally. Guyette and others (2002) noted that 

the Ozark Region is more than 80 percent forested, defined 

as having a percent canopy closure of more than 75 percent. 

However, they also noted that the locality of Pioneer Forest 

with its steep ridges and numerous streams and slopes that 

average 18 degrees, supported a pattern of small-scale rather 

than large-scale disturbance. The practice of removing individual 

trees that is typical of management on Pioneer Forest thus 

approximates the historic scale of smaller disturbances that 

were common in this vicinity.

Pine and deciduous forests made up most of the pre-settlement 

vegetation of the Ozarks, especially in areas of greatest 

topographic relief (Thom and Wilson 1980). From our own longterm work, as well as publications describing this particular area 

of the Ozarks, the majority of Pioneer Forest is located in what 

was and still is the most heavily forested region of Missouri. 

These landscapes are and have always been forests in the truest 

sense.

More information comes during the mid-20th century from 

an article about “Pioneer Forest,” published by the Missouri 

Department of Conservation. Meyer (1949) describes these 

lands during the period from about 1920 to 1945. The following 

are a few of his observations:

“The name Pioneer Forest is an ideal one, tying its past 

history to the cooperage company whose conservative 

use of the land made it possible for the forest now to be 

a going concern without a long period of building up the 

timber volume on the land.

“The history of the forest begins about a quarter of a 

century ago [ed. note: about 1920] when 50,000 acres 

of virgin timberland was purchased by the cooperage 
51

company from the old Current River Lumber Company. A 

lot of this land then supported ancient stands of shortleaf 

pine and of white oak...”

“And so the company had some land which had not 

been cut enough to even harvest the growth...”

These writings are clear in their description of forest, timber 

volume, and the dominant native species found in this region. 

Around 1945, National Distillers purchased all of the lands 

owned by Pioneer Cooperage. By 1954, National Distillers had 

changed its forest management practices and began cutting 

all merchantable trees rather than using the more careful and 

selective approach initiated by Pioneer Cooperage. Cutting 

during this time removed many of the larger shortleaf pine 

(Pinus echinata Mill.) and white oak, as well as some black and 

red oaks. Farther away from the sawmills, larger trees were 

often left. Also, left within these forests were the pine and 

white oak trees generally smaller than 14 inches in diameter 

(Martin and Presley 1958). Misshapen or poorly formed trees 

were not cut. Also left were other abundant species of all sizes, 

including blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica Marsh. var. sylvatica), ash 

(Fraxinus spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), other oaks, walnut (Juglans 

nigra L.), basswood (Tilia americana L.), mulberry (Morus rubra

L.), black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.), elm (Ulmus spp.), and 

sycamore (Platanus occidentalis L.)—trees that we know are 

characteristic of the Ozark forests, but for which, at the time, 

there was no market. 

Another source of information from the period immediately 

prior to Leo Drey’s purchase of the forest provides a more 

detailed look at forest composition. H.H. Chapman, a wellknown forestry professor from the Yale University School of 

Forestry, visited the National Distillers holdings in July 1951. 

The purpose of Chapman’s visit was to produce a fairly detailed 

report (Chapman 1951) of the forest condition. During the 

period of July 5 to 15, Chapman traveled 1,500 miles, inspected 

66,000 acres of land, and completed measurements from 106 

of the 179 surveyed sections in which National Distillers owned 

land. This was during a time when many writers describe these 

Ozark forests as having been completely cutover. Included in 

Chapman’s report was a 1949 calculation of the number of trees 

per acre from three diameter classes (4 to 10 inches, 12 to 14 

inches, and trees greater than 16 inches in diameter). From his 

data, we know that there was an average of 38.4 trees per acre, 

including nearly eight saw log trees (individual trees greater 

than 12 inches in diameter) (table 1). 

Whereas this average represents a relatively low stocking, it 

should be noted that at the time of his inventory in 1949, the 

only merchantable species were white oak, red oak, black oak, 

and shortleaf pine. We speculate that these data may have 

represented only the species that were merchantable at that 

time because only one species-specific class (the report lists 

white oak, the species of primary importance to the distillery 

company, as one class and then other species as another 

class) is mentioned in Chapman’s report. If all species present 

had been measured, whether merchantable or not, then the 

forestwide number of trees per acre would have been higher. 

Our own data, compiled only 8 years later (table 1, 1957), show 

nearly double the total number of trees and nearly double the 

saw log trees when accounting for all species.

There is no question that early cutting (the peak period of which 

occurred between 1880 and the 1940s) substantially changed 

certain Ozark forests. Furthermore, there also is considerable 

evidence that while forests of the Ozarks were indeed cut, it 

is unlikely that the entire Ozark region would have been left 

barren. 

In 1954, Drey concluded his purchase of all of the land holdings 

of National Distillers and, adding that to the forest acreage he 

had already purchased, he then renamed his long-range forest 

management effort Pioneer Forest. From its beginning, Pioneer 

Forest has used uneven-aged management, applying the singletree selection harvest method on a truly landscape scale as an 

Ozark forest management project.

Table 1—Trees per acre by diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) and year of inventory from 

Pioneer Forest, Missouri a

D.b.h.

Chapman

1951 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002

6 29.0 34.0 38.2 44.4 47.9 47.8 46.6 54.2 66.4 64.73

8 30.5 b 18.0 19.0 22.8 24.2 27.3 30.7 32.5 34.2 36.2 33.09

10 11.2 12.5 14.6 16.4 17.0 18.1 20.0 21.8 24.3 22.9

12 5.8 c 6.9 7.0 9.0 9.2 10.2 11.0 11.6 12.5 15.1 13.0

14 4.1 4.5 5.4 4.7 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.7 8.0 6.4

16 2.1 d 1.6 2.0 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.8 3.6 3.0

18 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.2

20 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7

22 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1

24 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Total 38.4 71.9 80.3 94.3 102.8 111.0 116.7 120.1 134.2 156.2 145.2

a Data for 1951 from Chapman (1951), and for remaining years from the continuous forest inventory. 

b Accumulated diameter class of all trees measured from 4 to 10 inches d.b.h.

c Accumulated diameter class of all trees measured from 12 to 14 inches d.b.h.

d Accumulated diameter class of all trees measured ≥16 inches d.b.h.

Describing Single-Tree Selection Harvests in Missouri Ozark Forests
52 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

SINGLE-TREE SELECTION AS APPLIED IN PIONEER 

FOREST

The application of the single-tree selection harvest method 

lends itself more to a qualitative description, and somewhat less 

to being quantified. In many ways, this technique is at least as 

much art as it is science. From the very earliest days of Drey’s 

ownership, the forest management philosophy was epitomized 

by the words of Russ Noah, former forester with Pioneer 

Forest: “if a tree would last for another 10 years (or until the 

next scheduled harvest), don’t cut it.” This philosophy is also 

expressed in a more recent and equally concise description of 

uneven-aged management by Guldin and Baker (1998), where 

markers are instructed to “cut the worst trees and leave the best 

within each diameter or product class.” Although simple, both 

descriptions go a long way toward demystifying what many 

have been called impossible to describe.

First applied by foresters Ed Woods and Charlie Kirk on the 

properties of Pioneer Cooperage, the concept was to remove 

trees from the forest that might be lost before the next harvest. 

Infestations by insects, disease, or storm damage were all 

reasons to harvest a tree. Rather than removing all or a large 

portion of the trees from any given acre, only those trees that 

might be lost or were expected to significantly decline (in value 

or health or both) before the next harvest were considered for 

removal. The principal idea was to devise a harvesting technique 

that would allow selected trees to be removed periodically from 

the forest. 

This removal was initially suggested to be every 10 years. 

Neither the expected period for this re-entry, nor the carrying 

capacity for these Ozark forests, were precisely known when 

foresters of the present-day Pioneer Forest began. Through 

practical experience and experimentation, the details of this 

technique have developed.

In many ways, the nature of the single-tree selection harvest 

technique is an accelerated version of the natural changes 

that might occur within the forest over much longer periods of 

time. Time, combined with risk factors such as mortality, make 

all the difference in understanding how this method of forest 

management works (fig. 1). 

Overview

The prescription for field-marking, which we describe below 

does not attempt to quantify the many variables that are at play 

within the forest. Uneven-aged management, and especially the 

single-tree selection technique, is, by nature, a highly flexible 

forest management tool. Single-tree selection harvesting is 

more consistent with the dynamic conditions within the forest, 

combining the biological realities with various social objectives 

(Becker and Corse 1997), including income, recreation, and 

aesthetics. The biological realities such as drought, fire, ice, and 

wind, as well as the many human-inspired or human-inflicted 

changes that have affected these forests over long periods of 

time, are all constant and highly variable factors. Management 

and experience with an ecosystem at least several hundred 

years old continue to leave many details of their effects still 

unknown. These include the carrying capacity or standing 

volume, maximum diameter, and a strict Q-ratio—the factor 

used to calculate the number of trees within individual age/

diameter classes (Johnson and others 2002). Therefore, as a 

purposeful precaution, our marking prescription aims for more 

broadly defined age and diameter classes within the forest and 

much less for the academic rendering of a numerical formula. 

This flexibility allows for specific targeted adjustments to be 

determined on-site, during each harvest, accounting for both 

natural and catastrophic change that may occur.

The most basic requirement of uneven-aged management is 

that the resulting forest shall possess at least three distinct 

age classes. The age class or diameter distribution of the forest 

then follows what has become a classic reverse J-shaped curve 

(Johnson and others 2002). This curve portrays the forestwide 

array of diameter classes beginning with a greater number of 

younger aged, smaller diameter trees, and then progressively 

reducing the numbers of trees within each diameter class to 

reach fewer older aged, larger diameter trees. The difference 

between the real curve from actual forest data and the 

theoretical guiding curve provides the management target. 

Figure 2 portrays the results of our day-to-day interpretation of 

the qualitative prescription we describe here. The quantitative 

analysis of these results and the periodic fine-tuning over 

long periods of time determine successful management and 

demonstrate how well the technique works when applied across 

a large forested landscape. 

Merchantability Standards

The merchantability of a given species depends on market 

conditions within a particular region. In the Pioneer Forest area, 

minimum merchantable hardwood saw log trees are 11 inches 

in diameter at breast height, with at least an 8-foot saw log 

containing a 10-inch diameter at the small end. Pine saw log 

trees must be at least 9 inches in diameter at breast height 

Figure 1—Aerial view of an oak-hickory stand on Pioneer Forest 

harvested using the single-tree selection method. Stumps of trees 

harvested during the harvest are circled. (Pioneer Forest)
53

and have at least an 8-foot log length, with a minimum of 6 

inches in diameter on the small end. Cordwood trees are those 

trees large enough to be a saw log but contain defects that 

will not allow merchantability as a saw log; or are less than 

the minimum saw log diameter at breast height, contain at 

least one stick of wood 4 feet in length, and are not less than 4 

inches in diameter on the small end. 

Harvest Cycle

Rotation describes the length of time between harvests or the 

maximum age a stand will be allowed to grow under an evenaged management system. The length of a rotation is the time 

between harvests. Using an uneven-aged management system, 

however, there is always a forest cover on the land and thus 

no recognizable beginning or end to the structure of the forest. 

Forest management through the application of single-tree 

selection becomes a series of separate entries, called cuttingcycle harvests, where each time a partial harvest occurs. These 

harvests can be thought to be analogous to the thinnings used 

in well-managed, even-aged stands, but unlike even-aged 

thinnings, mature, high-value trees are harvested during every 

uneven-aged cutting-cycle harvest. Success with single-tree 

selection management depends on the monitoring of canopy 

closure as well as a forest’s structural characteristics. The ability 

to continually measure forest structure through time facilitates 

success and also quantifies and characterizes forest quality. 

The timing between each entry has evolved from that used 

beginning in the early 1950s, of about every 10 years, to 

a slightly longer period used today of 15 to 30 years for 

individual stands. Past cutting history and the current condition 

of the stand are used to determine the timing of each harvest 

entry. Exact timing depends on the condition of any given 

area, primarily canopy closure for the forested area under 

consideration. The canopy cannot be allowed to fully close for 

any length of time without causing a loss of desirable seedlings, 

saplings, and poles, and significant components of stand 

structure. Other factors include physical condition of the trees, 

growth rate, and signs of mortality. 

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Trees per acre

2–3 4–5 6–7 8–9 10–11 12–13 14–15 16–17 18–19 20–21 22–23

Diameter class

Trees per acre

Q-factor 1.69

Pioneer forest

2002 CFI

Figure 2—Distribution of stems > 2 inches in d.b.h. per acre from the 

2002 Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI)—compared with a theoretical 

1.69 Q-factor curve using an upper diameter of 23+ inches. 

Marking Method

Marking for a single-tree selection harvest focuses on the 

condition and health of individual trees. When marking an area 

for harvest, every tree is examined and an assessment made 

as to the risk of that tree surviving through the next harvest 

cycle. Trees not marked are considered to be likely to survive, 

and, thus, are left to grow and gain in volume and value. The 

number and quality of retained, or “leave”, trees found on 

every acre of the forested area are a distinguishing measure of 

single-tree selection harvesting. Leave trees are the dominant 

and most productive trees in each age and diameter class. As 

stand marking proceeds across the slope, the focus on any 

given area is to first determine which trees are to be left and 

only then to begin marking those trees that are to be cut. The 

best trees on each site are almost always left to be re-assessed 

during the next harvest. Specific considerations are age and 

species, physical condition, vigor, site quality, stand position and 

density, and cull or snag trees. A decision-tree was developed 

for marking a stand of timber to aid foresters in the conceptual 

understanding of the process (fig. 3).

The following marking guidelines have been developed to assist 

in the evaluation of trees during a particular harvest when using 

single-tree selection management. It should be remembered 

that when using this method, foresters mark and leave trees for 

the present harvest but also look ahead to one or more future 

harvests when assessing each tree’s status.

Age (Size) and Species—The forester must observe 

characteristics of each tree to estimate its age and determine 

whether it is approaching biological maturity. For any given tree 

this requires a general understanding of the capability of any 

given species within this region. For example, a scarlet oak 

currently estimated to be 80 years old would be around 100 

years of age at the next harvest entry used on Pioneer Forest. 

An age of 100 years would place a scarlet oak beyond the age 

considered to be its normal biological maturity, and, thus, would 

be at high risk of mortality. Such a tree would be marked for 

harvest. On the other hand, a white oak tree 150 years of age 

is well within the most productive growth period during its life 

cycle and could be retained for at least several more harvest 

entries.

Physical Condition—Each tree is examined for factors such as 

an unusual number of dead limbs, decay holes, percent crown 

spread, percent live crown, insects, and disease. For example, 

trees in poor physical condition or those infested with insects or 

diseases are considered at high risk of significant volume loss 

or of dying before the next entry and, thus, become candidates 

to be marked for removal during harvest. In addition, those 

trees infested with insects or disease will potentially become an 

infection site for the surrounding stand and should be removed. 

As marking moves across the slope or up the hill, each tree is 

observed from all sides. It is often the case that a tree observed 

from several sides, and initially thought to be a leave tree, will 

be reconsidered when a serious defect is observed from a side 

of the tree not yet seen. Oaks in otherwise good physical

Describing Single-Tree Selection Harvests in Missouri Ozark Forests
54 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

condition, but with a basal hole as opposed to a hole 

somewhere up on the trunk or bole, may be candidates for 

leave trees. The reason for this is that damage to the wood 

from this source always moves down in a tree, and, if the decay 

moves up, it does so very slowly. Such a tree could easily grow 

through another harvest cycle with considerable additional 

increase in volume but with much less increase in the measured 

defect.

Vigor—The overall health of each tree is considered. To be 

retained, a tree must be growing well. For example, red oaks 

must have a tight, relatively smooth bark with little difference 

between the bark ridges and valleys. This indicates a strong, 

healthy tree that is putting on good diameter growth. In this 

example, the bark indicates that the tree is healthy and growing 

rapidly. The tree should have a good, relatively thick, healthylooking crown in relation to its size and position in the stand. A 

positive assessment indicates an ideal leave tree.

Site—The forester considers the conditions of the site on which 

the tree is growing, including slope position, aspect, soil type, 

and soil depth. During a day of marking, site conditions will 

change several times along and across a given hillside. These 

changes may be from a dry ridge top to a moist north cove 

to a warm west hillside. Marking is designed to encourage 

and leave those species best suited to each particular site 

condition. Therefore, marking for a single-tree selection harvest 

requires the continual assessment of site quality and species 

composition, with the goal of favoring those species that will 

survive adverse conditions between now and the next harvest 

cycle. Each harvest is directly related to growth rate as well as 

the standing volume. For example, a higher volume could be 

cut from the faster growing cove site than from the drier ridge 

top. Making these adjustments during marking compensates for 

varying growth rates and is consistent with the naturally higher 

stocking possible on better sites.

Stand Position and Density—Consider an individual tree’s 

position in the stand when determining which trees to cut. 

Legitimate reasons exist to cut both poor and good trees, 

depending on localized stand conditions. There are two primary 

reasons why trees otherwise considered to be leave trees 

might be cut. Trees that have become suppressed for prolonged 

periods of time are often of poor quality, and do not respond 

well to release; as such, they are poor candidates to leave until 

the next harvest entry. On the other hand, a desirable tree may 

also be a candidate for removal via thinning in order to give 

other more desirable trees in close proximity room to grow.

Cull and Snag Trees—Cull trees are defined as living trees 

where more than 50 percent of the total volume is defective 

from a merchantability perspective. Snag trees are standing 

dead trees and have no commercial value. However, 

maintaining a component of defective, dying, and dead trees 

within the forest is considered a very important measurable 

benefit for wildlife. Thus, no attempt is made to remove all 

dead and dying trees from the forest. Individual merchantable 

trees showing signs of use for dens or nests by forestdwelling mammals, birds, and reptiles are almost always left. 

Merchantable trees with no apparent wildlife use may be 

salvaged or left, depending on the density and distribution of 

culls and snags within the area. Trees of no merchantable value 

and no value for wildlife may be felled where they interfere 

with the growth of a desirable leave tree.

When Several Adjacent Trees Are Candidates for Removal or 

Leaving—When a small group of trees is under consideration for 

marking, and the criteria above do not make the choice clear, 

then choosing which trees to mark and which to leave becomes 

a matter of thinning. With all other factors appearing equal, 

Figure 3—Key for determining cut or leave trees during a single-tree 

selection harvest. Definitions for terms used here are: cordwood—see 

definition earlier in this paper under merchantability standards; 

TSI—abbreviation for timber stand improvement, meaning the tree cut 

for TSI has no commercial value other than the value of removing it as a 

benefit to all of the surrounding trees; course woody debris—a cut tree 

left on the forest floor; wildlife tree—any tree presently or potentially 

used by any of a variety of wildlife species; legacy tree—any commercial 

tree left standing for various non-commercial reasons including its size, 

species, or form.
55

this decision would prioritize the observed spacing within the 

group and, by removing one or more trees, would provide more 

opportunity for the leave trees. 

Succession

From reviewing the literature on uneven-aged management at 

sites other than Pioneer Forest within the Central Hardwoods 

Region and elsewhere, the greatest error in application of 

single-tree selection seems to occur from overcompensating 

for succession. This happens when more attention is placed on 

managing for recruitment of seedlings on the forest floor than 

in managing the forest at hand. This perception has led others 

to favor group selection (Law and Lorimer 1989, Johnson 1992, 

Johnson and others 2002). Yet other researchers (e.g., Becker 

and Corse 1997) warn that using single-tree selection and group 

selection together could allocate more growing space than 

necessary for new regeneration in ponderosa pine forests.

Foresters have, for many years, assumed that oak forests here 

in the Missouri Ozarks would trend toward some combination 

of sugar and red maple (Acer saccharum Marsh. and A. rubrum

L., respectively), along with other species such as basswood, 

blackgum, and dogwood (Cornus florida L.) (Law and Lorimer 

1989) where these forests either were not managed or where 

management did not create large enough openings for sufficient 

light to provide for regeneration. Outside the Ozarks, where soils 

are deeper such as in the River Hills region of Missouri, there 

are forested canopies composed of a significant percentage of 

sugar maple. Shifley and others (1997) report three examples 

from north Missouri, two of which have sugar maple along 

with oak species as dominant and one with oak and other 

species dominant in the overstory. In one instance, one of the 

present authors measured an unmanaged forest canopy from 

north Missouri where sugar maple dominated. This was from 

a transect where sugar maple comprised 70 percent canopy 

coverage (Iffrig and Elder 1978). Data from another source 

indicated the canopy from this same north Missouri forest was 

90 percent sugar maple (Weaver 1977).

Such evidence indicates that oak-hickory forests on higher 

quality sites, and perhaps on unmanaged forests, may show 

succession tendencies toward shade-tolerant nonoak canopies. 

However, if this were true for the Ozarks, then one would expect 

to see examples of nonoak canopies, particularly for the oldest 

aged canopies on the highest quality sites within the region. But 

this is not apparent on Pioneer Forest. For example, the canopy 

trees on the Current River Natural Area, located on Pioneer 

Forest, are oaks that range in age from 250 to 400 years, with 

the earliest ring width indicating they had regenerated under a 

full canopy, that is, in shade (Personal Communication. Richard 

P. Guyette, Associate Professor, University of Missouri, Columbia, 

MO 65211). This particular site is situated at the lower end of a 

north slope, and evidence indicates it has never been harvested. 

Several anecdotal examples are instructive in further 

understanding the replacement dynamics within these oakhickory-pine forests. Dogwood flourishes on the forest floor 

and frequently forms thick shrub canopies within the forest 

through which oak saplings grow to replace other oak as canopy 

dominants. Counts of seedlings on the forest floor have shown 

particularly high numbers of blackgum, elm, maple, sassafras 

(Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees), and dogwood competing 

along with equally high numbers of canopy replacement species 

of black oak, white oak, and hickory (table 2). The data from 

table 2 suggest that oak, hickory, and even pine are highly 

competitive on these sites. Scarlet oak, even from relatively 

small stem counts, maintains its presence while growing into 

the larger diameter classes. Perhaps most interesting is that 

shortleaf pine seems to be able to compete into larger diameter 

classes under single-tree selection management. A particular 

species representation on the forest floor does not seem to be 

an accurate indicator of its future presence in the forest canopy. 

Following 50 years of data collection across thousands of acres 

of forest, we know of no evidence from the Missouri Ozarks 

where canopies, which have been dominated by oak, hickory, 

and pine for centuries, show measurable and significant change 

away from this historic composition. 

Light

One requirement for successful regeneration is the presence of 

both direct and diffuse light. Harvest activities allow direct light 

to penetrate the forest canopy where a tree has been removed. 

Harvesting one or a few trees creates canopy gaps that vary 

in size but occur in an irregular pattern across the landscape. 

Light penetration continues for some time into the future until 

each canopy gap is eventually filled in. Diffuse light is also 

continuously present within the forest by being transmitted 

through smaller gaps in the canopy (such as dead limbs or 

spaces between adjacent trees), as well as by being reflected 

off of the leaves, trunks, and limbs of the trees within the forest.

Our experience with successful uneven-aged management at 

Pioneer Forest has shown that removing groups of trees from 

any given area is not necessary to promote the penetration of 

sunlight to the forest floor. Replacement of the canopy, primarily 

by oak and pine, has always been a result of the canopy gap 

dynamics occurring as a result of periodic harvest of one or 

more trees. Thus, the light environment promoted by removing 

individual trees appears to be sufficient to sustain regeneration 

in these forests.

Forests under single-tree selection cutting benefit from a 

continual provision of light as a built-in component of this 

method of forest management. Both direct and diffuse light 

reach the forest floor as trees are removed during each harvest 

entry. These sources of light continually shift in space and time. 

Whereas the actual source for light within the forest may vary 

(because of the heterogeneous nature of providing light energy 

through single-tree selection management), the provision of 

light is automatic. In this manner, light continuously influences 

the development and maintenance of the forest structure under 

this method of management.

Describing Single-Tree Selection Harvests in Missouri Ozark Forests
56 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Table 2—Stems/trees per acre for all species measured from the 2002 continuous forest inventory a

Diameter class b

Species 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26+ Total

Black oak 224.4 3.9 1.8 4.0 4.7 3.7 2.7 1.5 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 247.9

Red oak 20.1 0.4 0.2 0.6 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 25.8

Scarlet oak 79.2 4.4 2.5 4.4 3.7 3.4 2.4 1.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 102.8

Blackjack oak 3.2 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2

White oak 423.8 36.5 17.7 20.0 11.1 6.2 2.9 1.9 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 521.4

Chinquapin oak 15.3 4.4 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.6

Bur oak 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

Post oak 14.9 4.1 1.4 2.0 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.6

Shortleaf pine 16.1 1.5 1.2 3.2 3.6 4.0 3.0 1.7 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.2

Cedar 20.1 3.3 1.6 1.7 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0

Hickory 296.3 12.5 2.3 6.2 3.7 2.3 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 324.8

Blackgum 239.8 24.7 4.3 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 270.3

Sycamore 4.0 8.4 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8

Hackberry 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

Elm 351.8 2.4 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 356.6

Ash 19.2 3.9 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.4

Birch 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

Cottonwood 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Boxelder 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2

Basswood 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

Locust 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Maple 634.8 4.7 1.6 1.8 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 643.7

Black walnut 3.1 8.3 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8

Butternut 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Sassafras 517.9 1.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 520.4

Dogwood 430.0 12.7 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 444.4

Redbud 44.9 6.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.8

Ironwood 56.3 15.2 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.7

Persimmon 0.9 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5

Willow 0.8 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4

Mulberry 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5

Buckeye 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

Blackhaw 19.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.3

Serviceberry 33.7 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.0

Black cherry 18.3 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.4

Sweetgum 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1

KY Coffeetree 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

Plum 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Hawthorn 2.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4

Mimosa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Buckthorn 2.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8

Farkleberry 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7

Hornbeam 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4

Pawpaw 86.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.6

Totals 3,587.1 171.7 45.5 48.8 32.8 23.4 13.8 8.2 3.7 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 3,937.4

Q-factor 1.69 190.0 112.5 66.5 39.4 23.3 13.8 8.2 4.8 2.9 1.7 1.0 1.0

a Diameter class n contains trees from n.0-(n+1).9, inclusive.

b The diameter for stems <1.6 inches was measured at the root collar and for stems ≥1.6 inches was measured at breast height.
57

Other research on various oak species has suggested that shade 

tolerance may not be as fixed as often suggested (Johnson and 

others 2002). McGee (1976, 1988, 1997) has shown that oaks 

adjust to variation in light conditions by shifting the timing 

of their spring budbreak, based on their exposure to light 

during the previous year. Seedlings and saplings beneath a 

forest canopy begin growing earlier in the spring than opengrown oaks when light and moisture conditions are the most 

favorable. McGee (1997) found this same response in several 

oaks—namely, white, black, scarlet, post (Q. stellata Wangenh.), 

chestnut (Q. prinus L.), and northern red oaks. McGee (1986) 

also found this same response in hickories, red and sugar maple, 

and white ash (F. americana L.). 

The highly irregular but constant provision of direct light 

through single-tree selection management may be the key to 

understanding the positive response of many species to this 

method of forest management in the Missouri Ozarks.

Regeneration

Single-tree selection on central hardwood sites, by its nature, is 

sustained by the accumulated regeneration of desirable species. 

The ability of oaks to accumulate in the understory has been 

well documented. As Johnson and others (2002) have pointed 

out, the early development of a large taproot and delayed 

shoot growth are characteristic of all oaks. Previous research has 

shown that oak seedlings sprout and grow, and then die back, 

repeating this response for many years while building a taproot 

(Johnson and others 2002). Dey and Guyette (2002) offer a 

brief review of oak regeneration ecology, pointing out that 

oaks are well adapted to repeatedly produce new sprouts from 

dormant buds located at the root collar. This root collar is often 

located beneath the soil surface and is naturally protected from 

such disturbances as low-intensity fire and some herbivores. 

With this adaptation, oak seedlings sprouted from acorns can 

develop beneath a forested canopy for decades, capable of rapid 

response to changes in light availability. Their response is to reallocate energy from root into shoot development (Johnson and 

others 2002, Dey and Guyette 2002). 

The cutting cycle used in single-tree selection harvests on 

Pioneer Forest is not long enough to allow the canopy to 

completely close, a condition that could, over long enough 

periods, result in a loss of oak regeneration and therefore 

a change in canopy species composition. Each cutting cycle 

reopens the canopy whereupon seedlings and stump sprouts, 

with well-developed taproots, are ready to capture the hole 

created in the canopy. Since the canopy gaps resulting from 

single-tree selection harvesting are small, the recruitment 

and regeneration present on the floor at any given time may 

number only a few saplings with perhaps a higher number of 

seedlings and sprouts. These numbers are small when compared 

to reproduction numbers using even-aged forest management. 

However, the young seedlings and saplings survive in sufficient 

numbers to replace the correspondingly smaller number of 

individual trees that are removed during each harvest. 

Unlike even-aged management, where establishing 

regeneration is a one-time event, single-tree selection harvests 

provide for regeneration with each entry. This maintains 

the range of age classes characteristic of this technique of 

management.

Reducing Disturbance Effects and Harvest 

Damage to the Residual Stand

Under uneven-aged forest management, abiotic variables, 

such as percent canopy coverage, temperature, and humidity 

show measurably fewer changes among the trees than in 

forests under even-aged management (San Diego 2001). 

This reduced environmental variability provides for increasing 

stability to forest structure through time (when compared to the 

change created from even-aged management methods) and 

represents a unique opportunity to restore and then maintain 

a forest condition in the landscape. However, protecting leave 

trees during successive harvests and until maturity requires 

deliberate and careful application of specific cutting and 

removal techniques when compared to other methods of forest 

management. Table 3 describes such techniques for reducing 

damage from harvesting within the forest.

Age, Composition, and Resistance of the Canopy

Successful use of single-tree selection depends on the continual 

development of all of the age classes present within the forest. 

The oak-hickory-pine forests in the Ozarks represent one of the 

oldest natural communities within the region. The biological 

lifetimes of dominant canopy species range from scarlet oak 

and black oak at 80 to 100 years, and northern red oak at 90 

to 130 years, to shortleaf pine at 200 to 300 years, to white 

oak exceeding 350 years (Personal communication. Richard P. 

Guyette, Associate Professor, University of Missouri, School of 

Natural Resources, Columbia, MO 65211). Runkle (1990) studied 

the spatial pattern of disturbance in old-growth forests and 

found the annual rate of canopy gap formation ranged from 0.4 

to 0.2 percent for various temperate hardwood forests. Dey and 

Guyette (2002) estimated from these data that the turnover 

of the canopy in these forests studied by Runkle would occur 

in less than 250 years. Similarly, here in the Ozarks, LaVigne 

(2002), using a life history table, calculated the statistical 

range of age for the forest canopy on Pioneer Forest between 

189 to 228 years. The range LaVigne describes is comparable 

to a 95-percent confidence interval with single-tree selection 

harvesting as the only source of mortality for trees that form 

the canopy. Rather than prescribing an arbitrary canopy rotation, 

single-tree selection harvesting allows individual species, as 

well as individual trees, to fully develop and mature within 

the forest over rather long periods of time, while providing 

managers the opportunity to utilize potential mortality.

Furthermore, these forests, which are managed using singletree selection harvesting, seem to provide for a more natural 

composition of species, indicative of a particular site’s 

capability. Our own sampling data from the Continuous Forest 

Inventory show that among various canopy species those most 

characteristic of pre-European settlement conditions are

Describing Single-Tree Selection Harvests in Missouri Ozark Forests
58 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

regaining a stronger presence in the canopy. Shortleaf pine and 

white oak, which were the focus of the earliest cutting in the 

Ozark Region, have shown a marked increase in the volume 

of saw log trees per acre (Iffrig and others 2004). White oak, 

perhaps the most impressive Ozark forest canopy species, has 

increased slowly, but over the past 25 years has more than 

doubled in its volume per acre (Iffrig and others 2004).

The nature of periodic entries used during single-tree selection 

cutting also seems to provide a more favorable environment 

where competition is substantially and regularly reduced. This is 

accomplished during each entry, which removes approximately 

40 percent of the standing volume and 60 percent of the annual 

growth. Jenkins (1992), in studying oak decline on this and 

another forest, suggested that the factor of reduced competition 

might be advantageous, particularly in situations where 

mortality affects a particular age or species class. In other words, 

“at risk trees” are continuously removed from these forests 

and the variability, which is maintained through this method 

of management, thereby greatly reduces certain risk factors of 

catastrophic oak decline and mortality. 

CONCLUSION

In addition to researching the many silvicultural aspects of 

single-tree selection management, there is also a body of 

other research demonstrating positive conservation, social, and 

economic influences that have resulted from its use. Over the 

past 50 years, uneven-aged management and the use of singletree selection harvesting have proven to work, both as being 

ecologically and silviculturally appropriate, and as providing a 

strongly positive forest management application for the central 

hardwoods region. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Whereas the forest takes its name from its many pioneering 

efforts, the real pioneer in the story of this forest is its owner, 

Leo Drey. To him we are grateful to have been able to participate 

in, work on, study, and write about such a grand experiment. 

Since 1951, a number of staff members have worked on Pioneer 

Forest, and each of them has either developed, or assisted in 

the development, discussion, and continuing refinement of 

the field prescription we describe herein. To each of them, our 

thanks. 

John Groninger (Southern Illinois University-Carbondale) and 

Ross Melick (retired, Mark Twain National Forest) reviewed the 

initial version of this paper, and their comments contributed to 

its improvement. We also wish to thank Peter Becker for his 

review, editing, and critique of this paper. Peter’s discussions 

with us have furthered our own understanding of the nature 

of both direct and diffuse light and how this combined light 

energy works when using this method of forest management. 

We also thank Ed Loewenstein for the idea of expanding our 

long-running Comprehensive Forest Inventory to include the 

measurement of all woody components smaller than 5 inches 

in diameter. Ed’s encouragement and early support helped 

us begin that effort, which is now part of our ongoing forest 

research.

Finally, Jim Guldin, John Hodges, and Norman Davis provided 

review comments of this paper for publication by the U.S. Forest 

Service. Their thoughts and editing have been extremely helpful. 

Table 3—Techniques for reducing damage within the forest

1. Require that the felling and skidding operations work together, beginning at the 

bottom of a hill and proceeding to the top. 

2. Mark each tree to be removed on both its uphill and downhill sides. Mark the uphill 

side at chest height and mark the backside at the base of the tree. Marking the 

backside of the tree allows the skidder driver to use marked trees as pivot points 

when a load needs to be turned, thereby reducing or eliminating damage to higher 

quality leave trees remaining in the forest.

3. Have sawyers trained in using directional felling. This is the ideal cutting technique 

for single-tree selection harvests, significantly reducing damage to the residual 

stand, as well as improving both production and safety. Directional felling reduces 

damage within the forest, as well as the potential danger from hanging up, as well 

as fiber pull, and splitting. An especially good overview of these ideas and the 

technique are found in Maine Employers’ Mutual Insurance Company’s Production 

Felling Through Safety (1994). 

4. Reuse ridge roads and skid trails for removing logs and for equipment access. 

Require single lane for skid trails and keep improvements to a minimum. 

5. Avoid late winter and early springtime operations while the sap is moving or when 

roads and skid trails are particularly subject to rutting and erosion. This simple 

technique will minimize rutting of roads and excessive bark damage on leave trees.
59

LITERATURE CITED

Becker, R.R.; Corse, T.S. 1997. Resetting the clock with unevenaged management. Journal of Forestry. 95(11): 29-32.

Biolley, H. 1901. Le jardinage cultural. Journal of Forestry. Suisse. 

52:97-104; 113-132.

Chapman, H.H. 1951. Report on examination of forest property 

in Shannon County, Missouri, for National Distillers Products 

Corporation. Unpublished Report, 7 p. plus a one-page 

Appendix. On file at Main Office, Pioneer Forest, Salem, MO.

Dey, D.D.; Guyette, R.P. 2002. Sustaining oak ecosystems in the 

central hardwood region: lessons from the past—continuing 

the history of disturbance. Pages 170-183 in R.E. McCabe and 

S.E. Loos, editors, Transactions of the 65th North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Rosemont, Illinois.

Guldin, J.M.; Baker, J.B. 1998. Uneven-aged silviculture, southern 

style. Journal of Forestry. 96(7):22-26.

Gurnaud, A. 1882. Le controle et le regime forestier. Rev. Eaux 

For. 21:1-23.

Gurnaud, A. 1884. La sylviculture francaise. Librairie Agricole de 

la Maison Rustique, Paris & Besancon. 91 p.

Guyette, R.; Muzika, R.M.; Dey, D.C. 2002. Dynamics of an 

anthropogenic fire regime. Ecosystems. 5: 472-486.

Iffrig, G.F.; Elder, W.H. 1978. A natural area survey of the A.B.C.D. 

and the Mid-America regional planning districts of Missouri. 

Final Report to the Missouri State Inter-Agency Council for 

Outdoor Recreation. 118 p.

Iffrig, G.F.; Trammel, C.E.; Cunningham, T. 2004. Pioneer Forest: 

a case study in sustainable forest management. In Susan L. 

Flader, ed. 2004. Toward sustainability for Missouri forests. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-239. St. Paul, MN: USDA-FS North Central 

Research Station. 193-204. 

Jenkins, M.A. 1992. A study of oak decline and vegetation 

dynamics in the forests of the southeastern Missouri Ozark 

Mountains. Columbia: University of Missouri. 244 p. M.S. 

thesis.

Jenkins, M.A.; Pallardy, S.G.. 1993. A comparison of forest 

dynamics at two sites in the southeastern Ozark Mountains 

of Missouri. In: Gillespie, Andrew R.; Parker, George R.; Pope, 

Phillip E.; Rink, George 1993. Proceedings, 9th Central 

hardwood forest conference; 1993 March 8-10; West Lafayette, 

IN. General Technical Report NC-161. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment 

Station: 327-341.

Johnson, P.S.; Shifley, S.R.; Rogers, R. 2002. The ecology and 

silviculture of oaks. CABI Publishing, New York, NY. 503 p.

Johnson, P.S. 1992. Perspectives on the ecology and silviculture 

of oak-dominated forests in the central and eastern states. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-153. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 28 p.

Larsen, D.R. 1980. A growth and yield model for managed 

upland oak-shortleaf pine stands in Missouri. MS Thesis. 

University of Missouri, Columbia. 83 p.

Larsen, D.R.; Metzger, M.A.; Johnson, P.S. 1997. Oak regeneration 

and overstory density in the Missouri Ozarks. Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research. 27(6): 869-875.

Larsen, D.R.; Loewenstein, E.F.; Johnson, P.S. 1999. Sustaining 

recruitment of oak reproduction in uneven-aged stands in 

the Ozark Highlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-203. St. Paul, MN: 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station. 11 p.

LaVigne, E.M. 2002. Heterogeneity within and among selectively 

harvested forest stands in the Missouri Ozark Mountains. MS 

Thesis. Saint Louis University. 94 p.

Law, J.R.; Lorimer, Craig G. 1989. Managing uneven-aged stands. 

Pages 6.08(1-6). In: Clark, F. Bryan, tech. ed.; Hutchinson, Jay 

G. ed. Central Hardwood Notes. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment 

Station: Note 6.08.

Loewenstein, E.F. 1996. An analysis of the size- and agestructure of a managed uneven-aged oak forest. PhD. 

Dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia. 167 p.

Loewenstein, E.F.; Garrett, H.E.; Johnson, P.S.; Dwyer, J.P. 1995. 

Changes in a Missouri Ozark oak-hickory forest during 40 years 

of uneven-aged management. p. 159-164. In: Gottschalk, 

Kurt W.; Fosbroke, Sandra L.C.; [Editors] 1995. Proceedings, 

10th Central Hardwood Forest Conference; 1995 March 5-8; 

Morgantown, WV: Regeneration/Silviculture II. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NE-197. Radnor, PA: U. S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 577 p. 

Loewenstein, E.F.; Johnson, P.S.; Garrett, H.E. 2000. Age and 

diameter structure of a managed uneven-aged oak forest. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30(7): 1060-1070.

Maine Employers’ Mutual Insurance Company. 1994. Production 

felling through safety. Portland, Maine. 32 p.

Martin, J.W.; Presley, J.J. 1958. Ozark Land and Lumber Company 

organization and operations, 1887 to 1923. School of Forestry, 

University of Missouri. Manuscript on file with the Mark Twain 

National Forest, Rolla. 

McGee, C.E. 1976. Differences in budbreak between shadegrown and open-grown oak seedlings. Forest Science. 22: 

484-486.

McGee, C.E. 1986. Budbreak for twenty-three upland hardwoods 

compared under forest canopies and in recent clearcuts. Forest 

Science. 32: 924-935.

McGee, C.E. 1988. Spring weather, canopy removal, and early 

budbreak threaten oak seedlings. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell 

Science Society. 104: 108-115.

Describing Single-Tree Selection Harvests in Missouri Ozark Forests
60 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

McGee, C.E. 1997. The effect of oak budbreak patterns on shade 

tolerance and regeneration. p. 279-287. In: Steiner, Kim C., 

ed. Proceedings: diversity and adaptation in oak species; 1997 

October 12-17; University Park, PA. University Park, PA: Penn 

State University. 

Melick, R.A. l989. Uneven-aged management opportunities 

in upland oak-hickory stands in the Missouri Ozarks, with 

silvicultural prescriptions for three stands near the Mill Creek 

Recreation Area, Rolla Ranger District, Mark Twain National 

Forest. A paper presented to the U.S. Forest Service Region 

9, to meet one of the requirements for the Program for 

Advanced Silvicultural Studies and Silvicultural Certification. 

103p.; with literature cited and appendices. On file at Main 

Office, Pioneer Forest, Salem, MO.

Meyer, A.B. 1949. Pioneer Forest. Missouri Conservationist. 

August: 1-3, and 16.

Runkle, J.R. 1990. Gap dynamics in an Ohio Acer-Fagus forest 

and speculations on the geography of disturbance. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 20: 632-641.

San Diego, N.M. 2001. Management regime, scale, and the 

diversity of leaflitter arthropod communities of an Ozark forest. 

MS Thesis, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO. 56 p.

Schutz, J.P. 1997. The Swiss experience: more than one hundred 

years of experience with a single-tree selection managementsystem in mountainous mixed forests of spruce, fir, and 

beech from an empirically developed utilization in smallscale private forest to an elaborate and original concept 

of silviculture. Proceedings of the IUFRO Interdisciplinary 

Uneven-Aged Management Symposium, compiled by W.H. 

Emmingham. Oregon State University, Department of Forest 

Science, Corvallis, Oregon. 713 p.

Shifley, S.R.; Brookshire, B.L.; Larsen, D.R.; Herbeck, L.A. 1997. 

Snags and down wood in Missouri old-growth and mature 

second-growth forests. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

14(4):165-172.

Thom, R.H.; Wilson, J.H. 1980. The natural divisions of Missouri. 

Transactions of the Missouri Academy of Science 14:9-23.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. Pineknot woodland 

restoration. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Carter 

County, Missouri. U.S. Forest Service, Mark Twain National 

Forest, Rolla. 277 p. + appendices. 

Wang, Z. 1997. Stability and predictability of diameter 

distributions in a managed uneven-aged oak forest. 

Ph.D.dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia. 147 p.

Wang, Z.; Johnson, P.S.; Garrett, H.E.; Shifley, S.R. 1996. Stability 

of diameter distributions in a managed uneven-aged oak 

forest in the Ozark Highlands (abstract). p. 149. In: Pallardy, 

Stephen G.; Cecich, Robert A.; Garrett, H. Eugene; Johnson, 

Paul S. 1997. Proceedings of the 11th Central Hardwood 

forest conference; 1997 March 23-26; Columbia, MO. 

General Technical Report NC-188. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment 

Station. 401 p.

Weaver K.L. 1977. Flora of sugar maple woodland in western 

Missouri. MS Thesis. University of Missouri, Kansas City. 51 p.
61

PIONEER FOREST: IN THE HEART OF ROUGHNESS

Richard P. Guyette and Michael C. Stambaugh1

Abstract—Landscapes in the Ozarks vary greatly with respect to surface topography. Some are very rough and steep, while others 

are rolling and smooth. Landscape roughness or topographic roughness mitigates and slows the movement and propagation 

of humans, fire, and commerce across the land. The degree of landscape roughness can be quantified as indices of topographic 

roughness, calculated here as the ratio of the surface of the earth measured with large and small surfaces. Maps of indices of 

topographic roughness indicate that Pioneer Forest is one of the roughest landscapes in the Ozark Highlands region of Missouri. 

Topographic roughness insulates forests from many types of human and natural terrestrial disturbances such as wildland fire. Here, 

we define and calculate topographic roughness and discuss the relevance of topographic roughness to the natural heritage and 

silvicultural practices of Pioneer Forest. 

PROLOGUE

On the road to Mauser Mill one gets a feel for landscape 

roughness. The road is bumpy and rocky in every sense of the 

word. Sharp curves and steep short hills slow the rate of travel, 

accelerate vehicle wear and tear, and turn back the faint and 

ill-provisioned. Forests on each side of the road drop down out 

of sight and define a landscape almost intimidating to the social 

psyche. Here lies Pioneer Forest ‘in the heart of roughness’; a 

landscape that has resisted the pressures of human population 

and disturbance for millennia. 

INTRODUCTION

Some two decades ago at the Missouri Botanical Garden’s 

Ridgeway Center, an exhibit described the art and sciences that 

use old trees and tree-rings, in particular eastern red cedar 

(Juniperus virginiana). This exhibition was inspired by the many 

old eastern red cedars of the Leatherwood Creek area located 

on Pioneer Forest. We thank Leo Drey for the preservation of 

such wildlands and forests and for the opportunity to work in 

this great natural library. Research on landscape ecology that 

is published and stored in the human libraries of the world 

and partially derived from the tree rings and forests of Pioneer 

Forest and the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project (Guyette 

and others 2002) is presented in this paper.

Dendrochronology is the technique of using the annual woody 

growth increments (e.g., tree rings) of trees to date wood, 

interpret the information contained in the rings, and answer 

environmental and cultural questions. Crossdating is the crux 

of dendrochronology and allows for annual precision in the 

dating of tree rings and injuries from both live trees and long 

dead wood. The research presented here began with a treering data base of fire scar occurrence from Pioneer Forest, 

State forestlands, and the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. 

A landscape analysis of tree rings, wildfire, and topography 

is used to address the effects of topographic roughness on 

Pioneer Forest. We show in a quantitative manner why Pioneer 

Forest is the ‘heart of roughness’, and how this has affected its 

forests. This rough landscape has likely slowed the propagation 

of people, disturbance, and particularly wildland fire for 

thousands of years. Topographic roughness inhibits many of 

the most important causes of disturbance to forest canopies. 

If forest management objectives include understanding or 

mimicking processes of past ecosystems, then an analysis of 

the topographic roughness of this landscape can yield insightful 

conservation and silvicultural guidelines. The objectives of this 

research are to define and calculate topographic roughness 

in and around Pioneer Forest and to discuss the relevance of 

topographic roughness to the natural heritage and forestry of 

Pioneer Forest. 

METHODS

Topographic roughness is a relative measure of variability in 

a landscape surface. Irregularities in the landscape influence 

the propagation and behavior of fire, particularly in the highly 

dissected landscape of the Current River region (Guyette and 

others 2002). In highly dissected landscapes, the propagation 

of low intensity surface fires across hills and valleys is lessened 

as the spread rate is slowed and as fire moves downslope 

because preheating of fuels is less than preheating as fires 

move upslope. In addition, ravines, creeks, and rivers break 

fuel continuity, and fuel moisture content increases on northern 

aspects. We used indices of topographic roughness to reflect 

topographic inhibition of the propagation of fire across the 

landscape. 

Indices of topographic roughness were developed using 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) by comparing surface area 

measurements made with two different sized scales. A circle, 

5000 meters in diameter, is identified on a digital elevation 

model (DEM). The surface area of the earth circumscribed by 

this circle is calculated using a 30-m cell (i.e., small scale). 

Cell slope and a trigonometric conversion are used to estimate 

the area of the uneven land surface. The cell surface areas 

are summed and used as an estimate of the uneven surface 

area of the landscape enclosed by the circle. This estimate is 

divided by the planimetric surface area (i.e., large scale) of a 

circle that is 5000 meters in diameter. This ratio of the smallscale surface area to the large-scale surface area is the Index 

of Topographic Roughness. In short, the topographic roughness 

value of an individual place represents the amount of variability 

in the landscape surface around that place. We describe the 

relationship between historic mean fire intervals and their 

respective topographic roughness indices using correlation 

analysis.

1

 Richard P. Guyette, Associate Professor, and Michael C. Stambaugh, Research Specialist, University of Missouri, School of Natural Resources, Columbia, MO 

65211.

Pioneer Forest: In the Heart of Roughness
62 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Topographic roughness index values are classed and mapped 

for the region in and around the Current River Hills (Nigh 

and Schroeder 2003) and Pioneer Forest (fig. 1). Topographic 

roughness increases from horizontal and rolling landscapes (fig. 

1, lighter shaded areas) to rough and steep landscapes (fig. 1, 

darker shaded areas). Index values range from approximately 

1.000 (i.e., perfectly smooth and level) to 1.044 (i.e., rough) in 

this region. 

The topographic roughness map (fig. 1) illustrates that Pioneer 

Forest is one of the roughest regions in the Current River Hills 

and located within a topographically rough region, the Ozark 

Highlands. The topographic roughness of the region is due to 

the erosion of bedrocks and soils by precipitation and the down 

cutting of streams and rivers. Complex subsurface geology, 

such as the near surface Precambrian geology that underlies 

the Current River Region, can create variable uplifting and 

fracturing of surface sedimentary rocks. Surface and ground 

water hydrology may cause variable patterns of erosion and 

topographic roughness. For example, just southeast of Van 

Buren (fig. 1) is an area of topographic roughness we termed 

the “Big Springs butterfly”, a pattern in topographic roughness 

that is underlain by a peak in subsurface Precambrian igneous 

rock (Kisvarsanyi 1981). Pioneer Forest just south of Mauser’s 

Mill is anomalously topographically rough. This area is underlain 

by a ring intrusion of granite that may contribute to increased 

Figure 1— 

Variation in 

topographic 

roughness in 

the Current 

River region. 

The lighter 

shades 

represent 

topographically 

smooth 

landscapes, 

whereas the 

darker shades 

represent 

rough 

landscapes. 

The regions of 

large Pioneer 

Forest holdings 

are circled with 

dashed ellipses 

and have some 

of the highest 

calculated 

topographic 

roughness 

indices values. 
63

Current River

Mauser 

Mill

5–10

11–20

21–30

31–40

41–50

51+

Big

Creek

Blair Creek

Mean Fire 

Interval (yrs.)

Figure 2— 

Reconstructed 

mean fire 

intervals 

for part of 

Pioneer Forest 

between 1700 

and 1780 that 

are partially 

modeled with 

topographic 

roughness.

(Guyette and 

others 2003)

topographic roughness. These examples are evidence that 

riparian erosional processes, surface bedrock, and subsurface 

geology influence topographic roughness. 

Topographic roughness mitigates the rate and movement of fire, 

vehicles, commerce, and human travel. This mitigation is evident 

in fire history data (Guyette and Dey 2000) and the speed limits, 

curvature, surface type, and distribution of roads. Thus, many 

of the anthropogenic disturbances to the forest canopies are 

minimized by the reduced fire frequency and access in areas 

surrounded by landscapes with high topographic roughness. 

Topographic roughness is likely associated with many biological 

processes. The association with different variables is both causal 

and incidental. For instance, topographic roughness may be 

associated with the slope of a site but has little to do with slope 

effects on soil hydrology that influence the abundance of certain 

plants. On the other hand, there are causal relationships, such 

as the direct effect of topographic roughness on the rate of 

propagation of surface fires, which are the primary objective of 

quantifying and mapping topographic roughness. There are also 

the secondary effects of topographically mitigated disturbance, 

such as the size of a canopy disturbance, canopy density, and 

forest structure. 

Topographic roughness has been associated with mean fire 

intervals (Guyette and Dey 2000, Guyette and others 2002). 

The relationship between topographic roughness and the 

time between fires was positive, particularly when human 

population densities were low (Guyette and Dey 2000). Fire scar 

chronologies within Pioneer Forest have some of the longest 

mean fire intervals in the Current River region during the period 

just before Euro-American settlement circa 1820 (Batek 1999). 

For example, the mean fire interval between 1620 and 1700 

for Big Creek (16 years) in the heart of Pioneer Forest is 3 times 

longer than that of Hartshorn State Forest (5.3 years), a more 

topographically smooth region to the east. During more recent 

and more densely populated periods, this difference disappears, 

and fire intervals at both sites shorten to 2.8 years by the late 

1800s.

A portion of Pioneer Forest (fig. 2) was mapped for mean 

fire intervals (average time between fires in a 1.5-km area) 

during the period 1700 to 1820. This map was calculated from 

regression equations that used several thousand fire scars, 

indices of topographic roughness, fuel quantity, fuel moisture, 

and human population density (Guyette and others 2003). 

Modeled mean fire intervals on this part of Pioneer Forest 

ranged from about 10 to 50 years. These intervals are up to 10 

Pioneer Forest: In the Heart of Roughness
64 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

times longer than those calculated for less topographically rough 

areas of the Ozarks.

The topographic roughness map (fig. 1) shows that Pioneer 

Forest is in one of the most topographically rough landscapes in 

the Ozarks. This has several implications for conservation plans 

and forest management practices given that management goals 

are designed to mimic the historic disturbance regimes, such as 

the frequency of fire. Three important points may be considered 

when comparing forest management to forest disturbance 

with the disturbances estimated from pre-Euro-American fire 

frequency and topographic roughness. 

1. Fire disturbance was less frequent at Pioneer Forest 

in comparison to much of the greater Current River Hills 

region because of the relatively high degree of topographic 

roughness. This was particularly the case prior to 1820 when 

the propagation of fire contributed greatly to the fire frequency 

in a given location. The role of fire in influencing vegetation 

was reduced, particularly in the Big Creek vicinity of Pioneer 

Forest, because of the low frequency of fire. A reconstruction 

of the vegetation in this area from General Land Office Survey 

notes (1815-1850) showed a dominance of white oak (Quercus 

alba) in a closed canopy forest structure (Batek and others 

1999, Hughes and Nigh 2000) relative to many adjacent forests. 

White oak, which is shade tolerant and fire sensitive, was 

competitive in this low frequency disturbance regime. Forest 

management that mimics the historic frequency and size of 

canopy disturbance would likely maintain a more closed canopy 

structure. For example, tree harvesting would be limited to 

small areas where there were single-tree or small group canopy 

disturbances. The removal of one to several trees from any 

given area is a management approach already employed by 

Pioneer Forest’s single tree selection practices. The silvicultural 

practice used on Pioneer Forest mimics the scale of the preEuro-American canopy disturbance regime as predicted by 

corollaries of topographic roughness and as supported by studies 

at the MOFEP sites (Guyette and Kabrick 2002).

2. Topographic roughness and legacies of its effects likely 

have long-term influence on forest communities, particularly 

resident populations of forest interior wildlife. At Pioneer Forest, 

conservation and temporal continuity of certain indigenous 

species would be maintained or promoted with small-scale 

disturbances as they would represent the long-term disturbance 

frequency related to topographic roughness. Topographic 

roughness may be positively correlated to forest bird territories 

in the Ozark region (Guyette and Kabrick 2002). 

3. If Pioneer Forest lies in the most topographically rough region 

of the Ozarks and has the least often disturbed forest canopy 

and litter layer in the Current River Hills, we would expect to 

find an abundance of species that are sensitive to disturbance, 

particularly to fire. This hypothesis has been tested and seems 

plausible for many ecosystem variables measured at the MOFEP 

sites (Guyette and Kabrick 2002).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Pioneer Forest for their cooperation and access to this 

forest over the years, the Missouri Department of Conservation 

for their support for forest and fire history research through the 

MOFEP project, and the Ozark National Scenic Riverways whose 

previous support assisted in the development of topographic 

roughness concept. 

LITERATURE CITED

Batek, M.J.; Rebertus, A.J.; Schroeder, W.A. [and others]. 1999. 

Reconstruction of early nineteenth-century vegetation and fire 

regimes in the Missouri Ozarks. J. of Biogeography, 26:397-

412. 

Guyette, R.P.; Dey, D.C. 2000. Humans, topography, and wildland 

fire: the ingredients for long-term patterns in ecosystems. 

In: Proceeding: Workshop on fire, people, and the Central 

Hardwood Landscape, D.A. Yaussey, compiler. March 12-14, 

2000, Richmond, KY. GTR NE-274, 129 p. 

Guyette, R.P.; Kabrick, J. 2002. The legacy and continuity of 

forest disturbance, succession, and species at the MOFEP 

sites. In: Shifley and Kabrick, S.R. eds. Proceedings of the 

Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project Symposium: Posttreatment results of the landscape experiment, Oct. 17-18, 

2000, St. Louis, MO. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-277. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station: 26-44.

Guyette, R.P.; Muzika, R.M.; Dey, C.D. 2002. Dynamics of an 

anthropogenic fire regime. Ecosystems 5(5):472-486.

Guyette, R.P.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Dey, D.C. 2003. A riparian fire 

history along the Current River corridor. National Park Service 

Report for the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Van Buren, 

Missouri.

Hughes, L.G.; Nigh, T.A. 2000. Historic vegetation of Missouri: 

lower Ozarks pilot area. Missouri Department of Conservation, 

Jefferson City, MO. 11 p.

Kisvarsanyi, Eva B. 1981. Geology of the Precambrian St. Francois 

Terrane, Southeastern Missouri. Contribution to Precambrian 

Geology No. 8. Rolla, Missouri: Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources. 

Nigh, T.; Schroeder, W.A. Atlas of Missouri ecoregions. Missouri 

Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 212 p.
65

INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND FOREST 

MANAGEMENT IN THE MISSOURI OZARK LANDSCAPE

Gerardo Camilo and Nick San Diego1

Abstract—Disturbance is important in the context of ecosystem diversity, but little is known about the effects of forest management 

on invertebrate insect communities. We estimated arthropod species diversity in terms of species richness, abundance and 

evenness at several spatial scales under clearcutting, single-tree selection, and preservation management regimes in the Missouri 

Ozarks. A total of 121 taxonomic groups and 22,000+ arthropods were identified and catalogued. Overall species diversity among 

treatments was not significant either at the micro-scale or meso-scale level. However, principal components analysis effectively 

segregated the clearcut community from the other two communities. Results suggest that the type of forest management practiced 

does significantly affect overall forest and leaf litter arthropod community structure in terms of scale and diversity. The single-tree 

selection harvest within Pioneer Forest generates a spatial gradient throughout the landscape, creating conditions most suitable for 

diversity to be maximized.

INTRODUCTION

The current paradigm in ecology is that disturbance plays 

a critical role in maintaining diversity within ecosystems 

(Sousa 1979, Pickett and White 1985, Willig and others 1998, 

Schowalter 2000, Camilo and Zou 2001). Too little disturbance 

may displace poor competitors whereas too much may create 

conditions unfavorable for most organisms (Sousa 1979, Runkle 

1985, Filser and others 1995, Bengtsson and others 1997). The 

scale, intensity, and frequency of disturbance, then, contribute 

greatly to how communities are structured (Willig and others 

1998). Less commonly known is how disturbance is transferred 

into spatial gradients (Wootton 1998). Macroscale studies 

have illustrated that change in the plant community along 

environmental gradients also induces change in the composition 

of the microarthropod community (Hagvar 1982). On a smaller 

scale, the arthropod community in microclimate conditions is 

affected by spatial heterogeneity (Poole 1962).

Critical to a forest ecosystem is the role that the invertebrate 

community plays in the decomposition of organic matter and 

maintenance of soil structure. It is estimated that up to 90 

percent of a forest’s net primary production returns to the soil 

where leaflitter and topsoil faunas aid microbial and fungal 

decomposers (Swift and others 1979, Coleman and Crossley 

1996, Weaver and Heyman 1997). Biological and biochemical 

energy can be dissipated back into the soil along shorter time 

scales than by chemical or physical avenues that, via soil 

formation processes, may take at least 10,000 years. The specific 

properties of soil invertebrates, as well as environmental factors, 

determine the rates at which this energy flows through the 

soil ecosystem (Swift and others 1979, Jenny 1980, Lavelle 

and others 1995). By studying the ecology of these animals, 

scientists have come to understand that there are suites of 

interaction integral to maintaining forest processes (Swift and 

others 1979, Faber and Verhoef 1991, Ananthakrishnan 1996).

Forested systems are under extreme pressure to be harvested 

(Annand and Thompson 1997, Herbeck and Larsen 1999, 

Guyette and Larsen 2000). In western Oregon, the impact of 

clearcutting has had an effect on the spatial patterns of soil 

arthropods. Forest stand composition appeared to contribute 

significantly to the spatial structuring of soil properties and, 

therefore, invertebrate spatial structuring (Torgersen and others 

1995). It is the purpose of this research to analyze how various 

forest management practices have affected the community 

composition of leaflitter invertebrates over ecological time. 

Our working hypothesis is that the type of forest management 

practiced over recent history has shaped the structure of 

the leaflitter arthropod communities. Our objectives are to 

characterize leaflitter invertebrate communities at each site 

and to determine how changes in scale affect community 

parameters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Sites

The Ozark Highlands are characterized by high plateaus, carved 

by centuries of erosion; spring-fed streams have cut deeply into 

the plateaus, shaping moderately rolling hills with local relief of 

50-150 m, sometimes reaching 300 m. Soil composition ranges 

from shallow unconsolidated materials over bedrock to very 

deep, highly weathered soils in hillslope sediments or residuum 

or both (Kabrick and others 2000). Oak-hickory and oak-shortleaf 

pine forests and woodlands, oak savannas, bluestem prairies, 

and glades make up the natural vegetation of the Ozark 

Highlands. Bottomland and mixed upland hardwood forests 

reside in large valleys and on adjacent sideslopes whereas the 

prairies and savannas are situated on gentler slopes (Kabrick 

and others 2000).

We sampled three forest management regimes in the Missouri 

Ozarks; preservation (Current River Natural Area, 37°15’N, 

91°15’W), single-tree selection (Pioneer Forest, Inc., 37°18’N, 

91°23’W), and clearcutting (Reis Biological Station, 37°56’N, 

91°10’W), each of which has maintained their respective 

treatments since the early 1950s.

1

 Gerardo Camilo, Professor of Biology, and Nick San Diego, Graduate Student, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63103-2097.

Invertebrate Community Structure and Forest Management in the Missouri Ozark Landscape
66 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Experimental Design

Within each site, three 20- by 20-m (= 400 m2) plots were 

demarcated with flags and PVC stakes. Each plot was further 

subdivided into 16 smaller subplots (5 by 5 m). Forest structure 

was estimated measuring abiotic parameters, vegetative 

composition, and understory vegetation profiles. Ambient 

temperature (°C) and percent relative humidity were recorded 

at the base of each subplot corner using a digital thermometer. 

Percent canopy cover, using both convex and concave mirrored 

densiometers, was also estimated for each point. Within every 

5- by 5-m subplot, trees were identified to species and diameter 

at breast height (d.b.h.) was measured. Foliar volume was 

measured using a 3-m PVC pole with 0.5-m dowels attached 

perpendicularly at 0.5-m intervals along the length of the pole. 

Rotating the pole 360° at each flag, the number of touches 

made at each height increment was recorded (Secrest and 

others 1996).

Within each 400-m2

 quadrat, we collected litterbag samples at 

random from 10 of the 16 subplots. The sampling area in each 

subplot was approximately 0.25 m by 0.25 m (or .06125 m2

). 

Within each transect, 20 of the 32 subplots were randomly 

sampled in the same manner. These leaflitter collections were 

taken once each summer for 1999 and 2000. Each leaflitter 

sample was processed through Berlese funnels, a high-gradient 

extractor (Winter and Voroney 1993), which separates the 

fauna from the litter. Eventually, the litter desiccated, and the 

fauna dropped down into a 70- percent ethanol solution. After 

separation, these specimens were identified and cataloged to 

at least family. Mites, an ubiquitous group of organisms with 

up to 50,000 described species (Walter and Proctor 1999), 

easily qualified as a candidate for morphospecies identification 

(Camilo and Zou 1999). The concept of “taxonomic sufficiency” 

identifies organisms to a level of taxonomic resolution adequate 

enough to satisfy a study’s objectives (Ellis 1985). Studies have 

shown that this concept can be applied to ecological studies 

of terrestrial invertebrate communities without sacrificing 

estimates of species diversity or species turnover (Pik and others 

1999).

Species Diversity Estimates

Analyzing arthropod species diversity in terms of species 

richness, abundance, and evenness provides baseline 

descriptions about community composition. In community order 

studies, there are two types of information collected: (1) the 

number of species and (2) the number of individuals in each 

species. The Shannon-Weiner Index takes into account the 

proportional abundance of species within a community giving 

more weight to rarer species (Magurran 1988, Krebs 1989). 

This function assumes that all species are represented from 

random samples and measures the uncertainty of correctly 

predicting the species of the next individual collected (Krebs 

1989). Although the experimental design does not randomly 

distribute subplots throughout the forest stands, the sampling 

area used (0.0625 m2) is small enough relative to the landscape 

that it could be considered random. Information indices such 

as Shannon-Weiner are widely used because no assumption is 

made about the underlying species abundance distribution curve 

(Magurran 1988). Rank abundance curves, on the other hand, 

plot the proportional abundance against rank of abundance 

utilizing all the information gathered about the community 

(Magurran 1988). This provides a more complete picture of 

species abundance distribution among treatments than using 

diversity indices alone (Krebs 1989, Stiling 1996). Distribution 

curves can be likened to one of four main models (log normal 

distribution, log series, geometric series, broken-stick) with each 

highlighting a specific pattern of species richness and evenness 

(Magurran 1988, Stiling 1996). 

Ordination Analyses

Ecological data are often multi-dimensional and can be arranged 

in a matrix (e.g., with species as rows, treatments as columns, 

and abundance as entries). Because there may be a lot of 

redundant information (e.g., many species responding to the 

same environmental gradient), only the most crucial dimensions 

must be extracted. These techniques can provide diagrammatic 

expressions of species composition pattern variation as well as 

the relationship between species and environmental variables 

(Palmer 1993). Principal Components Analysis (PCA) is an 

indirect ordination method that is used to order arthropod 

species and the three forest treatments in successive dimensions 

without regard to environmental variability (Digby and Kempton 

1987).

Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) is a direct ordination 

technique that was used to directly relate arthropod species 

composition to the abiotic and vegetation gradients (Palmer 

1993). CCA overlays the arthropod data onto the abiotic 

and vegetation data resulting in a direct ordination of the 

environmental factors that shape community composition (Digby 

and Kempton 1987). What is generated, then, is a diagram 

termed a tri-plot in which the environmental variables that 

explain most of the variation within treatments are represented 

by arrows. The length of the vector represents the loading 

(i.e., how much is the arthropod community responding to the 

environmental gradient). The direction is the level of correlation, 

and the thickness is an estimate of the variation (Palmer 1993).

RESULTS

Species Diversity Estimates

A total of 121 taxonomic groups and 22,000+ arthropods 

were identified and catalogued from 112 out of 120 leaflitter 

collections (table 1). Overall species diversity among treatments 

was not significant among logging treatments either at the 

micro-scale (0.0625 m2) level or the meso-scale level (1600 

m2; fig. 1). Rank abundance analysis revealed more insight into 

community structure (fig. 2). The clearcut site had a total of 

104 species and followed a log series distribution (R2

 = 0.82). 

Note, however, that many of these species were rare with low 

abundances. The preservation site had 81 species and also 

followed a log series distribution (R2

 = 0.88). The single-tree 

selection site had a total of 80 species and followed a log 

normal distribution (R2

 = 0.69), suggesting that the total
67

Table 1—Taxonomic listing and abundance of leaflitter invertebrates collected from three 

forest stands under three management regimes in the Missouri Ozarks a

Taxonomic classification Clearcut Preservation Selection

Class Arachnida

Order Aranae

Dictynidae 4 31 0

Pholcidae 4 1 0

Thomisidae 6 86 41

Clubionidae 115 248 104

Pisauridae 3 0 0

Lycosidae 1 19 1

Salticidae 11 3 7

Pirate spiders 1 0 0

Order Opilionida

Palpatores sp 1 1 0 0

Order Acari

Suborder Ixodida 1 0 0

Suborder Prostigmata

Tetranychidae 4 0 5

Suborder Oribatida

Oribatid sp 1 296 988 1980

Oribatid sp 2 29 337 833

Oribatid sp 3 3 19 0

Oribatid sp 4 81 244 342

Oribatid sp 5 2 15 3

Oribatid sp 6 13 12 14

Oribatid sp 7 52 224 511

Oribatid sp 8 7 0 4

Oribatid sp 9 2 0 4

Oribatid sp 10 6 22 165

Oribatid sp 11 15 14 75

Oribatid sp 12 23 38 61

Oribatid sp 13 2 2 5

Oribatid sp 14 1 8 18

Oribatid sp 15 0 3 22

Oribatid sp 16 0 0 1

Oribatid sp 17 0 2 7

Oribatid sp 18 1 0 0

Oribatid sp 19 0 8 68

Oribatid sp 20 0 3 68

Oribatid predator sp 1 6 22 17

Oribatid predator sp 2 15 43 299

Oribatid predator sp 3 21 60 3

Oribatid predator sp 4 12 0 12

Oribatid predator sp 5 12 49 59

Oribatid predator sp 6 1 0 12

Oribatid predator sp 7 15 83 121

Oribatid predator sp 8 114 200 313

Oribatid predator sp 9 257 217 342

Oribatid predator sp 10 12 12 75

Oribatid predator sp 11 1 0 2

Oribatid predator sp 12 72 43 20

Oribatid predator sp 13 1 0 0

Oribatid predator sp 14 1 0 0

continued

Invertebrate Community Structure and Forest Management in the Missouri Ozark Landscape
68 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Table 1—Taxonomic listing and abundance of leaflitter invertebrates collected from three 

forest stands under three management regimes in the Missouri Ozarks a (continued)

Taxonomic classification Clearcut Preservation Selection

Oribatid predator sp 15 6 59 214

Oribatid predator sp 16 5 100 238

Oribatid predator sp 17 1 1 4

Oribatid predator sp 18 14 11 41

Oribatid predator sp 19 0 4 0

Oribatid predator sp 20 0 2 1

Oribatid predator sp 21 0 2 188

Oribatid predator sp 22 0 0 14

Oribatid predator sp 23 0 0 1

Order Pseudoscorpiones

Morphospecies 1 3 32 0

Morphospecies 2 45 338 206

Morphospecies 3 20 0 25

Class Diplopoda 2 9 4

Class Chilopoda 1 128 76

Class Insecta

Order Collembola

Entomobryidae 53 1,239 1,254

Isotomidae 27 690 599

Onychiuridae 22 462 217

Order Orthoptera

Gryllacrididae

Raphidophorinae 0 0 3

Order Blattaria 21 1 0

Order Isoptera

Kalotermidae 16 18 13

Order Psocoptera 397 0 0

Order Hemiptera

Immature sp 1 1 1 1

Suborder Cimicomorpha

Tingidae 3 47 26

Reduviidae 10 1 1

Suborder Pentamomorpha

Lygaeidae 1 2 0

Order Homoptera

Immature sp 1 3 0 0

Immature sp 2 3 8 2

Immature sp 3 177 8 0

Immature sp 4 5 1 0

Immature sp 5 1 4 4

Suborder Auchenorrhyncha

Superfamily Cicadoidea

Cercopidae 1 0 1

Suborder Sternorrhyncha

Superfamily Aphidoidea

Aphidae 1 0 0

Phylloxeridae 2 31 0

Superfamily Coccoidea

Coccoidae 2 0 12

continued
69

Table 1—Taxonomic listing and abundance of leaflitter invertebrates collected from three 

forest stands under three management regimes in the Missouri Ozarks a (continued)

Taxonomic classification Clearcut Preservation Selection

Order Thysanoptera

Thysanoptera sp 1 38 0 606

Phlaeothripidae 529 4 0

Order Coleoptera

Coleoptera immature 112 1 0

Suborder Adephaga

Carabidae 0 428 0

Suborder Polyphaga

Superfamily Staphylinoidea

Staphylinidae 3 6 23

Superfamily Cucujoidea

Nitidulidae 1 1 27

Byturidae 3 26 17

Superfamily Tenebrionoidea

Ciidae 3 46 1

Melandryidae 1 0 194

Superfamily Curculionoidea

Anthribidae 7 23 0

Curculionidae 4 5 0

Scolytidae 10 0 0

Order Diptera

Diptera immature 30 0 0

Suborder Nematocera

Infraorder Bibionomorpha

Superfamily Sciaroidea

Mycetophilidae 10 148 1

Sciaridae 1 0 1

Cecidomyiidae 2 0 67

Infraorder Culicomorpha

Superfamily Culicoidea

Culicidae 1 111 0

Order Trichoptera 12 3 33

Order Lepidoptera

Lepidoptera immature 44 1 0

Moths 52 0 5

Order Hymenoptera

Hymenoptera immature 477 0 97

Suborder Apocrita

Superfamily Ichneumonoidea

Ichneumoid sp 1 321 2 4

near Eulophidae 52 0 1

Superfamily Chalcidoidea

Chalcidoidea sp 1 2 1 0

Chalcidoidea sp 2 1 0 0

Chalcidoidea sp 3 1 0 8

Chalcidoidea sp 4 2 0 0

Chalcidoidea sp 5 0 4 0

Chalcidoidea sp 6 1 1 0

Chalcidoidea sp 7 1 0 0

Encyrtidae 7 0 0

continued

Invertebrate Community Structure and Forest Management in the Missouri Ozark Landscape
70 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Shannon-Weiner (H') ± SE

Clear-cut Preservation Selection

Logging treatment

Figure 1—Leaflitter arthropod diversity of three forest management 

regimes in the Missouri Ozarks.

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Log (species abundance)

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

Species ranking

Selection

Preservation

Clear-cut

Figure 2—Rank abundance curve of arthropod species abundance for 

three forest management regimes in the Missouri Ozarks (1999).

Taxonomic classification Clearcut Preservation Selection

Torymidae 7 147 1

Pteromalidae 20 57 0

Superfamily Formicoidea

Formicidae

Aphenogaster 31 4 0

Crematogaster 1 0 60

Iridomyrmex 2 6 0

near Iridomyrmex 0 33 0

near Forelius 0 0 44

Procertium 0 0 1

Prinopelta 0 27 0

a Forty (0.0625 m2

) samples were collected from each study site and processed via Berlese funnel extraction. 

Specimens were counted and identified to at least family.

Table 1—Taxonomic listing and abundance of leaflitter invertebrates collected from three 

forest stands under three management regimes in the Missouri Ozarks a (continued)

number of species was large and that the community was well 

established (May 1975, Magurran 1988).

Arthropod Community Structure

Principal components analysis effectively segregated the 

clearcut community from the other two communities along 

two principal components (fig. 3). Based on a loading of three 

Oribatid morphospecies and three families of Collembola, 42.4 

percent of the variability was explained along the first principal 

component and 11.5 percent was explained by the second 

component. However, no clear separation could be made 

between the single-tree selection and preservation communities 

along either of these axes.

CCA revealed that percent relative humidity was the most 

important environmental gradient in the clearcut to which the 

arthropod communities were responding (fig. 4). Foliar density 

at 0.5 m and 1.0 m was the most important gradient within 

the preservation treatment. For the single-tree selection, wood 

volume (i.e., diameter at breast height) was the most important 

environmental gradient.

DISCUSSION

Many studies have focused on the effects of disturbance 

on forest arthropod communities (Swift and others 1979, 

Schowalter 1985, Torgersen and others 1995, Greenberg and 

McGrane 1996, Bengtsson and others 1997, Camilo and Zou 

2001). This study assumed that three different logging practices 

would generate three specific forest structures, thereby creating 

spatial heterogeneity gradients to which species communities 

would respond over ecological time. Results suggest that the 

type of forest management practiced does significantly affect 

overall forest and leaflitter arthropod community structure in 

terms of scale and diversity.
71

songbird populations in the Missouri Ozarks also suggests that 

this type of management treatment can contribute greatly to 

species abundance (Annand and Thompson 1997).

This research has provided some baseline data upon which 

several interesting hypotheses may be tested. The scaling results 

suggest that the plots could be expanded in all directions to see 

if bigger “window sizes” will detect spatial patterns at greater 

scale levels. Conversely, subplots could be further divided 

(i.e., increase the spatial resolution) to determine if indeed 

the critical window size transitions around the 5- by 5-m grid 

level. Specific guilds or functional groups of arthropods could 

be studied on a more detailed level with questions relating to 

emergence, trophic levels, or species turnover. Litter quality and 

decomposition is yet another aspect to be examined. Studies 

have shown that nutrient cycling is highly influenced by litter 

inputs to the soil (Blair 1988, Blair and Crossley 1988).

Recent advances in spatial ecology have demonstrated 

that scale is critical to detecting and interpreting ecological 

patterns (Gardner 1998). Scale is crucial to analyzing 

community stability and persistence (Rahel 1990) and may 

have significant implications when it comes to sampling and 

conservation strategies (Milne 1992). Any efforts to preserve 

biodiversity must have an ecosystem level approach (Franklin 

1993). Forested systems are no exception (Lertzman and Fall 

1998). This study has shown that the scale at which forest 

management took place had significant effects on both overall 

forest structure and the leaflitter arthropod communities in the 

Missouri Ozarks. Management and research entities must work 

interactively to achieve conservation objectives (Hobbs 1998).

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10

PC2

PC1

Clear cut

Preservation

Selection

Figure 3—Principal Components (PC) analysis of arthropod species and 

abundance for three forest management regimes in the Missouri Ozarks.

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

-2 -1 0 1 2

d.b.h.

0.5 & 1m % RH

CC axis 2

CC axis 1

Clear-cut Selection Preservation

-3

-6

3

5

Figure 4—Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) of arthropod data and 

forest structure variables for three forest management regimes in the 

Missouri Ozarks. Arrows represent the main abiotic gradient that explains 

the greatest amount of variation within a community.

The invertebrate community analyses suggest that communities 

are significantly affected by the type of forest management 

practiced (figs. 2, 3, and 4). The purpose of this study was to 

look at overall community structure. Therefore, all organisms 

were counted and sorted. Trying to visualize what factors explain 

most of the variability within community ecology data sets is 

a daunting task (Digby and Kempton 1987, Palmer 1993). The 

use of ordination techniques was especially helpful in assessing 

how the environmental gradients and arthropod communities 

could be segregated by treatment and uncovering how they 

relate to each other. This lends itself to ask the question, “What 

else could be responding to these treatments?” Principal 

component analysis (fig. 3) sorted through an extensive data set 

(of richness and abundance) and determined which taxa explain 

most of the variability within the data set. Because this is an 

indirect ordination method, the relationship between species 

distribution and the underlying environmental gradients is not 

determined (Digby and Kempton 1987). CCA superimposed 

the arthropod data on top of the environmental data. By 

performing a direct gradient analysis we were able to generate 

a clear separation of arthropod communities and identify the 

most important environmental gradients to which they were 

responding (fig. 4).

Given these results, it seems evident that the single-tree 

selection and harvest within Pioneer Forest generates a spatial 

gradient throughout the landscape creating conditions most 

suitable for diversity to be maximized. Research by Iffrig and 

others (2004) concluded that over a 30-year period, six of 

seven species groups have maintained their relative proportions 

within the 486 (0.2 acre) permanent research plots. A study on 

Invertebrate Community Structure and Forest Management in the Missouri Ozark Landscape
72 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

LITERATURE CITED

Ananthakrishnan, T.N. 1996. Forest litter insect communities: 

biology chemical ecology. Science Publishers, Inc., Lebanon, 

NH.

Annand, E.M.; Thompson, F.R. 1997. Forest bird response to 

regeneration practices in central hardwood forests. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 61(1): 159-171.

Bengtsson, J.; Persson, T.; Lundkvist, H. 1997. Long-term effects 

of logging residue addition and removal on macroarthropods 

and enchytraeids. Journal of Applied Ecology. 34: 1014-1022.

Blair, J.M. 1988. Nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus dynamics 

in decomposing deciduous leaflitter in the Southern 

Appalachians. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 20: 693-701.

Blair, J.M.; Crossley, D.A., Jr. 1988. Litter decomposition, 

nitrogen dynamics and litter microarthropods in a Southern 

Appalachian hardwood forest 8 years following clearcutting. 

Journal of Applied Ecology. 25: 683-698.

Camilo, G.R.; Zou, X. 2001. Soil fauna in managed forests: 

lessons from the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico. 

In: A. Grajal, R. Fimble and J. Robinson, eds., The Cutting 

Edge: Conserving Wildlife in Logged Tropical Forests. Columbia 

University Press, Columbia, NY.

Coleman, D.C.; Crossley, D.A., Jr. 1996. Fundamentals of soil 

ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1-170.

Digby, P.G.N.; Kempton, R.A. 1987. Multivariate analysis of 

ecological communities. Chapman and Hall. New York, NY. 206 

p.

Ellis, D. 1985. Taxonomic sufficiency in pollution assessment. 

Mar. Poll. Bulletin. 16: 459.

Faber, J.H.; Verhoef, H.A. 1991. Functional difference between 

cosely related soil arthropods with respect to decomposition 

process in the presence or absence of pine tree roots. Biol. 

Biochem. 23: 15-23.

Filser, J.; Fromm, H.; Nagel, R.F.; Winter, K. 1995. Effects 

of previous intensive agricultural management on 

microorganisms and the biodiversity of soil fauna. In: The 

Significance and Regulation of Soil Biodiversity. H.P. Collins, G.P. 

Robertson and M.J. Klug, (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 

Netherlands. 123-129.

Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, 

or landscapes? Ecological Applications. 3(2): 202-205.

Gardner, R.H. 1998. Pattern, process, and the analysis of spatial 

scales. In: Ecological Scale - Theory and Applications. D.L. 

Peterson and V.T. Parker, eds. Columbia University Press. New 

York, NY. 17-34.

Greenberg, C.; McGrane, A. 1996. A comparison of relative 

abundance and biomass of ground-dwelling arthropods under 

different forest management practices. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 89: 31-41.

Guyette, R.; Larson, D. 2000. A history of anthropogenic 

and natural disturbances in the area of the Missouri Ozark 

Forest System Project. In: Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem 

Project: Site History, Soils, Landforms,Woody and Herbaceous 

Vegetation, Down Wood, and Inventory Methodsfor the 

Landscape Experiment. S.R. Shifly and B.L. Brookshire, (eds.), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, North Central Research Station 

Forest Service, St. Paul, MN. 19-40.

Hagvar, S. 1982. Collembola in Norwegian coniferous forest 

soils. I. Relations to Plant Communities and Soil Fertility. 

Pedobiologia 24: 225-296.

Herbeck, L.A.; Larsen, D.R. 1999. Plethodontid salamander 

response to silvicultural practices in the Missouri Ozark Forests. 

Conservation Biology 13(3): 623-632.

Hobbs, R.J. 1998. Managing ecological sstems and processes. 

In: Ecological Scale - Theory and Applications. D.L. Peterson 

and V.T. Parker, eds. Columbia University Press. New York, NY. 

459-484.

Iffrig, G.F.; Trammel, C.E.; Cunningham, T. 2004. Pioneer Forest: 

a case study in sustainable forest management. Pages 193-

204 in S. L. Flader, ed. Toward Sustainability for Missouri 

forests. General Technical Report NC-239. St. Paul, Minnesota; 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station. 251 p.

Jenny, H. 1980. The soil resource: origin and behavior. Ecological 

Studies 37. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 1-145.

Kabrick, J.; Meinert, D.; Nigh, T.; Gorlinsky, B.J. 2000. Physical 

environment of the Missouri Ozark ecosystem project sites. 

In: Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project: Site History, 

Soils, Landforms, Woody and Herbaceous Vegetation, Down 

Wood, and Inventory Methods for the Landscape Experiment. 

S.R. Shifly and B.L. Brookshire, (eds.), U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, North Central Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, 

St. Paul, MN. 41-42.

Krebs, C.J. 1989. Ecological methodology. Harper Collins 

Publishers. New York, NY. 1-370.

Lavelle, P.; Lattand, C.; Trigo, D.; Barois, I. 1995. Mutualism and 

biodiversity in soils. In: The Significance and Regulation of Soil 

Biodiversity. H.P. Collins, G.P. Robertson and M.J. Klug, eds.

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. 23-33.

Lertzman, K.; Fall, J. 1998. From forest stands to landscapes: 

spatial scales and the roles of disturbances. In: Ecological Scale 

- Theory and Applications. D.L. Peterson and V.T. Parker, eds. 

Columbia University Press. New York, NY. 339-368.

Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. 

Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ. 1-114.

May, R.M. 1975. Patterns of species abundance and diversity. 

In: Ecology and Evolution of Communities. M.L. Cody and J. 

Diamond, eds.. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 81-

120.
Invertebrate Community Structure and Forest Management in the Missouri Ozark Landscape 73

Milne, B.T. 1992. Spatial aggregation and neutral models in 

fractal landscapes. The American Naturalist. 139(1):33-56.

Palmer, M.W. 1993. Putting things in even better order: the 

advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology. 74: 

2215-2230.

Pickett, S.T.A.; White, P.S. 1985. Patch dynamics: a synthesis. In: 

The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. S.T.A. 

Pickett and P.S. White, eds. Academic Press, Inc., New York, 

NY. 371- 384.

Pik, A.J.; Oliver, I.; Beattie, A.J. 1999. Taxonomic sufficiency 

in ecological studies of terrestrial invertebrates. Australian 

Journal of Ecology 24: 555562.

Poole, T.B. 1962. The effect of some environmental factors on 

the pattern of distribution of soil collembola in a coniferous 

woodland. Pedobiologia. 2: 169-182.

Rahel, F.J. 1990. The hierarchical nature of community 

persistence: a problem of scale. The American Naturalist. 

136(3): 328-344.

Runkle, J.R. 1985. Disturbance regimes in temperate forests. 

In: The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. 

S.T.A. Pickett and P.S. White, eds. Academic Press, Inc., New 

York, NY. 17-33.Schowalter, T.D. 1985. Adaptations of Insects to 

Disturbance. In: The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch 

Dynamics. S.T.A. Pickett and P.S. White, eds. Academic Press, 

Inc., New York, NY. 235-252.

Schowalter, T.D. 2000. Insect ecology: an ecosystem approach. 

Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA. 1-422.

Secrest, M.F.; Willig, M.R.; Peppers, L.L. 1996. The legacy of 

disturbance in habitat associations of terrestrial snails in the 

Luqillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico. Biotropica. 28(4a): 

502-514.

Sousa, W.P. 1979. Disturbance in marine intertidal boulder fields: 

the nonequilibrium maintenance of species diversity. Ecology. 

60(6): 1225-1239. 

Stiling, P.D. 1996. Ecology: theories and applications, 2d ed. 

Prentice-Hall,Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. 1-449.

Swift, M.J.; Heal, O.W.; Anderson, J.M. 1979. Decomposition in 

terrestrial ecosystem. Blackwell Scientific Publication. Oxford, 

England. 1-322.

Torgersen, C.E.; Jones, J.A.; Moldenke, A.R.; LeMaster, M.P. 1995. 

The spatial heterogeneity of soil invertebrates and edaphic 

properties in an old growth forest stand in western Oregon. 

Pp. 225-236 in H.P. Collins, G.P. Robertson and M.J. Klug, eds., 

The significance and regulation of soil biodiversity. Kluwer 

Academic Publishers, Netherlands.

Walter, D.E.; Procter, H.C. 1999. Mites: ecology, evolution and 

behaviour. CABI Publishing, New York, NY. 1-268. 

Weaver, J.; Heyman, S. 1997. The distribution and abundance 

of leaf litter arthropods in MOFEP sites 1, 2, and 3. In: 

Proceedings of the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project 

Symposium: an Experimental Approach to Landscape 

Research. B.L. Brookshire and S.R. Shifley, eds. United States 

Department of Agriculture. 318-331.

Willig, M.R.; Secrest, M.F.; Cox, S.B. [and others]. 1998. Longterm monitoring of snails in the Luquillo Experimental Forest 

of Puerto Rico: heterogeneity, scale, disturbance, and recovery. 

In: Forest Biodiversity in North, Central, and South America, 

and the Caribbean: Research and Monitoring. F. Dallmeier and 

J.A. Comiskey, eds. UNESCO, Paris, France and The Parthenon 

Publishing Group, Inc., Pearl River, NY. 293-322.

Winter, J.P.; Voroney, R.P. 1993. Microarthopods in soil and litter. 

In Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. M.R. Carter, ed. 

Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, FL. 319-332.

Wootton, J.T. 1998. Effects of disturbance on species diversity: 

a multitrophic perspective. The American Naturalist. 152(6): 

803-825.

Roger Pryor Pioneer Backcountry overlooking the Current River at Bee Bluff. 

(Photo by Bob Gestel)

ECONOMI

& SOCIAL VALUESC

77

AN ANALYSIS OF THE BENEFITS AND PROFITS OF 

SINGLE-TREE SELECTION SILVICULTURE: A CASE STUDY 

OF PIONEER FOREST IN MISSOURI’S OZARKS

Makoto Hamatani and Katherine M. Goslee1

Abstract—The profitability of single-tree selection is analyzed using Pioneer Forest as a case study. Uneven-aged management 

has resulted in an increase in standing volume over time, but stands have not yet attained their maximum volume. The 2000 

asset value in real terms is three times higher than in 1980 and nine times higher than in 1960 due to an increase in volume per 

acre and a real increase in stumpage price. Whereas there are both advantages and disadvantages to uneven-aged management, 

particularly for small, nonindustrial private forest landowners, it is clear that single-tree selection is profitable for landowners, and 

may even compete financially with even-aged management. Ultimately, the combination of ecological benefits, continuous forest 

cover, and economic incentives make single-tree selection a valuable tool.

INTRODUCTION

Pioneer Forest is a 154,000-acre privately owned forest, 

established in 1951. These woodlands are located in Missouri’s 

Ozark region, within the Jack’s Fork, Current, and Black River 

watersheds, and have a canopy dominated by oak, hickory, 

and pine. Pioneer Forest, under the ownership of the L-A-D 

Foundation, is the largest private landbase in Missouri. The 

forest is a working landscape, managed for timber, as well as 

many other purposes, including preservation of unique features 

in natural areas and forest reserves, watershed protection, and 

recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, camping, and 

hiking. Forest staff also use the forest as a model for other 

private timberland owners.

Since its establishment, Pioneer Forest has been under a 

method of uneven-aged management called single-tree 

selection. Uneven-aged forests contain trees in all age and size 

classes, with at least three age classes present on any given 

acre. Each harvest removes some of the financially mature trees 

and thins other trees from the forest structure. With each entry, 

only 40 percent of standing volume may be harvested, which 

allows the forest to maintain continuous forest cover of a variety 

of tree species over multiple generations. The residual trees are 

generally healthier than harvested trees and have increased 

space, light, water, and nutrition available for growth. Using 

these methods, any given area of the forest may be harvested 

approximately every 20 years.2

The purpose of this paper is to examine the profitability of 

single-tree selection using Pioneer Forest as a case study. First, 

the biological effects of Pioneer Forest’s management over the 

last 50 years are described, including change in volume and 

tree growth on the forest. Next, the resulting asset value, sales, 

and profitability of Pioneer Forest are addressed, along with 

the economic potential for single-tree selection on private land 

in general. Finally, uneven-aged management and even-aged 

management are compared and advantages and drawbacks of 

uneven-aged management for small landowners are discussed 

in this paper.

CHANGE IN VOLUME OF STANDING TREES

Since 1952, Pioneer Forest has carried out a Continuous Forest 

Inventory (CFI), measuring and recording tree species, diameter, 

height, health/vigor, volume, and quality of standing trees 

every 5 years.3 There are 486 2/10-acre permanent plots in 

which all trees 5 inches in diameter and greater at breast height 

(d.b.h.) are measured. For the past three inventories, all trees 

1.6 inches to 5.0 inches in d.b.h. also have been measured 

in order to provide a better indication of the size and species 

composition of regeneration. Through single-tree selection, the 

volume of standing trees has been increasing over time. The 

annual rate of increase in standing volume was an average of 

about 2 percent through 1987 (aside from the period between 

1972 and 1977). Since 1987, volume has been increasing at a 

rate of nearly 4 percent per year (fig. 1). Due to these increases, 

current volume of standing trees is more than three times 

higher than when Leo Drey acquired the land. Volume reached 

3,680 board feet per acre in 2002 from 1,128 board feet per 

acre in 1952. Uneven-aged management at Pioneer Forest 

has resulted in an increase in standing volume over time, and 

ultimately the forest will reach its potential maximum volume. 

This increase in standing volume is due partly to the reallocation 

of resources to healthy trees by focused cutting on poor quality 

trees. However, based on the trend of a continued increase in 

standing volume, the forests on Pioneer Forest have not yet 

reached their maximum volume and may continue to increase 

for some time into the future.

1 Makoto Hamatani, Graduate Student, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC; Katherine M. Goslee, Director, 

Appalachian Voices, Boone, NC, now with the U.S. Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry, Washington, DC.

2 Over the more than 50-year existence of Pioneer Forest, it has been determined that 20-25 years is the best rotation period. This interval allows maximum 

growth and minimum mortality, resulting in an increase in standing volume. It is important to note that rotation is determined by climatic and topographic 

conditions and will vary in different environments.

3 Volume of trees is measured in board feet, the volume of wood in a board 1-inch thick by 1-foot wide by 1-foot long.

(MBF = 1,000 board feet.) Size of trees refers to diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), which is the diameter of the tree trunk 4.5 feet above the tree base.
78 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

TREE GROWTH

Annual increment is the net annual increase in volume of 

standing trees per acre after mortality and sales are taken into 

account. Average annual tree growth is the gross increase in 

volume and is calculated by adding annual increment and the 

volume harvested for timber sales. Figure 2 shows average 

annual increment of standing volume, sales proportion, and 

annual tree growth. Because volume is measured every 5 years, 

the rate of annual increment appears to be stable. However, the 

ratio of sales to total volume fluctuated substantially every year 

until the 1990s.4

 It is important to note that growth rate is likely 

to be stable, whereas annual increment is actually likely to 

change every year, although the average of each of these rates 

should be very close to the actual rate.

The ratio of sales to total volume fluctuated until the middle of 

the 1980s, and has since been decreasing, as seen in figure 2. 

Whereas sales volume has remained relatively constant over 

time, total volume has risen incrementally until reaching a 

relatively stable level. Average annual net volume of standing 

trees has remained higher over the last decade because the 

ratio of sales to total volume has decreased. Prior to 1985, sales 

averaged 2.4 percent of total volume, tree growth rate was 

4.3 percent, and net growth was nearly 2 percent. After 1985, 

sales averaged 1.5 percent of total volume, growth rate was 5.1 

percent, and net growth was 3.6 percent. 

Whereas growth rate has not changed very much over time (3 

percent to 7 percent), annual growth in volume has increased 

yearly. As shown in table 1, the annual increase in volume of 

standing trees in 1957 was only 54.4 board feet per acre. Over 

the past 50 years, annual volume increase has become 2.5 

times as high as that of 1957, based on an average growth 

rate of 4.4 percent. Continuous uneven-aged management 

improves the quality of forests and has led to an increase in 

annual growth every year thus far. However, it is unclear how 

long this trend will continue, and it is necessary to continue to 

analyze results from the forest inventory in order to pinpoint the 

maximum annual growth on Pioneer Forest.

CHANGE IN VOLUME PER ACRE BY 

DIAMETER CLASS

Figure 3 shows increases in volume per acre for all measured 

diameter classes; the highest increase in volume is seen in 

trees with a diameter between 11 and 16 inches.5 The volume 

of trees with a diameter greater than 21 inches increased by 

less than 100 board feet per acre for 45 years. This is due to 

the fact that it takes larger diameter trees more time to grow, 

4 Because of the different intervals of sampling data and heavy harvesting in terms of ratio of sales volume on total volume, the data in the early 1950s are 

eliminated to avoid distortion of the average growth rate. Also from 1993 to 1995, sales data is not available; the tree growth in the 3 years is not calculated. 

5 For hardwood species in Missouri timber markets, merchantable size is 11-inch d.b.h.; for softwood species, merchantable size is 9-inch d.b.h.

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

International 1/4" rule

(board feet)

Figure 1—Change in volume of standing trees per acre.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Percent

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

1979

Annual increment Sales proportion (sales/total) Annual growth rate

Figure 2—Timber sales relative to tree growth rate. 

Table 1—Annual volume increase

Year

Annual 

increase

bd ft/acre

1957 54.4

1962 62.0

1967 70.2

1972 79.1

1977 81.6

1982 89.1

1987 96.8

1992 113.9

1997 141.3

2002 a 134.76

a The slight drop in annual increase 

for 2002 is attributed to mortality from 

drought.
An Analysis of the Benefits and Profits of Single-Tree Selection Silviculture: A Case Study of Pioneer Forest in Missouri’s Ozarks 79

and harvesting only a few of these trees as they reach financial 

maturity greatly affects that particular class average. In addition, 

the number of trees per acre decreases with increasing size, 

explaining much of the variability in the larger diameter classes 

because fewer trees sampled leads to a higher variation in 

statistical results. Despite the slower increases in volume of 

larger trees, it is clear that in all diameter classes, there has 

been an increase in volume over the past 50 years (fig. 4). 

Additionally, figure 5 shows the percentage of volume per acre 

by diameter class, indicating that 11- to 16 -inch diameter trees 

have comprised a significant and stable proportion of total 

volume over time.

CHANGE IN ASSET VALUE

The relative value of the standing trees per acre on Pioneer 

Forest has been increasing steadily over the past 50 years. As 

seen in figure 6, these values slowly changed until the 1980s, 

when the relative value of standing volume per acre began 

increasing dramatically. The circles represent actual or nominal 

value, and the squares represent the relative value adjusted 

for inflation.6

 The 2000 asset value in real terms is three times 

higher than in 1980 and nine times higher than in 1960. There 

are two reasons for this increase in the value: an increase in 

volume per acre as previously described and an increase in 

timber price. 

Though there have been some fluctuations, overall stumpage 

price has been rising since 1970. The current price for stumpage 

is 4.3 times higher than that of 1970. In figure 7, the lower 

line and the upper line represent nominal and real prices 

of stumpage from Pioneer Forest, respectively.7 Until 1970, 

an increase in timber price was lower than inflation, which 

indicates that price of timber in real terms decreased. 

Since there have been simultaneous large increases in both price 

and standing volume per acre for the last 30 years, the value of 

standing trees has risen significantly. In 2001, Pioneer Forest had 

2.47 times more volume at 4.3 times higher price than in 1972. 

This results in an average value per acre approximately 9 times 

higher in 2001 than in 1972.

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Board feet

11–12 13–14 15–16 17–18 19–20 21–22 23–24 25+

Diameter at breast height

Figure 3—Increase in volume per acre by diameter class from 1952 to 

2002.

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

11–12 13–14 15–16 17–18 19–20 21–22 23–24 25+

Board feet

1952

2002

Diameter at breast height

Figure 4—Distribution by diameter class in 1952 and 2002.

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Percent

19~20

21~22

23~24

25+

11~12

13~14

15~16

17~18

Figure 5—Percentage of volume by diameter class.

6 In this paper, the base of real term is the price in 2002. Real term value allows for a comparison of prices over time, as the value of the dollar changes.

7 The prices in the graph are not average prices in this region; prices for Pioneer Forest are set higher than average prices in almost any year. The trend of 

average price in this area must be very similar to that in the graph. There are many related price determinants such as timber supply, quality of timber, and 

market power.
80 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

There are a number of factors that can impact asset value. 

Purchasing land has an effect on total asset value, and Pioneer 

Forest has purchased a large amount of land. However, over the 

past 30 years, the contribution of acquisition to the change in 

asset value is not significant. Timber grade also has an effect 

on asset value; the range of veneer timber price is from 3 

times to 10 times as high as that of saw log price.8

 Assuming 

that the veneer price in this region of Missouri is just $600 

per thousand board feet (MBF), and 1 percent of the standing 

volume of Pioneer Forest is classified as veneer-quality timber, 

the total asset value including veneer-quality logs is 30 percent 

higher than the value in the graph.9

 However, it is often 

difficult to separate veneer-quality timber from saw logs, and 

this distinction is not generally made in timber sales. A final 

consideration is the inherent flaw in the concept of asset value, 

which is a hypothetical figure that cannot be accurately assessed 

until assets are actually sold. 

SINGLE-TREE SELECTION AND MARKET COMPETITION

In order to understand the economic benefits of single-tree 

selection, it is necessary to know how much timber per acre 

has been harvested from Pioneer Forest and the level of 

earnings from harvests over time. Since 1952, Pioneer Forest 

has made two or three entries into each harvest unit of their 

land,10 although the intervals for entry differ depending on 

site conditions. This difference does not affect the number of 

board feet per acre that has been harvested, but it does affect 

profit because the same price in different years has different 

purchasing power due to inflation. Using actual data since 1952, 

adjusted to a 2002 base price, the average per acre volume of 

harvested timber and average sales per acre for 50 years are 

2,708 board feet and $238.85, respectively.

Based on the average volume of timber sold and the average 

profit over a 50-year period, the price of timber per MBF at a 

2002 base is $87. Compared to the current saw log price, this 

price is quite small. However, an advantage of uneven-aged 

management is that selling timber in several different market 

periods significantly reduces market risk to the landowner 

by making it possible to avoid selling all of the timber at the 

lowest price. By selling timber regularly, expected sales price is 

closer to actual average price, and variance of sales, the range 

of money you can earn from one sale, is less than it would be 

from fewer timber sales. Selling most of the timber in the 1950s 

would have led to lost opportunity for higher incomes because 

of high prices over the last 20 years. However, the range in 

price of saw logs was from $20 to $170 (2002 base), indicating 

that by selling timber regularly, Pioneer Forest avoided selling 

significant volumes of timber at a lower price. Uneven-aged 

management has proven to be an excellent method of avoiding 

market risk because landowners can harvest multiple times, 

thus avoiding risks of price fluctuation over time.

MANAGEMENT COSTS AND PROFITS

Table 2 shows incomes and expenses from 1996 to 2001. 

The figures cited do not include certain sale expenses such as 

miscellaneous and consulting fees; rather, most are sales from 

saw log timber.11

Over the last 6 years, Pioneer Forest has netted profit constantly 

at an average of 57 percent of the total expenses. The largest 

portion of annual expenses is labor-related, which accounts for 

70 percent to 80 percent of the annual costs. The second largest 

cost is taxes, with property tax the highest, at 10 to 20 percent 

of the annual costs.

8 http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/forest/products/prices/, Missouri Timber Price Trends-Quarterly Market Report Index, Missouri Department of 

Conservation.

9

 [(Asset Value in 2001)*99 percent +(Asset Value in 2001)*0.1 percent/(Real Price in 2001)*(Price of Veneer=600)]/(Asset Value in 2001) nearly equal to 1.3.

10 As mentioned previously, Pioneer Forest does not harvest timber from all of their land but manages some areas as old growth or for their unique ecological 

characteristics.

11 Since no compatible data exists earlier than 1995, the ratio of incomes on expenses until 1996 is not clear.

200

150

100

50

0

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Price (dollars)

Price in 2002 base

Nominal price

Figure 7—Price trends for stumpage from Pioneer Forest.

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Re

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

lative average value per acre

Real value, 2002 base

Nominal value

Figure 6—Value of standing trees.
81

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR SMALL LANDHOLDINGS

Having developed an understanding of the methods, benefits, 

and drawbacks of single-tree selection on Pioneer Forest, it is 

possible to draw some inferences about the economic potential 

for single-tree selection in general, and particularly on private 

land. There are a number of components to consider in the 

differences between a large landholding such as Pioneer Forest 

and smaller private landholdings that do not employ full-time 

foresters. First, it is important to note that because of overhead 

costs, it is not always economically feasible for a logger to enter 

a small acreage; whereas there are possible solutions to this 

problem, namely landowner cooperatives, they are beyond 

the scope of this paper. Additionally, because most landowners 

do not employ or need to employ a full time forester, the 

associated costs include fees charged by consulting foresters.

The charges that a landowner will incur from a forester usually 

include a flat rate for a stewardship management plan, a 

per-hour fee for appraisal, boundary marking, and other 

nonsale services, and a percentage of any timber sale. These 

fees approximate the costs to Pioneer Forest, which average 

approximately 12 percent of income and will account for fixed 

costs and salary, which will not need to be calculated separately. 

Based on this, it is possible to estimate the potential income for 

an individual private landowner using the approximate peracre per-year income earned by Pioneer Forest, which was $4 

for the past 25 years. This means that if a landowner harvests 

40 acres on a 20-year cycle, each harvest will gross $3,200. 

An Analysis of the Benefits and Profits of Single-Tree Selection Silviculture: A Case Study of Pioneer Forest in Missouri’s Ozarks

Table 2— Incomes and expenses of Pioneer Forest

Nominal Ratio 

(incomes: 

Year Incomes Expenses expenses)

 - - - - - - dollars - - - - - -

1996 499,391.19 360,873.43 1.38

1997 651,860.91 393,089.17 1.66

1998 700,890.23 398,466.46 1.76

1999 766,041.26 456,050.14 1.68

2000 784,299.67 470,014.35 1.67

2001 645,897.21 490,205.54 1.32

2002 731,525.75 490,878.21 1.49

Average 1.57

This is likely to be an underestimate since it is based on the 

entirety of Pioneer Forest’s acreage although not all of their 

land is harvested. One potential source of additional income 

from forestland that is not addressed is nontimber products. 

Individual private landowners might consider such activities 

as annual hunting leases, growing other commodities such as 

mushrooms or, depending on the size and location of the forest, 

ecotourism.

In addition to costs, landowners face a number of obstacles 

when managing their forests using single-tree selection. The 

most noteworthy of these is the difficulty of finding a forester 

who is knowledgeable about single-tree selection and a logger 

who is willing to harvest in this manner. However, it is possible 

to ask a forester for references from previous clients and to 

look into the types of management he or she has utilized. 

Additionally, consulting foresters work directly for landowners, 

not logging companies, and are typically able to find an 

appropriate logger and manage the sale to ensure that all 

recommendations are followed.

COMPARISON OF UNEVEN-AGED MANAGEMENT WITH 

EVEN-AGED MANAGEMENT12

To determine whether uneven-aged management is 

economically competitive with even-aged management, it 

is necessary to determine the volume of harvested trees. 

Assuming that approximately 6,000 board feet per acre can be 

harvested out of one clearcut, what volume of standing trees 

per acre is required to harvest an equal amount from unevenaged forests?13 The clearcut rotation in the Missouri Ozarks is 

estimated as roughly 80 years for oaks, although no forested 

tract in Missouri has been regrown through that suggested 

rotation period, and it may possibly be longer. However, during 

that period, uneven-aged management allows Pioneer Forest to 

harvest 40 percent of total volume at four different periods. 

The CFI data reveal that on the whole, the harvests on 

Pioneer Forest compare quite favorably to those of even-aged 

management. On average, about 2,700 board feet per acre 

have been harvested, and, at this rate, it is possible to harvest 

4,333 board feet per acre over 80 years14 while still retaining 

an average standing volume of 3,700 board feet per acre. The 

last 50 years have been, in part, a transition period, during 

which time the volume of standing trees has been increasing. 

However, if all of the trees on Pioneer Forest were cut now,

12 This comparison is hypothetical because Pioneer Forest has no areas managed using even-aged management. However, another study offers a direct 

comparison of low-impact methods and clearcutting methods. A 45-year study undertaken in New Brunswick by the New Brunswick Federation of Woodlot 

Owners and the University of New Brunswick compared three similar stands, two managed using low-impact, selection forestry and the other managed 

through clearcutting (http://www.lowimpactforestry.com/doesitpay/study2.htm). The results show that low impact forestry provided an average of 74 hours 

per acre of employment, whereas clearcutting provided 35 hours per acre. The sites managed using selection forestry yielded an average of 35 cords per acre, 

and the clearcut sites yielded 22 cords per acre. The total stumpage value, in 1996 dollars, averaged $1,350 per acre from the low-impact site and $550 per 

acre from the clearcut site. In addition, the site managed using low-impact methods had twice the standing volume of the clearcut site when the study was 

published in 1996, with a wood of higher value, red spruce, than the clearcut site, poplar.

13 Clinton E. Trammel, Personal Communication, 1310 Hillview Drive, Rolla, MO 65401

14 4,333 board feet per acre is calculated simply by multiplying 2,708 by 1.6 (80 years/50 years). The amount of harvest for the 80 years will exceed 4,333, 

because volume of standing volume now is higher than 2,708 board feet per acre.
82 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

the harvest would be 6,400 board feet for 50 years; the volume 

of timber that has been produced for 50 years, on average, 

is 5,270 board feet. In an 80-year rotation, 8,480 board feet 

would be produced assuming that the volume of standing trees 

increased at the same rate. If the volume of standing trees does 

not increase, a conservative estimate, the amount of harvested 

trees will be 2,700 board feet multiplied by 80/50 years. 

The volume produced would be 6,920 board feet; therefore, 

even the conservative case is competitive with even-aged 

management. Another important consideration is that when a 

landowner clearcuts, land costs have to be carried 60 to 80 years 

with little or no revenue from that land.

The principal economic advantages of uneven-aged 

management, compared to even-aged management, are (1) 

financial diversification, (2) annual value added, (3) constant 

income, (4) continuous forest cover, and (5) a long-standing 

relationship with sawmills. As explained through this paper, 

uneven-aged management enables diversification in two ways. 

One is diversification by more sales opportunities, and the 

other is diversification by holding several different investments. 

This combination allows landowners to be exposed to less 

risk. Second, as shown previously in table 2, annual growth of 

standing volume on Pioneer Forest has increased under unevenaged management, and annual average volume growth per 

acre is 106 board feet for 50 years compared to 75 board feet 

under even-aged management.15 This shows that the value 

added annually for uneven-aged management is greater than 

that of even-aged management. Of course, these numbers are 

averages, and trees do not grow at the same rate all the time, 

although overall, if landowners keep forest in uneven-aged 

management and even-aged management for the same period, 

forests in uneven-aged management produce more timber.

Third, uneven-aged management provides landowners with an 

income from their land every 20 years rather than once every 

80 years. Consider a hypothetical example of two identical sites; 

one is managed using even-aged management, the other using 

uneven-aged management. On both sites, 6,000 board feet can 

be harvested for 80 years, and the price of timber is constant 

at $170 (real) per MBF. Table 3 shows the schedule of harvests. 

Based on both stumpage values and nominal values, unevenaged management yields a higher profit than even-aged 

management over the duration of the 80-year cycle. In the case 

of high inflation or an increase in expected timber price, nominal 

values for uneven-aged management would be even higher. 

How the cash flow is ranked depends on individual preference, 

and some prefer the constant cash flow and value provided by 

uneven-aged management. Additionally, the maximum yield for 

uneven-aged management on Pioneer Forest has not yet been 

determined. Furthermore, in uneven-aged forests, multiple uses 

such as hunting, camping, and hiking are continuously possible, 

and landowners may derive some income from these activities.

Finally, since there are more opportunities to sell timber using 

uneven-aged management, it could be possible to have longterm relationships with sawmills. These relationships help to 

establish trust between landowners and sawmills because they 

offer a more continuous timber transaction for both the buyer 

as well as the seller. Actually, Pioneer Forest has such longterm relationships with sawmills extending over generations of 

mill owners, which helps the business of Pioneer Forest to run 

smoothly.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that there are both advantages and disadvantages to 

uneven-aged management, particularly for small, nonindustrial 

private forest landowners. However, it is also clear that singletree selection is profitable for landowners and may even 

compete financially with even-aged management. Whereas the 

economic aspects of uneven-aged management are primarily 

addressed in this paper, there are numerous ecological factors 

that should be considered for a complete comparison to evenaged management. Ultimately, the combination of ecological 

benefits, continuous forest cover, and economic incentives make 

single-tree selection a valuable tool. 

15 [2,600(an increase in standing trees per acre)+2,700(average harvest per acre)]/50 years=106.
An Analysis of the Benefits and Profits of Single-Tree Selection Silviculture: A Case Study of Pioneer Forest in Missouri’s Ozarks 83

Table 3—Investment value of even-aged and uneven-aged management

Year

Tract 1—Even-aged management Tract 2—Uneven-aged management

Volume/acre Stumpage Nominal Volume/acre Stumpage Nominal

- - - - - dollars - - - - - - - - - - dollars - - - - -

0 Original volume 6,000 bd ft 6,000 bd ft

Harvest, a bd ft 6,000 @$6/mbf 36.00 343.61 2,900 b @$6/mbf 17.40 166.06

Retained volume 0 3,100

Bd ft growth 0 2,900 c

20 Volume, bd ft 0 6,000

Harvest, bd ft 0 2,900 @$6/mbf 17.40 201.32

Retained volume 0 3,100

Bd ft growth 800 2,900

40 Volume, bd ft 800 6,000

Harvest, bd ft 0 2,900 @11/mbf 31.90 181.64

Retained volume 800 3,100

Bd ft growth 1,000 2,900

60 Volume, bd ft 1,800 6,000

Harvest, bd ft 800 @ $72/mbf 57.60 107.74 2,900 @$57/mbf 165.30 309.20

Retained volume 1,000 3,100

Bd ft growth 2,000 2,900

70 Volume, bd ft 3,000

Harvest, bd ft 1,000 @$100/mbf 100 124.87

Retained volume 2,000

Bd ft growth 2,900

79 Volume, bd ft 4,900 6,000

Harvest, bd ft

Retained volume 4,900 6,000

Volume 4,900 @$170/mbf 833.00 833.00 6,000@$170/mbf 1,020.00 1,020.00

Total harvested volume 7,800 11,600

Total residual volume 4,900 6,000

Total volume 12,700 17,600

Total value of harvested and

remaining volume 1,026.60 1,252.00

Nominal dollars reinvested

using CPI d 1,409.22 1,878.22

a Harvests begin immediately and assume 80 year investment.

b Harvest no more than the annual growth.

c 145 board feet annual growth per acre per year. d Consumer Price Index of 2.86.
84 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

NATURAL AREAS PROTECTION AND RECREATION 

OPPORTUNITIES ON PIONEER FOREST AND OTHER 

PROPERTIES OF THE L-A-D FOUNDATION

John A. Karel1

Abstract—The lands of Pioneer Forest and the L-A-D Foundation comprise more than 150,000 acres. Pioneer Forest is located within 

the Current, Jacks Fork, and Black River watersheds in the Ozarks. The other L-A-D Foundation properties are broadly distributed 

from north-central Missouri to extreme southern Missouri, with a primary concentration in the Ozark region. Both Pioneer Forest 

and the L-A-D Foundation are life-long projects of Leo Drey, a conservationist and businessman from St. Louis, MO. On these lands 

are important natural and cultural resources as well as interesting and unique outdoor opportunities. A number of landmark 

achievements in the fields of natural areas protection and outdoor recreation have resulted from the leadership of Leo Drey. The 

principal developments in these fields that have occurred here over the past half-century are chronicled in this paper. 

INTRODUCTION

During the 1950s, Leo Drey, a conservationist and businessman 

from St. Louis, MO, assisted by foresters Lee Paulsell, Ed Woods, 

and Charlie Kirk, came to understand that Ozark forests could 

recover from the more intensive cutting, which began at 

the turn of the century, and, by the use of conservative and 

thoughtful harvest practices, could be restored to provide 

continuous economic productivity. Pioneer is widely known for 

its system of timber management, but Leo, with advice from his 

early foresters and along the way from other advisors, also has 

been a leading steward for a very broad range of natural and 

recreational resources on Pioneer Forest and beyond.

One cannot purchase 150,000 acres of undeveloped land in the 

Ozarks without, at the same time, acquiring important natural 

features and lands that are important for outdoor recreation. 

Stewardship of these resources is also part of the Pioneer 

story—and the Leo Drey story. 

CONTRIBUTIONS RECOGNIZING NATURAL AREAS IN 

MISSOURI

Participation in Society of American Foresters 

Natural Areas Program

In 1947, the Society of American Foresters (SAF) began a 

program to recognize the value of setting permanently aside 

certain tracts of high-quality, unique, or otherwise special lands 

as a reference for study and comparison—an outdoor library of 

original forest and natural community types. During its first 2 

years, the SAF Natural Areas Program had registered 153 areas 

on either U.S. Forest Service or USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

lands, many located in western states, particularly in Arizona, 

Oregon, and Washington, although none had been designated 

in Missouri. To encourage even greater participation, the April 

1952 issue of the Journal of Forestry issued a call for foresters 

to locate and register virgin type associations in this new 

program. The philosophical rationale for these areas has evolved 

since that time, and the importance of such areas has now 

been almost universally acknowledged throughout the natural 

resource professions. Today’s consensus, however, required 

yesterday’s pioneers.

In 1951, Leo Drey acquired his first tract of land in the Ozarks of 

southern Missouri and, in 1954, he acquired the nearly 90,000-

acre holding of National Distillers land. Foresters Ed Woods and 

Charlie Kirk had already begun working with the SAF to establish 

a virgin hardwood area on the National Distillers property (file 

correspondence of Pioneer Forest, August and October 1953). On 

the advice of both Woods and Kirk, now foresters with his newly 

created Pioneer Forest, Drey recognized the value of the natural 

area concept and approved registration of a 10-acre tract of 

old-growth white oak forest as an SAF Natural Area. SAF Natural 

Area Committee Chair John Shanklin reported on the designation 

of the Current River Natural Area in the March 1955 issue of the 

Journal of Forestry. 

This particular white oak forest had previously been identified 

as a significant site for Missouri. The first list of Missouri sites 

to be considered for preservation included 121 areas and was 

compiled sometime prior to 1953 by well-known botanist Julian 

Steyermark (The Nature Conservancy 1954). Steyermark’s list 

of areas was then annotated by field visits conducted by Nevins 

(1953) for The Nature Conservancy. Nevins’s shorter list of 55 

sites described the virgin white oak forest owned by National 

Distillers. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch interviewed Drey in May 

1954 and reported on the setting aside of “two tracts of virgin 

white oak estimated to contain 300,000 board feet of timber. 

Drey says these trees will not be harvested, but kept in their 

virgin state as a sort of monument to past greatness of Ozark 

forests and an object lesson as to what a fine forest can become 

if permitted to do so. . . . Some of the trees . . . measure almost 

4 feet in diameter. Many of them may have been vigorous 

saplings at the time of the Revolutionary War.” Clearly this was 

not a tentative inauguration of natural areas at Pioneer Forest—

Leo Drey had become fully engaged. Current River Natural Area 

was the first such area designated in Missouri and Drey was 

1

 John A. Karel, President, L-A-D Foundation, and Director, Tower Grove Park, St. Louis, MO 63110.
Natural Areas Protection and Recreation Opportunities on Pioneer Forest and Other Properties of the L-A-D Foundation 85

undoubtedly looking for other ways he might participate in this 

evolving effort. 

Drey was active in SAF programs throughout the 1950s and 

worked on several committees as a member of that professional 

association. As late as 1960, the Current River Natural Area 

remained the only SAF area designated on public or private 

lands in Missouri. Despite this relatively slow progress in 

his home state, Leo continued to be a supportive voice for 

identifying and protecting natural areas on his and other lands. 

In 1964, negotiations were completed for the second SAF 

natural area on the forest (correspondence February-April 1964). 

The site, Pioneer Natural Area, was a mixed forest site with 

old-growth eastern red cedar on a ridge directly adjacent to the 

Current River. The files of Pioneer Forest for both areas include 

correspondence, field measurements, notes, and land survey 

information contributed by several of the staff who were also 

members of the SAF, including Ed Woods, Charlie Kirk, and Steve 

Lindsey. In the December 1964 issue of the SAF’s Journal of 

Forestry, D.W. Lynch (1964) noted that both areas “are examples 

of outstanding contributions by a private timber landowner in 

which he relinquishes the management of the areas to a board 

of trustees under legal indenture.”

Missouri Natural Area Survey and L-A-D Foundation

By this time, the Nature Conservancy and the University of 

Missouri also had become more active, conducting studies and 

identifying priority sites for protection. Drey became involved 

in both, and his association with this early natural areas work 

proved fruitful.

By 1958, Drey had already joined the board of trustees for 

the fledgling Missouri Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. 

Drey participated in discussions regarding purchase of the Jam 

Up Bluff area (Hath 1958). Then, Dr. William H. Elder, also a 

member of the board and professor at the University of Missouri, 

began more formal study of natural areas in the state (Sherman 

1965). Other surveys for natural areas were being planned, 

using graduate students at the university.

The L-A-D Foundation was formed by Drey in 1962 and became 

the primary vehicle for pursuing his goal of protecting natural 

areas, parallel and complementary to his forestry goals on 

Pioneer Forest. From 1971 to 1973, Drey’s L-A-D Foundation 

contributed to the university’s work through financial support of 

a second survey of natural areas (Fadler and Elder 1973) in six 

counties in the Ozarks.

During the 1970s, two separate but complementary efforts 

worked to complete the first statewide inventory for natural 

areas. The University of Missouri effort completed four additional 

studies (Mechlin and Elder 1974, Muser and Elder 1975, Karel 

and Elder 1976, Iffrig and Elder 1978) through funding from 

the State Inter-Agency Council on Outdoor Recreation. The L-A-D 

Foundation initiated an inventory of remaining unsurveyed 

counties, plus a statewide summary of previous work. The 

foundation’s project was known as the Missouri Natural Area 

Survey and was underway from 1974 to 1978 under the 

direction of R. Roger Pryor of St. Louis (Pryor 1980).

These combined efforts during the 1970s produced the initial 

comprehensive inventory of potential Missouri Natural Areas. 

The listing of evaluated sites proved immediately useful as 

acquisition priorities were developed. Leo himself joined 

government agencies and other private conservation groups 

in various committees and study groups to determine which 

natural areas most deserved preservation. Each participating 

organization accepted responsibility for certain areas. The L-A-D 

Foundation stepped forward to purchase priority areas where 

there was no public agency in a position to do so. 

Participation in the Missouri Natural Areas System

The Missouri Conservation Department initiated their Natural 

Areas Program for agency-owned properties in 1970. The 

first natural areas were approved in 1971, including two 

L-A-D Foundation sites, Clifty Creek Natural Bridge in Maries 

County and Piney River Narrows in Texas County. Then, in 

1976, by cooperative agreement, the Missouri Departments of 

Conservation and Natural Resources joined forces to form a truly 

statewide effort. This was known as the Missouri Natural Areas 

System, and it is now a multi-agency program of great strength 

and vigor administered by the Missouri Natural Areas Committee 

(MoNAC). Shortly after the agencies combined efforts, Leo Drey 

was asked to include the two L-A-D Foundation-owned areas 

previously registered with the Society of American Foresters, 

the Current River and Pioneer Natural Areas, in the state system. 

MoNAC chairman Allen Brohn, in a memo to the Natural Areas 

Committee, said, “designation of these tracts would be breaking 

new ground for our system” (Brohn, correspondence, 1977). 

Other L-A-D sites followed, including classic Missouri landmarks 

such as Grand Gulf in Oregon County, Hickory Canyons in Ste. 

Genevieve County, and Rocky Hollow in Monroe County. A 

total of 11 areas have been thus permanently protected as 

Missouri Natural Areas (table 1). Drey had acquired his interest 

in protecting important Missouri places on Pioneer Forest first, 

but it became a lifelong passion with enormous public benefit 

throughout much of Missouri.

Over the years, leaders of the Missouri Natural Areas Committee 

came to realize that protecting the biodiversity of natural areas 

usually required sizeable acreage. Some began to question 

whether the earliest small areas, such as Current River Natural 

Area at only 10 acres, really belonged in the system. L-A-D 

Foundation leaders, noting that it was the first designated area 

in the state, asked a team of naturalists to examine Current 

River Natural Area in person. Once on site, the naturalists 

reported their astonishment that the Pioneer Forest land 

surrounding the tract was equal in quality to the original natural 

area. As a consequence, Drey agreed to add additional land to 

the natural area, and on April 30, 2005, the L-A-D Foundation 

celebrated the rededication of Current River Natural Area by 

adding 255 acres on the occasion of the area’s 50th anniversary 

(fig. 1). The nomination for the expansion (Drees and others 

2004) states: “CRNA (Current River Natural Area) is one of 

the few old-growth white oak forests in the Missouri Natural 

Areas System . . . . The 255-acre addition protects more of the 

landscape—the natural integrity of the original natural area is 

strengthened by the high natural integrity of the addition. 
86 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

The nomination includes three additional terrestrial natural 

communities . . . [as well as an] Ozark Faunal Region 

headwater stream. The contribution of these four natural 

communities to the overall biodiversity within the natural area 

is very significant.” The role of Current River Natural Area in 

tracing Missouri’s own natural areas history along with the 

institutionalizing of state programs around the country testifies 

to the good judgment and lasting value of once novel efforts.

Table 1—L-A-D Foundation lands recognized by various State or national programs

Name County Recognition Date Size

acres

Ball Mill Resurgence Perry Missouri Natural Area a 1979 19.7

2007 183.2

 Total 202.9

Clifty Creek Maries Missouri Natural Area 1971 230

Current River Shannon SAF Natural Area b 1955

Missouri Natural Area 1977 10

Addition, Missouri Natural Area d 2005 255

Total 265

Dillard Mill Crawford Missouri Historic Site c 1977 130

Grand Gulf Oregon National Natural Landmark 1971

Missouri State Park c 1984 159

Missouri Natural Area 1986 (portion) 60

Hickory Canyons Ste. Genevieve Missouri Natural Area 1973 420

Addition, Missouri Natural Area 1979 530

Total 950

Horseshoe Bend Texas Missouri Natural Area 1973 69

Lily Pond Reynolds Missouri Natural Area 1975 8

Piney River Narrows Texas Missouri Natural Area 1971 50

Pioneer Shannon SAF Natural Area 1964

Missouri Natural Area 1977 20

Rocky Hollow Monroe Missouri Natural Area 1973

National Register of Historic Places 1974 191

Roger Pryor Pioneer

Backcountry Shannon Lease to Missouri State Parks 2002 56,675

Scenic Easements Shannon, Carter National Park Service

Ozark National Scenic Riverways 1970 951

Triple Sink Shannon Missouri Natural Aread 1980 23

Addition, Missouri Natural Area 2007 19

 Total 42

a The Missouri Natural Areas System began in 1971 with the first areas owned by the Missouri Department of 

Conservation. Beginning in 1977 the Missouri Natural Areas Committee was established by agreement of the 

Missouri Department of Conservation and Missouri Department of Natural Resources to review and approve natural 

areas throughout the State under a variety of public and private ownerships. 

b The Society of American Foresters Committee on Natural Areas was organized in 1947.

c State historic sites and State parks are managed by the Division of State Parks, Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources.

d Originally designated as a Missouri Natural Area under the ownership of the Frank B. Powell Lumber Company; 

acquired by the L-A-D Foundation in 2006.

Cooperation with Other State and Federal Agencies

In 1964, the Ozark National Scenic Riverways was established 

by Congress for management by the National Park Service. It 

was intended to protect the free-flowing Current and Jack’s 

Fork Rivers by purchasing or acquiring scenic easements on 

a corridor extending at least 300 feet back from the banks of 

the two streams. Pioneer Forest includes more than 35 miles 

of frontage along the riverways, so Drey was faced with a 

major challenge to the integrity of Pioneer Forest. Though the 
Natural Areas Protection and Recreation Opportunities on Pioneer Forest and Other Properties of the L-A-D Foundation 87

National Park Service insisted on outright purchase of some 

lands, especially in the vicinity of Round Spring, it was willing 

to accept scenic easements on the remainder, totaling nearly a 

thousand acres. Drey subsequently donated the easement lands 

to the L-A-D Foundation, which oversaw the lands in cooperation 

with the National Park Service. The easement lands include a 

number of noteworthy natural and cultural features, including 

Medlock Cave, which harbors several endangered species; Bluff 

School, fondly remembered by many older Ozarkians; and Cave 

Spring, a karst geology masterpiece immortalized in a haunting 

riverside painting by Thomas Hart Benton.

Among the many outstanding sites Leo Drey helped protect 

were Dillard Mill and Grand Gulf, both now leased to the 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources for state parks (Flader 

1992). One of Missouri’s most picturesque gristmills, Dillard Mill, 

was to have been acquired by the U.S. Forest Service and then 

leased to the state, but the U.S. Forest Service appropriation fell 

through, so Drey stepped in to acquire the site through the L-A-D 

Foundation and complete the lease agreement with the state. 

There had also been interest in a state park at Grand Gulf near 

the Arkansas border, known to many as “Missouri’s Little Grand 

Canyon,” since at least 1959. Drey finally stepped in to save the 

property in 1970 by purchasing it for the L-A-D Foundation, and, 

in 1971, it was recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior 

as a National Natural Landmark. After the successful lease 

arrangement for Dillard Mill, Drey concluded a lease agreement 

with the state for Grand Gulf State Park in 1984. 

Drey also stepped into north Missouri to save Rocky Hollow in 

Monroe County. Shortly after it had been included in Missouri’s 

Natural Areas System in 1973, it was also approved for listing 

on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition of 

its highly significant Indian petroglyphs. Rocky Hollow is now 

managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation, along 

with nine other L-A-D Foundation natural areas.

Figure 1—Richard Smith and Leo Drey at the April 2005 dedication of the 

expanded Current River Natural Area. Smith was a forestry professor at 

the University of Missouri who was involved in the SAF designation of 

the original area in 1955. (Courtesy of Pioneer Forest)

For many, the most dramatic single episode in the saga of Drey’s 

one-man rescue squad for at-risk natural areas came during the 

1980s when he purchased Greer Spring in Oregon County. Greer 

Spring is the most unspoiled of the large freshwater springs of 

the Ozarks, a region known around the world for its abundance 

of such treasures. Rising from the floor of a thickly vegetated 

dolomite canyon, Greer Spring is a feature of extraordinary 

beauty, scientific importance, and symbolic value.

In the 1980s, various circumstances combined to put this 

landmark at grave risk. Drey was a key player in the campaign 

to protect the area, and when all other strategies seemed 

about to fail, he knew he was the only one who could save the 

day—so he did. He put $4.5 million on the table to purchase 

the spring and the surrounding 7,000 acres. This bought the 

time needed to have Congress authorize purchase of the tract, 

by now with the generous assistance of one of Missouri’s most 

widely known corporations, Anheuser-Busch. The tract was then 

added to the Eleven Point National Scenic River, managed by the 

U.S. Forest Service.

Beginning in the 1990s, Pioneer Forest also began more 

thoroughly to review its own resources. This has led to the 

designation of a series of Pioneer Forest Reserves, each 

recognizing special or unique features and habitats. So far, 

there are seven such areas totaling more than 1,500 acres. They 

include a significant cultural feature as well as forests, caves, 

fens, hollows, and sinkholes. The largest and most important 

area, Leatherwood Creek Forest Reserve, protects an unspoiled 

tributary of the Jacks Fork River—a wonderland of dissected 

Salem Plateau geology, topography, flora, and fauna.

DEVELOPING RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ON 

PIONEER FOREST

Pioneer Forest stretches across large blocks of contiguous and 

appealing Ozark land; it includes major stretches of the Current 

and Jacks Fork Rivers, plus smaller stretches of the Black and 

Little Black Rivers. The forest includes dozens of miles of 

permanent tributary streams, caves, springs, natural ponds, 

forests, bluffs, and hills. This expansive landscape is, and always 

has been, a compelling place for outdoor pursuits, not only for 

local residents but also, especially on the Current River, for the 

many outside visitors to the region.

From the time of his first purchase, Leo has welcomed visitors 

on Pioneer land, making it available for traditional hunting and 

fishing, swimming, hiking, and horseback riding. There is also 

the seasonal gathering of such Ozark delicacies as mushrooms, 

paw paws, persimmons, walnuts, blackberries, dewberries, and 

huckleberries.

The swift clear waters of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers have 

drawn locals and visitors alike since the 19th Century, even 

though old-time jon boats have generally given way to canoes, 

inner tubes, and modern fishing boats. On the Current River 

alone, as noted above, Pioneer Forest borders or surrounds the 

river for more than 35 miles.
88 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

When the Ozark National Scenic Riverways was established 

under the National Park Service in 1964, public use dramatically 

increased. This led Drey to reflect on how he might more 

actively accommodate access to, and enjoyment of, Pioneer 

lands in the vicinity and be responsive to the growing public 

interest in such outdoor activities as long-distance hiking, nature 

study, and photography.

During the 1970s, the National Park Service was well underway 

with its own planning, and at least some of its thinking involved 

connections between the park and Pioneer Forest (Bruff 1977), 

but the service decided to confine its efforts to the riverways 

corridor. Drey, meanwhile, had invited the then Bureau of 

Outdoor Recreation to study how Pioneer Forest could encourage 

more outdoor recreation in a manner that would be compatible 

with his ongoing forestry programs. This resulted in a recreation 

plan (U.S. Department of the Interior 1976) authored by BOR 

staffer Gerald Stokes. Noting that the plan was well done but 

also very ambitious, Drey then asked two experienced Missouri 

conservationists, David Bedan and Bob Goetz, to boil that federal 

plan down into projects that were feasible and consistent with 

his approach to things: understated and to the point. Their 

resulting study (Bedan and Goetz 1976) outlined a program that 

continues today to serve as a blueprint for recreational programs 

on Pioneer Forest. 

The Ozark Trail and Other Trail Development on

Pioneer Forest 

Also during the 1970s, state and federal agencies were in 

the formative stages of planning for a Missouri Ozark Trail, a 

150-mile-long hiking trail through the Missouri Ozarks. With 

the exception of Pioneer Forest, the projected route was almost 

entirely on public land. These efforts quickly gained momentum, 

aided in December 1978 by a Trail Agreement between Leo Drey 

and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources that provided 

for the establishment, construction, and maintenance of 13 

miles of the Ozark Trail through Pioneer Forest. This stretch of 

trail, designated as the Blair Creek Section, is a key link amid the 

state and federal lands that connect the Ozark borderlands near 

St. Louis, MO with the Boston Mountains of Arkansas.

One feature of this effort has been the nearly three-decade-long 

relationship between Pioneer Forest and the Sierra Club. Largely 

through a dedicated crew of volunteers from the club’s Ozark 

Chapter, extensive trail construction and maintenance have 

been carried out. In addition to the Blair Creek valley, tributary 

trails now lead through Laxton Hollow, Brushy Creek, and 

Satterfield Hollow. Plans are also underway to establish another 

moderately long-distance hiking trail through the Current River 

Valley in cooperation with the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. 

Newly completed, also in cooperation with the National Park 

Service, is a route linking Devil’s Well by way of Pioneer Forest 

with Cave Spring on L-A-D Foundation easement lands along the 

Current River. Today, there are a hundred or more volunteers 

visiting Pioneer Forest each year to assist in trail-building efforts; 

they come from counties surrounding the forest as well as from 

around the state and beyond. All together these volunteer 

labors have added more than 35 miles of hiking trails to Pioneer 

Forest, all of which are available to the public.

Pioneer Forest and L-A-D Foundation staff have also completed 

a Forest Interpretive Drive open to the public. Accessed from 

Highway 19 just south of Round Spring, this drive uses a 

brochure-based auto tour format, introducing motorists to 

Pioneer Forest, the Ozarks, and the Current River country using a 

combination of marked stops and explanatory text. The brochure 

also describes an interpretive walk through a remnant stand 

of virgin shortleaf pine forest that borders Highway 19 in this 

vicinity. Originally part of the large block that Drey acquired from 

National Distillers, the tract had been purchased for Highway 19 

right-of-way in 1940 and then about 40 acres of it resold to the 

L-A-D Foundation by the Missouri Department of Transportation 

in 1996. Although the corridor of old growth pine is quite 

narrow, it nevertheless conveys a moving and evocative glimpse 

of the original Lower Ozark landscape.

Roger Pryor Pioneer Backcountry

Drey had continued thinking about and working on ways in 

which his Pioneer Forest lands could contribute toward outdoor 

recreation. He was especially keen to find a way to take 

advantage of the unique size of the Forest. 

After several unsuccessful attempts to work out a cooperative 

arrangement with the National Park Service and the state park 

system, in 1998 Drey presented to his staff an idea for a large 

area of Pioneer Forest to be managed for primitive outdoor 

recreation while also serving as a working forest. The largest 

contiguous area of Pioneer became the focus, including Pioneer 

and L-A-D Foundation lands along Current River between Round 

Spring and Two Rivers and extending north for 5 to 6 miles, an 

area of almost 61,000 acres. This breathtaking expanse includes 

much or all of the watersheds of three tributary streams to the 

Current River: Blair Creek, Brushy Creek, and Big Creek. The 

L-A-D Foundation’s board of directors enthusiastically endorsed 

the concept, and, in fall 1999, Drey publicly announced his 

intent to establish the Roger Pryor Pioneer Backcountry in honor 

of one of Missouri’s foremost conservationists.

In October 2001, amid much celebration, Pioneer Forest 

dedicated this landmark tract; the Pryor Backcountry is now the 

largest Missouri area dedicated to primitive outdoor recreation. 

At the same time, discussions began in earnest with the 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources for park division 

management of the area’s recreational component while 

Pioneer Forest would demonstrate sustainable management of 

the model working forest. Together they would cooperatively 

manage the Backcountry under a lease agreement that breaks 

new ground for that agency as well as for Pioneer Forest. The 

Department of Natural Resources has provided staffing for trail 

and trailhead development as well as law enforcement. The 

Pryor Backcountry is not a wilderness—the forestry program 

in the area will continue—but its large, wild, and undeveloped 

character will be managed to provide visitors a primitive 

experience as free as possible from the intrusions of motorized 

vehicles.
Natural Areas Protection and Recreation Opportunities on Pioneer Forest and Other Properties of the L-A-D Foundation 89

CONCLUSION

In both natural areas and outdoor recreation, Leo Drey has built 

an extraordinary record. He has demonstrated that responsible 

forestry is perfectly compatible, in fact works best, as part of 

a broad program of resource stewardship. As Donald Jackson 

observed in 1988 in Audubon Magazine, “Every state should 

have a Leo Drey.” That is true, and we hope that other states can 

get somebody like him to help them out. But they cannot have 

Leo Drey; he belongs to Missouri.

LITERATURE CITED

Bedan, D.E.; Goetz, R.E. 1976. Pioneer Forest recreation study. 

Coalition for the Environment, St. Louis, Missouri. 54 p.

Brohn, A. 1977. Personal communication. File correspondence

dated April 26, 1977. 

Bruff, G.L. 1977. Preliminary trail study for Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways. National Park Service, Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways, Van Buren, Missouri. 55 p.

Drees, D.; Hughes, L.; Kerns, C. [and others]. 2005. Missouri 

natural area nomination, Current River Natural Area. 3/14/06 

14 p. + 6 appendices, (30 p. total). L-A-D Foundation files.

Fadler, G.; Elder, W.H. 1973. A natural area survey of six eastern 

Ozark counties—final report to the L-A-D Foundation. University 

of Missouri Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Columbia. 98 p.

Flader, Susan, ed. 1992. Exploring Misouri’s legacy: state parks 

and historic sites. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

Hath, C.L. (Secretary) 1958. Minutes, Missouri Chapter of the 

Nature Conservancy. Board Meeting, October 18, 1958, 

Columbia, Missouri. 3 p. 

Iffrig, G.F.; Elder, W.H. 1978. A natural area survey of the 

A.B.C.D. and the Mid-America Regional Planning Districts of 

Missouri—final report to the State Inter-Agency Council on 

Outdoor Recreation. University of Missouri-Columbia, Missouri 

Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. 98 p.

Jackson, D.D. 1988. Every state should have a Leo Drey. Audubon. 

90:78-83.

Karel, J.A.; Elder, W.H. 1976. A natural area survey of the 

Southeast Missouri Regional Planning District—final report 

to the State Inter-Agency Council for Outdoor Recreation. 

University of Missouri Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. 151 p.

Kramer, K.; Thom, R.; Iffrig, G. [and others]. 1996. Directory 

of Missouri natural areas. Missouri Natural Areas Committee, 

Jefferson City, Missouri. 155 p.

Lynch, D.W. 1964. Report of the Committee on Natural Areas. 

Journal of Forestry. December 62(12): 916-918.

Mechlin, L.M.; Elder, W.H. 1974. A natural area survey of the 

Mark Twain Regional Planning District—final report to the 

State Inter-Agency Council for Outdoor Recreation. University 

of Missouri Cooperative Wildlie Research Unit. 75 p.

Muser, D.; Elder, W.H. 1975. A natural area survey of the 

Kaysinger Basin—final report to the State Inter-Agency Council 

for Outdoor Recreation. University of Missouri Cooperative 

Wildlife Research Unit. 129 p. 

Nevins, R. undated, though undoubtedly 1953. Report of 

Missouri Natural Area Survey. File copy obtained from the 

research collection, Steyermark papers, Missouri Botanical 

Garden, St. Louis, Missouri. 12 p.

Noah, R. 2001. Personal communication. Videotape-recorded 

interview on file with L-A-D Foundation, St. Louis, Missouri.

Pryor, R.R. 1980. Natural areas in Missouri—Report of the 

Missouri Natural Areas Survey. L-A-D Foundation, St. Louis, 

Missouri. 381 p.

Shanklin, J.F. 1955. Current River Natural Area. Journal of 

Forestry. 53(7): 532-536 (July 1955). 

Shanklin, J.F. 1960. Society of American Foresters natural areas. 

Journal of Forestry. 58(11): 905-917.

Sherman, M.A. 1965. An ecological survey of natural areas in 

central Missouri. MA Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia. 

65 p.

Steyermark, J.A. 1954. Missouri survey: remarks by Julian A. 

Steyermark, Nature Conservancy membership meeting, March 

8, 1954. Cover sheet attached to separate report Missouri 

Natural Area Survey, 6 p, typed (plus cover sheet). The Nature 

Conservancy, Washington, D.C. File copy, Pioneer Forest, 

Salem, Missouri.

The Nature Conservancy. 1954. Missouri natural area survey. 

(Abridged report of Robert Nevins survey in 1953.) File 

copy Dated January 1954, 6p., with cover sheet summary 

of remarks by J.A. Steyermark at the Nature Conservancy 

membership meeting, March 8, 1954. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1976. A recreation plan for 

Pioneer Forest, Missouri. Mid-Continent Regional Office, 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 41 p.
90 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

produce continuous economic benefits for the landowner and 

area economies while at the same time protecting the many 

qualities of our woodland resource. 

Beyond today’s economy and for much longer than even 

one man’s lifetime, this enterprise of Leo’s will continue. Leo 

has demonstrated that generations will enjoy the benefits of 

never removing the forest from the land. I think this point is 

best illustrated by the Spencer family, which has had three 

generations working on the forest since the 1950s. In one 

section of Pioneer Forest, the grandfather cut beginning in the 

1950s, then his son cut in the same section of land during the 

1970s, and now the grandson is cutting through this same 

section of the forest. Because every acre of Pioneer Forest is 

continuously forested, continuously growing, and periodically 

harvested, there will be lifetimes of folks like us who will 

always benefit from this unique resource.

Bill Terry

National Park Service

Ozark National Scenic Riverways

Salem, MO

It was the early 1970s when I personally developed a little 

sweat equity with Pioneer Forest. I was a young seasonal ranger 

working for the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The riverways 

was, at that time, actively involved in open field management 

in the old fields along the Current River. We had taken them 

over and we were actively manipulating old fields, planting food 

plots, and doing habitat improvement for small game species. 

I’ll never forget, I got an assignment from my supervisor for 

old field management at a place near Cedar Grove, called the 

Osborne Riley place. We were to take the Ford tractor up there 

Figure 1—Harvest activity on the Pioneer Forest, ca. 1940–50. (Courtesy 

of Pioneer Forest)

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS1

Glenn D. Weaver

Emeritus Extension Forester

University of Missouri Cooperative Extension Service

Columbia, MO

I grew up on a farm east of Winona, MO in Shannon County. As 

with many of the farms in the area, when my dad bought the 

farm, the previous owner had cut every tree that would make 

a tie or fence post. This practice continued for many years. Then 

in the mid-1960s I flew over Texas, Shannon, and Reynolds 

counties studying the forest and wildlife habitat. The forest that 

was managed for a continuous, sustainable harvest, as Pioneer 

Forest is, was easy to identify from the air. I have known Leo 

since early 1970, when I spent a great deal of time in the Ozarks 

with University Extension. My dad and granddad also knew Leo. 

My dad worked for Kerr McGee in their forest products division 

and admired the philosophy and management practices used on 

Pioneer Forest.

Pioneer Forest has set an example through its management 

practices that assure continuous sustainable harvest. These 

practices of cutting only a few of the trees on each acre while 

always leaving the forest intact have had a profound economic 

impact throughout this region of the Ozarks.

The direct economic impact of Pioneer Forest includes the 

continuous sale of timber over more than 50 years. This 

influence alone is significant. For example, since 1960 the 

annual volume produced from the forest averaged 4.5 to 

5 million board feet. Since 1960, the price for timber has 

risen from $12 to $165 per thousand board feet. This overall 

economic activity is notable in an area which, measured by 

Missouri standards, has been generally depressed throughout 

this period. The cumulative effect of Pioneer Forest’s activity 

since 1951 has been significant. 

The real impact of the business of Pioneer Forest is measured 

by the accumulation of effects as the direct income produced 

is trickled back through the forest to its employees and their 

families, as well as from the forest directly through the sawmills 

to their crews and families. Pioneer Forest employs six full-time 

staff, but including the crews responsible for contract sales, the 

direct collective economic activity reaches from 60 to 82 people 

each year (Figure 1).

Secondary impacts include the taxes paid, equipment 

purchased, and the living expenses of employees and contract 

personnel. Businesses in the community and surrounding areas 

benefit directly and indirectly from purchases of gasoline, food, 

recreation, insurance, clothing, etc.

Many latent benefits exist as a result of Pioneer Forest and its 

management practices. We recognize many examples when we 

raise the question of the beauty and value of a forest to tourism 

as compared to the perceived values of clearcuts, or the quality 

of a river that is protected from erosion by continuous and 

well-established woodlands. Leo Drey, through Pioneer Forest, 

has demonstrated that the practice of selective cutting can 

1 The following reflections were prepared by Hank Dorst and the editors, working from a videotaped recording of presentations at the symposium, as well as 

prepared drafts and notes. For citations, see the annotated bibliography in the appendix.
Personal Reflections 91

and put some food plots in. I checked with my supervisor about 

the boundaries. He said we border Leo Drey there so don’t 

worry; as long as we were on the inside of the fence it was the 

National Park Service property purchased from Osborne. 

Well, Rex Innis and I went up there. We took about 3 days to 

plant several nice food plots. Being avid bird hunters and quail 

hunters, we thought we had done a really good job. About 3 

days after that I was talking to Charlie Kirk, the forester for 

Leo Drey at the time, and Charlie was not so happy about our 

resource management efforts. He felt that inside that fence 

was Leo Drey’s property. My supervisor and Charlie had several 

heated discussions that ended up at our park’s Van Buren 

headquarters. The bottom line was, that was Leo Drey’s field 

and Leo wasn’t that interested in food plots; he and his foresters 

were interested in timber.

The solution was that another ranger and I spent the better 

part of several days planting pine seedlings through those 

food plots. My supervisor and Charlie Kirk had a running jab at 

each other at the coffee shop in Salem, MO. My supervisor had 

some of the guys at the sign shop in Salem make a sign that 

read ‘The Charlie Kirk Memorial Forest, established 1974’. I’ll 

never forget Rex Innis and myself standing there in the middle 

of that memorial forest next to that nice big redwood sign and 

those little pine seedlings about 6 inches tall. Those trees in the 

Charlie Kirk Memorial Forest are now about 20 to 30 feet tall. It’s 

a living memory to a time in my life and I am glad it’s a part of 

Pioneer Forest.

I also wanted to say that I am an avid outdoorsman. I don’t 

think many people in the last 30 years, other than Leo’s 

professional foresters, have tramped over as much of his land 

more than I have, hunting, hiking, camping, enjoying pawpaws, 

and seeing the beauty. I have really felt a fondness for those 

woods. People who work there, like Terry Cunningham and Clint 

Trammel, have told me about beautiful stands of timber and I 

have gone and looked at many of them.

It has been a fortune for me to have access to the lands of 

Pioneer Forest. I am a spiritual man and I often thank God for 

the things that I have been given. Driving through St. Louis 

traffic I think about Missouri’s Ozarks—what a great place to 

live. My life has been enhanced to be in the presence of Pioneer 

Forest and to think that a far-sighted man like Leo Drey is so 

willing to share his land with the people of this State and this 

Nation.

David Bedan

Conservationist

Columbia, MO

Like so many people, I have had the privilege of benefiting 

from Leo’s generosity, in my case primarily through backcountry 

recreation. In the 1970’s, while teaching classes at St. Louis 

University, I led a number of Sierra Club backpackers into 

Pioneer Forest, leading mostly urban students who had some 

real life-changing experiences in those wild places. 

I think Leo decided that since I was using the place so much 

I should do something for it. He asked me to write a report, 

along with Bob Goetz, Pioneer Forest Recreation Study (1976). 

This was a follow-up to a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation study, 

completed earlier in 1976, that identified a huge smorgasboard 

of potential projects that could be done on the forest. Our 

assignment was to narrow that down to some specific and 

doable things. I was really thrilled when the Roger Pryor Pioneer 

Backcountry was finally dedicated down at the Himont Tower 

site in October 2001, because it seemed like concrete proof 

that some of the ideas in our report 25 years ago were being 

implemented on the ground. 

We have heard a lot of talk about how Pioneer Forest has 

shown that timber harvesting is compatible with a longterm sustainable management that can maintain or improve 

the ecology of the forest. I think Pioneer Forest can also 

be applauded for showing that timber harvesting can be 

compatible with a true backcountry experience. Pioneer Forest 

is not a wilderness area in the sense that the term is defined by 

the Wilderness Act of 1964, in which you can’t have any timber 

harvest entry of any kind. However, the timber management 

practices on Pioneer Forest are very compatible with 

backcountry experience, especially since they only go back into 

a given area every 20 years. It is easy to lay out trails in such 

a way that there is almost no conflict between the primitive 

backcountry recreation experience and timber harvesting.

I’m talking here about what I call ‘self-propelled’ recreational 

experiences—hunting, dayhiking, backpacking, nature study, nut 

and fruit gathering, fishing, horse-riding. There can be too much 

of any good thing, so I think there has to be some management 

because we don’t want too much impact in any one area or 

from any single use. I think that’s not too difficult to manage 

and that the Pioneer staff is well on top of managing it.

The biggest challenge in management, though, is limiting 

motorized access, because with motorized access you can have 

several orders of magnitude greater impact in terms of soil 

erosion, littering, spotlighting of deer, and conflicts with other 

recreationists. One off-road vehicle can ruin the experience of 

dozens of other back-country recreationists. In a large area like 

this, with a small staff, it’s a very hard thing to do, but I know 

Pioneer staff is aware of this challenge. I think that we can 

probably never eliminate unauthorized motorized access, but it 

can be kept down to an acceptable level. 

I see the back-country concept on Pioneer Forest as one 

of the great experiments in our country about how timber 

management can be compatible with back-country recreation. 
92 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

David R. Larsen

Professor, Department of Forestry

The School of Natural Resources

University of Missouri-Columbia

Columbia, MO

Pioneer Forest has from the beginning maintained an openness 

and willingness to collaborate with students and researchers, 

serving as a veritable outdoor laboratory. Its staff understands 

the unique opportunities that they provide and they want others 

to learn from their forest.

Students have visited the region of the Ozarks in which Pioneer 

Forest is located since the start of forestry schools in the United 

States. The first forestry summer camp in the area was led by Dr. 

H.H. Chapman of Yale University, who brought his 1907 forestry 

class to study southern pine forests near Grandin in southern 

Carter County (fig. 2). This was the home of the largest sawmill 

in the Nation at the time, and some of the lands then owned by 

the Missouri Lumber and Mining Company and likely studied by 

Chapman’s students are now part of Pioneer Forest. Chapman 

reported on this and subsequent summer camps in the Ozarks in 

Yale Bulletin 2 in 1913.

The University of Missouri held its first forestry summer camp 

in the woods near West Eminence in 1912, also on land that 

belonged to the Missouri Lumber and Mining Company. Summer 

camps after 1912 were held in Butler County on land that is 

now University Forest Conservation Area until the Department of 

Forestry was terminated in 1921. In 1947, the School of Forestry 

was re-established and resumed summer camps. The camps 

Figure 2—H.H. Chapman and his Yale Forestry Class in Grandin, Missouri, in 1907. (Missouri Lumber and Mining Co. photographs, 1906–

1916, Western Historical Manuscript Collection, Columbia, MO)

were directed for many years by Lee Paulsell, who had helped 

Leo Drey buy his first forest land during 1951-54 before rejoining 

the university. 

Paulsell, Dick Smith, and others began a tradition of taking 

forestry students on field trips to Pioneer Forest, as did other 

universities and colleges over the years (fig. 3). These trips, 

hosted by Ed Woods and Charlie Kirk and later by Clint Trammel 

and Terry Cunningham, often included picnics on the Current 

River after a hard day visiting numerous sites on the forest. The 

Pioneer staff has always been willing to lead tours for forestry 

students whenever asked, and Woods and Kirk also contributed 

articles to the Missouri Log, a publication of the University of 

Missouri Forestry Club.

I know from personal experience that Pioneer Forest has 

hired many college students to work on the forest over the 

years. Having grown up in Salem, MO, where the forest has its 

headquarters and where my father was a friend of Woods and 

Kirk, I learned about forestry and Pioneer firsthand as a child. 

When I was in forestry school at the University of Missouri, 

I spent the summers of 1976 and 1977 contract thinning in 

pre-commercial stands on the forest. I also spent the fall of 

1977 working on the remeasurement of the continuous forest 

inventory. Those experiences added greatly to the sum of my 

forestry background.

The continuous forest inventory in particular yielded large 

rewards scientifically. Many of the research studies associated 

with Pioneer Forest have strongly depended on this dataset. I 

myself collected site index on 482 CFI plots in 1979-80 and used 
93

Figure 3—Ed Woods measuring a large white oak. (Courtesy of Pioneer Forest)

Personal Reflections

the data to develop a whole stand forest growth model for my 

1980 master’s thesis. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station also used this 

data to calibrate the STEMS/TWIGS forest growth model, and it 

was further used to develop a matrix transition model (Lootens 

and others 1999). 

In the early 1990’s, the University and the North Central Forest 

Experiment Station initiated a project to describe the method 

of cutting implemented on Pioneer Forest so that others 

might try the method (Loewenstein 1996), and a number of 

graduate students and other researchers focused on related 

studies of forest management, structure, and reproduction. 

Larsen, Metzger, and Johnson (1997) asked the question ‘what 

are the probabilities for understory reproduction given various 

overstory densities?’ Larsen, Loewenstein, and Johnson (1999) 

summarized these results and gave specific recommendations 

for those interested in managing other forests in the Missouri 

Ozark Highlands with methods similar to those used on Pioneer. 

Numerous other students and researchers in forestry, ecology, 

and related fields have sampled sites across the Ozarks, 

including Pioneer Forest, for studies of forest composition and 

plant communities, fire history, and the relationship of wildlife 

and insect communities to forest structure.

The willingness of Pioneer staff to share its management 

philosophy, and to explore the benefits and limitations of that 

management through scientific research, speak eloquently 

about the commitment of Pioneer Forest not only to share with 

but also to learn from others.

David Hamilton1

Wildlife Research Biologist

Missouri Department of Conservation

Jefferson City, MO

I’m interested in black bears, which I regard as integral to the 

look and feel of a Missouri oak woodland. Bears are native to 

Missouri. At settlement thousands of black bears roamed the 

Missouri and Arkansas Ozarks. Bears provided early settlers their 

primary source of meat, hides, and grease. It was believed that 

bears were gone from the Ozarks by 1920; however, a 1950 

Missouri Conservationist article included a photograph of a bear 

cub shot near Salem, MO. This strongly suggested a breeding 

population nearby, while another large bear was shot in 

Reynolds County in 1954. Missouri may always have had small 

numbers of resident bears. In addition, the first large program to 

restore black bears occurred in Arkansas in 1956. This program 

used bears from northern Minnesota, and once released, many 

moved into Missouri and Kansas, though undoubtedly many 

were shot.

Leo Drey showed a strong interest in black bears years ago, 

writing to the Missouri Conservation Department at least two 

times, first in 1972 and again in 1978, suggesting Pioneer Forest 

as a place to help maintain or restore black bear populations. 

The Department decided both times against it. The belief was 

that Missouri probably didn’t have very good habitat and since 

bears occurred in Arkansas, Missouri would naturally benefit. 

Thus, without direct intervention, there has been a resurgence 

of black bears in Missouri with sightings increasing. Between 

1990 and 1993 we recorded about 600 sightings in Missouri; 

there are now, on average, about 200 to 300 sightings a year 

with bears scattered occasionally over 54 counties.

What does a bear look for? Does Pioneer Forest have the bear 

necessities? Bears like a large block of forest. Pioneer Forest has 

excellent habitat, with heavy forest density, low traffic volume, 

few people, no resident livestock, and ongoing conservative 

forest management. The most important food source is acorns, 

although only seasonally available, and bears may feed 20 

hours a day in preparation for hibernation. Areas of oak-hickory 

forest under management such as that on Pioneer Forest also 

produce berries. Berries are an important summer food. While 

blueberries were thought to be a historically important food 

source, today blackberries are an important substitute. Pioneer’s 

single-tree selection management produces openings where 

sunlight reaches the forest floor, stimulating fruit production. In 

addition, the number one prey item in their diet is ants, and, 

seasonally, tent caterpillars.

Food availability and quantity dictate the size of individual 

bears, and in turn influence the size of the litter and fitness 

of the cubs as well as the size and age of the female at first 

reproduction. While we do not have much data from Missouri, 

1 David Hamilton passed away on September 8, 2007.
94 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

we do know that in Arkansas bears begin to reproduce at 2 and 

have cubs every year. Bears in Missouri are mid-range in size, 

with males up to 500 pounds, compared with an average of 

250 pounds in the Southwest and up to 700 to 800 pounds in 

Pennsylvania and the Adirondacks.

In the Missouri Conservation Department, we began looking 

closely at the distribution of bears in Missouri in 1991. To do 

this we used bait station surveys where at each station we 

hung sardine cans from trees. Each station was revisited to 

collect data on the presence of black bears. There were 50 

stations on each route and about 60 routes region wide. In 

addition, motion-sensitive cameras have been used, especially 

to determine differences in bears and whether reproduction is 

occurring in Missouri.

Using the black bear occurrence records, we have developed 

a habitat model of southeast and southwest Missouri by 

also adding forest cover information and human population 

density. Bears like at least 80 percent canopy cover and 10 or 

fewer people per square mile; in a lot of bear areas there are 

several square miles per person. By combining several layers 

of information we now estimate there are 2.9 million acres 

of adequate habitat for bears; much of it is in the eastern 

Ozarks, and the particular region that stands out is where the 

large block of Pioneer Forest occurs. This is where Richard 

Guyette describes from his data the diversity and roughness of 

topography and thus a region showing the least disturbance. In 

this region, around the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers, bordered 

by several exterior blacktop roads, is a large block of habitat that 

is probably the best in the State.

Gerardo Camilo

Associate Professor of Biology

Saint Louis University

Saint Louis, MO

Several years ago my graduate student Nick San Diego and 

I began to look for sites closer to home in order to pursue 

research on questions raised by our earlier work in tropical 

ecology. We were interested in how management practices 

translate to ecological patterns and whether forest management 

that is profitable can also enhance biodiversity. The staff on 

Pioneer were happy to cooperate with us, so we began to do 

research there.

We set out to analyze how various forest management practices 

have affected the composition of leaf litter invertebrate 

communities, and especially how these communities are 

influenced by the scale of disturbance. Two of our sites, an 

unharvested site in the Current River Natural Area and an area 

subject to single-tree selection harvest, were on Pioneer Forest, 

and the third, a site that had been clearcut, was at the Reiss 

Biological Station.

What we found is that tree species diversity and spatial 

heterogeneity were greater on the site harvested by singletree selection than in either the uncut or the clearcut sites, 

thus creating conditions for maximum diversity in leaf litter 

communities. At a scale of 100 square meters, the clearcut and 

selectively cut sites were similar, but at 250 square meters, the 

spatial heterogeneity of the selectively cut site on Pioneer was 

three times the heterogeneity of the clearcut or the uncut sites, 

even though one might expect the uncut site to be highest.

Trees, a forest do not make. We wanted to look at differences in 

scale from the perspective of an insect. Clearcuts even as small 

as 2 or 3 acres are mammoth for an insect, compared with the 

scale of heterogeneity in single-tree selection. The insects seem 

able to tell Pioneer Forest from everything else. They respond 

better to the distribution in tree sizes there. Single-tree selection 

thus seems to be the management regime with the greatest 

health and diversity in the leaf litter community.

The staff on Pioneer Forest may have difficulty describing just 

what they are doing when they practice single-tree selection, 

but we can measure the effect of what they do by looking at 

the insects.

David Russell

Trees L.C.

Van Buren, MO

I have been working for Mr. Drey, indirectly, since 1981. I was 

raised in St. Louis, MO but moved to the Ozarks when I was 14 

years old. I had a pickup truck, a new wife, and a new chainsaw. 

Cutting sawtimber was the way we derived our living in the 

Ozarks. We had worked on the national forest and on private 

forest land, doing logging operations. It was cut everything that 

you see—all you had to do was find a tree and cut it. 

In 1981, the logger I worked for was cutting a tract for Pioneer 

Forest and I found myself standing on a south hillside in the 

middle of a hollow called Round Pond with a chainsaw thinking 

‘what in the world am I doing here?’ I remember that because 

there was a different concept being placed in my mind; it was 

the beginning of my education in the timber business. I was 

beginning to realize what was appropriate and how things were 

to be done. We didn’t just go out and look for trees to cut. There 

was a management plan being implemented, even though at 

that time I didn’t realize what it was. 

I look back now, decades later, operating a sawmill producing 

close to 3 million board feet per year, cutting roughly 1.3 million 

off of Mr. Drey every year. I look at that and I can see there is a 

right way to do things and a wrong way to do things, and I have 

done both. Because of the way Pioneer Forest does things I look 

out there and I say, ‘this is the right way.’ Now I have loggers 

working for me who probably would not have to be told which 

tree to cut because of the educational process they have been 

through and because they have worked on Pioneer Forest. 

When we do private timber sales now we can take the approach 

Pioneer Forest does, that is, we should be doing uneven-aged 

management. We know the forest product can be pulled off 

without destroying the environment, without destroying the 

ecological benefits, without destroying the recreational benefits, 

and when we leave we try to do it in the least intrusive way. 
Personal Reflections 95

Now you will look at me today and think there’s a logger. No, 

I’m a businessman who tries to do things right, and working for 

Pioneer Forest has been a right fit for my business. 

We sell every product that we produce today—the lumber, the 

bark, we even sell our sawdust. There is no waste to what we 

harvest from Pioneer Forest. We leave the forest better. I’m very 

quickly approaching being able to go in on the same tract that I 

logged decades ago. I can’t think of another process, or another 

place, where I can go back 20 years later, where the timber will 

be better, the ecology will be better, and the environment will 

be more protected than it was 20 years ago. Mr. Drey, I thank 

you for allowing us to work on your forest.

Gene Maggard

Akers Ferry Canoe Rental and

Jacks Fork Canoe Rental

Salem, MO

My wife, my son, and I own two canoe rentals in Shannon 

County, one called Akers Ferry Canoe Rental, the other around 

Eminence called Jacks Fork Canoe Rental. We also have about 

a 1,500-acre farm that is almost surrounded by Pioneer Forest. 

We have enjoyed our relationship with Leo and Kay and Pioneer 

Forest as neighbors over the years. Really, each year the hunters 

from our part of the Ozarks, which is northern Shannon County, 

should send a thank you letter because they really enjoy your 

property and their access to it. But more than that it’s beautiful 

land—and in my business, canoe rentals need trees for their 

beautiful scenery.

Hank Dorst

Mark Twain Forest Watchers

Elk Creek, MO

I’m going to discuss a chronology of learning and activism on 

public forest land in which Pioneer Forest was instrumental. 

The year 1988 saw rebellions against clearcutting by residents 

near the Willow Springs and Poplar Bluff Ranger Districts of 

the Mark Twain National Forest. At that time the Forest Service 

was getting most of its timber volume from clearcuts. Good 

young white oak poles were routinely dropped in the name 

of creating an even-aged stand and immature sawtimber was 

indiscriminately cut before its time. The forest plan was new 

and language about using uneven-aged management in certain 

situations was not being implemented.

We were researching forest management alternatives to 

clearcutting. One day a silviculturist at the Houston District 

recommended getting in touch with the Pioneer Forest folks, 

saying they’d show us their system, and mentioned it was 

‘brushy woods’ and that it wouldn’t look as good as we 

expected. (Of course, clearcuts are entirely brush!)

In December 1988, we visited Pioneer along B Highway near 

Current River with Clint Trammel. Photos taken that day of 

recently harvested stands and stands cut in the 1970’s are 

still in our slide show today. We learned that uneven-aged 

management is a dynamic system requiring regular but 

infrequent entries, perhaps 20 years on average. (A major flaw 

of the highly touted Missouri Forest Ecosystem Research Project 

(MOFEP) conducted by the Missouri Department of Conservation 

is that the uneven-aged management prescription there plans 

entries every 10 years.) 

The opened canopy after selective harvest allows more vigorous 

growth of the residual stems and recruitment of seedlings 

and pole size trees into gaps. As the canopy closes, growth 

slows and eventually it is time to cut again. This system helps 

minimize oak decline, as less vigorous and older offsite trees 

that typically decline are often removed in uneven-aged 

harvests. It could be said that the Forest Service, with its overreliance on clearcutting in the 1970s and 1980s, set up an 

age class homogeneity with too many stands of older trees, 

rather than tending larger acreages with partial cuts each year, 

thus exacerbating oak decline. The 1990s saw a change in 

Forest Service management away from complete reliance on 

clearcutting to more balance in management methods. 

Over the years we were constantly able to point to Pioneer as a 

model of another way. Pioneer has also been our learning place 

where we could go and talk with staff and see examples in the 

field of different conditions. For that, we are thankful.

Today we look back on Pioneer’s accomplishments. But we 

also must look ahead to the challenges and opportunities of 

the future. Just as it played a role in public forest management 

changes, Pioneer Forest is uniquely positioned to occupy a 

leadership role in the effort to increase the use of good forest 

management on our private forests. Through its participation 

in Value Missouri, an organization of industry, landowners and 

environmentalists working to promote FSC forest certification 

and better private forest management, Pioneer is once again 

playing a leading role.

Victoria Grant

Landowner

Reynolds County, MO

Though I work for the National Park Service, I speak as a private 

landowner who happens to live next to Pioneer Forest. I live 

in southern Reynolds County near the top of the Current River 

watershed. My husband and I have a 90-acre farm, halftimbered and half-pastured, nestled at the end of a county 

gravel road. It’s a beautiful spot. We are bordered on two 

sides by Leo Drey’s Pioneer Forest. We drive through the forest 

everyday to the blacktop and we are really happy about having 

Leo Drey as a neighbor. 

First of all, as a private landowner, there is a wonderful sense 

of security that you know your neighbor. When you look at a 

plat book and you see that Pioneer Forest owns a section of 

property, you know what to expect; you can see in your mind 

that it will be a mature forest, it’s going to stay a mature forest, 

and if there is timbering done it’s going to be done in a certain 

fashion. So you’re not worried that it will be divided into 10-

acre parcels, sold, or clearcut. It’s an intangible benefit we have 

as a neighbor of Pioneer Forest. 
96 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

The section of Pioneer Forest we drive through every day was 

cut in 1998, and we owned our land before, during, and after 

the cut, so we’ve seen what happened during and we’ve seen 

what happened afterward. As my husband likes to say, ‘when 

Leo Drey cuts, it still looks like a forest afterward, there are 

still big trees, big enough that a man can hardly get his arms 

around.’ My husband is 6’4” and he has pretty long arms. 

When I look at it now, particularly during fall color, it is a forest 

with every layer or structure that is giving me those blazing 

colors, from a canopy to a subcanopy, to ground layer, down 

to the soil layer. I think the management on Pioneer Forest is 

wise enough to know they have invested in preserving the soil 

structure, and Lord knows we don’t have enough soil in the 

Ozarks to begin with. But I think they see that soil structure as 

the placenta for growing the forest, taking care to preserve that. 

It’s been said many times down there that if everyone cut their 

forest like Leo Drey, the Ozarks would never run out of timber. 

I’ve been able to see that every day as I drive back and forth on 

my little gravel road. We consider ourselves extremely fortunate 

to live next to that kind of a good neighbor, with that kind of 

philosophy.

Caroline Pufalt

Ozark Chapter, Sierra Club

St. Louis, MO

I come primarily from the perspective of activism through the 

Sierra Club, although it is really hard to capture everything 

Pioneer Forest and Leo and Kay Drey’s environmental activism 

has meant to us. 

To start out with a downer, the United Nations recently released 

a report on the threats to the worldwide closed canopy forests 

and it was pretty disturbing. We in the United States have 

8.2 percent of the closed canopy forest. It seems like a small 

percentage, but it is important and we are responsible for it. 

That responsibility has inspired a lot of us to work on forests and 

forest management over the years. When I think back to the 

time Hank referred to in the early 1980s, and what the conflicts 

and the agenda were like then, I remember all the hectic, 

disruptive activity in the Pacific Northwest, with demonstrations 

and tree sitters, some of which is still going on— conflicts 

between jobs and the environment. Then, here in Missouri 

we had our own smaller but very important issues involving 

clearcutting and public lands. We all knew then that the method 

of forest management used on Pioneer Forest was an example 

we wanted to emulate. 

The folks at Pioneer were very welcoming and shared their 

information with us. It was a real frustration that some of the 

managers of public lands and those that even advised private 

landowners didn’t seem to be too receptive to that. So, it is 

really gratifying to know that the studies have been done, the 

results are in, and we can see what a contribution Pioneer 

Forest has made.

As I think about the Pioneer Forest and Leo and Kay Drey I 

remember the movie ‘It’s a Wonderful Life.’ I think of Leo and 

Kay Drey like Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed. Pioneer Forest is 

like the Building and Loan, their forest, our natural resources, 

and they preserve them, keeping them available to us for value 

added for the community. Imagine Jimmy Stewart’s nightmare 

if there were no more Pioneer Forest, if there were no model. It 

is a wonderful forest, and so, Leo and Kay, it’s a wonderful life 

(fig. 4). 

Mary Chapman

Director, Forest Stewards Guild

Santa Fe, NM

The Pioneer Forest is not the only example for sustainable 

uneven-aged management across the United States. But it 

is among the largest, the longest in tenure, the most firmly 

grounded in research and inventory, and the most progressive 

in outreach and education efforts. Moreover, the land 

ownership ethic of the Pioneer Forest exemplifies the concept 

that productive forestry can go hand in hand with ecological 

responsibility. In this, the Pioneer Forest provides a valuable 

model for private and public forest landowners across the 

Nation.

Two definitions of the word Pioneer make its selection as the 

name of these lands very prescient and fitting:

1. One that originates or helps open a new line of thought or 

activity

2. An early settler in a new territory

It seems to me that accomplishments of Pioneer Forest 

demonstrate both of these meanings.

Pioneer Forest is recognized for having bucked trends and 

for crafting a style of uneven-aged forest management using 

selection silviculture that is in the forefront of ecologically and 

economically sustainable forestry. Is Pioneer Forest all alone on 

this path? 

In 1995, several foresters began identifying the best examples 

of forest management from around the country by asking the 

question: what does ‘sustainable forestry’ look like on the 

ground, and who is doing it? After interviewing a wide range 

of forest managers and getting a sense of their philosophy, 

meetings were held around the country inviting these foresters 

to come together to discuss their management perspectives and 

practices. Many of these foresters felt quite isolated as a result 

of the general view of their concerns and techniques held by 

the mainstream forestry sector. As Pioneer staff know well, the 

refrain was ‘that won’t work here’ and ‘you can’t do that, and 

don’t talk about it, either.’

Participants were surprised and energized through contact with 

like-minded foresters. They wanted an organization that would 

preserve that spark, so they formed the Forest Stewards Guild, 

which now has over 400 members managing 5.5 million acres 

in the United States and Canada. Guild members share a mission 

to promote an alternative vision of forest management. Clint 

Trammel is a founding member, and we’re proud to have had 

him on our Board of Directors.
Personal Reflections 97

For most guild members, seeing is believing—a trait we share 

with residents of the ‘Show Me’ state. Demonstration of 

silvicultural practices and impacts is a major focus of the guild, 

from northern hardwoods in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 

where individual tree selection harvests without changing stand 

composition towards increasingly shade tolerant trees, to oak 

and pine forests of southern New Hampshire, and from redwood 

in California to Douglas fir and mixed conifer in the Willamette 

Valley and pine forests of southern Oregon, where unevenaged techniques are being used successfully to manage and 

regenerate forest types that have traditionally been clearcut and 

replanted.

Figure 4—Leo and Kay Drey. (Photo by Cliff White, Missouri Department of Conservation)

Selection silviculture is a forte of our membership. A U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service biologist visited a member’s forest on a 

California field tour and commented, ‘if all of our forests were 

managed this way, we could de-list most of our endangered 

species.’ Nevertheless, we face considerable challenges in 

researching, quantifying, documenting, and publicizing these 

success stories, since selection silviculture is not the style of 

forestry traditionally applied to most managed forest land today.

Pioneer Forest is to be commended for its considerable proactive 

efforts to demonstrate economical and ecological viability. 

Pioneer’s research program is truly a model for the country. But 

is Pioneer all alone? Not anymore.

Cave Spring along the Current River. (Photo by G.F. Iffrig, courtesy of Pioneer Forest)

APPENDIX
100 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 
101

INTRODUCTION

Altogether the lands of Pioneer Forest and the L-A-D Foundation 

total nearly 160,000 acres and are open for research and 

independent study with permission. Over the years a variety 

of university and public agency-directed research has been 

completed. There also has been a significant amount of nontechnical information written about individually significant areas. 

These writings and research include both natural and cultural 

history and span biological, geological, cultural, and economic 

aspects of the properties of Pioneer Forest. We have attempted 

to compile and then annotate these writings and research since 

our own review and understanding of this information assists in 

our forest stewardship programs. We also hope that it may help 

current researchers or those intending to do research on Pioneer 

Forest to know what kinds of research and information have 

already been completed here.

This bibliography is periodically updated; copies of most entries 

are found at the Pioneer Forest office in Salem, MO. There are 

170 works listed here. 

Aley, T. 1980. Cave management investigations on the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways, Missouri. Ozark Underground 

Laboratory contract report to the National Park Service. 111 

p. + appendix. On file with: Pioneer Forest, Highway 19 N., 

Salem, MO 65560.

The first cave management study of Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways’ caves, reporting on 19 caves including at least one 

reference to a Pioneer Forest cave, Albert Reinhold Cave (named 

in this report as Rockclimb Cave).

Aley, T. 1981. Cave management investigations on the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Missouri; Phase 2. Ozark 

Underground Laboratory contract report to the National Park 

Service. 151 p. + appendix. 

Follow-up to the 1980 study, here reporting on an additional 60 

caves, including Devils Well.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCH AND 

INFORMATION ON PIONEER FOREST

Greg F. Iffrig1

Abstract—A bibliography of research and other scholarly activity undertaken on Pioneer Forest is presented. This bibliography 

contains the information that managers of Pioneer Forest believe is of greatest importance to them as they refine their 

management practices to meet the varied objectives that the Drey family and the L-A-D Foundation have had for ownership of 

Pioneer Forest and natural areas.

Aley, T.; Aley, C. 1989. Final Report—delineation of recharge 

areas for four important cave streams, Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways, Missouri, August 25, 1989. Prepared for the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways under Purchase Order PX6640-7-

0556. 28 p.

Two of the four studied caves are on L-A-D property—Flying W 

Cave and Medlock Cave.

Annand, E.M. 1995. Habitat relationships of migrant songbirds 

in a managed forest. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. 73 

p. MS Thesis.

Annand studied migrant songbird response to managed forest 

treatments from 58 sites (12 clearcut, 12 shelterwood, 12 

group selection, 10 single-tree selection, and 12 unharvested 

mature even-aged sites). Using the point count method, 

relative abundance of all occurring species were measured. 

Habitat measurements were gathered to assess vegetation 

characteristics of all sites. Analysis of variance models and 

multiple regression models were used to analyze habitat 

relationships. Chapter 2 of the thesis is the manuscript for the 

paper published in 1997 by Annand and Thompson. 

Chapter 3, another manuscript, discusses the relationship of 

songbirds to vegetation characteristics in regenerating forest 

stands. Models for six individual bird species (acadian flycatcher, 

red-eyed vireo, blue-winged warbler, ovenbird, hooded warbler, 

and the yellow-breasted chat) were established using variables 

such as basal area, canopy closure, and understory cover. 

Acadian flycatchers prefer large trees, dense understory, and 

closed canopy. Red-eyed vireos prefer high basal area and a 

high percent canopy closure. Ovenbirds preferred high percent 

canopy closure and short tree regeneration height. Hooded 

warblers prefer high density of smaller trees, relatively low 

density of large diameter trees, high shrub stem counts, and 

high canopy closure (all four of these variables fairly describe 

single-tree selection treatments). 

1

 Greg F. Iffrig, Liaison to the Board, L-A-D Foundation, 705 Olive, Room 724, St. Louis, MO 63101.

Annotated Bibliography of Research and Information on Pioneer Forest
102 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Annand, E.M.; Thompson, F.R. 1997. Forest bird response to 

regeneration practices in Central Hardwood Forests. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 61(1): 159-171.

Study of breeding songbird populations in managed forested 

landscapes in southern Missouri; includes clearcut, shelterwood, 

group selection, single-tree forest regeneration methods of 

harvest, and mature unharvested even-age stands. 

Pioneer Forest transects represent the single-tree selection 

portion of the study. Hooded warblers and northern parulas 

were more abundant in the selection treatments than other 

harvest treatments (hooded warblers have been found to nest 

in gaps in Illinois in another study). Parula warbler numbers 

were greater in single-tree selection treatments. Species such as 

the red-eyed vireo, worm-eating warbler, and acadian flycatcher, 

which are usually associated with mature forests, were 

abundant in group and single-tree selection treatments. Species 

usually associated with mature forest were likely abundant in 

the selection treatments due to the presence of intermediateand large-diameter trees.

Autry, D.C. 1988. Plant communities on riparian limestone bluffs 

in Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Carbondale, IL: Southern 

Illinois University. 139 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Extensive site sampling from more than 90 bluff transects; 

includes species lists for each sample and located by latitude, 

longitude. Includes Pioneer Forest bluff sites in Bay Creek and 

Leatherwood Creek.

Baigell, M. 1974. Thomas Hart Benton. New York: Harry N. 

Abrams, Inc. 281 p.

Author describes four periods of Thomas Hart Benton’s life. The 

work, Cave Spring is from the ‘World War II and Postwar Works’ 

period. Cave Spring is located on the Current River, is owned by 

the L-A-D Foundation, and was visited by Thomas Hart Benton 

who depicted the scene in a color painting in 1963. There 

are 229 plates included in this volume, including numerous 

color plates. In describing this period of work in general, the 

author notes “In many ways, though, his more remarkable 

achievements are the landscapes of this period. In these, it 

would appear that Benton’s overwhelming love for America 

found its true outlet—in the streams, hills, and mountains of 

the country, populated by people unsuspectingly living out 

their time, quietly enjoying themselves, living easily on the 

land, celebrating nothing more than their existence. Perhaps 

cumulatively these works glorify “America the Beautiful,” a 

dream America where every prospect pleases. Individually they 

describe, sometimes with great succulence, a particular segment 

of that landscape.”

“In the scenes painted from landscapes closer to Benton’s 

home the effect is more intimate. The sky appears to be 

closer, the horizon is nearer at hand, and the vegetation grows 

more lushly (plate 136, compiler’s note: “Cave Spring. 1963. 

Polymer tempera on canvas mounted on panel, 30 x 40”. Field 

Enterprises Educational Corporation Collection). The streams, 

gullies, and soft hills of the Middle West - the vacation lands of 

the artist’s mature years - become idyllic haunts of weekend 

fishermen and Sunday boatmen. The tumult of spirit in earlier 

paintings has given way to the continuous, easy pulsation of 

curving water banks, clumps of trees, and those familiar Middle 

Western clouds. The richness is sometimes overwhelming as one 

senses that Benton is reaching out to encompass all that he sees 

in a scene. It is as if he were making love to the trees, bushes, 

grasses, sandy spots, rocks, and pebbles. Other American artists 

have celebrated the American landscape, but few with such 

joy and innocence. Benton painted these works, one imagines, 

to please himself, and, even if they are stylistically related to 

earlier paintings, their mood is entirely personal.”

“Yet they are personal in a way easily accessible to anybody. 

Their meanings are still American. Benton is still a painter of the 

American scene.

Batek, M.J. 1994. Presettlement vegetation of the Current River 

watershed in the Missouri Ozarks. Columbia, MO: University of 

Missouri-Columbia. 264 p. + 4 colored maps. M.A. Thesis.

This geography thesis reconstructs early nineteenth-century 

vegetation from Public Land Survey notes and other sources. The 

watershed includes a major portion of Pioneer Forest land.

Batek, M.J.; Rebertus, A.; Schroeder, W.A. [and others]. 1999. 

Reconstruction of early nineteenth-century vegetation and fire 

regimes in the Missouri Ozarks. Journal of Biogeography. 26: 

397-412.

Study area is 26 complete and 4 partial townships in the 

Current River watershed including the Jack’s Fork, from about 

Welch Spring in the Northwest to Van Buren in the Southeast, 

including three nearly complete townships of the big block on 

Pioneer Forest and about 9 partial townships. Combines analysis 

of early nineteenth-century Public Land Survey notes and 

dencrochronology-based fire histories to reconstruct vegetation 

and disturbance regimes of pine-oak woodlands. Vegetation 

patterns are also related to geological parent material, 

topography, and mean fire intervals. Reveals a distinct fire 

shadow east of the Current River.

Beckman, H.C.; Hinchey, N.S. 1944. The large springs of 

Missouri. Rolla, MO: Missouri Geological Survey and Water 

Resources. 2nd serial, 141 p. Vol. 29.

Summarizes the geology of the big spring country in Missouri, 

includes a short description of Cave Spring. Reports the only 

flow measurement made on the spring at that time, a low stage 

reading and another at high stage, both by the U.S. Geological 

Survey.
103

Bedan, D.E.; Goetz, R.E. l976. Pioneer Forest recreation study. 

St. Louis, MO: Coalition for the Environment. 54 p. + maps.

Detailed recommendations for lands of Pioneer Forest including 

trail development, recommended protection for Laxton Spring, 

Leatherwood Creek, and Rough Hollow as natural areas, and 

wildlife management recommendations.

Beveridge, T.R. 1966. Grand Gulf . . . Missouri Conservationist. 

27(10):12-13.

This is an excellent overview of the area written by a 

geologist with insightful commentary. Beveridge reviews the 

stream piracy and cave roof collapse. As if this were a longterm geological combat he adds “...the Grand Gulf drainage 

system represents the greatest booty of any Stygian pirate in 

the Ozarks, and the battle area records the most extensive, 

dramatic, and scenic preservation of geological conflict in 

Missouri.”

Beveridge, T.R. 1978. Geologic wonders and curiosities of 

Missouri. (Vineyard, J.D., revised edition, 1990). Rolla, MO: 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology 

and Land Survey. 400 p.

Includes specific descriptions of the Narrows, Ball Mill 

Resurgence, Clifty Hollow Natural Bridge, Grand Gulf, and 

Leatherwood Arch.

Bolon, H.C. 1935. A study of Missouri springs. Rolla, MO: 

University of Missouri. 77 p. Thesis.

Author tabulated all state and federal records of the time 

regarding size of Missouri springs and determined relative mean 

flow. Twenty-seven Ozark springs (Mammoth Spring in Arkansas 

is the only non-Missouri spring included) are listed with Cave 

Spring at an estimated 45 cubic feet per second ranking twentyone. The measurement for Cave Spring is from a single record 

taken June 22, 1924 and represents 46,600,000 gallons per day. 

Since it was taken during what would normally be a wet season 

it probably represents nearly maximum flow. Interestingly the 

author included black-and-white photographs of the time for 

some springs (Alley, Bennett, Big, Blue, Greer, Ha Ha Tonka, etc.) 

though none of Cave Spring.

Bretz, J.H. 1953. Genetic relations of caves to peneplains and 

big springs in the Ozarks. American Journal of Science. 251: 1-24.

Presents the theory of cave formation in the Ozarks. The 

origin of most Ozark caves is from circulating water belowground. When the hydrostatic head disappeared as the uplands 

continued to age, these water-filled spaces then began to 

accumulate red clay from the soil above. Uplift caused further 

dissection on the upland, lowered the water table and drained 

these spaces. Bretz cites several Ozark caves where streams now 

flowing on the cave floor are not responsible for the solutional 

features on the cave walls and ceiling since the present stream 

is younger than the cave itself. Then Bretz describes four large 

Ozark springs [Greer, Roaring River, Welch, and Fishing Cave 

(now more commonly referred to as Cave Spring)] which still 

function as cave-makers.

Bretz, J.H. 1956. Caves of Missouri. Rolla. MO: Missouri 

Geological Survey and Water Resources. 490 p. Vol. 39.

Includes a discussion of the nature of Cave Spring, pages 

441-444. Bretz considered Cave Spring to be an excellent, 

functioning example of cave origin in the phreatic (water-filled) 

zone. Big Creek Cave on the Current River in S36, T30 R4W also 

is noted and briefly described. Medlock Cave, S10 T31 R6 is 

briefly noted. Author includes a brief note regarding Cookstove 

Cave on page 444 and Grand Gulf on pages 350-355.

Broadhead, G.C. 1873. Maries County. In: Broadhead, G.C.; 

Meek, F.B.; Shumard, B.F. Reports on the geological survey of 

the State of Missouri, 1855-1871. Jefferson City, MO: Bureau 

of Geology and Mines. Regan and Carter Printers and Binders: 

7-25. 

Mentions Clifty Hollow Natural Bridge from fieldwork of 1857 as 

“a perfectly clear stream of water courses through this valley. 

The bottoms near are spread with a dense growth of trees and 

vines, among which I noticed the Muscadine grape. The valley 

at this point, being shut in by its perpendicular cliffs, with not a 

path to guide the traveler through the dense thickets, is wildly 

picturesque and romantic in its loneliness.”

Bruff, G.L. 1977. Preliminary trail study for Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways. Van Buren, MO: National Park Service, Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. 55 p.

Describes the setting for the lands of the national park and the 

cultural activities in the context of potential trail development. 

The report emphasizes the discussions which were ongoing at 

this time regarding Missouri’s Ozark Trail under the Ozark Trail 

Steering Committee. Pioneer Forest is specifically mentioned in 

the recommendations here, including reference to the Bureau 

of Outdoor Recreation study (1976). Under a section titled 

‘Cooperative Efforts’ Bruff discusses a meeting with Pioneer 

Forest staff in March of 1977.

Buckman, R.E.; Quintas, R.L. 1972. Natural areas of the Society 

of American Foresters. Washington, DC: Society of American 

Foresters. 38 p.

Brief introduction of SAF system with definition, criteria for 

selection, and procedure for designation. This report then 

details the name, location, size, owner, and representation of 

forest type for 281 areas. This is the fourth published list of SAF 

Natural Areas. As of this listing there are four Missouri areas, the 

Current River and Pioneer natural areas on Pioneer Forest, and 

Cupola Gum Pond and Haden Bald on the Mark Twain National 

Forest. The Pioneer Forest areas are identified here as under 

indenture and administered by the University of Missouri, School 

of Forestry.

Annotated Bibliography of Research and Information on Pioneer Forest
104 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Burghardt, R. 2003. Missouri’s little grand canyon. Missouri Life. 

30(2): 20-21.

This is an overview article. This issue of the magazine included 

a cover photograph of Grand Gulf State Park; other photos 

published with the article. All of the photos here by Don Kurz. 

Chapman, H.H. 1951. Report on examination of forest property 

in Shannon County, Missouri, for the National Distillers 

Products Corporation, July 5-15, 1951. Typed manuscript on file 

with: Pioneer Forest Archives, Salem, MO 65560. 8 p.

This study of National Distillers’ lands was to determine a 

method for securing maximum yields from white oak timber 

for barrel manufacturing, the practicality of managing these 

forest lands for continuous yield of forest products, and desirable 

data for a cruise including estimates of standing timber, 

rates of growth, and yield. Chapman provides an overview of 

recommended management practices especially with regard to 

the continuous production of white oak, appraisal of stocking 

from earlier work completed in 1949, establishment of sample 

plots for future inventory, economic return, silvicultural practice 

including the role of natural pine sites, and a discussion of oak 

wilt. 

Comer, M. 1993. Resources to explore—Dillard Mill State Historic 

Site. Missouri Resource Review. 10(3): 28-30.

Brief historical sketch plus present day character of mill and 

surrounding land/buildings.

Curtis, M. 1981. The Ozarks’ grandest canyon. The Ozarks 

Mountaineer. 29(4,5): 44-47.

Descriptive article highlighting geology and natural features of 

Grand Gulf, also explores management alternatives between 

state, federal, and private administration.

Davis, M.B. 1993. Old growth in the east, a survey. Richmond, 

VT: Cenozoic Society. 150 p.

Missouri listings are included in the southern Midwest section. 

Hickory Canyons Natural Area includes 190 acres of old-growth 

forest. The Virgin Pine Forest along Highway 19 also is included 

here. Age notation for the Virgin Pine Forest from this 1993 

publication is an estimated 150 to 190 years (Richard Guyette 

established the canopy here at 200 to 225 years). Interestingly 

the Current River Natural Area (whose canopy is estimated at 

400 years) is not included in this particular study.

Diaz-Granados, C. 1983. Rocky Hollow revisited. Further 

investigations, update, and recommendations for preserving 

and maintaining the integrity of a Woodland petroglyph site 

in Monroe County, Missouri. 76 p. (On file with: The L-A-D 

Foundation, 705 Olive Street, Room 724, St. Louis, MO 63101.)

Documents petroglyph symbols from Rocky Hollow including 

thunderbirds, serpents, human figure, turkey tracks, deer, turtle, 

fish, moon, comet, hunters, elk; they seem to reflect the earlier 

Woodland period and possibly a transitional period between 

the Woodland and Mississippian cultures. This report further 

documents and details features of the site and develops a list of 

recommendations for preservation including shelter protection, 

possible chemical treatment of the stone, photogrammetry, 

permanent castings, and an interpretive center.

Diaz-Granados, C. 1990. Tracking the A.D. 1054 supernova 

in Missouri’s petroglyphs and pictographs. Paper presented 

at the Annual joint meeting of the Missouri Association of 

Professional Archaeologists and the Missouri Archaeological 

Society, May 5, Sedalia. (On file with: The L-A-D Foundation, 

705 Olive Street, Room 724, St. Louis, MO 63101.)

The only anthropomorphic figure at Rocky Hollow on the west 

wall has both arms raised in the “shaman” position. The left 

hand is open and upright, but the palm is obliterated by a 

perfect circle. This author has reported that from the earliest 

work here that circle was believed to be an eclipse being 

“perpetrated” or a sun “being stopped” by a priest or shaman. 

Diaz-Granados, C.; Duncan, J.R. 2000. The petroglyphs and 

pictographs of Missouri. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama 

Press. 333 p.

Presented here are the findings of a survey conducted between 

1987 and 1992 to document all known and identifiable 

petroglyph and pictograh sites and analyzing the variety of ritual 

activities represented. The result is an inventory of 14 rock art 

sites. The context along with analysis of two predominant style 

groupings and ten minor styles are presented. The book’s cover 

illustration is from Rocky Hollow Natural Area, from a photo 

by Richard C. Smith, the ‘hands panel, plate 18 in the book 

(apparently misidentified as a bird motif from Washington State 

Park). The antlered animals depicted at Rocky Hollow represent 

wapiti (elk) rather than deer because of their backward 

configuration. Nine bird figures are noted. Fish are rare in 

Missouri and Rocky Hollow is one of only two in the State, and, 

as noted by this author, carved in considerable detail. Turtles 

are even less common but also represented. Rocky Hollow 

portrays the only certain prehistoric fish known from Missouri. 

Anthropomorphic figures are common at Rocky Hollow with 

“shaman” figures known because both hands are raised, one 

obliterated by a circular disk. There are other human figures, 

most likely hunters who appear to be on their knees and likely 

shooting with bows.

Diaz-Granados describes the Eichenbarger (1944) investigation 

among the early projects in Missouri and as a precious record 

from avocational archaeologists. Thirty-two plates are included 

as illustrations, three from Rocky Hollow. The Marion-Ralls 

Archaeological Society work discovered a tool believed to 

have been used to produce the carvings. In addition the Rocky 

Hollow site is believed to have been painted (with red or black 
105

pigments). Rocky Hollow was repainted in the 1940’s. Rocky 

Hollow is classified here as the Northeastern style, carvings are 

more or less sequential on a vertical shelter wall. 

Doll, W.L. 1938. Hydrography of the larger springs of the Ozark 

region of Missouri. Rolla, MO: University of Missouri. 106 p. 

Thesis.

Presents evidence against stream piracy by springs. A series 

of discharge measurements were made on the Current River 

(several miles above a spring and immediately below the 

spring) and no evidence was found that springs carry an 

appreciable amount of water from the river. Uses streamflow 

and rainfall records to outline drainage areas of many Ozark 

springs. Estimates (see table 5, “Effective Drainage Areas of 

the Largest Springs in MO”, p. 57) the effective drainage area 

of Cave Spring at 50 square miles. In discussing the Gasconade 

limestone whose thickness can be as much as 500 feet, author 

notes it is frequently cavernous and has some of the largest 

springs in the United States. Includes an estimate that 80 

percent of Ozark springs flow from the Gasconade formation. 

Grand Gulf is specifically mentioned (page 13) as “3/4-mile 

long and 200 feet deep” and “from the bottom of this chasm 

a cave leads into a more recent channel exposing the stream, 

which flows out at Mammoth Spring.”

Drees, D.; Flader, S. 2005. Current River Natural Area: Missouri’s 

first designated natural area is bigger and better at 50. 

Missouri Conservationist. 66(5): 4-7.

Discusses history and natural history of Missouri’s first 

designated natural area (1955) and a 255-acre expansion 

(2005), located in the big block on Pioneer Forest.

Drees, D.; Hughes, L.; Flader, S. 2005. Missouri natural area 

nomination form: Current River Natural Area (expansion). 

Missouri Natural Areas Committee, Nomination Date March 14, 

2005. 14 p. + six appendices.

The natural area, originally established in 1955 at 10 acres, was 

expanded by 255 acres from adjacent land in Pioneer Forest. The 

nomination details the history and natural history of the area 

and includes discussion of principal features and management 

considerations, a plant list, and maps.

Dwyer, J.P.; Dey, D.C.; Walter, W.D.; Jensen, R.G. 2004. Harvest 

impacts in uneven-aged and even-aged Missouri Ozark forests. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 21(4): 187-193.

While the introduction notes that poorly managed selection 

harvests may increase damage to residual trees, these authors 

point out the more than 50 years of management experience 

on Pioneer Forest and the recent research of Lowenstein and 

others showing that individual-tree selection harvest can be a 

sustainable management method for xeric oak-hickory forests. 

This particular study was conducted entirely on sites, which are 

part of the Missouri Forest Ecosystem Project and analyzing the 

effects of clearcut and selection harvests. Few trees suffered 

bole wounds from either method, 5 percent in the clearcut sites 

and 8 percent in the selection sites. Crown damage from either 

method was insignificant. The conclusion is that well-supervised 

logging operations can minimize damage to the soil as well as 

leave trees. 

Eddleman, W.R.; Clawson, R.L. 1987. Population status and 

habitat conditions for the red-cockaded woodpecker in 

Missouri. Transactions, Missouri Academy of Science. 21: 

105-117.

Interesting overview, including comment on the historical 

records of this bird in Missouri. The red-cockaded woodpecker 

was first recorded in Missouri in 1907 as fairly common in 

Shannon and Carter counties. Around 1940 all subsequent 

records were from what was then a virgin pine forest just south 

of Round Spring (most likely the tract of Pioneer Forest we 

call the Randolph tract and from the virgin pine forest along 

Highway 19, now owned by the L-A-D Foundation). Three birds 

were observed in June of 1940; four in June of 1941; and five 

in June of 1946. The area was logged in 1946 except for the 

narrow virgin pine forest. No sightings have been recorded from 

Missouri since 1946.

Paper also briefly explores management strategies if these 

birds were to be re-introduced to the State: understory control 

is essential, rotations of 80 to 100 years would allow continuous 

production of mature pines needed by the birds, suggested 

minimum viable population size of 500 birds (250 clans) would 

be an eventual goal with a minimum area of 80 to 160 ha 

(200 to 400 acres) needed to support one clan, mature pine 

along highway right-of-ways could provide links between 

management areas. 

Eichenbarger, J.A. 1944. Investigations of the Marion-Ralls 

Archaeological Society in Northeast Missouri. The Missouri 

Archaeologist. 10: 1-68.

This paper provides a detailed description of investigations 

during 1941. Titled Holliday Petroglyph Site MN 1, this article 

lists petroglyph groupings for four separate features and 

artifacts from two test trenches. The author provides extensive 

description of petroglyphs along with illustrations and 

photographs. Associated artifacts recovered from the site include 

potsherds, gouge, flake or flake knife, a scraper or graving tool, 

and chert spalls.

Everson, A.R.; Chilman, K.C. 1987. Final report—Cave 

recreation at Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Contract No. 

PX-6640-6-0285. U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service. 

Includes a review of Medlock Cave. 

Annotated Bibliography of Research and Information on Pioneer Forest
106 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Fadler, G.; Elder, W.H. 1973. A natural area survey of six 

eastern Ozark counties—Final report to the L-A-D Foundation. 

Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Cooperative Wildlife 

Research Unit. 98 p.

Includes natural area descriptions for Carter, Dent, Reynolds, 

Ripley, Shannon, and Texas counties. This report also includes 

specific discussion of Lily Pond (p. 68), Bowles Pond (p. 69), 

Cave Spring (p. 79), Pioneer Natural Area and Current River 

Natural Areas (p. 82), bluff at Two Rivers where we have a 

scenic easement (p. 93) and Dripping Spring (p. 94).

Fan, Z.; Shifley, S.R.; Spetich, M.A. 2003. Distribution of cavity 

trees in Midwestern old-growth and second-growth forests. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 33: 1,481-1,494.

This paper provides an interesting analysis for predicting cavity 

trees, using variables such as diameter, species group, and 

decay class. Although to our knowledge none of the results 

reported here are from Pioneer Forest there are interesting 

implications. These authors suggest that thinning and selection 

harvests repeated over several decades may reduce the cavity 

tree population but following one harvest may have little net 

effect. This study points out that for old growth sites there 

are five times as many cavity trees as there are from mature, 

second growth sites (generally greater than 110 years old). As 

a supplement to the information presented here, Thompson’s 

graduate student Elizabeth Annand reported on the similarity of 

the structural characteristics of Pioneer Forest plots comparing 

them more closely to mature and old growth forests. Given that 

the average turnover of the canopy on Pioneer is much greater 

than 200 years, the management strategy emphasizes leaving 

trees to fully mature and marking instructions leave wildlife 

trees may combine to maximize cavity opportunities. This study 

also points out that greater tree size and greater abundance 

of cavity-prone species (for Missouri, white oak and red oak 

have the highest probability) on old growth sites may have the 

greatest effect on cavity tree presence, characteristics of the 

forest structure on Pioneer Forest as well.

Fan, Z.; Shifley, S.R.; Spetich, M.A. 2005. Abundance and size 

distribution of cavity trees in second-growth and old-growth 

Central Hardwood forests. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

22(3): 162-169.

This discussion is more focused on grouping stands into broad 

size classes, specifically seedling/sapling-pole-sawtimber-oldgrowth. The authors suggest that the values for old growth 

forests serve as a reference for comparing conditions in other 

managed forests for this region. Uneven-aged forests such as 

those resulting from Pioneer’s management, where at least 

three different age classes are the goal, should be ideal for 

producing and maintaining cavity trees across the forested 

landscape. 

Faulkner, J.; White, J. 1991. Feasibility study for an Ozark Man 

and the Biosphere Cooperative. Urbana, IL: Ecological Services. 

137 p.

Discusses potential biosphere reserve sites and outlines a 

specific area of managed use to include Pioneer Forest among 

other private conservation and preservation lands. See page 39.

Flader, S. 2004. Missouri’s pioneer in sustainable forestry. Forest 

History Today. Spring/Fall 2004: 2-15.

Flader presents a history of Leo Drey’s influence in Missouri 

forestry and conservation efforts. The piece is nicely illustrated 

with many of the photographs coming from the archived 

Pioneer Forest collection. Flader traces Leo’s first acquisition 

in 1951 to his largest, nearly 90,000 acres from National 

Distillers in 1954. The various periods of Pioneer’s more than 

50-year history are traced beginning with its role in regional 

development (1955-1976), Pioneer’s method of forest 

management (c. 1970), the silvicultural revolution (1965-1985), 

Pioneer’s role in the controversy over public land management 

(1985-1990), and vindication (1990-2000). Throughout these 

five decades Leo’s vision and adherence to the goals he and his 

earliest staff had established in the 1950’s have always served 

as the stabilizing influence with Leo and Kay’s gift of nearly all 

of Pioneer Forest in 2004 to the L-A-D Foundation “perpetuating 

the Pioneer tradition.”

Flader, S., ed. 1992. Exploring Missouri’s legacy: state parks and 

historic sites. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. 352 p.

This extensive review of the Missouri State Park System includes 

essays and photographs on Dillard Mill State Historic Site and 

Grand Gulf State Park, both properties of the L-A-D Foundation.

Flader, S.L. 2004. History of Missouri forests and forest 

conservation. In: Flader, S.L., ed. Toward Sustainability for 

Missouri Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-239. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station: 20-59.

This extensive and well-documented paper mentions Leo Drey’s 

leadership organizing the Missouri Forest Resource Conference 

held in October 1958; his founding of Pioneer Forest in 1951 

and his vision “to restore a profitable forest by conservative 

single-tree selection uneven-aged management that would 

be productive also of wildlife, recreation, and other social 

and scientific values.”; Pioneer Forest’s comprehensive forest 

inventory and the fact that this ownership proved especially 

significant in comparison to the more widespread use of evenaged management by clearcutting begun in the 1960’s; Leo 

Drey’s position favoring U.S. Forest Service administration of the 

proposed Ozark National Scenic Riverways, as well as his later 

support for the Natural Steams Act proposed in 1990; Pioneer 

Forest’s participation in the proposed Ozark Highlands of the 

Man and the Biosphere project.
107

Fritz, E.C. 1989. Clearcutting: a crime against nature. Austin, TX: 

Eakins Press. 124 p.

Examines the practice of clearcutting, reviews alternatives such 

as individual tree selection. Pioneer Forest cited as “selection 

forest” and includes photograph from 1987 at unknown location.

Gardner, J.E.; Taft, J.B. 1983. Cave resources of Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways, an inventory and evaluation. A preliminary 

copy of a final report submitted to Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways, National Park Service in compliance with contract 

CX-6000-2-0075.

Description and management recommendations for several 

caves on Pioneer Forest and L-A-D Foundation lands including 

Flying W Cave, Medlock Cave, Conglomerate Cave, and Wind 

Cave.

Grant, C. 1967. Rock art of the American Indian. New York: 

Promontory Press.

Mentions Rocky Hollow and includes an illustration (fish and elk) 

from the site.

Gremaud, G. 1995. The treasure hunters. Missouri 

Conservationist. September 1995: 56(9).

Overview article of the Missouri Natural Features Inventory. 

Running from 1980-1995, the article includes several examples 

of areas found and mentions the benefits provided from earlier 

inventories, specifically those counties inventoried by the L-A-D 

Foundation and graduate students of the University of Missouri. 

The L-A-D Foundation supported the work of one of the first 

university students (see Fadler and Elder 1973). 

Guyette, R.P.; McGinnes, E.A., Jr.; LeDuc, S. 1982. Climatic 

history in the Ozark region as reconstructed from the treerings of eastern red cedar and white oak. Occasional Paper 

7. In: Proceedings of the Cedar Glade Symposium, School of 

the Ozarks. Point Lookout, MO: Missouri Academy of Science: 

80-111.

The period of analysis for this study was 1700-1980. Results 

show two drought cycles of 2.3 and 6 years. Chronologies for 

white oak include samples from Current River Natural Area, 

owned by the L-A-D Foundation.

Guyette, R.P.; Cutter, B.E.; Henderson, G.S. 1991. Long-term 

correlations between mining activity and levels of lead 

and cadmium in tree-rings of eastern red cedar. Journal of 

Environmental Quality. 20(1): 146-150.

Examines lead and cadmium concentrations in growth 

increments from lead-mining areas compared to control sites. 

Chronologies from Jerktail Mountain on Pioneer Forest were 

used as a control.

Guyette, R.P.; Henderson, G.S.; Cutter, B.E. 1992. 

Reconstructing soil pH from manganese concentrations in 

tree-rings. Forest Science. 38(4): 727-737.

Uses tree-ring chronologies from Jerktail Mountain area 

including nearby Asher Creek and Thompson Creek, all on 

Pioneer Forest.

Guyette, R. 1993. Fire history of the Eck Tract on the Big Piney 

River. 20 p. Unpublished report. Report for the project, presettlement fire history of oak-pine forests in the Ozarks, dated 

November 22, 1993. On file with: Pioneer Forest, Highway 19 

N., Salem, MO 65560.

Tree ring sampling study which compares results on this tract 

with preliminary sampling of shortleaf pine from the virgin pine 

tract along Highway 19. Six tree ring samples from the virgin 

pine tract indicated even-age structure, however, all samples 

were specifically selected from the largest pine. Twenty-six 

samples were collected from the Eck Tract and indicated a wider 

range of ages for dominant canopy trees.

Guyette, R.; Muzika, R.M.; Dey, D.C. 2002. Dynamics of an 

anthropogenic fire regime. Ecosystems (2002). 5: 472-486. 

The highly dissected nature of this study area has been shown 

to inhibit the occurrence of fire. Of an average of 108 fires 

annually in the region, less than 1 percent were from lightning, 

leaving the majority to be human-caused. The context for this 

paper then is the apparent relationship here between humans 

and fire. This study area, especially the northeastern quarter, 

is largely under the ownership of Pioneer Forest. Especially 

interesting here is the color map that depicts the forest types, 

topography, and the average fire or disturbance intervals. Shown 

on the map are intervals ranging from 10 to 29 years between 

1700 to 1850. 

Overall, the study area is more than 80 percent forested and 

located near the western edge of the eastern deciduous forest 

and dissected by steep ridges and numerous streams. Slopes 

here average 18 degrees. Considering fire history development, 

topographic roughness, and human population information 

these authors have developed a four-stage sequence of the fire 

regime: ignition-dependent, fuel-limited, fuel-fragmentation, 

and culture-dependent stages. 

Guyette, R.P.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Dey, D.C. 2003. A riparian fire 

history along the Current River corridor. National Park Service 

report for the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Van Buren, MO.

Details the fire history of the Current River corridor from 

dendrochronology and other records. The L-A-D Foundation 

(and Pioneer Forest) owns substantial land in the corridor and 

about 35 miles of L-A-D frontage along the river is under scenic 

easement to the Ozark National Scenic Riverways.

Annotated Bibliography of Research and Information on Pioneer Forest
108 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Haefner, R.A. l983. A survey of sinkhole pond natural 

communities in Missouri. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. 

205 p. MS Thesis.

Includes descriptive information and comparative notes for 

Bowles Pond, pages 138-144, 189 and mentions Vinson Pond, 

page 189. 

Hall, L. 1958. Stars upstream, life along an Ozark river. Chicago, 

IL: University of Chicago Press. 252 p. 

Hall compares the “little rivers of the Ozarks” against any 

streams in America, his two “favorites by far are the Current and 

its tributary Jacks Fork”. Hall credits Ed Woods (Chief Forester for 

Pioneer Forest at that time), among others, for teaching him 

about Ozark timber. In his essay on the Ozark Mountains, Hall 

cites nine of the large springs, including Cave Spring saying “the 

location is extremely scenic but difficult to reach except by river, 

so that it is seldom visited”. In his discussion of open range 

Hall mentions Spencer Jones, who strongly advocated closing 

the range in the Ozarks, and whose farm is now part of Pioneer 

Forest. Describing the float from Cedar Grove to Round Spring 

Hall mentions several of the tributary hollows which include 

some of the lands of Pioneer Forest, Fishtrap, and Lewis; Hall 

also writes about entering Cave Spring by canoe. 

Hall also recounts the 80,000 acres of cooperage company land, 

reportedly the largest stand of virgin white oak remaining in 

America and when they decided to liquidate some of their 

assets they cut most of the white oak of 14 inches in diameter. 

Hall’s description includes the note that even with this cut, 

“there were a great many trees left” including “smaller white 

oak, but there were also extensive stands of pine seedlings, 

some pine of larger size, and other species of hardwoods such 

as scarlet oak and black oak, hickory and sour gum”. Randolph 

Hole, a bank along the Current River, is mentioned, where an 

agreement was made to leave some of the largest white oak 

uncut, “these will be preserved so that future generations 

may know what our forests looked like before they were 

despoiled by the lumberman” Hall mentions the young St. 

Louis businessman, Leo Drey, who purchased these lands from 

National Distillers for a long-range forestry project. 

Hall, in his description of the Current River from Big Spring to 

Doniphan floats with canoe enthusiasts, Leo and Kay Drey.

Hawksley, O. 1976. Missouri Ozark Waterways. Jefferson City, 

MO: Missouri Conservation Commission. 114 p.

Notable features of interest to floaters along Ozark rivers 

in Missouri; references along the Current River include the 

following from Pioneer Forest Medlock Cave and spring (mile 

12.6), Cave Spring (mile 21.9), and on the Jacks Fork River 

Leatherwood Creek (mile 22.2) and Bay Creek (mile 25.2).

Hebrank, A.W. 1989. Geologic natural features classification 

system for Missouri. Natural Areas Journal. 9(2): 106-116.

Geologic natural features are classified according to the physical 

processes that formed them. They are categorized into fluvial 

(stream-related), erosional, solution/groundwater, gravity, 

glacial, eolian (wind-related), oceanic, igneous, tectonic, 

and ‘features of problematic origin’. The classification system 

published here serves as the standard for the classification 

of geologic natural features in Missouri. Several of the L-A-D 

Foundation properties and one area on Pioneer Forest are 

cited as examples. The Narrows along the Big Piney River in 

Texas County is cited as one of two examples of a narrows, a 

fluvial feature. Grand Gulf in Oregon County is cited as one of 

two examples of a collapse canyon, a solution/groundwater 

feature. Ball Mill Resurgence in Perry County is the example of 

an estevella (a reversible swallow hole/spring), a solution/

groundwater feature. Clifty Hollow Natural Bridge is cited as one 

of two natural tunnels/bridges/arches of lateral piracy origin, 

a solution/groundwater feature. Grand Gulf’s natural bridge is 

the example of an uncollapsed segment of a cave roof collapse. 

The Leatherwood Natural Arch is cited as an example of solution 

enlargement of a joint usually adjacent or parallel to the face of 

a bluff or cliff. Grand Gulf is one of three karst complex sites.

Hedden, W.J. 1968. The geology of the Thayer area emphasizing 

the stratigraphy of the Cotter and the Jefferson City 

formations. Rolla, MO: University of Missouri. MS Thesis.

Discusses geology of Grand Gulf, description of faulting, 

formation of the gulf, suggests cave entrance resulted from a 

tornado which uprooted trees upstream during the early 1920’s. 

Author describes isolated karst features of the area of several 

square miles immediately west of Koshkonong. Pages 112-123.

Hensold, N.C.; Leoschke, M.J.; Morgan, S.W. 1986. Rare plants 

of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Jefferson City, MO: 

Missouri Department of Conservation. 200 p.

Because the Congressional boundary for the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways includes a significant amount of privatelyowned property, this report includes a number of plant records 

for Pioneer Forest and L-A-D Foundation properties. Nineteen 

species are reviewed from their occurrence along both the Jacks 

Fork and Current rivers. Part II of the report is a descriptive 

exemplary natural community survey. Among sites detailed in 

this survey are Jerktail Mountain (high quality dry-mesic igneous 

forest on the south end of the mountain crest) and an extensive, 

high quality igneous glade (five distinct large glades occur along 

all sides of Jerktail Mountain, Cave Spring dolomite glade (the 

only significant glade on the Lower Current District), Rough 

Hollow fen (high quality deep muck fen, three rare species 

known from the site), and Thompson Creek seep fens (a series 

of four small fens along 3/4-mile of the stream valley). For the 

specific references here see pages 177, 181, 183, and 190. 
109

Herbeck, L.A. 1998. Ecological interactions of plethodontid 

salamanders and vegetation in Missouri Ozark forests. 

Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. 78 p. MS Thesis.

Salamanders alone are the most abundant vertebrate animals, 

and their annual production of biomass exceeds that of birds 

or small mammals. This thesis reports research results on 

plethodontid salamander densities. Relationships between 

coarse woody debris, canopy cover, ground area cover, 

herbaceous vegetation, woody vegetation, and plethodontid 

salamanders occurring among 42 sample plots distributed 

within three distinct forest structural stages were determined. 

Second growth and regeneration sites were located on Missouri 

Department of Conservation lands in Reynolds and Shannon 

counties, while old-growth sites were located on National Park 

Service lands in Carter County and on Pioneer Forest land (the 

uncut Current River Natural Area and the surrounding old-growth 

forest on that same north-facing hillside) in Shannon County.

During 1995 and 1996 three species and 348 individuals 

were captured; southern redback salamanders (84 percent) 

and slimy salamanders (16 percent), and one individual 

of longtail salamander were captured. Estimated mean 

densities were 1422.7 salamanders/hectare for old-growth, 

287.5 salamanders/hectare for second growth, and 14.87 

salamanders/hectare for clearcut. Regeneration cutting reduces 

microhabitats for salamanders through increased temperatures 

and decreased moisture availability from the elimination of 

the forest canopy. This study found 5 times more salamanders 

in old-growth than in second growth and 20 times more 

salamanders in second growth than in regeneration cuts.

Forest management focused on rotations of 75 to120 years 

may truncate succession and prevent development of structural 

characteristics associated with older, mature forests, including 

development of larger trees, accumulation of down wood, and 

development of high density foliage layering.

Herbeck, L.A.; Larsen, D.R. 1999. Plethodontid salamander 

response to silvicultural practices in Missouri Ozark forests. 

Conservation Biology. 13(3): 623-632.

Authors present data on salamander densities from regeneration 

cuts (<5 years old), second-growth cuts (70 to 80 years old), and 

old growth sites (>120 years old). Among the old growth sites 

is the Current River Natural Area on Pioneer Forest. Salamander 

populations were reduced to very low numbers when 

mature forests had been intensively harvested. Plethodontid 

salamanders (those species of salamanders which are purely 

terrestrial and lack an aquatic larval stage; plethodontids lack 

lungs and exchange gases almost entirely through the skin) 

appear to be best adapted to conditions characteristic of older, 

mature forests and management can affect their abundance. 

During the spring season of 1995 and 1996 the authors found 

five times more salamanders in second growth forests than in 

regenerating forests. Increasing the rotation length in managed 

forests would provide older, mature forests that play a critical 

role in maintaining relatively high densities of plethodontid 

salamanders.

Hobbs, H.H., Jr.; Hobbs, H.H., III; Daniel, M.A. 1977. A review 

of the troglobitic decapod crustaceans of the Americas. No. 

244. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology. 183 p.

Detailed review of 55 species in 8 families, includes notes 

on karst regions, adaptations, as well as detailed scientific 

illustrations and a key. Cambarus hubrickti, a white cave crayfish, 

was collected from Medlock Cave in 1941 (see page 82).

Holst, S. 1991. Resources to explore—Grand Gulf State Park. 

Resource Review. 8(1): 28-31.

General write-up on the park, includes description of geology, 

relationship of surrounding lands, hydrology; specific mention of 

L-A-D Foundation ownership.

House, S. 1985. Cave maps as management tools. Missouri 

Speleology. 25(1-4): 68-77.

House discusses various uses for cave maps including land 

management, inventory, visitor management, interpretation, 

and scientific; several maps are included as illustrations. Under 

the discussion of interpretation are comments about Cave Spring 

and Devil’s Well where the author notes that the National Park 

Service brochure uses the mapped plan and profile views of 

Devil’s Well to help explain the relationship to the Cave Spring 

supply system. The suggestion is made here that these two 

features should be connected with a trail as a further aid in 

explaining these geological relationships. This issue of Missouri 

Speleology is the Proceedings of the 1984 National Cave 

Management Symposium. 

Iffrig, G.F.; Trammel, C.E.; Cunningham, T. 2004. Pioneer 

Forest: a case study in sustainable forest management. In: 

Flader, Susan L., ed. 2004.Toward sustainability for Missouri 

forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-239. St. Paul, MN: USDA–FS, North 

Central Forest Experiment Station. 913–204.

Detailed overview of the design and description of single-tree 

selection forest management as used on Pioneer Forest. Data 

for the period 1957 to 1997 are presented showing volume 

measurements for seven major species groups and basal 

area by diameter class from 6 inches to 24 inches or greater. 

Economic advantages of this system of forest management are 

demonstrated by looking at market price increases from Pioneer 

Forest for the period 1950 to 1999. Using this information an 

economic model is applied to an average acre of Ozark forest 

land managed for the most recent 24-year period (1975 to 

1999) using clearcutting versus single-tree selection harvest. 

From the two management scenarios, including management 

costs for conducting each sale, the authors showed a nearly 

doubled rate of return by using single-tree selection harvests. 

Annotated Bibliography of Research and Information on Pioneer Forest
110 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Jackson, D.D. 1988. Every State should have a Leo Drey. 

Audubon. 90: 78-83.

Interview article discussing background of Leo’s acquisition of 

Pioneer Forest and other lands. Includes management style; 

relationships with Department of Natural Resources, Missouri 

Department of Conservation, private conservation groups. 

Discusses L-A-D Foundation.

Jeffries, J.M. 2004. Community composition, species richness, 

and abundance of oak herbivore insects in a chronoseries of 

temperate forests. St. Louis, MO: University of Missouri. 65 p. 

MS Thesis.

Jeffries’ work provides companion research to that reported by 

Robert Marquis at the University of Missouri-St. Louis (Marquis 

and Le Conff in 1997 and then Marquis and others 2002) 

regarding insect herbivore diversity and abundance. Those 

results indicated increasing rates of diversity and abundance as 

the age of Missouri Ozark forests increased, however, the range 

of difference in age from their study was only 25 years. Jeffries’ 

interesting addition of Current River Natural Area as a sampling 

site has provided a much longer chronoseries, extending 

beyond 300 years. Her results provide strong evidence that 

increasing structural diversity within forests influences herbivore 

success. Older forests are not as dense and therefore provide 

a quite different forest architecture from their canopy layers, 

multiple diameter classes, shrubs, and forest floor debris. 

Jeffries discusses the implications for conservation suggesting 

modifications in forest management which would extend 

rotation periods for even-aged forests and leaving more, larger 

diameter trees uncut.

Jenkins, M.A. 1992. A study of oak decline and vegetation 

dynamics in the forests of the southeastern Missouri Ozark 

Mountains. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. 244 p. MS 

Thesis.

Describes oak decline, traces history and factors involved. Study 

sites were located on Pioneer Forest, Mark Twain National 

Forest, and University State Forest. Discussion of once-dominant 

Pinus echinata now found only on the driest sites and replaced 

by Quercus coccinea. This occurred after large scale harvest and 

subsequent fire suppression, resulting in an apparently evenaged stand of scarlet oak (Q. coccinea). Over the decade of the 

1980’s mortality of Q. coccinea in the Ozarks may have resulted 

from synchronized effects on this particular age class and 

spread over a vast area of the Ozarks. Also traces changes for 

Q. alba and Q. velutina; notes Pioneer Forest showed no major 

decrease in frequency of Q. velutina or Q. coccinea and the 

author suggests that selective cutting and the resulting reduced 

competition may explain the different vegetational dynamics at 

play here than in Ozark forests elsewhere.

Jenkins, M.A.; Pallardy, S.G. 1993. A comparison of forest 

dynamics at two sites in the southeastern Ozark Mountains 

of Missouri. Gillespie, A.R.; Parker, G.R.; Pope, P.E., eds. In: 

Proceedings of the 9th Central Hardwood Conference. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NC-161. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Forest Service, North 

Central Forest Experiment Station: 327-341. 

Data from established plots at Pioneer Forest and University 

State Forest studying mortality and decline of red oak species. 

Similar mortality rates for Quercus coccinea; University Forest 

exhibited higher mortality rates for Q. velutina. Importance 

value (IV) for Q. velutina declined (1962 to 1991) on University 

forest but remained stable at Pioneer Forest. IV for Q. coccinea

decreased on both areas 1980 to 1987, increasing after that on 

Pioneer Forest, while gradually declining at University Forest.

Authors suggest selective cutting at Pioneer Forest may be 

creating more uneven-aged stands which are less susceptible 

to synchronous mortality. Results of this study report “oak 

regeneration on Pioneer Forest is certainly comparable, and 

perhaps superior, to that of University Forest. Pioneer had 

significantly greater density of Q. alba seedlings; significantly 

greater Q. coccinea and Q. alba sapling densities. Again, 

suggesting “uneven-age management of oak-hickory forests in 

the Ozarks might provide sufficient regeneration to perpetuate 

oak species in subsequent stands.” 

Johnson, C.; DeLano, P. 1990. Missouri: off the beaten path. 

Chester, CT: Globe Pequot Press. 166 p.

Mentions the town of Dillard and specifically Dillard Mill State 

Historic Site.

Johnson, P.S. [n.d.]. Uneven-age management of oaks in the 

Ozark Highlands: is it sustainable? Unpublished report. On file 

with: Pioneer Forest, 2814 Highway 19 N., Salem, MO 65560.

Uses data exclusively from Pioneer Forest; discusses 

regeneration dynamics of oaks, the “accumulation” of 

reproduction over several decades; presents plot data from 

Pioneer Forest suggesting single tree selection method of 

harvest can work. Forest-wide size structure conforms to the 

reverse-J distribution curve; in addition to plot data a limited 

analysis of the age structure indicates the uneven-aged 

condition has been created and occurs at a relatively small 

spatial scale.

Johnson, P.S. 1992. Perspectives on the ecology and silviculture 

of oak-dominated forests in the central and eastern states. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-153. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment 

Station. 28 p.

Describes the historical and ecological relations between oaks, 

fire, and humans and reports the consequent silvicultural options 

and limitations in managing and sustaining oak-dominated 

forests. Includes a discussion on the history of clearcutting, 

beginning in the 1960’s, noting clearcutting on public lands 

(especially the national forests) has declined in favor of forest 
111

management less focused on commodity production and more 

focused on the total of forest values. The overview and history 

here is interesting. Johnson includes options to clearcutting 

and discusses the single-tree selection method. Pioneer Forest 

is mentioned though no specific data is presented. General 

discussion of the method notes that survival of understory oaks 

(regeneration) is substantially greater than for trees of the same 

size in an even-aged forest at the same overall stocking level.

Johnson, P.S. 2004. Thinking about oak forests as responsive 

ecosystems. In: Spetich, M.A., ed. Upland oak ecology 

symposium: history, current conditions, and sustainability. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 13-18.

Important review of forests as continually responsive to 

forces from within and outside. While presenting a four-stage 

development process for even-aged forests, Johnson discusses 

the development of uneven-aged characteristics resulting 

from stand maturation and gap formation and filling. Johnson 

also suggests that in the Ozark Highlands oaks are “usually 

not successionally displaced by other tree species and the 

relative permanence of oaks is reflected by their relatively high 

abundance in the smaller diameter classes, even in old-growth 

stands.” Under natural conditions the persistence of diameter 

distributions often approaches a reverse-J shape, in other words 

having a greater number of smaller diameters and increasingly 

fewer numbers of larger diameter trees. In pointing out that 

specific characteristics of such diameter distributions and their 

natural occurrence and silvicultural maintenance, depend on 

species composition and stand density and cites the work of 

Larsen, Loewenstein, and Johnson in 1999 where the basis 

for the silvicultural recommendations was the Pioneer Forest 

dataset, and the work of Loewenstein, Johnson, and Garrett in 

2000, which also examined the Pioneer Forest plot data during 

the thirty-year period 1962 through 1992 declaring the method 

of management here as strongly positive in maintaining a 

healthy and sustainable forest.

Johnson, P.S.; Shifley, S.R.; Rogers, R. 2002. The ecology and 

silviculture of oaks. New York: CABI Publishing. 503 p.

A thorough treatment of the genera, this is primarily a 

silvicultural approach to managing and sustaining oak forests. 

The treatment here extends across six regions within the 

United States where various oak species occur. Included are 

ecological aspects of oak-dominated ecosystems, regeneration 

ecology, site productivity, development of natural stands, 

self-thinning and stand density, even-aged and uneven-aged 

silvicultural methods, silvicultural methods for multi-resource 

management, and growth and yield. Of particular interest here 

is the authors’ discussion of uneven-aged silvicultural methods 

where they credit and reference Pioneer Forest data. Although 

certainly favoring group selection, and unnecessarily critical, 

the discussion of the principles and theory of the single-tree 

selection method are quite important, and notably the most 

extensive we have seen. 

Karel, J.A.; Elder, W.H. 1976. A natural area survey of the 

Southeast Missouri Regional Planning District—Final report 

to the Missouri Inter-Agency Council for Outdoor Recreation. 

Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, Cooperative Wildlife 

Research Unit. 151 p.

Includes descriptions for natural areas in Bollinger, Cape 

Girardeau, Iron, Madison, Perry, St. Francois, and Ste. Genevieve 

counties. The report describes Ball Mill Resurgence (pages 108-

109), Hickory Creek Canyon (pages 133-134), and Lower Rock 

Creek (pages 93-94).

Kirk, C. 1979. I think on it often. Missouri Conservationist. 40(7): 

20-23.

Musings on forest management and the natural world, 

incorporates observations from several decades of work on 

Pioneer Forest and Cal Stott’s Newsletter on Continuous Forest 

Inventory. This same article was reprinted in American Forests 

85(12): 34-35, 55-57.

Kramer, K.; Thom, R.; Iffrig, G. 1996. Directory of Missouri 

Natural Areas. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Natural Areas 

Committee. 156 p.

This is the updated version of the 1985 publication (see Thom 

and Iffrig, 1985).

Kurz, D. 1996. Scenic driving in the Ozarks including the 

Ouachita Mountains. Helena, MT: Falcon Publishing. 274 p.

Details the natural and cultural highlights along some of the 

most inviting roads in Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. The 

“Two Rivers” drive in Missouri, a 64-mile route between Salem 

and Blue Spring, includes a description of the virgin pine forest 

and the 2-mile long Pioneer Forest interpretive drive. 

Larsen, D.R. 1980. A growth and yield model for managed 

upland oak-shortleaf pine stands in Missouri. Columbia, MO: 

University of Missouri. 83 p. MS Thesis.

Study completed entirely on Pioneer Forest; discusses and uses 

CFI data, establishment plots, develops growth and yield model 

for oak-pine modified from published work of Sullivan and 

Clutter in Forest Science, 1972.

Larsen, D.R.; Metzger, M.A.; Johnson, P.S. 1997. Oak 

regeneration and overstory density in the Missouri Ozarks. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 27(6): 869-875.

Using data from Pioneer Forest research plots, the authors 

present models for reducing overstory density to increase 

the regeneration potential of oak forests. In general, oak 

reproduction increases as residual stand basal area decreases. 

Authors note that due to the nature of this relationship, the 

predictability of individual stands is low, however, these models 

describe average trends for the highly stochastic regeneration 

process.

Annotated Bibliography of Research and Information on Pioneer Forest
112 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Larsen, D.R.; Johnson, P.S. 1998. Linking the ecology of 

natural oak regeneration to silviculture. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 106 (1998): 1-7.

Authors provide a useful interpretation to the regeneration 

requirements of oaks and point to the need for ecologically 

sound silvicultural prescriptions. While oaks are often classed 

as mostly shade intolerant, Larsen and Johnson point out that 

oaks have successfully adapted to and survive during extended 

periods of shade within the forest. The habit of oaks to grow 

up from seedlings, survive for a few years, dieback, and then 

repeat this process for many years is well known. This ability 

of oak seedlings to persist declines with increasing stem sizes. 

From unpublished oak root data at the North Central Forest 

Experiment Station, belowground portions of seedling sprouts 

can live up to 50 years. This paper notes Lowenstein’s work 

(1996) on Pioneer Forest, identifying the success of selection 

harvesting of oaks in xeric forests resulting from minimal 

non-oak competition and the ability of moderately tolerant 

oak species such as white oak to reproduce and grow in the 

understory. This paper briefly discusses the shift in silviculture 

from the traditional expectation to control most ecological 

processes to the role of creation and maintenance of ecologically 

‘natural’ forests. They discuss the move of the Forest Service 

during the mid-1990’s to ecosystem management. Single-tree 

selection is discussed as one successful cutting method for the 

drier forests of the Missouri Ozarks but suggest that it may not 

be successful where it encourages other more shade-tolerant 

non-oak species.

Larsen, D.R.; Loewenstein, E.F.; Johnson, P.S. 1999. Sustaining 

recruitment of oak reproduction in uneven-aged stands in the 

Ozark Highlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-203. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station. 11 p.

This paper describes the relationship between overstory density 

and oak reproduction. Criteria are presented for selecting a 

residual stand structure and density appropriate to the singletree selection method in the Ozark Highlands and consistent 

with the regeneration ecology of oaks and thus sustaining 

a forest dominated by oaks. The basis for the silvicultural 

recommendations in this paper is the Pioneer Forest dataset.

LaVigne, E.M. 2002. Heterogeneity within and among 

selectively harvested forest stands in the Missouri mountains. 

St. Louis, MO: Saint Louis University. 94 p. MS Thesis.

A study of the change in forest structure and composition 

on Pioneer Forest using a space-for-time substitution. To 

accomplish this, the author established plots from within the 

forest representing harvest entries throughout the past twentyyear cutting period. Three stumps were identified at each site. 

Using stumps as plot centers, data was collected on percent 

canopy coverage, stem abundance, species abundance, and 

species diversity. Analysis of the data provided information 

on heterogeneity among the cuts. Canopy cover was the only 

significant difference measured across the landscape; ecological 

heterogeneity occurred at scales smaller than 0.0017 km2

. 

Heterogeneity produced from single-tree selection harvesting 

occurs mainly at smaller spatial scales within the forest 

understory.

A measure of the canopy cover and turnover ranged from 189 

to 228 years and provides further indication that disturbance 

within the forest is in fact minimized from use of the single-tree 

selection technique. Yet another indication of this is that the 

measure of species richness did not significantly change over 

time, in other words change from sites recently harvested to 

those measured immediately prior to harvest activity was not 

significant. LaVigne found there was no consistency as to which 

species would fill a particular gap that was created; her results 

indicate this is more a matter of chance events determined 

largely by the existence of previously established individuals. 

The interesting analogy established by SanDiego (2000) about 

opening windows within the forest is further explained here 

by LaVigne as the canopy gaps created by single-tree selection 

harvesting act as moving windows that shift in time and space, 

while varying the concentration of light availability over space 

and time.

Lewis, D. 1978. The Current River and tributaries (Montauk to 

Lower Big Creek). Eminence, MO: Ozark Custom Printing Co. 

47 p.

Author grew up along the Current River and these writings are 

an effort to preserve some of the area’s history and culture. 

Mentioned are a number of the hollows, springs, and caves on 

Pioneer Forest, often including derivations of particular place 

names. Included within the text are Razor Hollow, Medlock Cave, 

Bluff Schoolhouse, description of a float trip in 1908 by Governor 

Herberet S. Hadley and stop at Cave Spring, Kelley Hollow, Capps 

Hollow, and Big Creek Cave. Also included is an interesting 

historical sketch of the settlement of Big Creek Valley and briefly 

of Brushy Creek.

Lewis, N. 2005. Couple’s giving is rooted in their passion for the 

great outdoors. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. March 3: 7, 22.

Profiles Leo and Kay Drey’s conservation and philanthropic 

interests and activities over the years, with special reference 

to their gift of 146,000 acres of Pioneer Forest to the L-A-D 

Foundation, the sixth largest philanthropic gift in the nation in 

2004.

Loewenstein, E.F. 1996. An analysis of the size- and agestructure of a managed uneven-aged oak forest. Columbia, 

MO: University of Missouri. 167 p. Ph.D. Dissertation.

There are two aspects to this study. One is an investigation of 

age-structure and age/diameter relationships from a random 

sample of 600 oaks from a one-square mile area of Pioneer 

Forest. Sample data from ten one-acre plots from a one square 

mile area of the forest showed that seven of the ten plots were 

uneven-aged, two were two-aged, and one was even-aged.
113

This research also investigates the long-term trends in species 

composition, basal area, density, and quadratic mean diameter 

using data from the 370, 1/5-acre permanent plots. During 

the period from 1952 through 1992 the average basal area 

increased by 68 percent and average density by 89 percent. 

Ingrowth of trees into the 5-inch diameter class was sufficient to 

maintain or increase density for all principle species, even after 

accounting for harvested trees. No compositional shift toward 

shade-tolerant species was noted. In addition a chi-square test 

showed that the diameters from the plot data conformed to the 

forest-wide average at a scale of 0.6 acres.

Loewenstein, E.F.; Garrett, H.E.; Johnson, P.S. 1995. Changes 

in a Missouri Ozark oak-hickory forest during 40 years of 

uneven-aged management. Gottschalk, K.W.; Fosbroke, 

S.L.C., eds. In: Proceedings, 10th Central Hardwood Forest 

Conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-197. Radnor, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station: 159-164.

Examines changes in basal area, density, and average diameter 

from Pioneer Forest plot data from 1962 through 1992. 

Describes the forest, management strategy, and methods 

of data collection from the permanent plots. Basal area and 

density are increasing. Forest composition has not changed 

measurably during the data collection period; the seven 

species prominent in the forest 40 years ago still comprise the 

same relative proportion on the forest today. Quercus alba has 

increased its density three-fold and its basal area has more 

than doubled. Conclusions are that the management “appears 

to be maintaining a healthy, sustainable forest...ingrowth into 

the five-inch diameter class is occurring at a rate sufficient to 

maintain or increase density for all of the principal forest species 

even after accounting for harvested stems.”

Loewenstein, E.F.; Johnson, P.S.; Garrett, H.E. 2000. Age and 

diameter structure of a managed uneven-aged oak forest. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 30(7): 1060-1070.

Discusses age and diameter structure on one section of Pioneer 

Forest. Authors note advance oak reproduction in the Ozarks 

and cite the evidence that “this relatively shade-tolerant oak 

can survive beneath a forest canopy for up to 90 years.” Using 

ten study plots these authors data confirmed a reverse-J shaped 

diameter distribution, however, diameter measurement alone 

can be a result of variation in growth rates among similar aged 

trees or especially among different species expressing varying 

growth rates. When the data was analyzed by species alone, 

the study area population of red oak as well as the population 

of white oak each expressed uneven-aged distribution based 

on diameter. Analysis of actual age distributions showed the 

forest conforms to an uneven-aged state at a scale of 0.4-ha on 

70 percent of its area. Interestingly, this same analysis of actual 

age showed a range from 12 to 233 years and the authors 

suggested that a significant proportion of these trees were 

already established by 1954. Only 13 percent of the population 

of trees from this study have been established since 1954.

A fundamental conclusion is that just as a reverse-J shaped 

diameter distribution does not confirm an uneven-aged state, 

a bell-shaped age distribution does not preclude its existence. 

Therefore, when managing forests using uneven-aged 

silvicultural systems, diameter structure should be the primary 

factor to consider.

Loewenstein, E.F.; Guldin, J.M. 2004. Conversion of 

successionally stable even-aged oak stands to an unevenaged structure. Spetich, M.A., ed. In: Upland oak ecology 

symposium: History, current conditions, and sustainability. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 

264-268.

Authors present four conversion prescriptions targeting mostly 

fully-stocked even-aged stands of varying ages into an unevenaged forest structure. They note the experience of Pioneer Forest 

in creating well-structured uneven-aged upland oak stands from 

poorly stocked, cutover stands through judicious tending of 

residual growing stock. Furthermore, authors note this pattern 

has also been common for southern pine. 

Lootens, J.R.; Larsen, D.R.; Loewenstein, E.F. 1999. A matrix 

transition model for an uneven-aged, oak-hickory forest in 

the Missouri Ozark Highlands. A paper presented to the 1999 

Missouri Natural Resources Conference. Haywood, J.D., ed. 

In: Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial Southern Silvicultural 

Research Conference. Asheville, NC: U.S. Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 536-538.

Authors present a matrix growth model for an uneven-aged, 

oak-hickory forest in the Ozark Highlands of Missouri. The 

model was developed to predict ingrowth, growth of surviving 

trees and mortality by diameter class for a 5-year period. Tree 

removal from management is accounted for. The model is 

based on Pioneer Forest data from 400 0.2-acre permanent 

plots, measured over eight, 5-year periods from 1957 to 1992. 

Variables include basal area, site index, and species group. 

Models were evaluated using 100 reserved plots and comparing 

predicted and actual diameter-distributions over 5-, 15-, and 

35-year periods.

Love, K. 2003. Building natural wealth. Missouri Conservationist. 

64(11): 8-11.

A personal look at Leo’s many accomplishments over the years, 

including recollections about people he acquired land from, 

his forest managers, particularly about building and managing 

Pioneer Forest for more than 50 years, acquiring and preserving 

natural areas, and working on various conservation issues (for 

example, founding the Open Space Council, Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways, founding the Coalition for the Environment, 

and acquiring Greer Spring). 

Annotated Bibliography of Research and Information on Pioneer Forest
114 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Lynch, D.W. 1964. Report of the Committee on Natural Areas. 

Journal of Forestry. 1964 (December): 916-918.

Report on Pioneer Natural Area as one of three added during 

the year. Reference to the establishment in 1955 of the 

Current River Natural Area. Both “are examples of outstanding 

contributions by a private timber landowner in which he 

relinquishes the management of the areas to a board of trustees 

under the protection of legal indenture.” Measurements of 

eastern red cedar at approximately 30 percent of the basal area 

in age classes ranging from 20 to 80 years old. Individual red 

cedar trees were measured at 18 inches d.b.h.

Marling, K.A. 1985. Tom Benton and his drawings—a 

biographical essay and a collection of his sketches, studies, 

and mural cartoons. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri 

Press. 224 p.

See page 8 of this book for the sketch of Lyman Field, friend 

of Thomas Hart Benton, on a river float on the Buffalo River in 

Arkansas. This sketch was later incorporated into the painting 

of Cave Spring that Benton completed in 1963 (see also Baigell 

1974).

McKee, J. 1998. Milling around. Missouri Conservationist. 

(January 1998): 4-9.

This is a story about Russ Noah, retired forester from Pioneer 

Forest. During the 34-year portion of his career in the Missouri 

Ozarks Noah acquired an extensive knowledge of old forestry 

equipment. Russ began working with Pioneer Forest in 1951. 

Here is an inside look at the collecting and restoring of antique 

logging equipment. The article mentions the 1800’s portable 

railroad tie mill he restored and pictured is the restored 1906 

Case steam engine (see also Santhuff 1998).

McPherson, A. 1997. One hundred nature walks in the Missouri 

Ozarks. Vienna, IL: Cache River Press. 327 p.

The author includes trails at Dillard Mill State Historic Site and 

Grand Gulf State Park. Devils Well is written up and includes 

reference to our planned 2-mile trail to Cave Spring. The Blair 

Creek Section of the Ozark Trail is also reviewed by McPherson 

with notes on the mileage, maps, trailheads, and descriptions.

Melick, R.A. l989. Uneven-aged management opportunities 

in upland oak-hickory stands in the Missouri Ozarks, with 

silvicultural prescriptions for three stands near the Mill Creek 

Recreation Area. Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla Ranger 

District. A paper presented to the U.S. Forest Service Region 

9, to meet one of the requirements for the Program for 

Advanced Silvicultural Studies and Silvicultural Certification. 

103 pages with literature cited and appendices.

This paper presents some of the earliest work in the Mark Twain 

National Forest’ consideration of uneven-aged management. 

References Pioneer Forest work and specific discussions in June 

of 1987. Mention of Pioneer Forest, see pages 52, 59, and 66 for 

general advantages of uneven-age management, see Table 11 

on page 68, also page 54.

Meyer, A.B. 1949. Pioneer Forest. Missouri Conservationist. 

August: 1-3, 16.

Interesting review of “Pioneer Forest of National Distillers 

Products Corporation.” Summarizes early history prior to National 

Distiller’s ownership when Current River Land Company owned 

part of the property and when ancient white oaks and shortleaf 

pine were common; discusses both companies conservative 

management practices. Mentions Ed Woods and Charlie Kirk and 

their forest inventory and leaving seed trees for shortleaf pine.

Millman, E. [n.d.]. A history of Deloss Lovine Millman and 

Millman Lumber Company. Unpublished printed manuscript. 

On file with: Pioneer Forest, Highway 19 N., Salem, MO 95560.

This is an interesting historical overview of a company working 

on the lands which would become Pioneer Forest during the 

10 to 20 year period before Leo’s purchase of these lands from 

National Distillers. This work was compiled by Ellen Millman 

with contributions by family members and others associated 

with Millman Lumber Company and Great Western Lumber 

Company. This work explores the family’s long history of 

operating sawmills in southern Missouri and northern Arkansas. 

In 1937 Millman Lumber Company purchased all of the yellow 

pine timber (from what was then Pioneer Cooperage Company, 

later purchased by National Distillers and then sold to Leo) 

estimated at 60,000,000 board feet and requiring 9 separate 

sawmill locations and 11 years to cut. In 1935 to 1937 they 

established a sawmill on Blair Creek (perhaps in Spring Hollow 

near Spout Spring). In 1938 they located a sawmill at Himont 

and then on Big Creek. The Big Creek mill was probably located 

near the creek and just north of the current Pioneer Forest 

property and included a steam-powered sawmill, dry kilns, 

planing mill, several houses, bunkhouse, and store. In 1939 

the author notes “final cut of virgin pine forest in the State of 

Missouri.” Author notes that D. L. Millman sold the 200-foot 

wide strip of virgin pine to the state, however, our records show 

Pioneer Cooperage sold the land to the State, Millman may have 

agreed to sell their rights to the yellow pine timber here at the 

same time.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 1993. Management 

plan for the black bear in Missouri. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri 

Department of Conservation. 50 p.

L-A-D Foundation listed, among others, for forest management 

for black bears and landscape level conservation needs. See 

page 11.
115

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Challenge of 

the 90’s—Our threatened state parks; park threat summaries. 

Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 

155 p.

Park-by-park overview for eight broad threat categories: air 

pollution, aesthetic degradation, physical removal or loss of 

resources, exotic encroachment, visitor physical impacts, water 

quality changes, park operations, and ecosystem degradation. 

L-A-D Foundation properties, Grand Gulf State Park and Dillard 

Mill State Historic Site, are reviewed.

Mohlenbrock, R.H. 1983. Botanical inventory of the Ball Mill 

Resurgence Natural Area. Unpublished manuscript submitted 

to the L-A-D Foundation, November 1, 1983. 28 p. On file with: 

Pioneer Forest, Highway 19 N., Salem, MO 65560.

Brief overview of the area with a description of dominant 

vegetational communities (upland woods, floodplain forest, old 

field, and disturbed areas). Included is a complete list of taxa 

observed from the site during the late spring, summer, and 

autumn of 1983, totaling 339 ferns and flowering plants. No 

specimens were collected. 

Mohlenbrock, R.H. 1984. Biological inventory of the Clifty Creek 

Natural Bridge Natural Area. Unpublished report submitted 

to the L-A-D Foundation, June 20, 1984. 43 p. On file with: 

Pioneer Forest, Highway 19 N., Salem, MO 65560.

Overview of the area including description of the dominant 

vegetational communities (upland woods, mesic woods, stream 

and streambank, glade, bluff faces, and disturbed). The study 

was conducted during late summer and autumn of 1983 and 

early and late spring of 1984. Included is a listing of 458 taxa 

of ferns and flowering plants recorded from the site. Collections 

were made during the 1984 visits. 

Mohlenbrock, R.H. 1985. First interim report on botanical 

inventory of Hickory Canyons Natural Area. Report prepared 

for L-A-D Foundation by Biotic Consultants, Inc. June 20, 1985. 

7 p. On file with: Pioneer Forest, Highway 19 N., Salem, MO 

65560.

Details plant communities listing dominant species; estimates as 

many as 700 species of ferns and flowering plants.

Nelson, P. 1985. The terrestrial natural communities of Missouri. 

Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Natural Areas Committee. 197 p.

Specific mention of Dripping Springs (Texas County) as a type 

example of moist limestone/dolomite cliff; Rocky Hollow 

as type example for dry sandstone cliff; Grand Gulf as type 

example for influent cave. Each of these areas is owned by the 

L-A-D Foundation. 

Nelson, P.W. 2005. The terrestrial natural communities of 

Missouri. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Natural Areas Committee. 

550 p.

Nelson’s 1985 work was revised in 1987 and this latest revision 

has been greatly expanded. In a table showing Missouri 

Natural Areas ownership (table 6, page 71) there are 10 L-A-D 

Foundation natural areas totaling 1,637 acres. Several of the 

Foundation’s natural areas are noted as type examples. In the 

terrestrial natural communities discussion of forests, a photo of 

Current River Natural Area shows at least four large white oak 

trees, each exceeding 20 inches in diameter. Hickory Canyons 

Natural Area is referenced as a representative example of both 

dry-mesic and mesic sandstone forest, and dry sandstone cliff; 

Rocky Hollow Natural Area is referenced as a representative 

example of both moist and dry sandstone cliff; Clifty Creek 

Natural Area is referenced as a representative example of gravel 

wash.

Nevins, R.B. 1953. Report of Missouri Natural Area Survey. 

Report to the Nature Conservancy. Columbia, MO: University of 

Missouri, Department of Horticulture. 12 p.

Nevins, a graduate student at the University of Missouri, took a 

list of 121 areas in Missouri prepared earlier by J.A. Steyermark, 

then during July and August of 1953 reviewed their potential 

for nature preserves. This listing included 57 sites, which 

were visited and assessed. This listing references the National 

Distilleries virgin hardwood stand, noting that the exact location 

for a preserve had not been determined. Nevins indicated its 

size was expected to be about 15-20 acres, surrounded by an 

appreciable buffer, and that some of the stands on this land are 

pure white oak, averaging 200 years of age. Nevins last entry 

for the National Distilleries site is that the contacts are Ed Woods 

and Charlie Kirk, both very interested in conservation.

This listing includes Bowles Pond and Vinson Pond, both on 

Pioneer land, and Lily Pond, which has been acquired by the 

Nature Conservancy and is surrounded by Pioneer land.

This list is annotated with remarks and landowner names. 

This copy on file with Pioneer Forest was obtained from the 

collection of Steyermark’s papers at the Missouri Botanical 

Garden, St. Louis, MO and has a handwritten note at the top, 

“Mr. Nevins Report”. At least two other versions of the list 

were produced and distributed, each either containing less 

information or less specific information. One dated January 1954 

is noted as an abridged report of Mr. Nevins findings and is titled 

Missouri Natural Area Survey and dated January 1954. Another 

abbreviated listing bears the title ‘Missouri Areas in Need of 

Protection’.

Nigh, T.A. 1984. An ecological assessment of sugar maple in 

the upland oak-hickory forests of Missouri. Columbia, MO: 

University of Missouri. 191 p. MS Thesis.

Study includes three sites: Current River Natural Area (L-A-D 

Foundation), Sugar Tree Hollow, and West Fork of Black River 

(Pioneer Forest).

Annotated Bibliography of Research and Information on Pioneer Forest
116 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Nigh, T.A. 1988. Final report on the Missouri natural features 

inventory: Carter, Oregon, Ripley, and Shannon counties. 

U.S. Forest Service, Rolla, MO and Missouri Department of 

Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 286 p.

Thompson Creek, Leatherwood Creek, Bay Creek, Cave Spring, 

others listed by county; properties of both Pioneer Forest and 

the L-A-D Foundation.

Nigh, T.A.; Pallardy, S.G.; Garrett, H.E. 1985. Sugar mapleenvironment relationships in the river hills and central Ozark 

Mountains of Missouri. American Midland Naturalist. 114: 

235-251.

Study includes research sites on Pioneer Forest. Conclusions 

are that sugar maple is reproducing more rapidly than oak 

throughout the western portion of the eastern deciduous forest, 

even forests with a predominant oak canopy. Authors largely 

attribute this to reduced site disturbance and suggest that lack 

of oak regeneration on all but the driest sites will result in a 

profound shift in species composition within future forests of 

this region. Sites sampled include western, central, and southern 

Missouri.

Opton-Himmel, J. 2001. Black bear survey on Pioneer forest, 

Shannon County, Missouri. Unpublished report. 19 p. On file 

with: Pioneer Forest, Highway 19 N., Salem, MO 65560. 

Summary report of a bait station survey modeled after Missouri 

Department of Conservation (MDC) surveys statewide. In 1992 

the MDC statewide effort consisted of 1,062 stations where 13 

confirmed black bear visits. Six of these 13 were from Pioneer 

Forest. However, for the past 3 years (1999 to 2001) no black 

bear visits have been reported from bait stations on Pioneer 

Forest. This study by Opton-Himmel used the same methodology 

to more intensively sample a roughly 80 square mile area of 

Pioneer Forest. The results confirmed the presence of black bear 

on the forest. Six percent (5) of the established stations (80+) 

from this work received visits and all of these were within a 4 

square mile area.

Orr, L.S. 1990. The vascular flora of Grand Gulf State Park, 

Oregon County, Missouri. Springfield, MO: Southwest Missouri 

State University. 37 p. MS Thesis.

A floristics survey of the park’s 160 acres, conducted from July 

1987 through July 1990. The collections numbered 346 species 

from three plant communities. Voucher specimens are deposited 

in the Ozarks Regional Herbarium at Southwest Missouri State 

University.

Orzell, S.L. 1983. Natural area inventory and floristics analysis of 

fens in selected southeastern Missouri counties. Carbondale, 

MO: Southern Illinois University. 202 p. MS Thesis.

General overview of Missouri Ozark fen hydrology and especially 

floristics as well as community structure; contains information 

from specific localities on Pioneer Forest, although these are 

hard to pinpoint from looking at the thesis alone. From Shannon 

County site #40 is either Fishtrap Hollow Fen or Marshy Spring 

Hollow Fen, others from maps pages 58-73.

Owen, L.A. 1898. Cave regions of the Ozarks and Black Hills. 

Cincinnati, OH: The Editor Publishing Company. 228 p.

In the first chapter Owen compares the southern half of Missouri 

with the Black Hills of South Dakota as “delightful regions for 

the study of caves.” She quotes geologists of her day in relating 

the complexities of cave formation and the diversity of their 

decoration. Owen also quotes Broadhead’s report in Broadhead, 

Meek, and Shumard (1873) regarding “natural bridges worthy of 

special notice” and specifically Clifty Creek Natural Bridge west 

of the Gasconade. She quotes Broadhead’s entire description of 

the bridge (see entry for Broadhead (1873) in this bibliography). 

Chapter 7 of Owen is about Grand Gulf. It is interesting, knowing 

that today the cave entrance is blocked by debris, that Owen 

reports walking perhaps 600 feet into the entrance before 

reaching “the end of dry land at an elbow of a silently flowing 

river”. Owen reports using a boat to travel a channel no more 

than 6 feet wide and for some distance. Owen mentions visiting 

Mammoth Spring in Arkansas just 9 miles to the south.

Owen, L.A. 1968. Cave regions of the Ozarks. Missouri 

Speleology. 10(2): 22-86.

Reprint of part of the 1898 work pertaining to Missouri and 

including an introduction by J.D. Vineyard nicely describing the 

life and work of Owen.

Owen Gallery. 2000. Thomas Hart Benton, exhibition of 

paintings, October 14 – December 15, 2000. Notes and research 

by Andrew Austin Thompson. Owen Gallery. 104 p.

This nicely illustrated publication includes a written overview 

of Benton’s career as an artist, including discussion of his 

earliest modern art period, the years during which he produced 

mural paintings, and the influences during his later work. 

There is also a Catalogue of the Exhibition, which appeared at 

the Owen Gallery in New York City in 2002, with 39 images 

of the work of Thomas Hart Benton. For each image there is 

documentary information including the title of the work, the 

year completed, size, materials used in creating each work, 

its provenance (source), and exhibition history. Benton’s Cave 

Spring, completed in 1963, was part of this exhibition and is 

presented twice in this work, on page 28 (a close-up from the 

center of the painting) and pages 90-91. Although Benton 

frequented the Ozarks and floated both the Current River in 

Missouri and the Buffalo River in Arkansas, the actual location of 

the subject of this painting is misidentified here as being along 

the Buffalo River. Certain elements in the painting itself offer 

unmistakable evidence of the location of Cave Spring along the 

Current River in Missouri, one of the properties owned by the 

L-A-D Foundation. 
117

Pallardy, S.G.; Nigh, T.A.; Garrett, H.E. 1991. Sugar maple 

invasion in oak forests of Missouri. In: Burger, G.V.; Ebinger, 

J.E.; Wilhelm, G.S., eds. Proceedings of the Oak Woods 

Management Workshop. Charleston, IL: Eastern Illinois 

University: 21-30.

Study sites include Pioneer Forest for the Ozark portion of the 

study, map included.

Panno, S.V.; Weibel, C.P.; Wicks, C.M.; Vandike, J.E. 1999. 

Geology, hydrology, and water quality of the karst regions 

of southwestern Illinois and southeastern Missouri. ISGS 

Guidebook 27. Champaign, IL: Illinois State Geological Survey.

Guidebook for a geological fieldtrip as part of the 33rd Annual 

Meeting of the North-Central Section of the Geological Society 

of America. Includes description of a stop at Ball Mill Resurgence 

in Perry County and photo (pages 34-35). Also notes that the 

cobbles lining the resurgence scoured the dolomite bluff in a 

manner similar to the bowl-shaped features of Illinois Caverns.

Powell, R.L. 1970. A guide to the selection of limestone caverns 

and springs in the United States as Natural Landmarks. 

Bloomington, IN: Indiana Geological Survey.

Brief mention of the collapse cavern structure of Grand Gulf and 

its association with Mammoth Spring, AR.

Pryor, R.R. 1980. Natural areas in Missouri—Report of the 

Missouri Natural Area Survey. L-A-D Foundation, St. Louis, MO. 

381 p. On file with: Pioneer Forest, Highway 19 N., Salem, MO 

95560.

Extensive report in two volumes covering 67 counties in Missouri 

listing noteworthy natural communities and geologic areas. 

Numerous sites are described. Includes illustrations of Grand Gulf 

and Clifty Creek and each of these areas is also described in the 

report.

Reiter, S.R. 1991. Woody invasion onto glades of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways, Missouri. Ames, IA: Iowa State 

University. 80 p. MS Thesis.

Includes Cave Spring Dolomite Glade where NPS/Pioneer Forest 

boundaries join. Study also includes some work on Jerktail 

Mountain, a rhyolite glade and Thompson Creek Dolomite Glade. 

Overall study results show loss of open area at 32.4 percent for 

Gasconade dolomite areas and 22.9 percent from rhyolite areas. 

Measurements were taken from aerial photographs from 1955, 

1966, and 1984.

Rennicke, J. 1995. Wild at heart. Backpacker. April 1995: 48-56.

Featured trails from the Heartland of the Midwest; included 

among the 10 listings is the Ozark Trail, the description which 

highlights the Blair Creek section which “offers solitude, 

ridgewalking, Blair Creek’s scenic deep valley, and great views 

of the Current River.”

Rossiter, P. 1992. A living history of the Ozarks. Gretna, LA: 

Pelican Publishing Company. 487 p.

Discussion of Dillard Mill, pages 439-442, with specific mention 

of L-A-D Foundation, history of ownership and operation, with 

notes on the cultural importance of the mill.

Rothwell, T.W. 1993. Missouri pine. Missouri Conservationist. 

54(6): 22-25.

Overview article, includes introductory mention of the “onemile long virgin pine strip” indicative of “a common site 

before the turn of the century (photograph of the Virgin Pine 

accompanies the article). Discusses companies operating in 

the Ozarks around the turn of the century including Grandin 

Timber Company and the Missouri Lumber and Mining Company. 

Wildlife benefits are discussed. Young dense stands of pine are 

favored by Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks; older pine trees 

provide cavity nesting for the red-cockaded woodpecker.

Rucker, B.H. 1993. With a little help from our friends. Missouri 

Resource Review. 10(1): 8-13.

This article presents an overview of philanthropic assistance 

to the Missouri State Park System, from organizations and 

businesses to individuals from across the state. Includes mention 

of L-A-D Foundation contributions with respect to Dillard Mill 

State Historic Site and Grand Gulf State Park; author notes that 

“Perhaps at opposite ends of the cultural-natural dichotomy, 

each is a masterpiece of its own genre.”

Ryan, J.; Smith, T.E. 1991. Final report on the Missouri natural 

features inventory of Howell, Texas, and Wright counties. 

Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO and 

U.S. Forest Service, Rolla, MO. 149 p.

Records on Horseshoe Bend, Piney River Narrows, and Dripping 

Springs natural areas, each of these areas is owned by the L-A-D 

Foundation.

San Diego, N.M. 2001. Management regime, scale, and the 

diversity of leaflitter arthropod communities of an Ozark 

forest. St. Louis, MO: Saint Louis University. 56 p. MS Thesis.

Analysis of how various forest management practices have 

affected the community composition of leaflitter invertebrates 

over ecological time. This study characterized communities at 

each site, determined how changes in scale affect community 

parameters, and compared scaling effects, both within and 

among three management treatments. The three treatments 

were an area not subject to harvest (Current River Natural 

Area), an area subject to single-tree selection harvest (Pioneer 

Forest), and an area cleared of trees (Reiss Biological Station). 

The arthropod data suggests that communities are significantly 

impacted by the type of forest management practiced. Abiotic 

variables (percent canopy coverage, temperature, humidity) 

showed significant spatial patterns at the 5 x 5 meter grid level. 

Annotated Bibliography of Research and Information on Pioneer Forest
118 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

As for abiotic variables the scale in variance for the clearcut 

is one to two orders of magnitude greater than the same 

measures on Pioneer Forest or at Current River Natural Area.

Author uses an interesting window analogy (see pages 47) 

where the forest canopy is the window. Harvesting a significant 

number of trees (clearcut) is akin to opening the window wide. 

The result is that for the clearcut, a suite of disturbance effects 

sets in leaving a footprint which is still being felt (25 years after 

the disturbance), particularly in measures of increased relative 

humidity.

Results of this study indicate that single-tree selection harvests 

on Pioneer Forest generate a spatial gradient throughout the 

landscape creating conditions most suitable for diversity to be 

maximized.

Santhuff, C. 1998. Noah’s mill. Missouri Conservationist. January 

1998: 9.

A look at the restoration and operation of Noah’s early 1800’s 

up-and-down sawmill. (see also McKee 1998).

Sarvis, W. 2000. Old eminent domain and new scenic 

easements: land acquisition for the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. Western Legal History. 13(1): 1-37.

Interesting historical analysis of the eminent domain concept 

and its use during creation of the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways (ONSR). Sarvis points out that until the early 1960s, 

NPS acquisition practices had rarely required eminent domain 

(the 1961 establishment of Cape Cod National Seashore set an 

important precedent in this regard). Introduction to this essay 

portrays local sentiment squarely against establishment of 

the ONSR, thought of as taking of property rights. Much of the 

information in this area originates from papers of Leo A. Drey, 

collection no. 531, Western Historical Manuscript Collection, 

University of Missouri, St. Louis, MO.

There is also background on scenic easements beginning in 

California in the 1930s. The concept of using scenic easements 

for establishing the ONSR was introduced during the early 

1960s, as one supporter put it to preserve “a living landscape” 

of bucolic beauty and as an alternative to fee simple title 

acquisition and certainly acquisition by eminent domain. With 

the power of eminent domain, land was acquired for the ONSR. 

Sarvis documents the complications and oftentimes unfairness 

in appraising property values and truthfully approaching the 

large number of landowners here with the acquisition and 

condemnation process.

Sarvis concludes by noting that further use of the scenic 

easement option was “the most successful broad-based 

phenomenon to arise out of ONSR land acquisition.” Further 

stating “this innovative concept was admirable and remarkable 

for its adoption at such a relatively experimental stage...”. 

It was the sort of bitter feelings generated by the ONSR 

condemnation experience that contributed to congressional 

reform in Public Law 91-646 (Uniform Relocation Assistance 

and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act) in 1971. The essay 

suggests that occurrences of the sort experienced here helped 

inspire the libertarian “property rights movement” of the 1980s 

and 1990s.

Sarvis, W. 2002. A difficult legacy: Creation of the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways. The Public Historian. 24(1): 31-52.

An interesting and well-documented look at how the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways was first proposed. Sarvis discusses at 

length the influence and feeling of the proposals’ supporters as 

well as its opponents. He traces the discussion of the idea from 

its infancy, through its successful passage as federal law (Public 

Law 88-492). Sarvis documents his discussion with references to 

Leo’s papers that are part of the Western Historical Manuscripts 

Collection, University of Missouri-St. Louis. Other individuals 

mentioned here are then acting NPS Director Hillory A. Tolson, 

Leonard Hall, Shannondale Mission Reverend Vincent Bucher, 

Sigurd F. Olson of Wilderness Society and National Parks and 

Conservation Association fame, and Richard Pogue then with the 

Natural Areas Council and later with The Nature Conservancy. 

Leo’s role during this period and his opposition to the plan are a 

significant part of this discussion.

Sarvis mentions the September 1961 float trip down the Current 

River where Leonard Hall accompanied Secretary of the Interior 

Stewart Udall and NPS Director George Hartzog. Concluding 

the discussion are references to the many controversies which 

have arisen over the years, from the very beginning with local 

resistance to land acquisition (see Sarvis 2000) to canoe traffic, 

horsepower limits on motorboats, trapping, and most recently 

feral horses. An interesting contrast is offered recognizing the 

intrusion of the NPS into Ozark culture and society to their 

lasting service in documenting and preserving area history, 

ethnology, and folkways.

Schaper, J.; Wicks, C. 2004. Aqueous geochemical study of a 

calcite-depositing Ozark creek: Tufa Creek, Shannon County, 

Missouri. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. Speleology. 

42(3/4): 1-38. Senior Thesis Study.

With a calcareous fen providing year-round water, Tufa Creek 

becomes a tufa depositing cold-water stream. Tufa is a thin, soft, 

spongy, cellular or porous, semi-friable incrustation around or 

along a stream or spring. Analysis of six sample sites provided 

for such measurements as water temperature, chemistry, 

alkalinity, hardness, etc. from this small, spring-fed tributary 

to Current River. Carbon-dioxide off-gassing from agitation of 

stream water as it falls 25 m in elevation over a distance of 

583 m is considered the mechanism for calcite deposition. By 

comparing nearby Ebb and Flow Spring and Thompson Creek, 

these authors suggest that sufficient stream mineralization and 

optimal stream geometry are necessary for freshwater calcite 

deposition.
119

Schnack, D. 1994. The Ozark Trail. Missouri Resource Review. 

11(1): 28-31.

General write-up on the Ozark Trail. This article notes Pioneer 

Forest as members of the Ozark Trail Council; it also includes a 

descriptive section about the trail and mentions Blair Creek and 

Harper Spring.

Scott Consulting Engineers. 1988. Grand Gulf Cave, Interim 

Report, October 21, 1988. Project No. 10-799-9-0005. 10 p. 

+ exhibits. Unpublished report. On file with: Scott Consulting 

Engineers, Springfield, MO 65806.

Discusses work and feasibility of opening the cave entrance at 

Grand Gulf State Park.

Scott Consulting Engineers. 1989. Grand Gulf Cave-Interim 

report, October 21, 1989. Project No. 10-799-9-0005. 10 p. 

+ exhibits. Unpublished report. On file with: Scott Consulting 

Engineers, Springfield, MO 65806. 

Discusses work and feasibility of opening the cave entrance at 

Grand Gulf State Park.

Scott Consulting Engineers. 1991. Grand Gulf State Park, Final 

Report-Cave exploration phase, February, 1991. Project No. 10-

799-9-0005. 12 p. + exhibits. Unpublished report. On file with: 

Scott Consulting Engineers, Springfield, MO 65806. 

Companion to this report is a video-taped report prepared by 

team members from the High Pressure Water Jet Laboratory, 

University of Missouri, Rolla, MO.

Shanklin, J.F. 1955. Current River Natural Area. Journal of 

Forestry. 53(7): 532-536 (July 1955).

In the April 1952 issue of the Journal of Forestry the Society 

of American Foresters’ Committee on Natural Areas issued 

a request for locations of virgin type associations. This note, 

published 3 years later, highlights negotiations begun with 

National Distillers Products Corporation of New York City 

and completed between the SAF and the new owner, Leo 

Drey. Area established in March 1955 to fill the need of all 

practicing foresters for a comprehensive knowledge of natural 

developments within virgin forest associations. The indenture is 

also printed as it was legally established.

By the agreement Leo granted to himself and John F. Shanklin 

(Chairman, Committee on Natural Areas) as Trustees for the 

administration of the natural area by “remise, release, and quitclaim” the area of approximately 10 acres.

Shanklin, J.F. 1960. Society of American Foresters Natural Areas. 

Journal of Forestry. 58(11): 905-917.

The third printing of the Society’s approved natural areas. The 

first list was printed in the journal in 1949, another in 1952. One 

hundred and twenty-eight natural areas in 34 states and Puerto 

Rico are listed here; the Current River Natural Area is the only 

Missouri site.

Steyermark, J.A. 1963. Flora of Missouri. Ames, IA: Iowa State 

University Press. 1,728 p.

Notes occurrence of Decodon verticillatus at Lily Pond and 

Bowles Pond (page 1090). Also mentions Lily Pond as the 

only known location for Potamogeton epihydrus var. nuttallii 

“growing close to another sinkhole pond where Decodon 

verticillatus, also an isolated relict in Missouri, occurs” (page 54). 

On page 1,172 Steyermark notes Hottonia inflata from Vinson 

pond, remarkably isolated from where it is more common in 

swamps and low ground. Bowles Pond, Lily Pond, and Vinson 

Pond are all on Pioneer Forest land (Lily Pond is a Missouri 

Natural Area). 

Still, M. 1983. Profile - Leo Drey: land magnate of the Ozarks. 

Missouri Resource Review. 2(1): 24-26.

Highlights the establishment of Pioneer Forest, style of land 

management, and formation of the L-A-D Foundation.

Stroh, E.D.; Struckhoff, M.A. 2002. Exotic species invasion 

and structural damage along horse trails in sensitive natural 

areas at Ozark National Scenic Riverways. 36 p. Unpublished 

research report. On file with: USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, Missouri Field Station, University of Missouri, 

Columbia, MO 65211. 

Two-year study with the first year sampling six vegetation 

communities in order to determine which had the greatest 

frequency of exotic species associated with horse trails. Of 

upland waterways, glades, south/southwest slopes, north/

northeast slopes, ridges/shoulder slopes, and river bottoms, the 

results reported here show that exotic species associated with 

horse traffic were more commonly recorded from river bottoms, 

upland waterways, and glades. Nine study sites were chosen 

and a total of 66 plots were sampled. A number of sample plots 

were located on Pioneer Forest lands including those around 

Eminence and the Sinks (WC01-02, WC01-03); Round Spring 

(RS01-05, RS01-06, RS01-03, RS01-04, RS01-07, RS01-01, and 

RS01-02); Jerktail Landing (JT01-17, JT01-18, JT01-19, JT01-20, 

JT01-21, and JT01-22), and Two Rivers (TR01-01 and TR01-03). 

The management recommendations include either eradicate 

or control the most troublesome exotic species (fescue, sweet 

clovers, garlic mustard, and Chinese yam) in the highest quality 

natural areas; monitor along horse trails for new infestations; 

monitor for leafy spurge, as yet unknown to the area; and utilize 

horse riders to help scout and monitor new occurrences. 

Suggs, G.G. 1990. Water mills of the Missouri Ozarks. Norman, 

OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 204 p.

Discussion and illustrations (2) of Dillard Mill, pages 69-71.

Sutton, M.; House, R.S. 2003. Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

Bat Survey, Winter 2002-2003. 40 p. Unpublished Report. On 

file with: Cave Research Foundation, Missouri.

Annotated Bibliography of Research and Information on Pioneer Forest
120 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

Report on the field inventory of 44 caves, including Medlock 

Cave on Foundation easement property and Wind Cave on 

Pioneer Forest. At one time reports of the gray bat population 

at Medlock had been estimated at 36,000, down as of this 

inventory to 5,000-9,000. With human visitation heavy, 

obvious trails developing, and controlling access difficult, the 

recommendation is that Medlock Cave be gated. Wind Cave had 

been noted as a minor summer site for gray bats, however, this 

inventory recognized increased guano accumulation leading 

to estimates of at least 26,500 bats and possibly double that 

depending on the occupation patterns of the bats. In either case 

it appears this is one of the largest summer gray bat colonies in 

the lower Ozarks. Gating the entrance is not recommended here, 

although blocking the road and obliterating the trace leading 

motorized vehicles to the site are recommended. 

Taylor, R.L. 1977. Cookstove cave (SHN 018). Missouri 

Speleology. 17(1-2): 32-35.

Description of Cookstove Cave in Shannon County, map, and 

discussion of geology and speleogenesis. From the article “there 

are 3,400 feet of mapped passage in the cave, with most of that 

passage having large dimensions...the passage is nearly 100 

feet wide.” Cookstove Cave is also known as Holmes, Stovepipe, 

Squaredance, and Big Dixon Cave. The conjecture is that 

Cookstove was once a major spring which flowed away from the 

cave’s present entrance, generally to the northwest into Blair 

Creek.

Thom, R.H.; Iffrig, G.F. 1985. Directory of Missouri natural areas. 

Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Natural Areas Committee. 115 p.

Specific listing and description of Clifty Creek, Rocky Hollow, Ball 

Mill Resurgence, Hickory Canyons, Current River, Pioneer, Piney 

River Narrows, Dripping Springs, and Horseshoe Bend natural 

areas.

Trammel, C.E. 1996. Pioneer Forest: a kinder, gentler way. 

International Journal of Ecoforestry. 12(2): 235-237.

Overview of history of the Ozarks and establishment of Pioneer 

Forest, the management system, and why uneven-aged harvest 

works.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, Pineknot woodland 

restoration. Carter County, MO: Doniphan/Eleven Point Ranger 

District, Mark Twain National Forest. 277 p. + appendices.

Proposal to develop a shortleaf pine woodland community 

similar to those known to exist in Missouri during the 1800’s 

and known to exist at this particular site. Several stages of 

restoration are proposed. The area includes 10,831 acres of the 

Mark Twain National Forest. Our comments on this document 

are strongly supportive; of particular interest here is that lands 

of Pioneer Forest occur within the project area, to the far eastern 

edge of the site. In addition to being supportive we have 

suggested that our lands here be included with our role being a 

cooperating partner.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1976. A recreation plan for 

Pioneer Forest, Missouri. Salem, MO: Mid-Continent Regional 

Office, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 41 p. + maps.

Report includes recommendations for trails, primitive camping 

facilities, retention of old growth forest, self-guiding auto tours, 

interpretive shelters, and various cooperative projects with 

Federal and State agencies whose lands join Pioneer Forest.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1979. Executive summary, 

new area, study of alternatives—Grand Gulf, Missouri. May 

1979. National Park Service 1420. 8 p. + map.

Broad overview of the significance, status, and alternatives for 

management of the site. At the time of the report the L-A-D 

Foundation had acquired the property. Management alternatives 

include continuing the sites unimproved state under foundation 

ownership, private/state administration, state ownership and 

administration, and federal administration. Costs for operation 

and maintenance are drawn from comparison with Timpanogos 

Cave National Monument located near American Fork, Utah and 

Elephant Rocks State Park here in Missouri.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1979. Study of alternatives, 

new area—Grand Gulf, Missouri. May 1979. National Park 

Service, Denver Service Center. National Park Service 1421. 49 p. 

Study of alternative strategies for the protection, interpretation, 

use, and management of Grand Gulf to the National Park 

System. Described here are the regional and local environment, 

cultural resources, recreational resources, significance of 

the resource (a superlative geological and ecological entity; 

comparisons to three other natural landmarks: Grassy Cove, 

TN, Germany Valley, WV, and Newsome Sinks, AL; comparison 

to Natural Bridge and Natural Tunnel in Virginia, neither are 

comparable in size or nature) (discusses limit of feasibility for 

development as a major park). This report details each of the 

four management alternatives listed in the Executive Summary 

(see listing above) keeping in mind the natural preserve 

concept, limited development, and interpretation of the 

geologic resource.

Vandike, J.E. 1985. Movement of shallow groundwater in the 

Perryville Karst Area, southeastern Missouri. Water Resources 

Report No. 40. Rolla, MO: Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey.

Detailed discussion of the intensely karstified Perryville sinkhole 

plain. No other area in Missouri contains more extensive karst 

development. Blue Spring Branch is the western boundary 

of this study area and within this watershed lays Ball Mill 

Resurgence. Several maps delineate Blue Spring Branch where 

Ball Mill Resurgence occurs along with the several perennial 
121

springs and intermittent resurgences: Blue Spring, Keyhole 

Resurgence, Keyhole Spring, Blue Spring Resurgence, and Blue 

Spring. There is a brief discussion of the Moore Cave System 

and its relationship to the features which overlie it. The specific 

recharge area for Ball Mill Resurgence was not established in 

this study.

Vandike, J.E. 1997. Karst in Missouri, an overview. MCKC Digest. 

4(2): 32-42.

Part 1 of a series of articles which provide an overview of our 

state’s caves, springs, sinkholes, losing streams, and the land 

and water that gives them form and function. Included here are 

a brief review of geology (illustrated by a three dimensional 

figure of the origin of geologic features of the landscape), 

karst features of Missouri, and map of Missouri’s major karst 

regions. This article highlights karst features of the Salem 

Plateau, commonly considered Missouri’s premier karst region. 

Interestingly Logan Creek is described as a classic example of 

an Ozark losing stream. Several areas of Pioneer Forest are 

within the upper watershed, between Highway 72 to the north 

and Highway 106 to the south. Perhaps for 10 or more miles, 

Pioneer Forest land lies directly adjacent to the creek on one or 

both sides, mostly in the section which is the gaining part of the 

creek. Below this, Logan Creek is a losing stream, with a gravelfilled channel which can be more than 200 feet wide. 

In describing sinkholes, Grand Gulf is called the “Cadillac” of 

Missouri sinkholes, a spectacular center piece of Grand Gulf 

State Park. This article includes two photographs illustrating the 

natural bridge at Grand Gulf as well as an aerial view of the gulf 

itself. 

Vandike, J.E. 2000. Southeast Missouri karst region. MCKC 

Digest. 7(2): 17-30.

Article contains specific information on this particular karst 

region, essentially within Franklin, St. Louis, Jefferson, Ste. 

Genevieve, Perry, and Cape Girardeau counties and the city of 

St. Louis. This author attributes this karst region with the most 

varied geology and hydrology. This review describes in some 

detail resurgences of eastern Perry County, including a good 

overview of the functioning of Ball Mill Resurgence. There 

is an interesting observation that Ball Mill Resurgence “can 

mutate from a dry, rock filled basin to a spring rivaling the first 

magnitude springs of the Salem Plateau in size.” 

Ver Hoeff, J.M. 1991. Statistical analysis of spatial pattern in 

ecological data. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. 147 p. Ph.D. 

dissertation.

Three-part study dealing with estimation and prediction for 

spatial processes, especially for ecological data using (1) 

variogram under aggregation, (2) estimation of average patch 

size for transect data, (3) simultaneous prediction of several 

variable types for a vector-valued process. Data collected from 

several Pioneer Forest Ozark glades including Cave Spring, 

Thompson Creek, and Jerktail Mountain.

Vineyard, J. 1958. The reservoir theory of spring flow. National 

Speleological Society. Bulletin 20: 46-50.

Describes Cave Spring, Wallace Well, and Devil’s Well and 

presents results of dye-tracing from Wallace Well to Cave Spring 

which support theory of the supply system of submerged 

conduits and reservoirs (Wallace Well and Devil’s Well), the 

reservoirs serving as settling basins, flood control agents, and 

storage for waters which ultimately empty into the Current River 

at Cave Spring.

Vineyard, J.D. 1963. Origin and development of Cave Spring, 

Shannon County, Missouri. Columbia, MO: University of 

Missouri. 81 p. MA Thesis.

Detailed investigation and discussion of the Cave Spring system 

including spring orifice (Cave Spring), Wallace Well, and Devil’s 

Well. Discusses and maps subwater-table conduits and ongoing 

transition from the phreatic (deep, water-filled) to the vadose 

(above water, air-filled) zone. Initial development of Cave 

Spring was in a shallow, water-filled zone but the current deep, 

water-filled erosion cycle continues to enlarge the spring supply 

system. Estimates flow at 30 to 32 million gallons per day.

Vineyard, J.D. 1985. Guidebook to the geology of springs in the 

Ozarks of south-central Missouri. Viburnam, MO: Association of 

Missouri Geologists. 61 p. 

See “Geology of Springs in the Jacks Fork-Current River Area, Day 

2” pages 25-56. Mileage log from Salem including a note about 

the pair of sinkholes on Pioneer Forest immediately west of 

the Highway 19/KK junction; Devil’s Well on the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways and its role in the Cave Spring recharge 

system; and brief description of the Virgin Pine Forest.

Vineyard, J.D.; Feder, G.L. 1974. Springs of Missouri. Rolla, MO: 

Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources. 266 p.

Extensive discussion of Cave Spring (pages 90-103), includes 

relationship to Devil’s Well and nearby Wallace Well, the latter 

also on L-A-D Foundation property.

Ball Mill Resurgence, a L-A-D Foundation property in Perry 

County, is reviewed on pages 244, 246-247. Ball Mill Resurgence 

is a spring rise basin at the base of a steep hill along the south 

side of Blue Spring Branch. Figure 90 is a photo of Ball Mill 

and includes a close-up of the milling action which gives the 

resurgence its name. Review notes five such spring rise basins in 

the Blue Spring Branch.

Walter, H.D.; Johnson, P.S. 2004. Sustainable silviculture for 

Missouri’s oak forests. In: Flader, S.L., ed. Toward Sustainability 

for Missouri Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-239. St. Paul, MN: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station: 173-192.

Annotated Bibliography of Research and Information on Pioneer Forest
122 Pioneer Forest—A Half Century of Sustainable Uneven-Aged Forest Management in the Missouri Ozarks 

These authors present background on Missouri’s oak forests 

and silvicultural prescriptions including reviewing uneven-aged 

silviculture and the single-tree selection and group selection 

methods. These authors note the experience with singletree selection in Missouri oak forests shows the method is 

sustainable citing the research from Pioneer Forest (Larsen and 

others 1997, Larsen and others 1999, Loewenstein 1996, Wang 

1997). They also suggest the method may be applied in other 

regions with similar oak forests. Walter and Johnson point out 

that the method is regaining some of its former prominence 

although it is widely misunderstood. These authors point to 

research from Ohio which suggests its use there has resulted in 

the displacement of oaks by more shade-tolerant species.

Wang, Z. 1997. Stability and predictability of diameter 

distributions in a managed uneven-aged oak forest. Columbia, 

MO: University of Missouri. 147 p. Ph.D. Dissertation.

Using two diameter-distribution models, the negative 

exponential model and the power function model, this study 

used information from the 40-year inventory records of Pioneer 

Forest. All data were averaged across the site and diameter 

distribution patterns were compared without consideration of 

site differences. Pioneer Forest data included measurements 

for all trees equal to or greater than 5 inches in diameter. 

Our forest-wide data clearly demonstrates the classic reverse 

J-shape curve. This study added measurements of all trees 

from 1.6 inches (white oak stems outnumber red oak stems 

in the smaller diameters by almost three-to-one) to the entire 

data set. Wang observed instability of diameter distributions 

explained by the effect of our minimum cutting threshold 

(11-inch diameter for oak species). Partial cutting initiates 

a steepening of the distribution curve, there is an increase 

in the number of trees below the threshold (i.e. reduced 

mortality of the small diameters, increase in recruitment rate of 

reproduction, and reduced density of trees above the threshold). 

Steepening of the curve eventually reverses as density of 

diameters above the threshold gradually rebounds. 

Wang, Z.; Johnson, P.S.; Garrett, H.E.; Shifley, S.R. 1996. 

Stability of diameter distributions in a managed unevenaged oak forest in the Ozark Highlands. Proceedings, Central 

Hardwood Forest Conference 11. Unpublished draft. 23 p.

Using the Pioneer Forest dataset, these authors assess the 

sustainability of the diameter distributions (the reverse-J 

curve) found on Pioneer to oak forests in the Ozark Highlands 

in Missouri. The single-tree selection system seems to be 

maintaining relatively high densities of white oak at or below 

10 inches d.b.h. which may compensate for a decrease stocking 

of small-diameter red oaks; there may be a dynamic adjustment 

associated with the replacement of red oaks by white oaks as 

well as a relatively uneven spatial and temporal nature to that 

process. All evidence suggests that the system used on Pioneer 

Forest will sustain a balanced uneven-aged forest.

Weaver, D. 1990. Caves, Missouri’s growing natural resource. 

Missouri Resource Review. 7(2): 16-21.

Brief note of Grand Gulf as mammoth breech in the earth, 

three-fourths of a mile long with walls 120 feet high. Collapse 

estimated at less than 10,000 years ago.

Weaver, H.D. 1992. The wilderness underground; caves of the 

Ozark Plateau. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. 113 p.

Grand Gulf noted on page 11 as chasm on Salem Plateau. Also 

see page 27.

Weaver, H.D. 2000. The significant caves of Missouri. Missouri 

Caves and Karst Conservancy Digest. 7(1): 1-15.

Review of the project along with the alphabetical listing of 

unrestricted significant caves of Missouri, compiled by H.D. 

Weaver and J.B. Beard. The listing includes the following caves 

on Pioneer Forest and L-A-D Foundation properties: Cave Spring 

Cave, Cookstove (Squaredance) Cave, Flying W Cave, Grand Gulf 

Cave, Medlock Cave, Sugar Tree Hollow Cave, and Wind Cave.

Weigel, D.R.; Johnson, P.S. 1998. Stump sprouting probabilities 

for southern Indiana oaks. TB-NC-7. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station. 

Regeneration of oaks in southern Indiana is largely limited to 

sprouts originating from stumps. Johnson’s work (1977) in the 

Missouri Ozarks found that oak sprouting here was related to 

age and diameter as well as site quality. For the five species 

tested in Indiana, sprouting decreased with increasing age and 

d.b.h. of the parent tree and increased with increasing site index 

(site quality). The sprouting results reported here for five oak 

species were found to generally parallel sprouting probabilities 

for white oak and black oak in Missouri. Populations can be 

either even-aged or multi-aged. These authors reference the 

work of Loewenstein (1996) on Pioneer Forest where oaks form 

uneven-aged populations and where age and d.b.h. may be 

poorly correlated.

Wheeler, H. 1991. Along the Ozark Trail, notes from a 

backpacker’s journal. Missouri Conservationist. October 1991: 

10-13.

Journal from a hike in November 1990 along the Blair Creek 

section of the Ozark Trail. Article begins at Cedar Point which is 

part of Pioneer Forest, located just above Laxton Hollow.
123

White, C.M. 1985. Caves and canoes: managing cave resources 

in a recreational park. Missouri Speleology. 25(1-4): 191-200.

White provides a historical overview of cave management 

efforts at Ozark National Scenic Riverways. He reports on an 

earlier work (MS Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO) 

by Sutton (1976) which details floater impacts on the riverways, 

in particular Cave Spring and Pulltite Springs “which have 

become traditional stopping points for canoeists” and where 

“major change in the vegetation and soil have been caused at 

these landings”. White also mentions the National Park Service 

brochure produced by the National Park Service in 1984 and 

that at the time of this writing, Wallace Well (L-A-D Foundation 

ownership) was among only four caves that had been gated.

White, L.C. 1993. Ozark hideaways: twenty-seven day trips for 

hiking and fishing. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. 

244 p.

The second edition of this book (1998) has been revised to 

omit reference to lands of Pioneer Forest, however, the first 

edition includes specific discussion of Pioneer Forest lands in 

these areas, although there is no mention of ownership: Upper 

Sinking Creek (pages 11-17, would include lands above The 

Sinks in Sections 14 and 23, T31N R4W which extend to Sinking 

Creek); Sinking Creek—Highway 19 to The Sinks (pages 18-24, 

routes users through Pioneer Forest, along the creek in Sections 

4, 5, and 8 T30N R4W); Big Creek Northeast of Eminence (pages 

27-33, includes extensive sections of the forest along this entire 

section of the creek); Big Creek County Road 3710 to the Current 

River (pages 62-65, Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 T31N R6W focuses 

not only on Big Creek but routes users overland through lands 

in Section 15 to Current River and mentions an old school which 

is Bluff School and Medlock Cave); Leatherwood Creek (pages 

73-80, essentially the entire ownership of Pioneer Forest along 

Leatherwood Creek). 

Wilson, S. 1993. The lady was a caver. Missouri Conservationist. 

54(3): 4-9.

Interesting sketch of Luella Agnes Owen, author of 1898 book 

“Cave Regions of the Ozarks and Black Hills”. Article mentions 

her account of exploring the cave at Grand Gulf. 

Wylie, J. 1979. Devil’s jump off. Missouri Conservationist. 40(7): 

8-9.

Tall tale on the origin of Ball Mill Resurgence. 

Annotated Bibliography of Research and Information on Pioneer Forest

Guldin, James M.; Iffrig, Greg F.; Flader, Susan L., eds. 2008. Pioneer Forest—

a half century of sustainable uneven-aged forest management in the 

Missouri Ozarks. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–108. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 123 p.

This collection of papers analyzes the Pioneer Forest, a privately owned 

150,000-acre working forest in the Missouri Ozarks, on which the science 

and art of forest management has been practiced for more than 50 years. 

The papers discuss how this half century of management has contributed 

to forest restoration and sustainability on the forest itself and, through its 

example undergirded by a remarkable body of research, throughout the 

Ozark region and beyond.

Keywords: Pioneer Forest, L-A-D Foundation, Leo A. Drey, uneven-aged 

forest management, single-tree selection, natural areas, oak-hickory, Ozark 

highlands.
The Forest Service, United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), is dedicated to the principle 

of multiple use management of the Nation’s 

forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, 

cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and 

management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it 

strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater 

service to a growing Nation.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and 

where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political 

beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

is derived from any public assistance. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office 

of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410 or call toll free 866-632-9992 (voice). TDD users can 

contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at 800-

877-8339 (TDD) or 866-377-8642 (relay voice). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.