United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Summary Report:

Forest Health Monitoring

in the South, 1993 and 1994

Southern William G. Burkman, John S. Vissage, William H. Hoffard,

Research Station Dale A. Starkey, and William A. Bechtold

Resource Bulletin

SRS-32
The Authors:

William G. Burkman, Southern Forest Health Monitoring Program

Coordinator, Southern Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Asheville, NC 28802; John S. Vissage, Forester, Forest

Inventory and Analysis Research Work Unit, Southern Research Station,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Starkville, MS 39759;

William H. Hoffard, Entomologist, Forest Health Protection Unit, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Asheville, NC 28802; Dale

A. Starkey, Pathologist, Forest Health Protection Unit, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pineville, LA 7 1360; and William A.

Be&told, Resource Analyst, Forest Inventory and Analysis Research

Work Unit, Southern Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Asheville, NC 28802.

June 1998

Southern Research Station

P.O. Box 2680

Asheville, NC 28802
Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Forest Health Monitoring Detection Plot Activities . . . .

Methodology ................................ . . .

1993 FHM Detection Plot Findings ............... . .

1994 FHM Detection Plot Findings ............... . .

Findings From Survey Component Activities .......

Southern Pine Beetle-1993 ....................

Southern Pine Beetle-1994 ................... .

Gypsy Moth- 1993 .......................... .

Gypsy Moth- 1994 ...........................

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid .......................

Balsam Woolly Adelgid ........................

Fusiform Rust ................................

Dogwood Anthracnose .........................

Butternut Canker .............................

OakDecline ................................ .

oakwilt ................................... .

Beech Bark Disease ...........................

Other Conditions Affecting Southern Forests, 1993-94

......................... 1

........................ . 1

........................ . 3

........................ . 3

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. ,

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

4

4

5

5

6

6

6

6

8

8

8

9

10

10

Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

LiteratureCited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

IndexofTables .............................. .

........................ 14

Tables l-76 ................................ . ....................... . 17

Summary Report:

Forest Health Monitoring

in the South, 1993 and 1994

William G. Burkman, John S. Vissage, William H. Hoffard,

Dale A. Starkey, and William A. Bechtold

Introduction

Forests cover much of the South, providing timber, wildlife

habitat, recreation, and many other benefits to society.

Concern about the effects of air pollution, drought, and

other anthropogenic and natural stressors have increased in

the past decade. In response to these concerns, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency developed and

implemented the Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) program

with the State Foresters and other State and Federal

agencies as cooperators and partners in the FHM program.

The primary goal of FHM is to monitor, evaluate, and report

on the health of the forests at regional and national scales.

To accomplish this goal, FHM is organized into three

monitoring activities. The firstdetection

monitoring-establishes baseline conditions and detects

unusual deviations or events. In detection monitoring,

selected indicators of forest health are sampled on a network

of permanent plots. This sampling is referred to as on-frame

sampling. Supplemental surveys designed to detect

outbreaks of forest insects, diseases, or damages are

referred to as off-frame or the survey component of

detection monitoring. The second activity--evaluation

monitoring-is triggered by unexplained changes in forest

health indicators. Evaluation monitoring identifies causeand-effect relationships, provides information for

management responses, and identifies additional research

needs. The third activity-intensive-site ecosystem

monitoring-involves the study of forest ecosystem

processes and their effects on forest health. A fourth

activity-research on monitoring techniques-supports the

first three levels of FHM and is responsible for developing

the procedures used in all aspects of FHM.

Detection monitoring activity began in 1990 in six New

England States. In 199 1, the three Mid-Atlantic States

(Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey) and three Southern

States (Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia) were added. In

1992, FHM expanded with two Western States, California

and Colorado. Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin joined

the program in 1994.

This report summarizes the results of the detection

monitoring activity in the South in 1993 and 1994. The first

part summarizes detection plot data from Alabama, Georgia,

and Virginia for both years. All values reported are simply

counts or percentages of sample observations. No

statements of statistical significance are implied. The second

part of this report is a synopsis from the survey component

of detection monitoring and includes various insect, disease,

and damage surveys for 1993 and 1994. Similar reports

were published for detection monitoring activities in 199 1

(Bechtold and others 1992) and 1992 (Vissage and Hoffard

1997). Because data collection procedures of tree damage

symptoms changed and the summary of crown condition

data conceptually changed in 1993, results in this report

cannot be directly compared with the previous reports.

Forest Health Monitoring Detection Plot

Activities

Methodology

The FHM program uses a triangular grid to systematically

choose FHM sample plot locations. The center points of the

grid are approximately 16 miles apart. This approach

provides a statistically valid sample of all land categories.

An FHM plot is a cluster of four l/24-acre fixed-radius

subplots spaced 120 feet apart (see Conkling and Byers

1993 and Tahent-Halsell 1994 for a complete description of

FHM methodology). Field crews install an FHM plot when

any part of it falls in forest land. Trees 25.0 inches in

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) are recorded if they are in

the 24.0-foot radius subplot and are referred to as trees in

this report. Trees 1 .O to 4.9 inches in d.b.h. are recorded if

they are in a 6.8-foot diameter radius (l/300-acre)

microplot, which is offset 12 feet from each subplot’s

center. These trees are referred to as saplings in this report.
Field crews visited 358 plots in the three States and

measured 8,957 trees in 1993 (table 1). In 1994, field crews

visited 347 plots in the three States and measured 8,206

trees (table 2). The number of plots declined in 1994

because some plots were no longer forested. In addition,

plots were not sampled when landowners denied access or

plots were flooded and unsafe.

Data collection efforts in 1993 and 1994 focused on the tree

damage symptoms and crown rating indicators from plots

with at least one live tree 2 1 .O inch d.b.h. in 199 1. For each

sapling and tree, field crews recorded up to three damage

symptoms based on the location on the tree. Damages in the

roots or bole were recorded before damages in the branches

or foliage. Damage severity above a minimum threshold was

also recorded, although some damages were recorded when

present, regardless of severity. The damage symptoms that

could cause mortality were the only damages recorded.

The crown rating variables recorded for trees were crown

diameter, live-crown ratio, crown density, crown dieback

and foliage transparency. For saplings, only live-crown ratio

and sapling vigor, a general measure of crown condition,

were recorded. Definitions of these variables follow and

additional information about the crown rating variables is

available in Anderson and Belanger (1987), Belanger and

Anderson (1989), and Millers and others (1992).

Crown diameter is the average of the diameter of the tree

crown at its widest point and 90” from the widest point.

This variable is another indicator of tree vigor (Millers and

others 1992).

Live-crown ratio is the proportion of total live tree height

that supports live foliage, which effectively contributes to

tree growth. Dead tops and dead lower branches are

excluded. This variable is associated with tree vigor and

d.b.h. growth (Millers and others 1992).

Crown density is an estimate of the percent of skylight

obstructed by branches, foliage, and reproductive structures.

Anderson and Belanger ( 1987) found that high crowndensity values are positively correlated with radial growth in

loblolly and shortleaf pines.

Crown dieback is branch mortality that starts near the

terminal and proceeds toward the trunk or at the top of the

tree toward the ground. Crown dieback usually occurs in

the upper part of the crown and is a symptom of various

stresses on a tree, such as drought. Branches in the lower

part of the crown that die from competition or shading are

not counted as crown dieback.

Foliage transparency is the amount of skylight visible

through the live, normally foliated portion of the crown.

Dead portions of the crown and large gaps and holes are

excluded. This rating is an indicator of the amount of

foliage in the crown, a surrogate measure of defoliation.

Sapling vigor classifies saplings into three distinct groups of

overall crown condition. A sapling must meet three criteria

to be classified as good. First, at least one-third of its length

must have live foliage. Second, dieback must not be present

in the upper half of the crown. Third, at least 80 percent of

the foliage must be undamaged or normal. When a sapling

does not qualify as good, it is rated as average or poor. The

criterion used to classify saplings as average or poor is

percent of normal foliage. A sapling is classified as poor

when 20 percent or less of its foliage is normal. A sapling is

classified as average when 20 to 80 percent of its foliage is

normal.

In this report, sapling vigor class and damage symptoms are

presented for saplings. Crown density, crown dieback,

foliage transparency, and damage symptoms are reported for

trees. For the crown rating variables (crown density, crown

dieback, and foliage transparency), the groupings included

in the tables are patterned after developmental research

results (Anderson and Belanger 1987; Belanger and

Anderson 1989; Millers and others 1991, 1992). These

groupings have also been used in other FHM documents

(Bechtold and others 1992, Gillespie and others 1993,

Vissage and Hoffard 1997). Ongoing research is

investigating other methods to summarize crown rating data.

This report presents summary statistics (means and

percentages) stratified by a set of species groupings

commonly used by FHM. Although additional

stratifications, such as tree size, crown class, or stand-level

conditions, may reveal other interesting trends, they have

not been used. In addition, confidence intervals, hypothesis

testing, and other analytical statistical procedures were not

performed. Thus, this report must be interpreted as an initial

reflection of FHM plot data; definitive conclusions about

forest health cannot be drawn until the data have been

analyzed by appropriate statistical methodology.

2
1993 FHM Detection Plot Findings

Saplings accounted for 24 percent of the sampled trees.

More trees were hardwoods (60 percent) than softwoods

(table 3).

The average and good crown-density classes accounted for

97 percent of the trees (table 4). In softwoods, shortleaf pine

had the highest proportion of trees in the poor density class;

longleaf pine had no trees in this class. In hardwoods, the

maple group had the highest proportion in the poor crowndensity class; yellow-poplar had the lowest.

Only 2 percent of the trees were classified as having

moderate or severe foliage transparency in 1993 (table 5).

Virginia pine had the largest percentage of trees in the

moderate foliage transparency class.

Ninety-one percent of softwoods and 87 percent of

hardwoods had no crown dieback in 1993 (table 6). The

proportion of trees with light dieback was the highest for

Virginia pine and the red oak group. Only 1 percent of all

trees were in the moderate and severe dieback classes

combined. The red oak and maple groups had the largest

proportion of trees in the moderate and severe dieback

classes combined.

Ninety percent of softwoods and 83 percent of hardwoods

had no damage in 1993 (table 7). The other hardwoods and

maple groups had the most damages recorded. Shortleaf and

longleaf pines were the least damaged trees.

Cankers were the most often recorded damage in softwoods

(table 8). In hardwoods, indicators of decay were the most

commonly recorded damage, followed by broken branches

and open wounds.

Ninety-six percent of hardwood saplings and 93 percent of

softwood saplings had average or good sapling vigor (table

9). Fifty percent of softwood saplings were in the good

sapling-vigor class; only 30 percent of hardwood saplings

were in this class.

Compared to trees, saplings had fewer damages recorded for

both softwoods (2 percent) and hardwoods (10 percent)

(table 10). The damage most commonly recorded in saplings

duplicated those trees (table 11).

1994 FHM Detection Plot Findings

The distribution of saplings and trees did not change

between 1993 and 1994. Hardwood trees still outnumbered

softwoods in 1994 (table 12) but increased their proportion

of total trees by 2 percent since 1993.

Ninety-eight percent of trees had average or good crown

density (table 13); but the percentage in the good class

increased in relative abundance by 6. I percent since 1993.

Both Virginia pine and the other softwoods group were the

only softwoods with an increase in relative abundance in the

poor crown-density class since 1993.

Only 0.6 percent of trees were not classified as having

normal foliage transparency in 1994 (table 14). The other

softwoods group had the largest percentage of trees in the

moderate and severe foliage transparency classes combined.

Ninety-five percent of softwoods and 90 percent of

hardwoods had no crown dieback (table 15) in 1994,

representing an improvement since 1993. As in 1993, the

proportion of trees with light dieback were the highest for

Virginia pine and the red oak group. The proportion of all

trees in the moderate and severe dieback classes did not

change between 1993 and 1994. The other softwoods and

other hardwoods groups had the largest proportion of trees

in the moderate and severe dieback classes combined.

The proportion of softwoods and hardwoods without

damage did not change between 1993 and 1994 (table 16).

Blackgum and the maple group had the most damages

recorded. Shortleaf pine was the least damaged softwood

and yellow-poplar was the least damaged hardwood.

Cankers were again the most recorded damage in softwoods

(table 17), virtually unchanged from 1993 findings. In

hardwoods, indicators of decay were the most commonly

recorded damage, followed by open wounds aQd dead

terminal branches. These findings represent a slight change

from those in 1993. This change occurred because the

difference between dead branches and dead terminal

branches was clarified.

Ninety-eight percent of softwood saplings and 97 percent of

hardwood saplings had average or good sapling vigor (table

18). Sixty-eight percent of softwood saplings were in the

good sapling-vigor class and 67 percent of the hardwood

saplings were in this class. Since 1993, the proportion of

hardwoods and softwoods in the good sapling-vigor class

increased in relative proportions 37 percent and 18 percent,

respectively.

Compared to trees, saplings again had fewer damages

recorded for both softwoods and hardwoods (table 19). The

3
damages most commonly recorded in saplings duplicated

those in trees (table 20).

Findings from Survey Component Activities

The survey component PHM data discussed here comes

from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection Unit

and Forest Inventory and Analysis; the cooperating 13

Southern State agencies; and other Federal agencies.

Southern Pine Beetle-1993

As in previous years, southern pine beetle (SPB)

populations were highly variable in the South in 1993,

increasing in some areas and dropping significantly in

others. Compared to 1992, the number of SPB infestations

in the South increased by 23 percent, but the number of

affected acres declined by about 27 percent. The most

significant activity occurred in Virginia, with a 66-percent

increase in the number of affected acres and an 80percent

increase in the number of infestations. The 1853 1

infestations were the largest number ever recorded in one

year for Virginia. Figure 1 shows the counties in outbreak

status in 1993. A county is defined in outbreak status if it

contains at least one multiple tree infestation for each 1,000

acres of SPB-host forest type.

In other locations, populations declined along the Gulf

Coastal Plain, including the States of Alabama, Mississippi,

Louisiana, and Texas. The decline in Texas was minimal,

with most activity concentrated along the eastern border of

the State. However, populations dropped significantly in

South Carolina (30 to 50 percent) and Georgia (50 to 60

percent).

Arkansas reported 2,35 1 infestations (a 60-percent increase)

and a 90-percent increase in affected acreage. Likewise,

eastern Oklahoma showed an increase in the number of

spots but did not meet the minimum criteria for outbreak

status. Losses in North Carolina also intensified, with a 34-

percent increase in area affected and a 52-percent increase

in the number of infestations.

Figure I-Southern pine beetle outbreak counties and parishes, 1993. Note: Outbreak is defined as one multiple tree spot per 1,000 acres of southern

pine beetle host type within a county or parish.

4
Southern pine beetle infestations within wildernesses in

Texas continued to cause significant mortality, threatening

or migrating onto private land. From 1990 to 1992, a large

number of endangered red-cockaded woodpecker nesting

and roosting sites were attacked in the fall season by

dispersing beetles, but significantly fewer cavity trees were

attacked in 1993.

Southern Pine Beetle-1994

Compared to 1993, the number of SPB infestations in the

South decreased by 76 percent and the number of affected

acres declined by 50 percent. The number of SPB spots

dropped in every State except Florida and South Carolina.

Southern pine beetle activity also decreased dramatically in

Texas. Figure 2 shows the counties in outbreak status in

1994.

The two States with the highest SPB populations were

Alabama and Mississippi. Activity in Alabama was heaviest

in the westcentral section, while in Mississippi, losses were

primarily in the southwestern comer. Southern pine beetle

populations were also relatively high in the Piedmont of

South Carolina and Georgia.

In Florida, where SPB populations exploded to outbreak

levels within the city limits of Gainesville, more than 250

spots were detected, affecting hundreds of residential

landowners. This situation is unique because the last

documented incidence of a SPB outbreak in that area was

50 years ago.

Southern pine beetle populations in the designated Texas

wildernesses within the national forests decreased

significantly in 1994. The only activity occurred in the

Turkey Hill Wilderness. Very few red-cockaded

woodpecker cavity trees were attacked in 1994.

Gypsy Moth-1993

Defoliation in Virginia declined to 589,100 acres of host

type in 1993 (fig. 3) from 748,000 in 1992. Virus and

fungal infections (Enromophaga m aim aiga) caused

population collapses over the entire infested portions of

Virginia. Defoliation occurred on 13 1,303 acres of the

George Washington National Forest and 88,166 acres on

other Federal lands. Isolated infestations beyond the

generally infested area appeared in Arkansas, Georgia, and

Tennessee.

Figure Z-Southern pine beetle outbreak counties and parishes, 1994. Note: Outbreak is defined as one multiple tree spot per 1,000 acres of

southern pine beetle host type within a county or parish.

5
Figure 34ypsy moth defoliated areas in Virginia, 1993.

Gypsy Moth-1994

Defoliated acreage in 1994 declined by 20 percent (589,100

to 472,475) (fig. 4). Once again, the gypsy moth virus and

the fungus, Entomophaga maimaiga, helped keep

populations in check throughout the entire infested area of

Virginia. Defoliation occurred on 165,922 acres on the

George Washington National Forest and 10 1,408 acres on

other Federal lands.

Isolated infestations in Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennessee

noted in 1993 were treated with biological insecticides.

Post-treatment trapping indicated that the insect had spread

beyond its original infestation boundaries in Tennessee.

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid

The hemlock woolly adelgid continued to spread in 1993

and 1994. This insect first appeared in the United States on

the west coast in 1920. A second introduction occurred near

Richmond, VA, in 1950. The insect has successfully

colonized eastern hemlock and Carolina hemlock, causing

mortality within 3 to 5 years. The situation is so severe that

the insect now threatens the entire range of eastern hemlock.

The voracious insect spread is illustrated by the infestation

in the Shenandoah National Park, where the infestation has

caused an 80-percent decline in the health of eastern

hemlocks in just 5 years. Most hemlock type in Virginia is

generally infested, with the exception of the southwestern

counties. Much of the hemlock resource is located in

riparian areas, creating a situation that threatens the health

of aquatic ecosystems.

Balsam Woolly Adelgid

Fraser fir is the preferred host of balsam woolly adelgid.

Fraser fii has a very limited range and is found primarily on

the highest mountains of the Southern Appalachians. This

species occurs in pure stands on the highest peaks or in

mixture with red spruce at lower elevations. Since the

introduction of the balsam woolly adelgid in the 1950’s,

64,700 acres have been impacted, everywhere the tree

naturally occurs. The insect prefers larger fir trees, leading

to the death of virtually all mature host trees within the

affected areas. Adelgid populations were high in both 1993

and 1994.

Fusiform Rust

Fusifomr rust is the most damaging disease of loblolly and

slash pines in the South. Figures 5 and 6 show the

approximate distribution of affected plots of slash and

loblolly pines, respectively. Other pine species may also be

affected, but little mortality or other damage occurs.

According to the most recent Forest Inventory and Analysis

(FIA) data, an estimated 13.4 million acres of loblolly and

6
Figure 4-Gypsy moth defoliated areas in Virginia, 1994

Figure 5-Forest Inventory and Analysis slash pine plots affected with fusiform rust, 1994.

7
Figure 6-Forest Inventory and Analysis loblolly pine plots affected with fusiform rust, 1994.

slash pines have infection levels > 10 percent, which

represents 28 percent of the host acres (table 21). Ten

percent of the host acreage has >30 percent infection and 4

percent of the host acreage has >50 percent infection.

Georgia had the worst disease situation, with 4.6 million

acres showing 10 percent or more of the trees affected. This

represents almost 50 percent of the entire host type for the

State. Because a revised and improved method for selecting

plots and analyzing fusiform rust incidence has been

implemented, affected acres in this report can no longer be

compared directly to previous years’ reports.

Dogwood Anthracnose

Since discovered in the South dogwood anthracnose spread

from 30,000 affected acres in north Georgia in 1987 to more

than 17 million acres in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia in 1993.

In 1993, 222 Southern counties were confirmed infected

and 6 additional counties appeared in 1994 (fig. 7).

Dogwood anthracnose is found primarily in the mountains,

foothills, and upper Piedmont. In the forest environment,

damage is most severe at higher elevations and in cool,

moist areas at lower elevations. By infecting dogwoods,

dogwood anthracnose diminishes forest aesthetics and

reduces an important source of food and cover for a variety

of sylvan animal species.

Butternut Canker

This fungus has been in the South since the mid-1950’s and

is estimated to have killed more than three-fourths of the

butternut trees in the region. Because the disease continues

to spread (fig. 8), the butternut may be placed on the

officially threatened species list. Found throughout the

range of butternut, butternut canker will continue to

devastate its host species, because almost all individuals

have no natural resistance to the disease. The tree will be

replaced by nonsusceptible species, such as black walnut. In

the meantime, some hope lies in the development of

potentially genetically resistant strains.

Oak Decline

Oak decline is a syndrome resulting in dieback and mortality

of dominant and codominant oaks. Causal factors

8
Figure ‘I-Southern United States counties and parishes with confirmed dogwood anthracnose, 1988-94.

are stressors, such as drought, frost, and defoliation by

insects; and secondary agents, such as shoestring root rot

and two-lined chestnut borer. Host age and site conditions

also play a role in oak decline. Analysis of FIA data

indicates that an estimated 3.9 million acres of upland

hardwood forest affected by oak decline are distributed

across all Southern States (fig. 9). This number represents

about one-tenth of the vulnerable forest type (fig. 10, table

22). Average annual mortality volume of oaks on affected

sites is 45 percent higher than on unaffected sites. Some oak

decline is located in areas heavily defoliated by the gypsy

moth.

Year Con firmed

0 Before 1993

q 1993

m 1994

Oak Wilt

Oak wilt continued to be epidemic in Texas in 1993 and

1994. The number of infected counties increased by 3 to 49

in 1993, and 6 more counties were added in 1994. The

disease was also reported in Arkansas, Kentucky, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, although

only in areas where oak wilt was already present. Figure 11

shows Southern United States counties where oak wilt has

been confirmed.

9
Year Reported

q Before 1994

Figure 8-Southern United States counties and parishes with confirmed butternut canker up to 1994.

Beech Bark Disease

Mortality caused by this disease was found in the Great

Smoky Mountains National Park, 300 miles southwest of

the previously known distribution of the disease in West

Virginia, The affected area encompasses about 100 acres

within a 3county area (Swain and Haywood in North

Carolina and Sevier in Tennessee).

Other Conditions Affecting Southern Forests, 199>94

In 1993, pine engraver beetle-caused mortality was

significantly above average because much of the South

experienced a drought. Especially hard hit were southern

pines in Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and

eastern Oklahoma. In 1994, the condition stabilized, and

engraver beetle activity was about normal.

Storm activity was higher than normal both years.

Tornadoes and other high wind conditions caused

significant tree breakage and mortality in Florida, Georgia,

Tennessee, and Virginia.

In 1993, Asian gypsy moth (similar to the European strain)

was accidentally introduced into the Military Ocean

Terminal at Sunny Point, NC. Asian gypsy moths are of

special concern to forest managers because, unlike the

European strain, females fly, potentially increasing longdistance dispersal, and they have a higher preference for

softwood foliage. An eradication project using biological

insecticides was undertaken in 1994.

Ozone damage was noted on Eastern white pine and various

bioindicator plants throughout the South. Designated

wildernesses are surveyed annually and results are compiled

10
. :.

Figure 9-Forest Inventory and Analysis upland oak plots affected by oak decline, 1991 (most current information).

Figure 1 @--Forest Inventory and Analysis upland oak plots vulnerable to oak decline, 1991 (most current information).

11
Figure I l--Counties with oak wilt infection confirmed, 1994.

and reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. The reports are used by air resource specialists to

determine whether emissions permits will be granted. The

incidence and severity of ozone damage did not differ

significantly between 1993 and 1994.

Discussion and Conclusions

The crowns of the great majority of sampled trees appeared

normal and crown conditions improved slightly between

1993 and 1994. Only 3 percent and 2 percent of the sample

trees were in the poor crown-density class in 1993 and

1994, respectively. In 1993, 2 percent of the sample trees

were in the moderate and severe foliage transparency

classes. This proportion decreased to < 1 percent in 1994.

The percentage of trees with no crown dieback was 88

percent in 1993 and 92 percent in 1994.

The proportion of trees with no recordable damage was

unchanged between 1993 and 1994 at 86 percent. The most

commonly recorded damage for both years in softwoods

was cankers and in hardwoods, indicators of decay. This

finding is expected in softwoods because of the regional

distribution of fusiform rust (symptom--canker) on

southern yellow pines (Hoffard and others 1995). The low

proportion of damages in longleaf pine is expected because

longleaf pine is generally very resistant to many insects and

diseases (Boyer 1990).

Sapling crown vigor improved between 1993 and 1994; the

number of saplings in the good sapling-vigor class increased

while a comparable number in the average sapling-vigor

class decreased. The proportion of saplings with recordable

damage increased from 9 percent in 1993 to 12 percent in

1994. The most commonly recorded damages in saplings in

1993 and 1994 were the same as those in trees: cankers in

softwoods and indicators of decay in hardwoods. These

regional patterns of crown ratings and damage are also

reflected in the State level results in 1993 and 1994 (tables

23 through 76).

Southern pine beetle conditions generally improved across

most of the South between 1993 and 1994, due in part to

extremely cold winter temperatures. Gypsy moth defoliation

acreage decreased in the South from 1993 to 1994, but

isolated introductions outside the generally infested area

were found in Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennessee. However,

12
the introduction of the Asian gypsy moth in North Carolina

has increased concern, because the Asian gypsy moth

females can fly and have a higher preference for softwood

foliage. Other conditions were generally unchanged.

While most softwoods showed a decrease in the proportion

of sample trees in the poor crowndensity class from 1993

to 1994, Virginia pines increased slightly. The proportion of

Virginia pines in the moderate and severe foliage

transparency classes decreased from 11 percent in 1993 to 3

percent in 1994. And in crown dieback, the proportion of

sample trees in the light, moderate, and severe classes

decreased from 20 percent in 1993 to only 13 percent in

1994.

The causes for the poorer crown conditions in 1993 may be

related to Virginia pine sawfly infestations, the impacts of

drought or moisture stress, or both. The improvement in

crown dieback and foliage transparency may be partially

related to mortality. Between 1993 and 1994, the number of

live Virginia pine trees sampled decreased from 405 to 366,

a lo-percent reduction. The trees in 1993 with poorer

foliage transparency values and more severe crown dieback

values resulting from a regional drought that year would

potentially show higher mortality in 1994. These trends

should be reviewed in 1995. If they continue, a more

detailed analysis of all pertinent data, the initiation of an

evaluation monitoring project, or both may be appropriate.

Literature Cited

Anderson, R.L.; Belanger, R.P. 19 87. A crown rating method for

assessing tree vigor of loblolly and shortleaf pines. In: Phillips, D.R.,

camp. Proceedings of the fourth biennial southern silvicultural research

conference; 1986 November 4-6; Atlanta. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-42.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 538-543.

Be&told, W .A.; Hoffard, WM.; Anderson, ILL. 1992. Summary report:

forest health monitoring in the South, 199 I. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-8 1.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 40 p.

Belanger, R.P.; Anderson, R.L. 19 89 . A guide for assessing crown

densities of loblolly and shcxtleaf pines. Res. Note SE-352. Asheville,

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station. 2 p.

Boyer, W.D. 1990. Longleafpine. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech.

coord. Silvics of North America--conifers. Agric. Handb. 654.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 40%

412. Vol. 1.

Conk I& , B.L.; Byers, G.E., eds. 19 9 3. Forest health monitoring field

methods guide. Internal Rep. Las Vegas, NV: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. 228 p.

Gillespie, A.J.R.; Miller-Weeks, M.; Bamett, C.; Burkman, W. 1993.

Summary report: forest health monitoring-New England/Mid-Atlantic,

1992. NE!NA-INF-I 15.R93. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private

Forestry. 15 p.

Hoffard, W .H .; Marx, D.H .; Brow n , H .D. 19 9 5.l%e health of southern

forests. R-8 PR-27. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Region. 36 p.

Millers, I.; Anderson, R.L.; Burk m an, W .G.; H offard, W .H . 19 9 2.

Crown condition rating guide. Internal Rep. Radnor, PA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and

Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection. 26 p.

Millers, I.; Lachanee, D.; Burk m an, W .G.; AlIe n , D.C. 19 9 1. North

American sugar maple decline project: organization and field methods.

Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-154. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 26 p.

TaIled-H alsell, N.G.. ed. 1994. Forest health monitoring 1994 field

methods guide. EPA/620/R-94/027. Washington, DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. 338 p.

Vissage, J.S.; Hoffard, W.H. 1997. Summary report: forest health

monitoring in the South, 1992. Resour. Bull. SO-195. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research

Station. 27 p.

13
Index of Tables

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Number of plots, saplings, and trees measured by State,

Southern FHM Region, 1993

Number of plots, saplings, and trees measured by State,

Southern FHM Region, 1994

Number of saplings and trees sampled by selected

species group and tree size, Southern FHM Region,

1993

Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crown-density class, Southern FHM

Region, 1993

Distribution of 25.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and foliage-transparency class, Southern

FHM Region, 1993

Distribution of 25.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crowndieback class, Southern FHM

Region, 1993

Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Southern FHM Region, 1993

Distribution of damage types recorded for ,5.0-inch

d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Southern FHM

Region, 1993

Distribution of 1 .O- to 4.9-inch d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Southern

FHM Region, 1993

Distribution of 1 .O- to 4.9-inch d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage

symptoms recorded, Southern FHM Region, 1993

Distribution of damage types recorded for 1 .O- to 4.9-

inch d.b.h. saplings by selected species group, Southern

FHM Region, 1993

Number of saplings and trees sampled by selected

species group and tree size, Southern FHM Region,

1994

Distribution of 25.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crown-density class, Southern FHM

Region, 1994

Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and foliage-transparency class, Southern

FHM Region, 1994

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

14

Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crowndieback class, Southern FHM

Region, 1994

Distribution of t 5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Southern FHM Region, 1994

Distribution of damage types recorded for >5.0-inch

d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Southern FHM

Region, 1994

Distribution of 1 B-4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Southern

FHM Region, 1994

Distribution of 1 G-4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage

symptoms recorded, Southern FHM Region, 1994

Distribution of damage types recorded for 1 B-4.9-

inches d.b.h. saplings by selected species group,

Southern FHM Region, 1994

Thousands of acres of natural and planted loblolly and

slash pines with fusiform rust infection at three levels,

estimated from FL4 data

Thousands of acres of upland hardwood forests affected

by oak decline, estimated from FL4 data

Number of saplings and trees sampled by selected

species group and tree size, Alabama, 1993

Distribution of ~5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crown-density class, Alabama, 1993

Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and foliage-transparency class, Alabama,

1993

Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crowndieback class, Alabama, 1993

Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Alabama, 1993

Distribution of damage types recorded for >5.0-inch

d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Alabama, 1993

Distribution of l&4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class,

Alabama, 1993
30. Distribution of 1 B-4.9-inches d.b.h.saplings by

selected species group and number of damage

symptoms recorded, Alabama, 1993

31. Distribution of damage types recorded for 1.0-4.9-

inches d.b.h. saplings by selected species group,

Alabama, 1993

32. Number of saplings and trees sampled by selected

species group and tree size, Georgia, 1993

33. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crown-density class, Georgia, 1993

34. Distribution of zS.O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and foliage-transparency class, Georgia, 1993

35. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crowndieback class, Georgia, 1993

36. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Georgia, 1993

37. Distribution of damage types recorded for >5.0-inch

d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Georgia, 1993

38. Distribution of 1.@4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Georgia,

1993

39. Distribution of 1 .W.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage

symptoms recorded, Georgia, 1993

40. Distribution of damage types recorded for 1 O-4.9-

inches d.b.h. saplings by selected species group,

Georgia, 1993

41. Number of saplings and trees sampled by selected

species group and tree size, Virginia, 1993

42. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crowndensity class, Virginia, 1993

43. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and foliage-transparency class, Virginia,

1993

44. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crowndieback class, Virginia, 1993

45. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Virginia, 1993

46. Distribution of damage types recorded for >5.0-inch

d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Virginia, 1993

47. Distribution of 1 .W.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Virginia,

1993

48. Distribution of l&-4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage

symptoms recorded, Virginia, 1993

49. Distribution of damage types recorded for 1.0-4.9-

inches d.b.h. saplings by selected species group,

Virginia, 1993

50. Number of saplings and trees sampled by selected

species group and tree size, Alabama, 1994

51. Distribution of 15.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and crown-density class, Alabama, 1994

52. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and foliage-transparency class, Alabama,

1994

53. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crowndieback class, Alabama, 1994

54. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Alabama, 1994

55. Distribution of damage types recorded for >5.0-inch

d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Alabama, 1994

56. Distribution of 1 B-4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class,

Alabama, 1994

57. Distribution of 1 O-4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage

symptoms recorded, Alabama, 1994

58. Distribution of damage types recorded for 1 .W.9-

inches d.b.h. saplings by selected species group,

Alabama. 1994

15
59. Number of saplings and trees sampled by selected

species group and tree size, Georgia, 1994

60. Distribution of >S.O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crowndensity class, Georgia, 1994

61. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and foliage-transparency class, Georgia,

1994

62. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crowndieback class, Georgia, 1994

63. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Georgia, 1994

64. Distribution of damage types recorded for >5.0-inch

d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Georgia, 1994

65. Distribution of 1.&4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Georgia,

1994

66. Distribution of l&4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage

symptoms recorded, Georgia, 1994

67. Distribution of damage types recorded for l&4.9-

inches d.b.h. saplings by selected species group,

Georgia, 1994

68. Number of saplings and trees sampled by selected

species group and tree size, Virginia, 1994

69. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crown-density class, Virginia, 1994

70. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and foliage-transparency class, Virginia,

1994

71. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crowndieback class, Virginia, 1994

72. Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Virginia, 1994

73. Distribution of damage types recorded for >5.0-inch

d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Virginia, 1994

74. Distribution of 1 B--4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Virginia,

1994

75. Distribution of l&4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage

symptoms recorded, Virginia, 1994

76. Distribution of damage types recorded for 1.0-4.9-

inches d.b.h. saplings by selected species group,

Virginia, 1994

16
Table l-Number of plots, saplings, and trees measured by

State, Southern FHM Region, 1993

State Plots

Saplings 1 .O- Trees 25.0

4.9 in. d.b.h. in. d.b.h.

Total

trees

Alabama 127 779 2,233 3,012

Georgia 135 731 2,270 3,001

Virginia 96 677 2,267 2,944

Total 358 2,187 6,770 8,957

Table 2-Number of plots, saplings, and trees measured by

State, Southern FHM Region, 1994

State Plots

Saplings 1 .O4.9 in. d.b.h.

Trees ~5.0

in. d.b.h.

Total

trees

Alabama 118 681 1,991 2,672

Georgia 133 696 2,141 2,837

Virginia 96 613 2,084 2,697

Total 347 1,990 6,216 8,206

17
Table j-Number of saplings and trees sampled by

selected species group and tree size, Southern FHM

Region, 1993

Species group

Saplings 1 .O- Trees 25.0

4.9 in. d.b.h. in. d.b.h.

Softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

7 98

25 263

28 246

287 1,563

26 405

39 159

All softwoods 412 2,734

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

85 764

284 787

234 432

260 467

70 342

155 287

101 305

586 652

All hardwoods 1,775 4,036

All species 2,187 6,770

18
Table A--Distribution of &O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and crown-density class, Southern FHM Region, 1993

Crown-density class

Species group

Sample Goo d

size (>50%)

Average

(21-50%)

Poor

(l-20%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

9 8 21.4 78.6 0.0

263 20.5 73.4 6.1

246 4.1 88.2 7.7

1,538 8.6 88.2 3.2

405 5.7 88.6 5.7

159 20.8 74.2 5.0

All softwoods 2.734 10.1 85.7 4.2

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

764 32.8 65.5 1.7

787 24.6 73.2 2.2

432 25.0 71.1 3.9

467 30.6 66.8 2.6

342 47.4 52.3 0.3

287 15.0 81.5 3.5

305 37.0 61.6 1.3

652 26.7 70.6 2.8

All hardwoods 4,036 29 .4 68.3 2.3

All species 6,770 21.6 75.3 3.1

Pe rcentage of trees sam pled a

’ Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

19
Table 5-Distribution of &O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and foliage-transparency class, Southern FHM Region, 1993

Foliage-transparency class

Species group

Sample Normal Moderate Severe

size (O-30%) (31-50%) (>50%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

- - Percentage of trees sampled a - -

9 8 100.0 0.0 0.0

263 100.0 0.0 0.0

246 99.6 0.4 0.0

1,563 97.4 2.4 0.2

405 89.1 10.1 0.7

159 91.8 8.2 0.0

2,734 96.4 3.4 0.2

764 98.4 0.9 0.6

787 98.7 0.8 0.5

432 99.1 0.9 0.0

467 99.6 0.2 0.2

342 99.4 0.3 0.3

287 99.3 0.0 0.7

305 99.7 0.3 0.0

652 98.8 0.9 0.3

4,036 99.0 0.6 0.4

6,770 97.9 1.8 0.3

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

20
Table 6-Distribution of zS.O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group and

crown-dieback class, Southern FHM Region, 1993

Crown-dieback class

Species group

Sample

size

None

(O-5%)

Light

(620%)

Moderate

(21-50%)

Severe

(>50%)

Softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shot-deaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

98 95.9 4.1 0.0 0.0

263 89.0 11.0 0.0 0.0

246 89.0 10.6 0.4 0.0

1,563 93.9 5.6 0.3 0.2

405 80.0 18.8 1.2 0.0

159 86.2 12.0 1.9 0.0

All softwoods 2,734 90.6 8.8 0.5 0.1

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other h ardw oods

764 89.3 9.4 0.5 0.8

787 75.7 21.6 1.8 0.9

432 85.6 12.0 1.6 0.7

467 87.4 11.6 0.4 0.6

342 98.2 1.5 0.0 0.3

287 88.5 10.4 0.7 0.4

305 93.8 6.2 0.0 0.0

652 88.5 9.5 1.1 0.9

All hardwoods

All species

4,036 86.9 11.5 0.9 0.7

6,770 88.4 10.4 0.7 0.4

______ Percentage of trees sampleda - - - - - -

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

21
Table 7-Distribution of AO-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms recorded,

Southern FHM Region, 1993

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

Species group size 0 1 2 3

Softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

Percentage of trees sampleda

9 8 92.9 7.1 0.0 0.0

263 88.2 8.4 3.4 0.0

246 95.1 4.9 0.0 0.0

1,563 89.3 9.2 1.4 0.1

405 92.1 7.9 0.0 0.0

159 88.7 10.7 0.6 0.0

2,734 90.2 8.5 1.2 0.1

764 86.6 12.4 0.9 0.0

787 84.0 14.1 1.9 0.0

432 78.5 19.4 1.6 0.5

467 80.3 18.4 1.3 0.0

342 89.5 9.6 0.9 0.0

287 86.4 12.2 1.4 0.0

305 87.2 11.5 1.0 0.3

652 78.1 17.9 2.8 1.2

4,036 83.4 14.8 1.6 0.3

6,770 86.2 12.2 1.4 0.2

’ Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

2 2
Table g--Distribution of damage types recorded for AO-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Southern FHM Region,

Species group

Damages conks/ Open Resin./ Broken Brooms Broken Dead Broken

recorded Cankers decay wounds gumm. bole on bole roots term. branch.

_________________________________ -P~ ~ ce nt~ fd ~ m age s~ ~ co~ d ~ d a__________________________________

softwoods

Longleaf pine 7 28.6 14.3 28.6 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Slash pine 40 52.5 2.5 10.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0

Shortleaf pine 12 25.0 8.3 25.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 8.3

Loblolly pine 193 56.5 22.8 3.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 4.1

Virginia pine 32 46.9 12.5 6.2 6.2 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 6.2

Other softwoods 19 0.0 42.1 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 26.3

All softwoods 303 49.5 19.5 6.6 6.3 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 5.3

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hit kories

Other hardwoods

109 6.4 51.4 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.2

141 7.8 61.7 5.7 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 18.4

103 4.9 64.1 6.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 1 .o 0.0 21.4

98 10.2 51.0 15.3 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3

39 17.9 48.7 10.3 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8

4 3 4.7 44.2 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.3

44 6.8 50.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2

177 4.5 53.7 14.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.4 0.0 13.6

All hardwoods 754 7.0 54.9 10.5 0.4 0.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 17.6

All species 1,057 19.2 44.8 9.4 2.1 0.6 0.0 2.4 0.0 14.1

’ Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
Table 9-Distribution of l.O- to 4.9~inch d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Southern FHM

Region, 1993

Species group

Sample

size

Sapling-vigor class

Good Average Poor

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pineb

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods 411 49.9 43.1 7.1

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods 1.775 29.9 66.5 3.7

All species 2,186 33.6 62.1 4.3

- - Pet. of saplings sam pleda - -

7 42.9 57.1 0.0

25 80.0 20.0 0.0

28 21.4 75.0 3.6

286 51.4 39.5 9.1

26 30.8 61.5 7.7

3 9 53.8 46.2 0.0

85 15.3 83.5 1.2

284 20.8 72.2 7.0

234 32.0 65.4 2.6

260 35.8 62.7 1.5

70 40.0 57.1 2.9

155 36.8 58.7 4.5

101 25.7 69.3 5.0

586 30.5 66.0 3.4

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100

b One tree had a missing value for sapling-vigor class.

2 4
Table lO-Distribution of l.O- to 4.9~inch d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Southern FHM Region, 1993

Species group

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

Pet. of saplings sam pleda

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

7 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

25 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

28 96.4 3.6 0.0 0.0

287 98.3 1.7 0.0 0.0

26 96.2 3.8 0.0 0.0

39 97.4 2.6 0.0 0.0

All softwoods 412 98.1 1.9 0.0 0.0

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

S weetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

85 88.2 11.8 0.0 0.0

284 96.1 3.9 0.0 0.0

234 89.7 8.6 1.7 0.0

260 89.2 8.8 1.9 0.0

70 92.9 5.7 1.4 0.0

155 87.1 9.7 3.2 0.0

101 84.2 13.9 2.0 0.0

586 89.1 9.2 1.5 0.2

All hardwoods

All species

1,775 90.0 8.5 1.5 0.1

2,187 91.5 7.3 1.2 co.1

’ Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

2 5
Table ll-Distribution of damage types recorded for l.O- to 4.9~inch d.b.h. saplings by selected species group, Southern FHM Region, 1993

Species group

Damages conks/ Open Resin./ Broken Brooms Broken Dead Broken Crown Dam . Disc.

recorded Cankers decay wounds gumm. bole on bole roots term. branch. brooms foliage foliage Other

Softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

_-_______________________________ -Pe~ ce nt~ fd ~ m age s~ ~ co~ d ~ d a______ ---_________________________

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 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0

100.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All softwoods 8 37.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.5

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

10 20.0

11 9.1

2 8 17.9

33 0.0

6 0.0

2 5 16.0

18 0.0

75 4.0

30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

36.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

42.9 14.3 0.0 0.0

51.5 15.2 0.0 3.0

83.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

44.0 12.0 0.0 0.0

11.1 22.2 0.0 5.6

42.7 13.3 0.0 1.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 36.4 0.0 9.1 0.0 9.1

0.0 3.6 0.0 7.1 0.0 10.7 0.0 3.6

0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 6.1 3.0 3.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 4.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 27.8 0.0 16.7 0.0 16.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 6.7

All hardwoods 206 7.3 41.7 12.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 19.9 0.0 10.2 0.5 5.8

All species 214 8.4 40.2 12.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 20.1 0.0 9.8 0.5 7.0

” Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
Table U-Number of saplings and trees sampled by

selected species group and tree size, Southern FWM

Region, 1994

Species group

Saplings 1 .O- Trees 25.0

4.9 in. d.b.h. in. d.b.h.

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

S weetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species 1,990 6,216

6 82

20 259

27 235

273 1,303

25 366

39 146

390 2,391

72 749

251 709

223 411

241 446

61 326

148 277

100 300

504 607 -

1,600 3,825

27
Table 13-Distribution of 2GO-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and crown-density class, Southern FHM Region, 1994

Crown-density class

Species group

Sample Goo d Average Poor

size (>50%) (21-50%) (l-20%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

AU hardwoods

All species

- - Pe rcentage of trees sam pleda - -

82 25.6 74.4 0.0

259 34.8 63.3 1.9

235 12.8 85. I 2.1

1,303 19 .0 79 .5 I A

366 13.9 79 .8 6.3

I46 24.7 63.0 12.3

2,39 1 19 .9 77.2 2.9

749 29 .4 68.8 1.9

709 30.5 68.4 1.1

411 30.4 68.1 1.5

446 34.8 63.9 1.4

326 40.2 58.0 1.8

277 31.0 66.8 2.2

300 46.3 52.3 1.3

607 28.7 67.7 3.6

3,825 32.6 65.5 1.9

6,216 27.7 70.0 2.3

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100

28
Table 14-LIistribution of k-5.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and foliage-transparency class, Southern FHM Region, 1994

Foliage-transparency class

Species group

Sample Normal Moderate Severe

size (O-30%) (31-50%) (>50%)

- - Pe rcentage of trees sam pled a - -

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

82 100.0 0.0 0.0

259 100.0 0.0 0.0

235 99.6 0.4 0.0

1,303 99.7 0.2 0.1

366 97.5 1.9 0.6

146 94.5 2.7 2.7

All softwoods 2,391 99.1 0.6 0.3

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

S weetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

749 99.6 0.3 0.1

709 100.0 0.0 0.0

411 99.5 0.5 0.0

446 99.8 0.0 0.2

326 99.4 0.0 0.6

277 100.0 0.0 0.0

300 99.7 0.3 0.0

607 98.5 0.8 0.7

All hardwoods 3,825 99.5 0.3 0.2

All species 6,216 99.4 0.4 0.2

’ Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

29
Table H-Distribution of 25.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group and

crown-dieback class, Southern FHM Region, 1994

Crown-dieback class

Species group

Sample None Light Moderate Severe

size (o-5%) (620%) (21-50%) (>50%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

82

259

235

1,303

366

146

2,391

____ - - Pe rcentage of trees sam pleda - - - - - -

9 7.6 2.4 0.0 0.0

100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

9 5.7 3.8 0.4 0.0

9 7.1 2.8 0.2 0.0

87.2 12.0 0.3 0.6

9 0.4 5.5 2.7 1.4

95.4 4.1 0.3 0.2

749 91.0 7.9 0.8 0.3

709 83.2 15.2 1.3 0.3

411 91.5 7.3 1.2 0.0

446 89.5 10.1 0.2 0.2

326 95.7 4.0 0.0 0.3

277 93.5 6.1 0.4 0.0

300 93.3 6.3 0.3 0.0

607 89.8 8.4 1.2 0.7

3,825 90.0 8.9 0.8 0.3

6,216 92.1 7.1 0.6 0.2

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

30
Table M-Distribution of .k 5.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms recorded,

Southern FHM Region, 1994

Species group

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

8 2 92.7 7.3 0.0 0.0

259 87.3 12.4 0.4 0.0

235 94.5 5.5 0.0 0.0

1,303 90.3 8.9 0.6 0.2

366 91.5 7.9 0.6 0.0

146 82.9 17.1 0.0 0.0

All softwoods 2.391 90.2 9.2 0.5 0.1

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

749 83.7 14.6 1.7 0.0

709 86.6 12.6 0.8 0.0

411 78.6 19.5 1.7 0.2

446 85.0 13.7 1.1 0.2

326 89.3 9.5 1.2 0.0

277 76.9 22.4 0.7 0.0

300 87.7 11.7 0.7 0.0

607 81.1 17.5 1.5 0.0

All hardwoods 3,825 83.7 15.0 1.2 0.1

All species 6,216 86.2 12.8 1.0 0.1

Percentage of trees sampled a

’ Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

31
Table 17-Distribution of damage types recorded for zS.O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Southern FHM Region, 1994

Species group

Damages conks/ Open Resin./ Broken Brooms Broken Dead Broken Crown Dam . Disc.

recorded Cankers decay wounds gumm. bole on bole roots term. branch. brooms foliage foliage Other

Softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

6 16.7 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3 4 58.8 0.0 26.5 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9

13 30.8 15.4 46.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

138 65.9 8.7 18.8 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

3 3 36.4 9.1 30.3 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

25 0.0 20.0 36.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 24.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0

All softwoods 249 51.4 8.8 25.7 1.6 1.2 0.0 0.8 5.6 3.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.2

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

135 14.8 28.1 16.3 0.0 0.7

101 11.9 39.6 16.8 0.0 0.0

9 7 9.3 38.1 16.5 0.0 1.0

7 4 5.4 45.9 35.1 0.0 1.4

39 12.8 25.6 17.9 10.3 0.0

66 3.0 30.3 45.5 0.0 0.0

3 9 12.8 28.2 25.6 5.1 0.0

124 7.3 41.1 28.2 3.2 2.4

0.0 0.0 11.9 8.8 0.0 19.3 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 10.9 12.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 1.0

0.0 0.0 25.8 7.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

0.0 0.0 10.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 2.6 15.4 7.7 0.0 2.6 2.6 2.6

0.0 0.0 12.1 4.5 0.0 3.0 1.5 0.0

0.0 0.0 17.9 5.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 11.3 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

All hardwoods 675 9.8 35.7 24.1 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.1 14.1 7.1 0.0 5.8 0.4 0.4

All species 924 21.0 28.5 24.6 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.3 11.8 6.1 0.0 4.3 0.3 0.6

” Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
Table l&Distribution of 1.0-4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Southern FHM

Region, 1994

Species group

Sample

size

Sapling-vigor class

Good Average Poor

Pet. of saplings sam pled a

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

6 50.0 50.0 0.0

20 70.0 30.0 0.0

2 7 48.2 48.2 3.7

273 67.8 29.7 2.6

25 52.0 48.0 0.0

3 9 92.3 5.1 2.6

All softwoods 390 67.7 30.0 2.3

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

S weetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

72

251

223

241

61

148

100

504

68.1 29.2 2.8

65.3 30.7 4.0

68.2 28.7 3.1

68.5 27.4 4.2

70.5 27.9 1.6

61.5 35.8 2.7

74.0 25.0 1.0

65.5 31.5 3.0

All hardwoods 1,600 66.8 30.1 3.1

All species 1,990 66.9 30.1 3.0

’ Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

33
Table 19-Distribution of l&4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Southern FHM Region, 1994

Species group

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

Percentage of trees sampleda

6 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20 95.0 5.0 0.0 0.0

27 96.3 3.7 0.0 0.0

273 96.3 3.7 0.0 0.0

25 96.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

39 92.3 5.1 2.6 0.0

390 95.9 3.8 0.3 0.0

7 2 87.5 12.5 0.0 0.0

251 93.6 5.6 0.8 0.0

223 82.5 15.7 1.8 0.0

241 86.3 13.3 0.4 0.0

61 88.5 11.5 0.0 0.0

148 83.8 12.8 2.7 0.7

100 84.0 16.0 0.0 0.0

504 85.7 12.3 2.0 0.0

1,600 86.5 12.1 1.3 0.1

1,990 88.3 10.5 1.1 0.1

D Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

34
Table 20-Distribution of damage types recorded for l&4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by selected species group, Southern FHM Region, 1994

Species group

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods 17 47.1 0.0 23.5 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

E Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods 239 10.0 28.9 25.1 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 21.3 7.1 0.0 2.9 0.8 1.7

Damages conks/ Open Resin./ Broken Brooms Broken Dead Broken Crown Dam . Disc.

recorded Cankers decay wounds gumm. bole on bole roots term. branch. brooms foliage foliage Other

---_____----____----________________ __P~~~ent~fd~mages~~~~~d~d"--_____________________---__-_____

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

I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

10 80.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 0.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

18 5.6 33.3 22.2 5.6 5.6

43 25.6 16.3 16.3 2.3 2.3

34 5.9 52.9 23.5 0.0 0.0

7 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3 0 3.3 43.3 23.3 0.0 3.3

16 12.5 12.5 37.5 0.0 0.0

82 7.3 28.0 34.1 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 77.8 11.1

0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0

0.0 0.0 20.9 11.6

0.0 0.0 14.7 2.9

0.0 0.0 14.3 14.3

0.0 0.0 20.0 6.7

0.0 0.0 18.8 6.2

0.0 0.0 19.5 7.3

0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6

0.0 0.0 2.3 2.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 42.9 0.0 14.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0

0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2

All species 256 12.5 27.0 25.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 21.1 7.0 0.0 2.7 0.8 1.6

“Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
Table 21-Thousands of acres of natural and planted loblolly and slash pines with fusiform

rust infection at three levels, estimated from FIA data

State

Survey Host

date area >lO%

Infection level

>30% >50%

Alabama 1990 5,941

Arkansasb 1988 2,587

Florida 1987 5,777

Georgia 1989 9,411

Louisiana 1991 4,574

Mississippi 1994 5,082

North Carolina 1990 3,872

Oklahornab 1992 465

South Carolina 1993 4,563

Texas 1992 3,691

Virginiab 1992 1,996

Year Acres

(1,000’s)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - Acres (1,000’s) - - - - - - - - - -

1,711 (29)a

167 (3)

1,166 (20)

4,594 (49)

1,658 (36)

1,200 (24)

969 (25)

3 4 (7)

1,437 (31)

419 (11)

5 9 (3)

665 (11) 299 (5)

3 3 (1) 16 (cl)

453 (8) 213 (4)

2,199 (23) 1,016 (11)

581 (13) 204 (4)

338 (7) 7 2 (1)

202 (5) 41 (1)

17 (4) 0 (0)

417 (9) 101 (2)

7 9 (2) 16 (<l)

0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 47,959 13,414 (28)

a Number in parentheses refers to the percentage of host acres affected.

‘No slash pine acres.

4,984 (10) 1,978 (4)

3 6
Table 22-Thousands of acres of upland hardwood forests affected by oak

decline, estimated from FIA data

state

Survey Vulnerable

date host area

Affected

area Incidence

Alabama 1990 3,867 266 7

Arkansas 1988 5,926 378 6

Florida 1987 889 166 19

Georgia 1989 3,513 275 8

Louisiana 1991 1,211 28 2

Mississippi 1994 3,250 113 3

North Carolina 1990 3,634 713 20

Oklahoma 1992 1,989 18 1

South Carolina 1993 1,568 86 5

Tennessee 1989 5,641 678 12

Texas 1992 2,495 111 4

Virginia 1992 5,686 1,088 19

Year - -Acres (1,000’s) - - Pet.

Totals 39,669 3,920 10

37
Table 2SNumber of saplings and trees sampled by

selected species group and tree size, Alabama, 1993

Species group

Saplings 1 .O- Trees ~5.0

4.9 in. d.b.h. in. d.b.h.

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods 118 879

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species 779 2,233

7 5 7

4 7

9 73

87 641

7 7 7

4 24

39 165

108 309

7 6 9 5

9 7 220

17 66

5 4 116

35 128

235 255

661 1,354

38
Table 24--Distribution of 25.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and crown-density class, Alabama, 1993

Crown-density class

Species group

Sample Goo d Average

size (>50%) (21-50%)

Poor

(l-20%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

- - Percentage of trees sampleda - -

57 15.8 84.2 0.0

7 0.0 85.7 14.3

7 3 6.8 84.9 8.2

641 6.2 91.6 2.2

7 7 11.7 84.4 3.9

24 12.5 83.3 4.2

879 7.5 89.6 2.8

165

309

9 5

220

66

116

128

255

28.5

20.7

16.8

35.4

39.4

12.1

27.3

19.2

70.9

75.1

75.8

62.3

60.6

86.2

71.1

78.8

0.6

4.2

7.4

2.3

0.0

1.7

1.6

2.0

1,354 24.3 73.1 2.6

2,233 17.7 79.6 2.7

L1 Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100

3 9
Table 25-Distribution of ~5.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and foliage-transparency class, Alabama, 1993

Foliage-transparency class

Species group

Sample

size

Normal

(o-30%)

Moderate

(31-50%)

Severe

(>50%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shot-deaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

5 7 100.0 0.0 0.0

7 100.0 0.0 0.0

73 100.0 0.0 0.0

641 99.7 0.3 0.0

7 7 100.0 0.0 0.0

24 100.0 0.0 0.0

879 99.8 0.2 0.0

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

165 100.0 0.0 0.0

309 99.7 0.0 0.3

95 100.0 0.0 0.0

220 100.0 0.0 0.0

66 100.0 0.0 0.0

116 100.0 0.0 0.0

128 100.0 0.0 0.0

255 100.0 0.0 0.0

All hardwoods 1.354 99.9 0.0 0.1

All species 2,233 99.8 0.1 CO.1

- - Percentage of trees sampled a - -

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

40
Table 26-Distribution of &LO-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group and

crown-dieback class, Alabama, 1993

Crown-dieback class

Species group

Sample None Light Moderate Severe

size (o-S%) (620%) (21-50%) (>50%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

5 7 96.5 3.5 0.0 0.0

7 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

73 87.7 12.3 0.0 0.0

641 94.8 5.0 0.2 0.0

77 93.5 6.5 0.0 0.0

24 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0

All softwoods 879 93.5 6.4 0.1 0.0

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

165 89.1 10.9 0.0 0.0

309 75.4 21.4 2.3 1.0

95 89.5 8.4 1.0 1.0

220 88.6 10.4 0.9 0.0

66 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

116 85.3 13.8 0.9 0.0

128 89.8 10.2 0.0 0.0

255 87.8 11.4 0.8 0.0

1,354 86.0 12.8 1.0 0.3

2,233 88.9 10.3 0.6 0.2

___--- Percentage of trees sampleda - - - - - -

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

41
Table 27Distribution of ;?5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms recorded,

Alabama, 1993

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

Species group size 0 1 2 3

Softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

Percentage of trees sampled a

57 94.7 5.3 0.0 0.0

7 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

73 94.5 5.5 0.0 0.0

641 88.0 10.8 1.1 0.2

7 7 92.2 7.8 0.0 0.0

2 4 79.2 16.7 4.2 0.0

879 89.2 9.8 0.9 0.1

165 91.5 8.5 0.0 0.0

309 81.6 16.5 1.9 0.0

9 5 69.5 26.3 3.2 1.0

220 80.9 17.3 1.8 0.0

66 86.4 12.1 1.5 0.0

116 82.8 16.4 0.9 0.0

128 88.3 10.9 0.0 0.8

255 74.1 21.2 3.9 0.8

1,354 81.4 16.5 1.8 0.3

2,233 84.5 13.8 1.5 0.2

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

42
Table Z&Distribution of damage types recorded for SO-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Alabama, 1993

Species group

Damages conks/ Open Resin./ Broken Brooms Broken Dead Broken Crown Dam . Disc.

recorded Cankers decay wounds gumm. bole on bole roots term. branch. brooms foliage foliage Other

Softwoods

Longleaf pine 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0

Slash pine 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

Shortleaf pine 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Loblolly pine 86 58.1 22.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 8.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0

Virginia pine 6 0.0 16.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7

Other softwoods 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All softwoods 105 47.6 19.0 6.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 12.4 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.0

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

14 14.3 71.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 3 3.2 65.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.2 0.0 23.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0

3 4 2.9 55.9 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 32.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

46 17.4 34.8 17.4 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0

10 10.0 60.0 10.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21 4.8 52.4 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.8 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0

17 5.9 41.2 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.4 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0

80 2.5 55.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

All hardwoods 285 7.0 54.9 10.5 0.4 0.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 17.6 0.0 4.5 0.0 2.8

All species 390 17.4 44.6 9.5 1.0 0.8 0.0 4.4 0.0 20.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.5

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
Table 29-Distribution of l&4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Alabama, 1993

Sample Sapling-vigor class

Species group size Average Poor

Softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods 118 37.3 61 .O 1.7

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species 779 14.4 84.0 1.7

Pet. of saplings sampled a

7 42.9 57.1 0.0

4 0.0 100.0 0.0

9 11.1 88.9 0.0

87 40.2 57.5 2.3

7 57.1 42.9 0.0

4 25.0 75.0 0.0

3 9 2.6 97.4 0.0

108 9.3 88.9 1.8

76 4.0 93.4 2.6

97 21.6 78.4 0.0

17 23.5 76.5 0.0

54 7.4 88.9 3.7

35 8.6 88.6 2.9

235 9.4 88.9 1.7

661 10.3 88.0 1.7

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

44
Table 30-Distribution of 1.049~inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Alabama, 1993

Species group

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

Pet. of saplings sam pleda

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

7 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

9 88.9 11.1 0.0 0.0

87 98.8 1.2 0.0 0.0

7 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0

All softwoods 118 97.5 2.5 0.0 0.0

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

S we&gum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

39 84.6 15.4 0.0 0.0

108 97.2 2.8 0.0 0.0

76 96.0 2.6 1.3 0.0

9 7 88.7 8.2 3.1 0.0

17 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 4 88.9 3.7 7.4 0.0

35 82.9 11.4 5.7 0.0

235 90.6 8.1 1.3 0.0

All hardwoods

All species

661 91.4 6.7 2.0 0.0

779 92.3 6.0 1.7 0.0

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

4 5
Table 31-Distribution of damage types recorded for 1.0-4.9~inches d.b.h. saplings by selected species group, Alabama, 1993

Species group

Damages conks/ Open Resin./ Broken Brooms Broken Dead Broken Crown Dam . Disc.

recorded Cankers decay wounds gumm. bole on bole roots term. branch. brooms foliage foliage Other

Softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

8

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

__________------____________-_-- _ _ percent of damages recOr&da _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 100.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 16.7 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0

4 0.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

14 0.0 50.0 14.3 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 7.1 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 0.0 0.0 0.0

10 10.0 50.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0

8 0.0 12.5 25.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0

25 0.0 56.0 8.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

70 2.9 48.6 10.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 24.3 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0

73 4.1 46.6 9.6 0.0 4.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 26.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
Table 32-Number of saplings and trees sampled by

selected species group and tree size, Georgia, 1993

Species group

Saplings 1 .O- Trees 25.0

4.9 in. d.b.h. in. d.b.h.

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods 176 1,178

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

0 41

21 256

17 152

130 597

1 81

7 51

2 5 155

122 207

60 120

86 142

17 96

5 9 136

20 4 5

166 191

555 1,092

All species 731 2,270

47
Table 33-Distribution of SO-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and crown-density class, Georgia, 1993

Crown-density class

Species group

Sample Goo d Average Poor

size (>50%) (21-50%) (l-20%)

- - Percentage of trees sampleda - -

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

41 29.3 70.7 0.0

256 21.1 73.0 5.9

152 2.0 90.1 7.9

597 6.0 89.4 4.5

81 2.5 91.4 6.2

51 15.7 80.4 3.9

All softwoods 1,178 9.8 85.1 5.2

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

155 21.3 76.8 1.9

207 19.8 79.2 1.0

120 9.2 86.7 4.2

142 16.2 79.6 4.2

96 25.0 75.0 0.0

136 13.2 83.1 3.7

45 26.7 68.9 4.4

191 18.3 79.1 2.6

All hardwoods

All species

1,092 18.0 79.4 2.6

2,270 13.7 82.3 3.9

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

48
Table 34-Distribution of #.O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and foliage-transparency class, Georgia, 1993

Foliage-transparency class

Species group

Sample

size

Normal Moderate Severe

(O-30%) (31-50%) (>50%)

- - Percentage of trees sampled a - -

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

41

256

152

597

81

51

00.0 0.0 0.0

00.0 0.0 0.0

00.0 0.0 0.0

99.7 0.2 0.2

98.8 1.2 0.0

1 00.0 0.0 0.0

All softwoods 1,178 99.7 0.2 0.1

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

S weetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

155 99.4 0.0 0.6

207 99.5 0.5 0.0

120 100.0 0.0 0.0

142 99.3 0.0 0.7

96 100.0 0.0 0.0

136 99.3 0.0 0.7

45 100.0 0.0 0.0

191 100.0 0.0 0.0

All hardwoods

All species

1,092 99.7 0.1 0.3

2,270 99.7 0.1 0.2

D Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

49
Table 35-Distribution of 25.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group and

crown-dieback class, Georgia, 1993

Crown-dieback class

Species group

Sample None Light Moderate Severe

size (O-5%) (620%) (21-50%) (>50%)

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

41

256

152

597

81

51

1,178

_____ Percentage of trees sampled a - - - - - -

95.1 4.9 0.0 0.0

88.7 11.3 0.0 0.0

89.5 9.9 0.7 0.0

95.3 4.0 0.3 0.3

72.8 25.9 1.2 0.0

90.2 9.8 0.0 0.0

91.3 8.2 0.3 0.2

155 90.3 7.7 1.3 0.6

207 78.7 19.8 1.0 0.5

120 86.7 13.3 0.0 0.0

142 87.3 10.6 0.0 2.1

96 97.9 2.1 0.0 0.0

136 89.7 8.8 0.7 0.7

45 95.6 4.4 0.0 0.0

191 92.1 5.8 1.0 1 .o

1,092 88.5 10.2 0.6 0.7

2,270 90.0 9.1 0.5 0.4

5 0
Table SDistribution of L SO-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms recorded,

Georgia, 1993

Species group

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

Percentage of trees sampled n

41 90.2 9.8 0.0 0.0

256 87.9 8.6 3.5 0.0

152 94.7 5.3 0.0 0.0

597 85.9 11.4 2.5 0.2

81 93.8 6.2 0.0 0.0

51 92.2 7.8 0.0 0.0

1,178 88.5 9.4 2.0 0.1

155 87.7 12.3 0.0 0.0

207 88.9 9.7 1.4 0.0

120 85.8 14.2 0.0 0.0

142 80.3 19.0 0.7 0.0

96 94.8 3.1 2.1 0.0

136 94.1 5.2 0.8 0.0

45 91.1 8.9 0.0 0.0

191 87.4 11.0 1.0 0.5

1,092 88.3 10.8 0.8 0.1

2,270 88.4 10.1 1.4 0.1

’ Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

51
Table 37-Distribution of damage types recorded for 25.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Georgia, 1993

Species group

Damages conks/ Open Resin./ Broken Brooms Broken Dead Broken Crown Dam . Disc.

recorded Cankers decay wounds gumm. bole on bole roots term. branch. brooms foliage foliage Other

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

K

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

_________________________________ _ percent of damages recOrdedn _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4 50.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

40 52.5 2.5 10.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0

8 37.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5

101 58.4 24.8 5.9 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.0

5 60.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0

4 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0

162 54.3 18.5 7.4 9.3 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.1

19 5.3 63.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0

26 19.2 50.0 7.7 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.8 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

17 0.0 76.5 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9

29 3.4 62.1 20.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0

7 42.8 42.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3

9 11.1 44.4 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1

4 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

28 10.7 71.4 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

139 10.1 61.9 9.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 12.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2

301 33.9 38.5 8.3 5.0 0.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 6.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.7

“Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

0
Table 3!!8-Distribution of 1.049~inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Georgia, 1993

Species group

Sample

size

Sapling-vigor class

Average Poor

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pineb

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

Pet. of saplings sam pled a

0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21 95.2 4.8 0.0

17 29.4 64.7 5.9

129 54.3 30.2 15.5

1 100.0 0.0 0.0

7 57.1 42.9 0.0

175 57.1 30.9 12.0

25 44.0 56.0 0.0

122 30.3 56.6 13.1

60 58.3 38.3 3.3

86 40.7 55.8 3.5

17 41.2 58.8 0.0

59 54.2 42.4 3.4

20 50.0 45.0 5.0

166 50.6 45.8 3.6

555 45.2 49.4 5.4

730 48.1 44.9 7.0

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

‘One loblolly pine had a missing value for sapling vigor class.

53
Table 39-Distribution of 1.049~inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Georgia, 1993

Species group

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

17 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

130 96.9 3.1 0.0 0.0

1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All softwoods 176 97.7 2.3 0.0 0.0

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

2 5 92.0 8.0 0.0 0.0

122 95.9 4.1 0.0 0.0

60 93.3 6.7 0.0 0.0

8 6 94.2 5.8 0.0 0.0

17 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 9 88.1 10.2 1.7 0.0

20 85.0 15.0 0.0 0.0

166 92.8 5.4 1.2 0.6

All hardwoods 555 93.2 6.1 0.5 0.2

All species 731 94.2 5.2 0.4 0.1

Pet. of saplings sam ple d’

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

54
Table 40-Distribution of damage types recorded for 1.0-4.9~inches d.b.h. saplings by selected species group, Georgia, 1993

Species group

Damages conks/ Open Resin./ Broken Brooms Broken Dead Broken Crown Dam . Disc.

recorded Cankers decay wounds gumm. bole on bole roots term. branch. brooms foliage foliage Other

________________________________ --~~~~~~~~f~~mag~~~~~~~~~~a_____--------_____________________

softwoods

Longleaf pine 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

Slash pine 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

Shortleaf pine 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

Joblolly pine 4 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0

Virginia pine 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

Other softwoods 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

All softwoods 4 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0

E Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

S we&gum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

2 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0

5 20.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0

5 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0

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

8 25.0 62.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0

3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.6 0.0 0.0

16 0.0 50.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 6.2

43 11.6 39.5 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 14.0 0.0 7.0

47 12.8 36.2 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 0.0 12.8 0.0 12.8

“Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
Table 41-Number of saplings and trees sampled by

selected species group and tree size, Virginia, 1993

Species group

Saplings 1 .O- Trees 25.0

4.9 in. d.b.h. in. d.b.h.

softwoods

Longleaf pine 0 0

Slash pine 0 0

Shortleaf pine 2 21

Loblolly pine 70 325

Virginia pine 18 247

Other softwoods 28 8 4

All softwoods 118 677

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

21 444

54 271

98 217

77 105

36 180

42 35

46 132

185 206

All hardwoods 559 1,590

All species 677 2,267

56
Table 42-Distribution of LS.O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and crown-density class, Virginia, 1993

Crown-density class

Species group

Sample Goo d Average Poor

size (>50%) (21-50%) (l-20%)

- - Pe rcentage of trees sam pleda - -

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21 9.5 85.7 4.8

325 18.2 79.4 2.5

247 4.9 89.1 6.1

8 4 26.2 67.9 6.0

All softwoods 677 14.0 81.7 4.3

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

444 38.5 59.5 2.0

271 32.8 66.4 0.7

217 37.3 60.4 2.3

105 40.0 59.0 1.0

180 62.2 37.2 0.6

35 31.4 60.0 8.6

132 50.0 50.0 0.0

206 43.7 52.4 3.9

All hardwoods 1,59 0 41.6 56.5 1.8

All species 2,267 33.4 64.0 2.6

’ Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

57
Table 43-Distribution of 25.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and foliage-transparency class, Virginia, 1993

Foliage-transparency class

Species group

Sample

size

Normal

(O-308)

Moderate

(31-50%)

Severe

(x50%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21 95.2 4.8 0.0

325 88.6 10.8 0.6

247 82.6 16.2 1.2

8 4 84.5 15.5 0.0

All softwoods 677 86.1 13.2 0.7

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

444 9 7.5 1.6 0.9

271 9 7.0 1.8 1.1

217 9 8.2 1.8 0.0

105 9 9 .0 1.0 0.0

180 9 8.9 0.6 0.6

35 9 7.1 0.0 2.9

132 9 9 .2 0.8 0.0

206 9 6.1 2.9 1.0

All hardwoods

All species

1,590 97.7 1.6 0.7

2,267 94.3 5.0 0.7

- - Pe rcentage of trees sam pled a - -

D Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

58
Table AADistribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group and

crown-dieback class, Virginia, 1993

Crown-dieback class

Species group

Sample None Light Moderate Severe

size (O--5%) (620%) (21-50%) (>50%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21 90.5 9.5 0.0 0.0

325 89.5 9.8 0.3 0.3

247 78.1 20.2 1.6 0.0

8 4 89.3 7.1 3.6 0.0

All softwoods 677 85.4 13.3 1.2 0.2

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

444 89.0 9.5 0.4 1.1

271 73.8 23.2 1.8 1.1

217 83.4 12.9 2.8 0.9

105 84.8 15.2 0.0 0.0

180 97.8 1.7 0.0 0.6

35 94.3 5.7 0.0 0.0

132 97.0 3.0 0.0 0.0

206 85.9 10.7 1.5 1.9

All hardwoods

All species

1,590 86.7 11.3 1.0 0.9

2,267 86.3 11.9 1.1 0.7

_____ Percentage of trees sampleda - - - - -

“Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

59
Table 45--Distribution of kS.O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms recorded,

Virginia, 1993

Species group

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

Percentage of trees sampled a

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

325 98.2 1.8 0.0 0.0

247 91.5 8.5 0.0 0.0

8 4 89.3 10.7 0.0 0.0

677 94.7 5.3 0.0 0.0

444 84.5 14.0 1.6 0.0

271 83.0 14.8 2.2 0.0

217 78.3 19.4 1.8 0.5

105 79.0 20.0 1.0 0.0

180 87.8 12.2 0.0 0.0

35 68.6 25.7 5.7 0.0

132 84.8 12.9 2.3 0.0

206 74.3 20.4 2.9 2.4

1,590 81.8 16.0 1.8 0.4

2,267 85.6 12.8 1.3 0.3

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

60
oooooc

dddddC

99999c

oooooc

ooooodcidddti

oooooc

dddddd

99999c

oooooc

oooooc

dddddd

oooomc

dddd&;d

oooomc

ddddk;d

oooooooc

dddddddC

9999999=

oooooooc

oooooooc

dddddddC

9999999=

oooooooc

OOOOOOOd

ddddddd999c?999=

OOOdOOOC

61
Table 47-Distribution of l&4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Virginia, 1993

Species group

Sample

size

Sapling-vigor class

Good Average Poor

softw oods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

0

0

2

70

18

2 8

Pet. of saplings sam pled a

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 100.0 0.0

60.0 34.3 5.7

16.7 72.2 11.1

57.1 42.9 0.0

All softwoods 118 51.7 43.2 5.1

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other h ardw oods

All hardwoods 559 37.8 58.0 4.3

All species 677 40.2 55.4 4.4

21 4.8 90.5 4.8

5 4 22.2 74.1 3.7

98 37.8 60.2 2.0

77 48.0 50.6 1.3

3 6 47.2 47.2 5.6

4 2 50.0 42.9 7.1

46 28.3 65.2 6.5

185 39.5 55.1 5.4

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

6 2
Table 4CDistribution of l.M.9~inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Virginia, 1993

Species group

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

70 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

18 94.4 5.6 0.0 0.0

28 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All sofiwoods 118 99.2 0.8 0.0 0.0

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

21 90.5 9.5 0.0 0.0

54 94.4 5.6 0.0 0.0

98 82.6 14.3 3.1 0.0

7 7 84.4 13.0 2.6 0.0

36 86.1 11.1 2.8 0.0

42 83.3 16.7 0.0 0.0

46 84.8 15.2 0.0 0.0

185 83.8 14.0 2.2 0.0

All hardwoods

All species

559 85.2 13.1 1.8 0.0

677 87.6 10.9 1.5 0.0

Pet. of saplings sam pleda

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

63
Table 4!+Distribution of damage types recorded for l.M.9~inches d.b.h. saplings by selected species group, Virginia, 1993

Species group

Damages Conks/ Ope n Resin./ Broken Brooms Broken Dead Broken Crown Dam. Disc.

recorded Cankers decay wounds gumm. bole on bole roots term. branch. brooms foliage foliage Other

_________________________________ _ Perce nt~ fd ~ m age s~ ~ co~ d ~ d ”__________________________________

softwotxis

Longleaf pine 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

Slash pine 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

Shortleaf pine 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

Loblolly pine 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

Virginia pine 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other softwoods 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

All softwoods 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

E

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0

3 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3

20 20.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0

14 0.0 64.3 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0

6 0.0 83.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7 14.3 14.3 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 14.3 0.0 14.3

7 0.0 14.3 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.9

34 8.8 29.4 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.6 0.0 11.8 0.0 11.8

All hardwoods 93 8.6 37.6 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.0 9.7 1.1 9.7

All species 94 9.6 37.2 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 9.6 1.1 9.6

’ Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
Table SO-Number of saplings and trees sampled by

selected species group and tree size, Alabama, 1994

Species group

Saplings 1 .O- Trees 25.0

4.9 in. d.b.h. in. d.b.h.

softwoods

Longleaf pine 6 43

Slash pine 4 7

Shortleaf pine 8 71

Loblolly pine 8 0 534

Virginia pine 6 73

Other softwoods 4 18

All softwoods 108 746

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods 573 1,245

All species

33 165

94 253

7 4 85

90 214

15 63

51 110

35 133

181 222

681 1,991

6 5
Table 51Distribution of 25.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and crown-density class, Alabama, 1994

Crown-density class

Species group

Sample Goo d Average Poor

size (>50%) (21-50%) (l-20%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

- - Pe rcentage of trees sam pleda - -

43 16.3 83.7 0.0

7 0.0 100.0 0.0

71 22.5 76.1 1.4

534 18.2 19.2 2.6

73 28.8 68.5 2.7

18 11.1 83.3 5.6

746 19.2 78.4 2.4

165 44.8 54.6 0.6

253 41.1 58.9 0.0

85 37.6 62.4 0.0

214 42.1 57.0 0.9

6 3 52.4 47.6 0.0

110 52.7 47.3 0.0

133 57.1 42.1 0.8

222 38.3 59.5 2.2

1,245 44.1 55.2 0.7

1,991 34.8 63.9 1.4

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

66
Table S-Distribution of 25.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and foliage-transparency class, Alabama, 1994

Foliage-transparency class

Species group

Sample

size

Normal Moderate Severe

(O-30%) (3 l--50%) (>50%)

- - Percentage of trees sampleda - -

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

43 100.0 0.0 0.0

7 100.0 0.0 0.0

71 100.0 0.0 0.0

534 100.0 0.0 0.0

7 3 100.0 0.0 0.0

18 100.0 0.0 0.0

746 100.0 0.0 0.0

165 100.0 0.0 0.0

253 100.0 0.0 0.0

85 100.0 0.0 0.0

214 100.0 0.0 0.0

6 3 100.0 0.0 0.0

110 100.0 0.0 0.0

133 100.0 0.0 0.0

222 99.6 0.4 0.0

1,245 99.9 0.1 0.0

1,991 99.9 0.1 0.0

D Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

6 7
Table B--Distribution of z-5.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group and

crown-dieback class, Alabama, 1994

Crown-dieback class

Species group

Sample None Light Moderate Severe

size (O-5%) (620%) (21-50%) (>50%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwcxxls

43

7

71

534

7 3

18

746

_____ - Percentage of trees sampleda - - - - - -

95.4 4.6 0.0 0.0

100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

88.7 9.9 1.4 0.0

93.8 6.0 0.2 0.0

71.2 27.4 1.4 0.0

77.8 16.7 5.6 0.0

90.9 8.6 0.5 0.0

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

165 90.9 7.9 1.2 0.0

253 85.0 13.8 1.2 0.0

85 89.4 10.6 0.0 0.0

214 89.2 10.8 0.0 0.0

6 3 96.8 3.2 0.0 0.0

110 93.6 6.4 0.0 0.0

133 90.2 9.0 0.8 0.0

222 90.1 9.0 0.9 0.0

All hardwoods 1,245 89.6 9.7 0.6 0.0

All species 1,991 90.1 9.3 0.6 0.0

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

68
Table H-Distribution of &O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms recorded,

Alabama, 1994

Species group

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

4 3 95.4 4.6 0.0 0.0

7 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

71 94.4 5.6 0.0 0.0

534 86.3 11.8 1.5 0.4

73 87.7 9.6 2.7 0.0

18 61.1 38.9 0.0 0.0

All softwoods 746 87.3 11.1 1.3 0.3

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

165 89.7 9.7 0.6 0.0

253 86.6 13.0 0.4 0.0

85 80.0 16.5 3.5 0.0

214 83.6 14.5 1.4 0.5

6 3 88.9 9.5 1.6 0.0

110 68.2 31.8 0.0 0.0

133 92.5 6.8 0.8 0.0

222 71.2 26.6 2.2 0.0

All hardwoods 1,245 82.4 16.3 1.2 0.1

All species 1,991 84.2 14.4 1.3 0.2

Percentage of trees sampleda

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

69
Table 55--Distribution of damage types recorded for 25.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Alabama, 1994

Species group

Damages conks/ Open Resin./ Broken Brooms Broken Dead Broken Crown Dam . Disc.

recorded Cankers decay wounds gumm. bole on bole roots term. branch. brooms foliage foliage Other

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods 109 58.7 10.1 22.0 1.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 4.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

d Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods 236 2.1 42.8 30.9 3.8 2.1 0.0 0.4 10.6 6.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0

All species 345 20.0 32.5 28.1 3.2 1.7 0.0 0.3 8.7 4.9 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0

________________________________ _ _ percent ofdamages recordeda _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

2 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 25.0 25.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

85 72.9 10.6 10.6 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

11 9.1 0.0 63.6 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7 0.0 14.3 71.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

18 5.6 55.6 11.1 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 5.6 11.1 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0

35 0.0 51.4 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20 0.0 70.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

40 0.0 45.0 40.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

8 0.0 37.5 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

35 5.7 5.7 68.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 5.7 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0

11 0.0 54.5 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

69 2.9 43.5 29.0 4.3 4.3 0.0 0.0 8.7 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

” Because of rounding, percentages may not sum 10 100
Table S-Distribution of l&4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Alabama, 1994

Sample Sapling-vigor class

Species group size Good Average Poor

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods 108 68.5 28.7 2.8

Pet. of saplings sampled a

6 50.0 50.0 0.0

4 0.0 100.0 0.0

8 37.5 50.0 12.5

80 76.2 21.2 2.5

6 66.7 33.3 0.0

4 75.0 25.0 0.0

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

33 60.6 36.4 3.0

94 69.2 30.8 0.0

74 79.7 20.3 0.0

90 81.1 17.8 1.1

15 66.7 33.3 0.0

51 68.6 31.4 0.0

35 80.0 20.0 0.0

181 70.7 26.5 2.8

All hardwoods 573 73.0 25.8 1.2

All species 681 72.2 26.3 1.5

’ Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

71
Table 57-Distribution of 1.0-4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Alabama, 1994

Species group

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

Sofiwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

S weetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

Pet. of saplings sam pleda

6 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0

8 87.5 12.5 0.0 0.0

8 0 91.2 9.9 0.0 0.0

6 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0

108 90.7 9.3 0.0 0.0

33 78.8 21.2 0.0 0.0

94 93.6 5.3 0.0 0.0

7 4 90.5 8.1 1.4 0.0

90 82.2 16.7 1.1 0.0

15 86.7 13.3 0.0 0.0

51 74.5 17.6 5.9 2.0

35 77.1 22.9 0.0 0.0

181 82.9 13.8 3.3 0.0

573 84.3 13.4 2.1 0.2

681 85.3 12.8 1.8 0.2

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

72
Table B-Distribution of damage types recorded for 1.0-4.9~inches d.b.h. saplings by selected species group, Alabama, 1994

Species group

Damages Conks/ Ope n Resin./ Broken Brooms Broken Dead Broken Crown Dam. Disc.

recorded Cankers decay wounds gumm. bole on bole roots term. branch. brooms foliage foliage Other

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

-------_____________--__________ __Pe~c~nt~fdamagesrecorded”__________________________________

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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All softwoods 1 0 60.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

S weetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other h ardw oods

7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7 0.0 42.9 28.6 0.0 0.0

8 0.0 50.0 12.5 0.0 0.0

17 0.0 70.6 23.5 0.0 0.0

2 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

18 0.0 44.4 27.8 0.0 5.6

8 0.0 12.5 37.5 0.0 0.0

37 0.0 37.8 40.5 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 85.7 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 11.1 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 12.5 12.5 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 13.5 5.4 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0

All hardwoods 104 1.0 40.4 28.9 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 17.3 7.7 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0

All species 114 6.1 36.8 28.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 16.7 7.9 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
Table 59-Number of saplings and trees sampled by

selected species group and tree size, Georgia, 1994

Species group

Saplings 1 .O- Trees 25.0

4.9 in. d.b.h. in. d.b.h.

sofiwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

0 39

16 252

17 143

126 537

1 79

7 46

All softwoods 167 1,096

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

21 147

117 190

5 7 115

79 137

16 9 3

5 8 132

20 41

161 190

All hardwoods

All species

529 1,045

696 2,141

74
Table SDistribution of S.O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and crown-density class, Georgia, 1994

Crown-density class

Species group

Sample Goo d Average

size (>50%) (21-50%)

Poor

(l-20%)

Sofiwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shot-deaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods 1,096 24.3 73.9 1.8

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods 1.045 16.1 82.0 1.9

- - Percentage of trees sampleda - -

39 35.9 64.1 0.0

252 35.7 62.3 2.0

143 9.8 88.1 2.1

537 24.8 75.0 0.2

79 2.5 86.1 11.4

46 28.3 67.4 4.4

147 17.0 81.6 1.4

190 19.0 81.0 0.0

115 15.6 81.7 2.6

137 15.3 82.5 2.2

9 3 23.7 74.2 2.2

132 10.6 85.6 3.8

41 14.6 82.9 2.4

190 13.7 84.2 2.1

All species 2,141 20.3 77.9 1.9

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

7 5
Table 61-Distribution of &O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and foliage-transparency class, Georgia, 1994

Foliage-transparency class

Species group

Sample Normal Moderate Severe

size (o-30%) (31-50%) (x50%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

39 100.0 0.0 0.0

252 100.0 0.0 0.0

143 100.0 0.0 0.0

537 99.6 0.4 0.0

79 98.7 1.3 0.0

46 95.6 2.2 2.2

All softwoods 1,096 99.5 0.4 0.1

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

147 99.3 0.7 0.0

190 100.0 0.0 0.0

115 100.0 0.0 0.0

137 100.0 0.0 0.0

9 3 98.9 0.0 1.1

132 100.0 0.0 0.0

41 97.6 2.4 0.0

190 99.5 0.0 0.5

All hardwoods

All species

1,045 99.6 0.2 0.2

2,132 99.6 0.3 0.1

- - Percentage of trees sampleda - -

’ Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

76
Table 62-Distribution of G.O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group and

crown-dieback class, Georgia, 1994

Crown-dieback class

Species group

Sample None Light Moderate Severe

size (O-5%) (6-20%) (21-50%) (>50%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

39

252

143

537

79

46

1.096

-____ - Percentage of trees sampleda - - - - - -

100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

98.6 1.4 0.0 0.0

99.3 0.6 0.2 0.0

86.1 13.9 0.0 0.0

93.5 4.4 2.2 0.0

98.2 1.6 0.2 0.0

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

147 88.4 11.6 0.0 0.0

190 92.6 7.4 0.0 0.0

115 93.9 6.1 0.0 0.0

137 87.6 11.7 0.7 0.0

9 3 93.6 6.4 0.0 0.0

132 94.7 4.6 0.8 0.0

41 95.1 4.9 0.0 0.0

190 91.1 6.8 1.6 0.5

All hardwoods 1.045 91.7 7.8 0.5 0.1

All species 2,141 95.0 4.6 0.3 co.1

(1 Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

77
Table 63-Distribution of ~5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms recorded,

Georgia, 1994

Species group

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

Percentage of trees sampled a

39 89.7 10.3 0.0 0.0

252 86.9 12.7 0.4 0.0

143 94.4 5.6 0.0 0.0

537 90.5 9.5 0.0 0.0

79 96.2 3.8 0.0 0.0

46 91.3 8.7 0.0 0.0

1,096 90.6 9.3 0.1 0.0

147 89.1 10.9 0.0 0.0

190 91.6 7.4 1.0 0.0

115 80.0 19.1 0.9 0.0

137 87.6 11.7 0.7 0.0

9 3 96.8 2.2 1 .l 0.0

132 85.6 14.4 0.0 0.0

41 95.1 4.9 0.0 0.0

190 92.1 7.9 0.0 0.0

1,045 89.4 10.1 0.5 0.0

2,141 90.0 9.7 0.3 0.0

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

7 8
Table 64-Distribution of damage types recorded for ~5.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group, Georgia, 1994

Species group

Damages conks/ Open Resin./ Broken Brooms Broken Dead Broken Crown Dam . Disc.

recorded Cankers decay wounds gumm. bole on bole roots term. branch. brooms foliage foliage Other

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods IO4 51.0 4.8 30.8 1.0 1.9 0.0 1 .o 3.8 1.9 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.9

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods 116 4.3 60.3 7.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 17.2 6.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.7

_-__--___-_-_--_____~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ percent of damages recorded” _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4 25.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3 4 58.8 0.0 26.5 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9

8 37.5 12.5 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

51 54.9 5.9 31.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

3 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0

16 12.5 56.2 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

18 5.6 66.7 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

24 0.0 37.5 4.2 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 33.3 12.5 0.0 4.2 0.0 4.2

18 11.1 66.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0

19 0.0 84.2 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15 0.0 66.7 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All species 220 26.4 34.1 18.6 0.5 1.4 0.0 0.5 10.9 4.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.3

“Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
Table 65-Distribution of l&4.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Georgia, 1994

Species group

Sample

size

Sapling-vigor class

Good Average Poor

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shot-deaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

Pet. of saplings sampled a

0 0.0 0.0 0.0

16 87.5 12.5 0.0

17 47.1 52.9 0.0

126 65.1 31.0 4.0

1 0.0 100.0 0.0

7 71.4 14.3 14.3

All softwoods 167 65.3 31.1 3.6

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

21 90.5 9.5 0.0

117 62.4 31.6 6.0

57 68.4 22.8 8.8

7 9 59.5 34.2 6.3

16 62.5 31.2 6.2

5 8 50.0 44.8 5.2

20 55.0 45.0 0.0

161 59.6 37.3 3.1

529 61.2 33.8 4.9

696 62.2 33.2 4.6

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

80
Table 66-Distribution of l.M.9-inches d.b.b. saplings by

se&ted species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Georgia, 1994

Species group

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

Pet. of saplings sam pleda

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

16 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

17 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

126 97.6 2.4 0.0 0.0

1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All softwoods 167 98.2 1.8 0.0 0.0

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

21 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

117 94.0 6.0 0.0 0.0

57 86.0 12.3 1.8 0.0

79 88.6 11.4 0.0 0.0

16 93.8 6.2 0.0 0.0

58 87.9 12.1 0.0 0.0

20 95.0 5.0 0.0 0.0

161 92.5 6.8 0.6 0.0

All hardwoods 529 91.5 8.1 0.4 0.0

All species 696 93.1 6.6 0.3 0.0

L1 Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

81
‘ocl1 01 Luns IOU .4(eIu sa%e,ua3Jod ‘%u!punoJ JO asne3a* ”

0’8 0’0 0’0 O-0 0’9 O’ZE 0’0 0’0 O’P O’Z 0’9 O’ZE 0’01 OS sa!sads 11~

S’8 0’0 0’0

L'L

0'0

0'0

0'001

0'0

1'11

E'PI

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

0’0 0’0

0’0

0’0

0’0

0’0

0’0

0’0

0’0

0’0

0’0

P’9 O’PE 0’0 0’0

t’S1 I’EZ 0’0 0’0

0’0 0’001 0’0 0’0

0’0 6’ZP 0’0 0’0

0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0

0’0 VW 0’0 0’0

1’11 VW 0’0 0’0

0’0 E’PI 0’0 0’0

0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0

E'P 0'0 P'9 O'K

0'0 0'0 L'L 8'OE

0'0 0'0 0'0 0'0

0'0 0'0 0'0 I'LS

0'0 0'0 0'0 0'0

0'0 0'0 0'0 9'SS

I'll 0'0 Z'ZZ 0'0

E'PI 0'0 0'0 6'ZP

0'0 0'0 0'0 0'0

9.9 LP

P'S1 El

0'0 I

0'0 L

0'0 I

0'0 6

0'0 6

E'PI L

0'0 0

0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 E’EE 0’0 0’0 L'99 E

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 0’0 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 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 E’EE 0’0 0’0 L'99 E

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 0'0 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 0'0 0'0 0'0 0'0 0'0 0'0 0'0 0'0 0'0 0'0 0

sPooMPJY IIV

sPooMPJe’4 w o

sa!JoyxH

um%yx[~

_n?[dod-mol[aA

um%laams

saldeN

wo PatI

syeo al!qM

sWMP-‘~H

f2

sPC’Q%os 11V

SpOOM lJO S laqlo

au!d E!U!%J!A

au!d hoIqo7

au!d yw.mqs

ayd qsels

au!d Jeal%uol

SpC’oM lJoc;

dnol% sapadg
Table -Number of saplings and trees sampled by

selected species group and tree size, Virginia, 1994

Species group

Saplings 1 .O- Trees 25.0

4.9 in. d.b.b. in. d.b.h.

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

0 0

0 0

2 21

67 232

18 214

28 82

115 549

18 437

40 266

92 211

72 95

30 170

39 35

45 126

162 195

All hardwoods 498 1,535

All species 613 2,084

83
Table 6!J-Distribution of 2&O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and crowu-density class, Virginia, 1994

Crown-density class

Species group

Sample Goo d Average Poor

size (>50%) (21-50%) (l-20%)

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21 0.0 95.2 4.8

232 7.8 90.5 1.7

214 13.1 81.3 5.6

82 25.6 56.1 18.3

All softwoods 549 12.2 82.0 5.8

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

437 27.7 69.8 2.5

266 28.6 68.4 3.0

211 35.6 63.0 1.4

9 5 46.3 52.6 1.0

170 46.5 51.2 2.4

3 5 40.0 57.1 2.9

126 45.2 53.2 1.6

195 32.3 61 .O 6.7

All hardwoods

All species

1,535 34.5 62.7 2.8

2,084 28.6 67.8 3.6

Percentage of trees sampled a

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

8 4
Table 70-Distribution of ~5.0~inch d.b.h. trees by selected species

group and foliage-transparency class, Virginia, 1994

Foliage-transparency class

Species group

Sample

size

Normal Moderate Severe

(O-30%) (31-50%) (>50%)

- - Percentage of trees sampled a - -

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21 95.2 4.8 0.0

232 99.1 0.4 0.4

214 96.3 2.8 0.9

82 92.7 3.7 3.7

All softwoods 549 96.9 2.0 1.1

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

437 99.5 0.2 0.2

266 100.0 0.0 0.0

211 99.0 1.0 0.0

95 99.0 0.0 1.0

170 99.4 0.0 0.6

35 100.0 0.0 0.0

126 100.0 0.0 0.0

195 96.4 2.0 1.5

All hardwoods

All species

1,535 99.2 0.5 0.4

2,084 98.6 0.9 0.6

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

85
Table 71-Distribution of >5.0-inch d.b.h. trees by selected species group and

crown-dieback class, Virginia, 1994

Crown-dieback class

Species group

Sample

size

None

(o-5%)

Light

(6-20%)

Moderate

(21-50%)

Severe

(>50%)

Sofiwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

0

0

21

232

214

82

549

__--__ Percentage of trees sampleda - - - - - -

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

99.6 0.4 0.0 0.0

93.0 6.1 0.0 0.9

91.5 3.7 2.4 2.4

95.8 3.1 0.4 0.7

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

437 92.0 6.6 0.9 0.5

266 74.8 22.2 2.3 0.8

211 91.0 6.6 2.4 0.0

9 5 92.6 6.3 0.0 1.0

170 96.5 2.9 0.0 0.6

35 88.6 11.4 0.0 0.0

126 96.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

195 88.2 9.2 1.0 1.5

All hardwoods 1.535 89.2 9.1 1.1 0.6

All species 2,084 90.9 7.5 0.9 0.6

a Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

86
Table 72-Distribution of &O-inch d.b.h. trees by selected

species group and number of damage symptoms recorded,

Virginia, 1994

Species group

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All hardwoods

All species

Percentage of trees sampled a

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21 95.2 4.8 0.0 0.0

232 99.1 0.9 0.0 0.0

214 91.1 8.9 0.0 0.0

82 82.9 17.1 0.0 0.0

549 93.4 6.6 0.0 0.0

437 79.6 17.6 2.8 0.0

266 83.1 15.8 1.1 0.0

211 77.2 20.8 1.4 0.5

9 5 84.2 14.7 1.0 0.0

170 85.3 13.5 1.2 0.0

35 71.4 22.9 5.7 0.0

126 80.2 19.0 0.8 0.0

195 81.5 16.4 2.0 0.0

1,535 80.9 17.2 1.8 0.1

2,084 84.2 14.4 1.3 <o. 1

‘Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

87
Table 73-Distribution of damage types recorded for S.O-inch d.b.b. trees by selected species group, Virginia, 1994

Species group

Damages conks/ Open Resin./ Broken Brooms Broken Dead Broken Crown Dam . Disc.

recorded Cankers decay wounds gumm. bole on bole roots term. branch. brooms foliage foliage Other

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

Es All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

All h ardw oods 323 17.3 21.7 25.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 7.7 0.0 11.5 0.6 0.3

All species 359 18.7 21.2 24.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 15.3 8.1 0.0 10.3 0.6 0.3

_____________________----___-__ _Perce ntofd arnagesrecord ~ d a ______ _____________________ ____ ___

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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

19 52.6 10.5 15.8 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

14 0.0 28.6 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 28.6 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

36 30.6 16.7 22.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 13.9 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

101 16.8 18.8 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 8.9 0.0 24.8 0.0 0.0

48 22.9 20.8 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 14.6 0.0 14.6 0.0 2.1

53 17.0 26.4 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.3 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

16 12.5 25.0 43.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 7 18.5 22.2 25.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 7.4 0.0 3.7 3.7 0.0

12 16.7 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0

26 19.2 15.4 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 7.7 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0

40 17.5 27.5 35.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0

’ Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
Table 74-Distribution of l&4.9-inches d.b.b. saplings by

selected species group and sapling-vigor class, Virginia, 1994

Species group

Sample

size

Sapling-vigor class

Good Average Poor

softw oods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

0

0

2

6 7

18

28

Pet. of saplings sam pled a

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0 0.0 0.0

62.7 37.3 0.0

50.0 50.0 0.0

100.0 0.0 0.0

All softwoods

Hardwoods

White oak

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hickories

Other hardwoods

115 70.4 29.6 0.0

18 55.6

40 65.0

92 58.7

72 62.5

30 76.7

39 69.2

45 77.8

162 65.4

38.9 5.6

27.5 7.5

39.1 2.2

31.9 5.6

23.3 0.0

28.2 2.6

20.0 2.2

31.5 3.1

All hardwoods 498 65.5

All species 613 66.4

D Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

31.1 3.4

30.8 2.8

89
Table 75--Distribution of l.M.9-inches d.b.h. saplings by

selected species group and number of damage symptoms

recorded, Virginia, 1994

Species group

Number of damage

Sample symptoms recorded

size 0 1 2 3

softwoods

Longleaf pine

Slash pine

Shot-deaf pine

Loblolly pine

Virginia pine

Other softwoods

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

67 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

18 94.4 5.6 0.0 0.0

28 92.9 3.6 3.6 0.0

All softwoods 115 97.4 1.7 0.9 0.0

Hardwoods

White oaks

Red oaks

Maples

Sweetgum

Yellow-poplar

Blackgum

Hit kories

Other hardwoods

18 88.9 11.1 0.0 0.0

40 92.5 5.0 2.5 0.0

92 73.9 23.9 2.2 0.0

7 2 88.9 11.1 0.0 0.0

30 86.7 13.3 0.0 0.0

3 9 89.7 7.7 2.6 0.0

45 84.4 15.6 0.0 0.0

162 82.1 16.0 1.8 0.0

All hardwoods

All species

498 83.7 14.9 1.4 0.0

613 86.3 12.4 1.3 0.0

Pet. of saplings sampleda

D Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

90
0’0 Z’Z C’E O-0 S’9 L’OZ 0’0 0’0 0’0 Z ’Z S’IE O’Z I L’IZ 26

0’0 E’Z P’E 0 ’0 8 ’9 E’61 0 ’0 0 ’0 0’0 E’Z L’OE S’Z I L’Z Z 8 8

0’0 I’E 0’0 0’0

0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0

0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0

0’0 0’0 O’SL 0’0

0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0

0’0 8’E 0 ’0 0 ’0

0’0 0’0 0 ’0 0 ’0

0’0 0’0 0 ’0 0’0

Z ’9 O’SZ 0 ’0 0 ’0

0 ’0 E’PI 0 ’0 0 ’0

0 ’0 O’OZ 0’0 0 ’0

O’SZ 0’0 0 ’0 0’0

S’Z I 0’0 0 ’0 0 ’0

8°C 2’61 0 ’0 0 ’0

0 ’0 O’SZ 0’0 0’0

0.0s 0.0s 0’0 0 ’0

0’0 0’0 S’LE 9 ’SI S’Z I

0’0 0’0 6’Z P E’PI 9 ’8Z

0’0 0’0 O’OP O’OZ O’OZ

0’0 0’0 0’0 0 ’0 0 ’0

0’0 0’0 0.0s S’Z I O’SZ

0’0 8’E P’S1 S’II E’Z P

0 ’0 O’SZ 0.0s 0’0 0’0

0’0 0’0 0’0 0 ’0 0 ’0

Z E

L

S

P

8

9 z

P

Z

0’0 0’0 0’0 O-0 0’0 0.0s 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0.0s 0’0 0’0 P

0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 E’EE 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 L-99 0’0 0’0 E

0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’001 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 I

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 0’0 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 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 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0’0 0

sa!ztads 1IV

WoMPJW IIV

sPooMPJW JaWO

Sa!JOyXH

llIll%p?~ ~

qdod-mo[laA

LI.lll%l~ M S

saIdem

quo Pax

syeo al!tjM

W’OMPJeH

SpOOMlJOS JLXjl(-j

au!d ay@y,

au!d 4IoIclo?

au@ ~~av.qs

au!d qsqS

au!d pp3ug

sPooM&loS

Java aW103 a%eqo~ suIoolq yw 21q *u.ual qoo1 am uo a109 m um % s punom de 3ap slave 3 paprom dnoJ% sapdg

=!a ‘m a

UMOQ ua>loJg PWI ualoq suxooq uayoq psaa uado /wo3 sa%surua



Burkman, William G.; Vissage, John S.; Hoffard, William H. [and others]. 1998. Summary

report: forest health monitoring in the South, 1993 and 1994. Resour. Bull. SRS-32.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

91 p.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, various State forestry and agriculture

agencies, and other Federal agencies launched a cooperative program, Forest Health

Monitoring, to monitor the health of the Nation’s forests. Several indicators have been measured

on permanent plots in 17 States. This report summarizes data gathered in 1993 and 1994 from

Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia. Simple proportions of crown ratings and damage data from

sample plots do not suggest any widespread problems in these States, except for Virginia pine

where crown conditions continue to decline. A synopsis of forest insect and disease surveys in

the southern region shows that certain pests continue to cause damage and mortality.

Keywords: Crown condition rating, forest damage assessment, Forest Health Monitoring,

insect and disease surveys, Virginia pine.
mS

The Forest Service, United States Department of

v

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, gender,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and

marital or family status. (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, Room 326-W, Whitted Building, 14” and

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-94 10, or call

(202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.