United States 

Department of 

Forest Service 

Southern 

Research Station 

Research Paper 

SRS-14 

Seasonal Biennial Burning and 

Woody Plant Control Influence 

Native Vegetation in Loblolly Pine 

Stands 

James D. Haywood, Alton Martin, Jr., Henry A. Pearson, 

and Harold E. Grelen 
The Authors: 

James D. Haywood, Research Silvicul~st, Atton Martin,Jr., 

Retired, and Harold E. Grelen, Retired, Ale 

Soutfiern Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pinevilfe, LA 7 1360; Henry A. Pearson, Emeritus Scientist, 

Trinity Valley Community College, Athens, TX 7575 1. 

September 1998 

Southern Research Station 

P.O. Box 2680 

Asheville, NC 28802 
Seasonal Biennial Burning and Woody Plant 

Control Influence Native Vegetation in Loblolly 

Pine Stands 

James D. Haywood, Alton Martin, Jr., Henry A. Pearson, 

and Harold E. Grelen 

Abstract 

This paper documents the results of a study to determine the effects of 

selected vegetation-management treatments in lobldly pine. Vegetation in 

prew&rcially thinned, 6-year-dd stands was subjected to five biennial 

growing season bums in either early March, May, or July coupled with 

hand felling of residual woody stems. Using a randomized complete block 

design, we compared the vegetation-management treatments to an 

unthinned, unburned, and unweeded check. By stand age 17, intensive 

vegetation management increased pine diameter growth by 2 centimeters 

(a = .004) and volume growth by 0.04 cubic meters (m') per tree (a = .02) 

when compared to the check. However, this was a small biological gain in 

growth, Amg the bunted taeasments, five burns in early March reduced 

average pine total height by 0.8 m (a = .W), diameter at breast height by 

1.5 cm (a = .03), and volume per tree by 0.04 m3 (a = .06) compared to 

burning in early May or July. Vegetation management significantly reduced 

the height of hardwood trees and shrubs (a = .0001), but the number of 

trees and shrubs per hectare was not significantly affected. Vegetation 

management significantly increased total herbaceous plant production (a = 

.003). Pinehill Muestem was not on the check plots, but it was the most 

productive herbaceous species on the vegetation-management treatments, 

composing 49 percent of the average total annual production of 457 

kilograms per hectare. 

Keywords: American beautyberry, blackberry, greenbrier, loblolly pine, 

pinehill bluestem, prescribed burning, sweetgum, vegetation management. 

Introduction 

Natural fires have established and maintained extensive firedependent forests throughout the world, and humans have 

used fire to alter these forests for millennia (Brown and 

Davis 1973, Robbins and Myers 1989, Spurr and Barnes 

1973). Fire continues to be extensively used in the 

Southeastern United States to manage the 54-million-hectare 

(ha) loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.)-shortleaf pine (I-! 

echinata Mill.)-hardwood forest type, which extends almost 

continuously from eastern Texas to northeastern Virginia in a 

240- to 480-kilometer (km) belt (Wolters and Wilhite 1974). 

Bluestems (Andmpogon spp. and Schizachyrium spp.) are 

common grasses in openings. Legumes and many 

composites are also common but ordinarily produce little 

herbage. Overstocked pine stands and an absence of fire 

result in a reduction in understory native herbaceous plant 

biomass. 

Many forest managers maintain herbaceous plant 

communities within forest stands. Burning pine forests 

during the growing season generally produces more intense 

fires than burning during the dormant season, which more 

effectively reduces hardwood vegetation and hopefully 

increases herbaceous plant production (Chen and others 

1975, Grelen 1976, Lotti 1956, Robbins and Myers 1989). 

However, the use of fie at certain times of the year can 

differentially influence development of seedling and sapling 

pines (Grelen 1975, 1983). 

The objective of this 1 1-year study was to determine how 

biennial burning in March, May, or July, coupled with 

cutting and removal of residual woody stems, influenced 

pine growth, native hardwoods, and herbaceous plant 

production in precommercially thinned loblolly pine stands. 

Materials and Methods 

Study Area 

The study is within the loblolly pine-shortleaf pinehardwood forest type on the humid, temperate, subtropical, 

outer Coastal Plain, mixed-forest ecoregion of the Southern 

United States (McNab and Avers 1994). It is located within 

boundaries of the Kisatchie National Forest in central 

Louisiana about 45 krn north of Alexandria at an average 

elevation of 53 meters (m). The site crosses a gradient from 

Metcalf very fine sandy loam to Gadeville very fine sandy 

loam soils (Kilpatrick and others 1986). The Netcalf is a 

fine-sil ty, siliceous, themic Aquic Glossudalf on nearly 

level, somewhat poorly drained ridge crests, The Cadeville 

is a ftne, mixed, thermic Albaquic Hapludalf on the 

moderately sloping (0 to 5 percent), well-drained side 

slopes. At age 50, the site index for lobiolly pines ranges 

from 24 m on the Cadeville soil to 28 m on the Metcalf soil. 
Such soils are best suited for timber production, and loblolly 

pine is the recornended species for forest management. 

The area's climate is humid subtropicaf with mean January 

and July temperatures of 8 and 28 "C, respectively 

(Louisiana Mice of State Climatology 1993). Annual 

precipitation averages 1490 millimeters (mm) with 820 mm 

during the 200+ day growing season, which norinally begins 

around March I and ends in October because of dry weather. 

Within the general forest, a 19-ha stand of mature loblolly 

and shortleaf pines was clearcut harvested in 1976. The 

herbaceous plant production was about 80 kilograms (kg) 

per hectare and was mostly longleaf uniola (Chasm~thium 

sessil#orum [Poir.] Yates) with only scattered bluestems and 

forbs. me residual vegetation and debris were pushed down 

and crushed with a rolling drum chopper pulled by a crawler 

tractor. In early 1977 after broadcast burning, the site was 

planted with 1-0 loblolly pine seedlings at about 1,700 

seedlings per hectare. 

Within 2 years, the surviving planted seedlings were 

indistinguishable from thousands of natural pine seedlings 

that originated from the mature pine stands sufiounding the 

19-ha clearing. The volunteers were alm~st~entirel y loblolly 

pines, although some shortleaf pines were scattered 

throughout the plantation. By the fifth year, pine stocking 

was 7,450 trees per hectare; and heights ranged from < 30 

centimeters (cm) to about 5 m. 

Treatments 

In February 1982 just before the sixth growing season, 

approximately 3 ha of the site were fenced to exclude cattle. 

Twelve plots were laid out, each one separated by a 3-mwide fire line. Individual plots were 30.5 m2 or 0.093 ha. 

An evenly dispersed, overstocked stand of lobloll y pine 

saplings was divided into three blocks of four plots each. 

The pine population was not well distributed in the site's 

remaining area and, therefore, was not included in the study. 

Blocking was based on surface soil drainage. Four 

mtments were randomly assigned to plots within each 

block as follows: 

Treatment &Check: No treatment was applied. 

Treatment 2-March burns: Beginning in 1982, plots were 

prescribed burned biennially on or as near March 1 as 

weather and fuel conditions permitted. After the 1982 

growing season, the 6-year-old loblolly saplings were 

precommercially thinned to 1,730 well-spaced dominant and 

codominant trees per hectare. All hardwood trees, shrubs, I 

and blackberry (Rubus spp,) with living stems at least 1-m 

tall were severed near the root collar and removed from the 

plots in May 1982, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1989, and 199 1. 

Treatment 3-May buns: Plots were prescribed bumed 

biennially on or as near May 1 as weather and fuel 

conditions permitted Otherwise, management practices were 

the same as treatment 2. 

Treatment &July bums: Plots were prescribed burned 

biennially on or as near July 1 as weather and fuel conditions 

permitted. Otherwise, management practices were the same 

as treatment 2. 

On treatments 2,3, and 4, fue efficacy was sometimes 

reduced because the effort to burn as near to the fmt day of 

the month as possible meant that fuel bed conditions were 

not always optimal. Nonetheless, all burns were completed. 

This necessitated the removal of all ~~)npi~l;e woody 

vegetation over I -m tall not killed by fur: in treatments 2,3, 

and 4. 

Measurements and Data Analysis 

After precommercial thinning, 25 of the best saplings on 

each plot (269 trees per hectare) were tagged for 

remeasurement purposes. Twenty-five of the best saplings 

were also selected on the unthinned and unburned check 

plots. Selected trees were at least 5 m from the plot edge. 

During the study, c 1 percent of the selected pines died. Total 

height was fvst measured in January 1983 after the sixth 

growing season from planting. Total height and diafneter at 

breast height were last measured in March 1994 after the 17' 

growing season. The diameter at breast height and height 

data collected in March 1994 were used to calculate total 

outside-bark-stem volume above a 15-cm stump (Baldwin 

and Feduccia 1987). 

Total current-year herbaceous production (oven-dried at 

80 "C) was determined in Febrwry 1994 by clipping the 

aboveground foliage on twelve 0.22-m2 subplots laid out in a 

3- by 4-grid pattern within the central 0.04-ha area of each 

whole plot. The herbaceous plant samples were collected 22, 

20, and 18 months after the last burns on treatments 2,3, and 

4, respectively. Waiting for more than a full year before 

sampling gave the herbaceous vegetation enough time to 

recover on all plots so valid tteatment compafisons were 

possible. 

The samples were subdivided into six taxa: (1) pinehill 

bluestem (S. scopnrium var. divergens [Hack.] Gould); (2) 

other bluesterns (mostly A. vieinicus L., A. ellionii Chaprn., 
A. tentan'us Michx., A. geraniii Vitmar, and S. tenemm 

Nm); (3) longleaf uniola; (4) other grasses (mostly 

Panicurn virgatum L., Sorghaftmm avenaceum wichx.] 

Nash., Dichanthelium spp., Eragm~is spp., and Artst& 

spp.); (5) grass-like plants (Camx spp., Cyprus spp., 

Elemhan's spp., Juncus spp., and Rhynchospora spp.); and 

(6) fbrbs (mostly Helianthus mgustifolius L.). 

Also on each plot, small trees, shrubs, blackberry, and vines 

were counted; and heights and crown covers were estimated 

in March 1994 at five 40-rn2 subplots laid out in an T 

pattern within the central 0.04-ha area of each whole plot. 

The brush was last severed in 199 1, so it had at least 1 year 

of regrowth before the final burns and 18 to 22 months to 

recover from the fves before the final measurements were 

taken to facilitate comparisons of height and crown spread 

among the burning treatments. 

Loblolly pine total height, diameter at breast height, and 

volume per tree at stand age 17 were compared using 

analyses of covariance for a randomized complete block 

design with the thee blocks as replicates, four treatments, 

and total height after six growing seasons as the covariate. 

Also, because there were no covariates, total herbaceous 

production, herbaceous production by tax& and understory 

woody plant stocking, total height, and crown cover were 

compared using analyses of variance for a randomized 

complete block design. Treatment comparisons were made 

with singledegree-of-freedom contrasts to answer the 

following three questions: 

Treatment I versus tmatmnts 2,3, and 4. Do 

precommercial thinning and woody vegetation control 

ing and cutting influence pine 

development, herbaceous plant production, and 

understory woody vegetation? 

Trearme~ 2 versus treatments 3 and 4. Does burning in 

March influence pine development, herbaceous plant 

production, and understory woody vegetation differently 

than burning later in the growing season? 

Treatment 3 versus treatment 4. Does midspring burning 

influence pine development, herbaceous plant 

production, and understory woody vegetation differently 

than burning in the summer? 

Selecting the a Level 

Inherent variability within research blocks can be reduced by 

careful plot selection. Still, the problem of accepting a false 

null hypothesis is a major concern in field studies because 

natural variation is always an issue regardless of tbe carr: 

taken to reduce it (Peterman 1990, Thomas 1997). Little of 

the usable portion of the study area was left after the plots 

were established, so increasing error degrees-of-freedom by 

adding replications was not a solution. Given past 

experience with similar studies and the fact that there were 

only three blocks, an a level of 0.10 was intuitively chosen 

at the beginning of the study in 1982. 

A power analysis was done with pine data collected in 

March 1994 (Thomas 1997) (table 1). A power of 2 0.80 

Table l-Analysis of the probability of failing to reject the null 

hypothesis when the null hypothesis is false (power of the test), based on 

rneasurexnents taken in March 1994 of 17-year-old loblolly pine 

Power of the test 

Types of analysis and 

measurement variables 

Analysis of variance 

D.b.h. (em) 0.743 0.877 0.933 

Total height (m) .255 .402 .5 10 

Volume per tree (m+r stem) -507 .683 .782 

Analysis of covariance" 

D.b.h. (cm) .909 -975 .W 1 

Total height (m) .832 .939 .973 

Volume per tree (m" per stem) .630 .802 .883 

@ Total height of pine trees at age 6 years was used as the covariate. 
was desired and was achieved for all three experimental 

variables (total height, diameter at breast height, and volume 

per uee) at an a level of 0.10 when pretreatment 1982 height 

data were used as the covariate. If the treatment means were 

analyzed without including the 1982 heights as a covariate, a 

desired power value was not achieved for all experimental 

variables, even at an a level of 0.15. Therefore, the power 

analysis validated the intuitive selection of 0.10 as the a 

level if an analysis of covariance was to be used for the 

variables. The same a level was also used in the herbaceous 

and woody plant analyses. 

However, there are problems with doing a posteriori power 

analysis. It rnay be useful only for interpreting results that 

have already failed to reject the null hypothesis at lower a 

levels (Peterman 1990). It simply may be a way of restating 

the test's statistical significance (Thomas 1997). 

Results 

Lobldly Pines 

The diameter at breast height and volume of the 25 selected 

dominant and codominant pines were significantly less on 

the check than on the vegetation-management treatments 

(table 2), largely because vegetation-management plots had 

been precomercially thinned and the nonpine woody plants 

not killed by fire were severed. The gain between stand ages 

6 and 17 averaged 2 cm in diameter at breast height and 0.04 

m3 per tree. The variable total pine height was not 

si@cantly different between the check and vegetationmanagement treatments at age 17. 

On the March-burned plots, trees were significantly shorter, 

with smaller diameters and less volume per tree than the 

average for plots burned in May and July (table 2). The 

biennial May burns also significantly increased both height 

and diameter growth over what was found on plots burned in 

July. 

Other Woody Vegetation 

The March-burned plots had significantly more trees, shrubs, 

and blackbemy than was the average stocking on plots 

burned in May and July (table 3). Plots burned in July had a 

similar number of stems per hectare as the checks. Average 

height and crown cover on plots treated with frre were 

si@icantly less than on the check plots. The average height 

of woody vegetation was significantly less on the plots 

buned in July than on those burned in May. 

Table %Least square means for total height, diameter at breast height, and volume of 

17-year-old loblolly pine 

Least square means 

Treatments 

Total Total stem 

Covariatea height D.b.h. volume 

Treatment 1, check 

Treatment 2, March burns 

Treatment 3, May burns 

Treatment 4, July burns 

Covariate a levels 

Linear contrasts 

Treatment 1 vs. treatments 2+3+4 

Treatment 2 vs. treatments 34 

Treatment 3 vs. treatment 4 

"Total height of pines at age 6 years was used as the covariate. 
Table %Stocking, average height, and crown cover of hardwood trees, shrubs, and blackberry and vine stocking in 17-year-old loblolly pine 

stands 

a levels 

Check March burn May burn July burn Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 

Taxa (Treatment 1) (Treatment 2) (Treatment 3) (Treatment 4) vs. 2+3+4 vs. 34 vs. 4 

All trees, shrubs, 

and blackberry 

Stems per hectare 

Average height (m) 

Crown cover (m) 

Sweetgum 

Stems per hectare 

Average height (m) 

Crown cover (m) 

American beautyberry 

Stems per hectare 

Average height (m) 

Crown cover (m) 

Blackberry 

Stems per hectare 

Average height (m) 

Crown cover (m) 

Vines 

Stems per hectare 
Plant species differ in their response to vegetation 

management (Haywood 1995). In terms of distribution 

across the study site and the number of stems present, the 

most abundant tree and shrub species were sweetgum 

r sryracifltlcl L.) an8 hericm beautykrry 

(Callicarpa americana L.). Compared to the checks, 

vegetation management significantly reduced the height and 

crown cover of sweetgum. Plots burned in May had the most 

sweetgum stems, and the difference in number on plots 

burned in May and July was significant, at a = .I I (table 3). 

Vegetation management did not significantly affect the 

stocking of American beautyberry, probably because of the 

large variation in stocking between plots within treatments. 

Blackberry was most common on plots burned in March, but 

the large variation in stocking between plots within 

treatments resulted in nonsignificant findings in the analyses 

of variance (table 3). The stocking of vines was not 

significantly affected by treatment, although the check plots 

were better stocked than the three vegetation-management 

acrahnents. Greenbrier (Smih spp*) was the anat abundant 

vine taxon. 

Herbaceous Vegetation 

Vegetation management resulted in significantly greater total 

current-year herbaceous plant production in these 17-yearold pine stands (table 4). Pinehill bluestem was not found on 

the check plots. However, it was the most productive species 

on the vegetation-management treatments, composing 49 

percent of the total current-year production (457 kg per 

hectare average). Longleaf uniola was the only grass 

commonly found on the check plots, but longleaf uniola was 

still less productive on the checks than on the vegetationmanagement treatments, as were the grass-like plants and 

forbs (data not shown). 

There were no statistically significant differences in 

herbaceous plant productivity among the three vegetationmanagement treatments. However, burning in May strongly 

increased the productivity of the other-grasses group, 

compared to burning in July (data not shown); and bunring 

in July reduced total herbaceous plant productivity, 

compared to the other burned treatments (table 4). 

Discussion 

Intensive vegetation management by precornmercial 

thinning, biennial prescribed g, and severing of woody 

plants influenced loblolly pine growth between stand ages 6 

and 17, but the differences were not biologically important. 

Also, total height growth might be a better variable for 

Table &Least square means for current-year herbaceous plant 

productivity in 17-year-old loblolly pine stands 

Treatments 

Pinehill 

Total yield bluestem 

Treatment 1, check 

Treatment 2, March burns 

Treatment 3, May burns 

Treatment 4, July burns 

Linear contrasts 

Treatment 1 vs. treatment 2+3+4 

Treatment 2 vs. treatment 3-14 

Treatment 3 vs. treatment 4 

-------- a levels - - - - - - - 

0.0028 0.0622 

.2727 .I424 

.I219 -4292 
comparing the un&inned and unweeded checks to the 

vegetation-management treaments because height growth is 

less sensitive to stocking than diameter growth, and total 

height was unaffected by management. 

These results were similar to those from another study, 

where prescribed burning in young pine stands reduced the 

number of trees <2 m tall without affecting taller saplings 

(Haywood 1995). In that study, burning was associated with 

an increase in average diameter and volume because the 

burns provided some precommercial thinning effect. 

There were differences in the growth of pines between the 

March, May, and July dates of burning. Grelen (1975, 1983) 

also reported that periodic prescribed burning in May 

increased survival and early growth of longleaf pine (I? 

plustris Mill.) seedlings over survival and growth following 

March burning. 

The degree of scorching, leaf consumption, and mortality 

snst%ind by bmd vegetation is influenced by the amount 

and condition of insulating tissues, as well as the intensity 

and duration of the burn (Greene and Shilling 1987). Living 

conifer tissues tolerate 55 "C temperatures for 60 seconds, 

and loblolly pine tissues die immediately if tieated to 65 "C 

(Baker 1929, Chapman 1942). Because the temperature of 

plant tissues is influenced by ambient air temperature and 

the cooling effect of transpiration, hot and dry conditions 

result in higher plant-tissue temperatures, greater stress, and 

reduced ability to tolerate high temperatures generated by 

prescribed burning. 

Diurnal weather conditions were not measured, and the 

phenological stage of new pine growth was not observed. 

However, while vegetation responses to any single burn were 

not important in this study, the long-term cumulative effect 

of repeated burning on tree growth, which is analogous to 

the effect of the climate on cumulative growth, was 

important. 

We argue that burning early in the growing season generally 

exposes new plant tissues with little insulation to injurious or 

lethal temperatures that may curtail growth because the new 

growth does not have the insulative tissues and girth of older 

stems (Greene and Shilling 1987). May burns normally 

follow the first flush of shoot growth. Moie developed 

young plant tissues and good growing conditions might help 

pines tolerate exposure to high temperatures in May. 

July, however, is normally the hottest month of the year, with 

an average daily temperature of 28 OC and monthly rainfall 

of 123 mm (Louisiana Office of State Climtology 1993). 

Mer, hotter conditions would be less favorable for plant 

tissues expo& to fire (Haywood 1995). It follows, then, 

that early May is generally the best time to use prescribed 

fire on the west Gulf Coastal Plain, as reported by Grelen 

(1975, 1983). 

Other Vegetation 

Initially, prescribed burning and the severing of woody 

undergrowth should result in more, though smaller stems, 

than are found under untreated pine stands because the tops 

are killed while root systems are mostly dected (Cain 

1985, Cain and Mann 1980, Sillcer 1% 1). Hence, it was 

expected that vegetation management would reduce the size 

of a woody undergrowth of abundant sweetgum, American 

beautyberry, blackberry, and greenbrier. 

Also, Chen and others (1975) reported ht 

biennial burning in July more effectively controls woody 

undergrowth than burning in the dsnnant season. Woody 

plant vigor and stem count should eventually decrease if fire 

is used often in the summer (lotti 1956). When comparing 

the use of fire in March, May, and July, our frndings did not 

completely support these other studies. Although plots 

burned in March had fewer stems than those burned later in 

the year, the significant decrease in woody plant height 

associated with burning in July was probably due to the 

strong effect of fire on American beautybeny. Still summer 

burning may be useful in loblolly pine forests when 

preparing stands for regeneration harvesting (Lotti 1956). 

Pinehill bluestem was the most common herbaceous plant in 

the burned pine stands. These results agree with Wolters and 

Wilhite (1974) that a high proportion of pinehill bluestem in 

the herbaceous plant cornunity indicates a well-managed 

understory on upland pine sites in the loblolly pine-shortleaf 

pine-hardwood forest type, and that further changes in 

management practices may not be necessary for restoration 

of herbaceous plant communities. 
Literature Cited 

Baker, FS. 1929. Effect of excessively high temperatwe on coniferous 

reproduction. Journal of Forestry. 27(12): 949-975. 

Baldwin, V.C, Jr.; Feduda, D.P. 1987. Loblofly pine growth and yield 

prediction for managed West Gulf plantations. Res. Pap. SO-236. New 

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Sewice, Southern 

Forest Experiment Station. 27 p. 

Brown, AA,; Davis, KP. 1973. Forest fire: control and use. 2d ed. New 

York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 685 p. 

Cain, WD. 1985. Long-term impact of hardwood control treatments in 

maw pine stands. Res. Pap. SO-2 14. New Orleans, LA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment 

Station. 8 p. 

Cain, M.D.; Mann, W.F, Jr. 1980. Annual brush control increases early 

growth of loblolly pine. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

4(2): 67-70. 

Chapman, H.H. 1942. Management of loblolly pine in the pine-hardwood 

region in Arkansas and in Louisiana west of the Mississippi River. 

S&d of Foresay Bull. 49. Yale University Press: New Haven, C?: 

150 p. 

Chen, M.Y.; Hodgkins, EJ.; Wa- WJ. 1975. Prescribed burning for 

improving pine production and wildlife habitat in the hilly coastal plain 

of Alabama. Bull. 473. Auburn, AL: Auburn University, Alabama 

Agricultural Experiment Station. 19 p. 

Greene, T.A.; Shilling, CL. 1987. Predicting girdling probability for pine 

and hardwood saplings in low-intensity backfires. Forest Science. 

33(3): 1010.1021. 

Grelen, H.E. 1975. Vegetative response to twelve years of seasonal 

burning on a Louisiana longleaf pine site. Res. Note SO-192. New 

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Forest Experiment Station. 4 p. 

Grelen, H.E. 1976. Responses of herbage, pines, and hardwoods to early 

and delayed burning in a young slash pine plantation. Jounral of Range 

Management. 29(4): 301 -303. 

Grelen, H.E. 1983. May burning favors survival and early height growth 

of longleaf pine seedlings, Southern Journal of Appiied Forestry. 

711): 16-20. 

Haywood, J.D. 1995. Prescribed burning and hexazimne herbicik as 

release treatments in a sapling fiardwood-ldbldly pine stand. New 

Forests. lO(1): 39-53. 

Upatrick, W.W.; Henry, C, Jr.; Ragus, J. [d others]. 1986, Soil 

survey of Grant Parish, Louisiana. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Consewation Service and Forest Service; and Luuisiana State 

University Agricultural Experiment Station: Baton Rouge, LA. 141 p. 

and 58 maps. 

Ldti, T. 1956. Eliminating understory hardwoods with summer prescribed 

fires in coastal plain loblolly pine stands. Journal of Forestry. 

54(3): 191-192. 

Lrrmisiana OflTi of State Climatology. 1993. Louisiana monthly climate 

review. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University. 126 p. Vol. 13. 

McNab, W.H.; Avers, RE. cow. 1994. Ecological subregions of the 

United States: section descriptions. Admin. PuM. WO-WSA-5. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 267 p. 

Peterman, RM. 1990. Statistical power analysis can improve fisheries 

research and management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences. 47: 2-15. 

Robbii LE; Myers, RL. 1989. Seasonal effects of prescribed burning 

in Florida: a review. 'Rillahassee, FL: The Nature Conservancy Fie 

Management and Research Program. 86 p. 

Silker, T.H. 1961. Prescribed burning to control undesirable hardwoods in 

southern pine stands. Bull. 5 1. Austin, TX: Texas Forest Service. 44 p. 

Spurr, S.H.; Barnes, B.V. 1973. Forest ecology. 2d ed. New Yo& The t Ronald Press Co. 57 1 p. 

Thomas, L. 1997. Retrospective power analysis. Conservation Biology. 

1 1 ( 1 ): 276-280. 

Wokers, G.L; Wilhite, A.T. 1974. Lobloll y-shortleaf pine-hardwood 

range. In: Range resources of the South. Bull. N.S. 9. Athens, GA: 

University of Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station: 20.33. 
Haywood, James D.; Martin, Alton, Jr.; Pearson, Henry A.; Grelen, Harold E. 1998. 

Seasonal biennial burning and woody plant control influence native vegetation in loblolly pine 

stands. Res. Pap. SRS-14. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 8 p. 

This paper documents the results of a study to determine the effects of selected vegetationmanagement treatments in loblolly pine. Vegetation in precomercialiy thinned, 6-year-old stands 

was subjected to five biennial growing season burns in either early March, May, or July coupled 

with hand felling of residual woody stems. Using a randomized complete Mock design, we compared 

the vegetation-management treatments to an unthinned, unburned, and unweeded check. By stand 

age 17, intensive vegetation management increased pine diameter growth by 2 centimeters (a = .004) and volume growth by 0.04 cubic meters (d)per tree (a = .02) when compared to the 

check. However, this was a small biological gain in growth. Among the burned treatments, five 

burns in early March reduced average pine total height by 0.8 m (a = ,004). diameter at breast 

height by 1.5 cm (a = .03), and volume per tree by 0.04 m3 (a = .06) compared to burning in early 

May or July. Vegetation management significantly reduced the height of hardwood trees and shnibs 

(a = .0001), but the number of trees and shrubs per hectare was not significantly affected. 

Vegetation management significantly increased total herbaceous plant production (a = .003). 

Pinehill bluestem was not on the check plots, but it was the most productive herbaceous species on 

the vegetation-management treatments, composing 49 percent of the average total annual 

production of 457 kilograms per hectare. 

Keywords: American beaytybeny, blackberry, greenbrier, loblolly pine, pinehill bluestem, 

prescribed burning. sweetgum, vegetation management. 

+ 
@ The Forest Service, United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple w management of the Nation's forest 

resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and 

recreation. Through fbrestry research, cooperation with the States 

and private forest owners, and managemnt of the National 

Forests and National Orasslands, it strives-as directed by 

Congress-to provide increasingly greater service to a growing 

Nation. 

The USDA prohibits didmination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, 

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

marital CK 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 TARGFD' Center 

at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, 

Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten 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.