SUMMARY 

A shrinking of Alabama's nonindustrial private 

pine forest prompted an analysis of recent trends in 

afforestation and regeneration. There has been an 

828,100-acre addition to the nonindustrial pine-site 

timberland base from nonforest land uses. Planting 

has replaced natural seeding as the major cause of afforestation to pine. The area of nonindustrial pine-site 

timberland harvested in Alabama increased by 29 

percent recently. Across all forest types, 68 percent of 

the harvest area had at least medium stocking of pine 

following harvest. There has been a significant improvement in the rate at which sites capable of supporting pine are regenerated with pine. The reforestat~on rate was estimated at 73 percent, compared with 

47 percent 8 years ago. 

Cover photo - Fully stocked lobiolly pine stand. 
Recent Trends in Afforestation and Reforestation of 

Nonindustrial Private Pine Forests in Alabama 

William H. McWilliams 

INTRODUCTION 

Recent inventories of Alabama's forest resources 

(conducted in 1972, 1982, and 19901 have revealed 

some disturbing trends in conditions of nonindustrial 

private pine forests. Over the past 18 years, removals 

of pine have increased by 72 percent, and pine growth 

has decreased by 18 percent (McWilliams, in press). 

The 1990 inventory indicated that removals of pine 

now exceed growth by 17 percent-a reverse of the 

situation in 1972 when growth exceeded removals by 

80 percent. As a result, pine inventory volume has 

decreased. This development has caused some 

analysts to be critical of nonindustrial private owners, 

particularly in the realm of pine regeneration (USDA 

FS 1988). The concern over regeneration was sparked 

by a 15-percent decrease in the area of nonindustrial 

pine forest between the 1972 and 1982 inventories. 

Changes in the area of pine forest are the net effect 

of several forces, including competition among land 

uses, forest succession, afforestation, and reforestation. Between 1982 and 1990, the area of pine-type 

timherland decreased, but only by 2 percent. The 

slower rate of decrease represents an important 

landmark in the history of nonindustrial private 

forestry because it has been associated with a trend 

toward more intensive management. This publication 

documents trends in afforestation and reforestation 

that have taken place over the past two decades. 

METHODS 

contract acreage were obtained from USDA Forest 

Service, Cooperative Forestry'. 

The SO-FIA conducts inventories in Alabama (fig. 

11 and other Midsouth States. The SO-FIA uses a twophase sample of temporary aerial photo points and a 

systematic grid of permanent ground plots. The area 

of forested land is determined by photointerpretation 

of temporary points and field checks of permanent 

plots. Field measurements are conducted on a portion 

of the permanent'plots located on a 3-mile grid. A 

wide array of tree-level and plot-level measurements 

are collected at all measurement plots that were 

forested either at the time of the previous inventory or 

at the time of the current inventory. Information for 

each measurement plot is expanded using factors 

developed as part of the forest area determination. 

More detailed coverage of SO-FIA procedures is 

provided elsewhere (Kelly, in press; McWilliams, in 

press; USDA FS 19901. An important component of 

the SO-FIA inventories is the collection of data on 

harvesting and regeneration that began during the 

1982 inventory of Alabama (see McWilliams 1990 for 

more information). Completion of the 1990 inventory 

has provided the first opportunity to examine trends 

in the status of pine regeneration. 

A subsample of the SO-FIA plots measured in 1982 

and 1990 was used to analyze the status of pine 

regeneration following commercial harvest. The subsample consisted of plots located on nonindustrial 

timherland that were commercially harvested since 

the last inventory. Broad ownership category (farmer, 

corporate, or miscellaneous individual) was determined from county tax assessors and contact with Most of the data used for analyzing afforestation owners. Plots on timherland leased to forest industry and reforestation were obtained as part of the succeswere included. Harvesting was classified by field sive forest inventorv ~ ~ Drocess carried out bv the USDA * 

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, 

Forest Inventory and Analysis unit (SO-FIAI. Sup- - 

'Moulton, Robert J. 1991. Unpublished data on Conservation 

plemental information on forest planting (USDA FS Reserve Program contract acreage. On file with USDA Forest 

1956-91) and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Service, Cooperative Forestry, Washington, DC. 

William H. MeWilliams is a research forester at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Forest Experiment Station, Starkville, MS 39759. 

1 
Figure 1. Forest &nuentory regions of Alabama 

foresters using existing plot conditions and personal 

judgment to distinguish between commercial harvest 

and other management activities, such as thinning or 

stand improvement cutting. Commercial harvesting 

was grouped into two classes: clearcut and partial cut. 

Partial cuts include pine selection cuts, diameter limit 

cuts, highgrading, or any other practice that removes 

the most marketable trees, leaving a residual stand 

containing merchantable trees. For convenience, seed 

tree cuts, shelterwood cuts, and salvage cuts were included in the partial cut category. 

Residual pine stocking was assessed by comparing 

the existing stocking of pine trees with the area occupancy standard used by SO-FIA. The SO-FIA 

standard represents "normal" or "full" stocking for 

southern forests and is expressed as number of trees 

or basal area by diameter class. For example, in a 

stand composed entirely of seedlings, the minimum 

for full stocking is 600 stems per acre. For stands with 

a mixture of tree sizes, the comparison is made by 

weighting trees according to the inverse relationship 

between size and number of trees per acre (May 1990). 
Residual pine stocking encompasses trees of the 

newly regenerated stand, either planted or seeded, as 

well as any trees left from the previous stand. Trees 

with little or no management potential are excluded. 

As such, residual pine stocking measures the degree 

to which the site is occupied by a "manageable" stand 

of pine. Stocking is grouped into three classes: 

Low-less than 30 percent stocked with pine. 

Medium-from 30 to 59 percent stocked with pine. 

High-at least 60 percent stocked with pine. 

The purpose of this grouping is to provide an indication of probable future forest type. Although this is a 

very useful measure of pine regeneration, it should be 

noted that there is no absolute measure of success or 

failure because management objectives vary by owner 

and forest type. 

So that the analysis of pine regeneration could focus 

on timberland suitable for growing pine, the subsample was limited to well-drained upland sites with 

a proven ability to support pine-termed "pine-site 

timberland," which is different from "pine forest 

types." The SO-FIA classifies forest type based on the 

relative stocking of dominant andlor codominant pine 

and hardwood trees. Pine forest types are defined as 

stands in which 50 percent or more of the stocking 

consists of pine species. Mixed pine-hardwood stands 

(synonymous with "oak-pine" used in some reports) 

are dominated by hardwoods but are at least 25 percent stocked with pine. Pine, mixed pine-hardwood, 

and hardwood forest types are all common on pinesite timberland. When forest type is discussed in conjunction with harvesting, forest type prior to harvest 

is used because of rapid changes in vegetative 

dominance that occur in early stand development. 

RESULTS 

Afforestation 

Afforestation of agricultural and other nonforest 

land is an important source of new pine forests. For 

the most recent inventory period, the total area added 

to nonindustrial private pine-site timberland in 

Alabama was 828,100 acres, a 14-percent increase 

from the previous period (table 1). The increase was 

due to expansion in the acreage of pine forest types. Of 

the new pine forest, 9 out of 10 acres were previously 

agricultural land. 

The most notable trend in afforestation has been 

the shift from natural seeding of abandoned farmland 

to planting of marginal cropland and other agricultural land. Artificial regeneration has now replaced 

natural regeneration as the major source of pine 

stands that are added to the nonindustrial timberland 

base (fig. 2). The area of new pine stands established 

artificially nearly tripled between the two inventory 

periods and now akounts for about three-fourths of 

the additions to pine forest. The area of pine stands 

added by natural means decreased by 38 percent. 

Information on forest planting and CRP contract 

acreage puts recent afforestation trends into perspective. Increased forest planting over the past decade is 

unprecedented in the history of nonindustrial forestry 

in Alabama (fig. 3, table 2). The previous peak in 

planting (156,200 acres) was surpassed in 1987 when 

179,400 acres were planted. The previous high was accomplished during the Federal Soil Bank Program of 

the late 1950's and early 1960's. A new record was established in 1988 when 213,200 acres were planted. 

Table 1.-Additions to pine-site timberland from nanforest land uses by forest type 

and stand ongin, nonindustrial priuate ouners, Alabomo, 1972-81 and 

1982-89 

1972-81 1982-89 

Forest type Total Artificial Natural Total Artificial Natural 

......................... housand acres-.~~ ......................... ~~~ 

Pine 393.9 152.2 241.7 578.2 427.9 150.2 

Mixed pinehardwood 107.4 17.9 89.5 100.2 22.8 77.4 

Hardwood 223.8 17.9 205.9 150.2 4.6 145.7 

Total 725.1 188.0 537.1 828.5 455.2 373.3 

*Rows and columns may not sum to totals because of rounding. 
500 

a NATURAL ARTIFICIAL 

Figure 2. -Additions to nonindustrial-yriuatet pine forest types on 

pine~site timberland from nonforest land uses by 

stand origin, Alabama, 197241 and 1982-89. 

The CRP provided a major impetus for the surge in 

planting, but was not the only factor. In the years 

since the CRP began, contract acreage was 38 percent 

of total forest planting. More important, CRP contract 

acreage represented two-thirds of the area added to 

pine-site timberland by artificial means. The niost significant factor in the overall increase in planting has 

been reforestation. 

Reforestation 

Haruesting.--The current inventory of Alabama indicates that commercial harvest activity was carried 

out on 4.1 million acres, or 31 percent of the nonindustrial pine-site timberland, during the period since 

the 1982 inventory. This figure is a 29-percent increase over the previous period (fig. 4, table 3). 

Demand for pine timber has increased, and nonindustrial private owners are satisfying a higher proportion than in the past. The shift has occurred as the 

forest industry has begun to reach an equilibrium in 

the area harvested on its own land. The largest increase in harvested area took place on timberland 

owned by miscellaneous individuals. 

Sixty-three percent of the harvest area was cut 

using partial cutting, the predominant harvest 

method of nonindustrial private owners. This conTable 2.-Area of forest planting and Conservation Reserve Program contracts, nonindustrial priuate owners, Alabama, 

1955-90 

Year 

Forest planting* 

1955 

Area 

Thousand 

acres 

19.4 

25.9 

48.9 

85.2 

156.2 

125.7 

71.5 

41.5 

29.3 

26.6 

22.3 

29.1 

40.9 

44.2 

26.4 

27.7 

29.2 

37.8 

40.8 

23.7 

29.0 

Year 

Conservation Reserve Proaam contractst 

Area 

Thousand 

acres 

25.8 

32.9 

31.2 

46.0 

59.8 

59.2 

65.8 

75.0 

57.2 

65.2 

101.9 

179.4 

213.2 

142.7 

98.0 

1988 63.9 

1989 20.0 

1990 13.8 

'Source: USDA FS 195691. 

'source: Moulton, Robert J. 1991. Unpublished data on Conservation Reserve Program contract acreage. On file with USDA Forest 

Service, Cooperative Forestry, Washington, DC. 

trasts with forest industry, which used clearcuts twothirds of the time. Partial cutting was very common 

on timberland owned by farmers and miscellaneous 

individuals and less common on corporate timberland 

(fig. 5). 

The heavy use of partial cuts by nonindustrial 

private owners is common across the South and 

reflects a preference for low-cost silvicultural systems 

with a strong reliance on natural regeneration. In 

many cases, stands are essentially clearcut for a particular product, such as sawlogs or all available pine 

fiber. Nonproduct trees are often left standing, thus 

avoiding the expense of removal and site preparation 

that would be incurred under more intensive systems. 

The residual trees cause stands to be classified as partial cut, but such stands are often treated like clearcut 

stands. With an adequate seed supply, ample moisture, and freedom from competing vegetation, the 
CRP CONTRACT ACRES 

225 

200 

175 

cr, $ I50 

P 

125 

s 

I00 

3 

0 

75 

50 

25 

0 

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 

Figure 3. -Area of forest planting and Conservation Reserve Program contract acres for nonindustrral prrvate 

owners, Alabama, Z955-90. 

chances for the development of adequate pine stocking are good. If understory and midstory hardwoods 

are left intact, succession to a hardwood forest type is 

probable (Langdon 1981). Increased demand for 

hardwoods in the last 5 years has offered a new opportunity for nonindustrial owners to reduce hardwood 

stocking in stands with a substantial hardwood component. Also, as planting records demonstrate, planting of pine is emerging as a tool for supplementing 

natural management on sites where it is economically 

feasible. 

Residual Pine Stocking.-Regeneration success can 

be assessed by evaluating residual pine stocking in 

harvested stands. Conclusions regarding the status of 

pine regeneration depend on which forest types are included and what level of pine stocking is considered to 

be adequate. The assessment will vary depending on 

one's viewpoint. For example, is it necessary to 

regenerate all mixed pine-hardwood and hardwood 

stands with pine? Or is regeneration of a pine stand as 

a mixed pine-hardwood stand acceptable? This assessment addresses a range of viewpoints. For simplicity, 

the entire block of harvested timberland is used in the 

analysis, and a range of preharvest forest types and 

pine stocking class combinations is discussed. All the 

details of residual pine stocking by ownership, preharvest forest type, and method of harvest are contained 

in tables 4 through 6 for readers interested in answers 

to more specific resource questions. 

For all forest types combined, 30 percent of the harvested pine-site timberland in Alabama had a high 

stocking of pine following harvest (fig. 6). In the absence of negative forces, such as fusiform rust or 

drought, most stands with a high stocking of pine will 

develop into pure pine stands. An additional 26 percent had medium pine stocking, which may be con- 
Table 3.-Area of commercially harvested timberland by ownership, preharuest forest type, and method of haruest, nonindustrial priuate 

owners, Alabama, 197241 and 1982-89 

Ownershl~ and preharvest Total past Partial Total past Partla1 

forest type timberland Total Clearcut cut timberland Total Clearcut cut 

Farmer 

Pine 

Mixed pine-hardwood 

Hardwood 

Total 

Corporate 

Pine 683.2 232.2 150.2 821 681.0 268.1 146.9 121.1 

Mixed pine-hardwood 431.1 114.0 57.6 56.5 372.6 118.8 58.1 60.7 

Hardwood 324.1 78.7 72.9 5.8 550.5 87.5 50.7 36.8 

Total 1.438.4 425.0 280.6 144.4 1.610.5 474.4 255.7 218.7 

Individual 

Pine 2,7987 913.1 398.7 514.4 2.614.9 977.9 335.2 642.7 

Mixed pine-hardwood 1,642.0 464.9 199.2 265.6 1,624.6 672.5 231.3 441.1 

Hardwood 1,799.5 335.4 222.8 112.6 2,7426 700.3 252.7 447.6 

Total 6,240.2 1,713.4 820.7 892.6 6,9822 2,350.6 819.2 1,531.4 

Nonindustrial private 

Pine 5,530.5 1,621.4 739.4 882.1 4,773.4 1,665.8 6411 1,024.7 

Mixed oine-hardwood 3,4731 856.1 378.7 477.4 3.086.3 1.078.6 3fi9.1 709.6 

Hardwood 

Total 

'Rows and columns may not sum to totals because of rounding. Timberland that was harvested and changed to a nanforest land use is 

excluded. Timberland under lease to forest industry is included. 

3.000 

a CLEARCUT PARTIAL CUT 

ALL MISC. 

OWNERS FARMER CORPORATE lNOIYIDUAL 

Figure 4. -Area of commercially harursted nonindustrial~priuate Figure 5. -Area of commercially harvested nonindustrial-priunte 

timberland by ownership and irtvrntory period, timberland by ownership and method of harvest, 

Alabama, I97241 and 198249. Alabama, 198249. 
ALL MIXED PINETYPES 'INE nARDWOO0 

Figure 6. Area of commercially harvested nonindustrralpriuate timberland by preharvest forest type and pine 

stocking class, Alabama. 1972d1 and 198249. 

1972 -81 

1.200 LOW MEDIUM MlGH 1,200 

1,000 1,000 

@ 

800 2 

u k 800 u 

P P 

3 600 9 2 600 

z 4 

w 

2 400 2 q00 

? ? 

200 200 

0 0 O,"kkRs MISC. FARMER CORPORATE INDIVIDUPIL O,"kkRs FARMER CORPORATE INDIVIDUAL MlSC. 

Figure 7. -Area of commercially haruested nonindustrial~privote pine and mized pine~horduood timberland by 

ownership and pine stocking class, Alabama, 197241 and 198249. 
Table 4.-Area of commercially harurstedpine~site timberland by ownership, prehoruest forest type, and pine stock 

ing class, nonindustrial przuote owners, Alnboma, 197241 and 198249 

Pine stocking class Pine stocking class Ownership and preharvest 

forest tvpe Total Low Medium High Total Low Medium Hieh 

Farmer 

Pine 

Mixed pine-hardwood 

Hardwood 

Total 

Corporate 

Pine 

Mixed pine-hardwood 

Hardwood 

Total 

Individual 

Pine 913.1 340.2 262.4 310.6 977.9 249.7 286.3 441.8 

Mixed pine-hardwood 464.9 263.8 141.8 59.2 672.5 315.3 1931 164.1 

Hardwood 335.4 224.2 58.8 52.3 700.3 479.8 1081 112.4 

Total 1,7134 828.3 463.0 4221 2,350.6 1,044.9 587.5 718.2 

Nonindustrial private 

Pine 1,621.4 627.7 462.5 531.2 1,665.8 384.8 505.3 775.7 

Mixed pine-hardwood 8561 482.3 250.7 123.1 1,078.6 496.2 315.9 266.5 

Hardwood 

Total 

*Rows and columns mar not sum to totals because of rounding. Timberland that was harvested and changed to a 

nonforest land use is excluded. Timberland under lease to forest industry is included. 

sidered adequate in some cases. Some of the mediumstocked stands will develop into pure pine stands and 

others will contain a mixture of pine and hardwoods. 

Without further treatments to boost pine stocking, the 

timberland with low pine stocking will probably 

evolve into stands dominated by hardwood. 

When all forest types are considered, combining 

timberland with high and medium stocking of pine 

makes it possible to appraise the area of harvested 

timberland that should contain a significant component of pine. The percentage of timberland harvested with at least medium stocking went from 50 to 

56 percent between the two inventory periods. 

Another approach is to examine pine and mixed 

pine-hardwood stands because they supported a significant component of pine prior to harvest. The most 

recent inventory shows that 38 percent of such stands 

had high pine stocking and 30 percent had medium 

stocking (fig. 7). This finding compares with 26 and 29 

percent, respectively, for these two classes in the previous inventory. The biggest improvements occurred 

on land owned by corporations and miscellaneous individuals. 

As would be expected, regeneration was most successful following harvest of pure pine stands. Fortyseven percent of the harvested pine stands had a high 

stacking of pine following harvest (fig. 8). At first, this 

figure may seem low, but it must be remembered that 

other forest types also provide a source of new pine 

stands. For example, 30 percent of the hardwood 

stands harvested in the most recent inventory had at 

least medium pine stocking. Also, there has been significant improvement, as only 33 percent of the harvested pine stands had high stocking in the previous 

inventory. On a percentage basis, corporate-owned 

land showed the most dramatic improvement. 

Pcne Reforestation Rate.-As just illustrated, comprehensive statements about regeneration are confounded by the number of variables involved and the 

difficulty of making concise assumptions regarding 

appropriate management objectives for nonindustrial 

private owners. Examining a range of pine stocking 

levels for the various forest types that were harvested 

is preferred for its flexibility; however, some measure 

of overall success is needed. The pine reforestation 

rate provides such a measure, as it captures not only 
Table 5.-Area of clearcut pine~site trmberland by ownershrp, preharvest forest type, andprne stocking class, nonin 

dustrial priuate owners, Alabama, 197241 and 198249 

Pine stocking class Pine stocking class Ownership and preharvest 

forest type Total Low Medium High Totill Low Medium High 

....... ~~~~ .......... ~~~~~ ......... ~.~~~~.. Thousand acres* ------- ~~~~~~ .------- ~ ~~ 

Farmer 

Pine 190.5 109.0 35.1 46.4 159.0 67.8 30.2 60.9 

Mixedpine-hardwood 121.9 68.6 24.0 29.3 79.6 35.3 17.4 26.9 

Hardwood 124.8 92.3 10.2 22.3 191.1 116.7 35.0 39.4 

Total 437.2 269.9 69.3 98.0 429.7 219.8 82.6 127.3 

Corporate 

Pine 150.2 80.3 17.2 52.6 146.9 281 33.1 85.8 

Mixed pine-hardwood 57.6 28.9 6.0 22.6 58.1 17.0 11.6 29.5 

Hardwood 

Total 

Individual 

Pine 398.7 164.1 69.1 165.5 335.2 107.1 68.9 159.2 

Mixed pine-hardwood 199.2 129.6 41.0 28.7 231.3 91.9 49.8 89.6 

Hardwood 22.8 123.6 46.8 52.3 252.7 116.6 46.4 89.7 

Total 820.7 417.3 157.0 246.6 819.2 315.6 1651 338.5 

Nonindustrial private 

Pine 739.4 353.4 121.5 264.4 641.1 203.0 132.2 305.9 

Mixedpine-hardwood 378.7 227.1 71.0 80.6 369.1 144.2 78.8 146.0 

Hardwood 420.5 243.7 68.5 108.2 494.5 261.5 92.7 140.2 

Total 1,538.5 824.2 261.0 453.3 1,504.6 608.7 303.7 592.2 

*Rows and columns may not sum to totals because of rounding. Timberland that was harvested and changed to a 

nonforest land use is excluded. Timberland under lease to forest industry is included. 

the success of regenerating pine stands, but also the 

conversion of mixed pine-hardwood and hardwood 

stands. The reforestation rate is defined as the total 

area of harvested pine stands divided by the area of 

harvested pine-site timberland that exhibits a high 

stocking of pine. The results indicate remarkable improvement in the regeneration of pine forests (fig. 9). 

At the time of the previous inventory, the reforestation rate was 47 percent. The reforestation rate increased to 73 percent over the most recent inventory 

period. By owner, the current rates are 66 percent for 

farmers, 84 percent for corporations, and 73 percent 

for miscellaneous individuals. 

DISCUSSION 

Although the rate of pine forest loss has slowed considerably, concern remains over the loss of 1.0 million 

acres of nonindustrial private pine forest in Alabama 

between 1972 and 1990. The 1990 inventory revealed 

two positive trends that suggest improvement is possible: (1) increased additions to pine forest from other 

land uses and (2) improvement in pine regeneration. 

The former was heavily affected by afforestation efforts of the CRP. The latter suggests that nonindustrial owners are improving their forest management practices and is very important because it took 

place along with an increase in harvest area. The 

overall increase in planting provides further evidence 

of management intensification. The Forestry Incentives Program of 1974 and Federal, State, and industry stewardship programs have all played important roles. 

Given the limited investment capital available to 

many nonindustrial private owners, it is important to 

consider new research on alternatives to highly intensive management practices. This point is especially 

significant in light of findings that natural regeneration has the potential to yield a higher internal rate of 

return on investment than planting, 10.8 percent versus 10.1 percent (Dangerfield and Edwards 1991). 

Current research covering low-cost regeneration techniques for pine-site timberland offers promise (Edwards and Dangerfield 19901, as do inexpensive 

management treatments for rapid recovery of understocked pine stands (Baker 1989). Drastic improvement in natural regeneration of pine has been 

achieved simply by timing harvest to coincide with the 

dormant season (McMinn and Nutter 1988). Other re- 
Table 6.-Area ofpartral cutpine~site t~mberlnnd by ownershrp, preharnest forest type, and pine stocking class, non~ 

rndustriol priuate owners, Alaboma, 1972431 and 298249 

Pine stocking class Pine stocking class Ownership and preharvest 

forest tme Total Low Medium Hieh Total Low Medium Hish . . " ~~~ n~~ 

....... ~~~~~~~ ............ ~~~~~~~~~~.~ ..... Thousand acres*.~~~~~ ......... ---------- ~~~~ ........ ~~~~~~~~ 

Farmer 

Pine 285.6 63.2 124.2 98.3 260.8 33.7 115.9 111.2 

Mixed pine-hardwood 155.3 80.8 62.6 11.9 207.8 105.8 72.7 29.3 

Hardwood 133.2 110.9 22.3 ... 249.1 279.7 58.6 10.7 

Total 5741 254.8 2091 110.2 817.7 419.2 247.3 151.2 

Corporate 

Pine 82.1 35.0 23.6 23.4 121.2 5.5 39.7 76.0 

Mixed pine-hardwwd 56.5 40.2 16.2 ... 60.7 22.9 21.1 16.7 

Hardwood 5.8 5.8 ... ... 36.8 26.7 5.2 4.9 

Total 144.3 81.1 39.9 23.4 218.7 55.1 66.0 97.6 

Individual 

Pine 514.4 176.0 193.2 145.1 642.7 142.6 217.4 282.6 

Mixed mne-hardwood 265.6 134.2 100.8 30.6 441.1 223.4 143.3 74.4 

Hardwood 

Total 

Nonindustrial private 

Pine 882.1 274.2 341.0 266.8 1,024.7 181.8 373.1 469.8 

Mixed pine-hardwood 477.4 255.2 179.7 42.5 709.6 352.0 237.1 120.4 

Hardwood 251.7 217.5 34.2 ... 833.5 669.7 125.5 38.2 

Total 1,6112 746.9 555.0 309.3 2,567.7 1.2035 735.7 628.5 

*Rows and columns may not sum to totals because of rounding. Timberland that was harvested and changed to a 

nonfarest land use is excluded. Timberland under lease to forest industry is included. 

600 

Fi 

v 

3 400 

T 

3 

D 2 200 

0 

ALL MlSC. 

FARMER CORPORATE IND IVIDU AL 

OWNERS 

Figure 8. -Area of commercially harvested nonind~~strrol-przuatet pine~type timberland by ownersh~p and pine 

stocking class, Alabama, 197241 and 1982-89. 
ALL 

OWNERS 

FARMER MISC. 

CoRPORATE INDIVIDUAL 

Figure 9. Ptne reforestation rate on commercially harvested 

nonindustrial-pr~uate pine-site timberland by oroner~ 

ship, Alabama, 197241 and 1982-89. 

search has shown that mixed-stand management is a 

viable alternative for stands with a substantial hardwood component (Cain 1988, Phillips and Abercrombie 1987). The recent expansion of demand for 

hardwood fiber can make this approach profitable in 

some instances. 

Alabama's forests are very dynamic. Factors that 

affect afforestation and reforestation vary considerably over time. Therefore, on-the-ground assessment 

should become a standard component of the forest inventory process. Such assessments can help decisionmakers to formulate sound policies and research 

analysts to predict the character of future timber supplies. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Baker, James B. 1989. Recovery and development of 

understocked loblolly-shortleaf pine stands. 

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 13: 132-139. 

Cain, Michael D. 1988. A low-cost technique for increasing pine volume production in mixed pinehardwood stands. Res. Pap. 50.246. New Orleans, 

LA: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Forest Experiment Station. 9 p. 

Dangerfield, Coleman W.; Edwards, M. Boyd. 1991. 

Economic considerations of natural and planted 

regeneration of loblolly pine. Southern Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 15: 125-127. 

Edwards, M. Boyd; Dangerfield, Coleman W. 1990. 

Reliable, low-cost alternatives for pine regeneration 

in the South. Res. Pap. SE-280. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agnculture, Forest Senice, 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p. 

Kelly, John F. [In pressl. USDA Forest Service survey 

methods. In: Proceedings, Alabama's forests: past, 

present, and future; 1991 May 29-30; Auburn, AL. 

Auburn, AL: Aubhrn University. 

Langdon, O.G. 1981. Natural regeneration of loblolly 

pine: a sound strategy for many forest landowners. 

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry: 5: 170-176. 

May, Dennis M. 1990. Stocking, forest type, and stand 

size-the Southern Forest Inventory and Analysis 

Unit's calculation of three important stand descriptors. Gen. Tech. Rep. 50-77. New Orleans, LA. U.S. 

Department of Agnculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p. 

McMinn, J.W.; Nutter, W.L. 1988. Season and intensity of whole-tree harvesting influence regeneration 

in the oak-pine type. Canadian Journal of Forestry 

Research. 18: 669-674. 

McWilliams, William H. 1989. Residual pine stocking 

after harvest on private timberland: a summary for 

six Southern States. Res. Pap. SO-252. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 12 p. 

McWilliams, William H. 1990. Assessing pine 

regeneration for the South Central United States. 

In: State-of-the-art methodology of forest inventory: 

a symposium proceedings; 1989 July 5-August 5; 

Syracuse, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-263. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 133-140. 

McWilliams, William H. [In press]. Forest resources 

of Alabama. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 
Phillips, D.R.; Abercrombie, J.A., Jr. 1987. Pinehardwood mixtures-a new concept in regeneration 

on harvested lands. Southern Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 11: 192-197. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

1956-1991. U.S. forest planting records. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Cooperative Forestry. [Annual publications 

from 1956 through 19911. 

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 1988. 

The South's fourth forest: alternatives for the future. FRR-24. Springfield, VA: National Technical 

Information Service. 512 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. 

Forest survey inventory work plan: Alabama 1989- 

1990. Starkville, MS: Southern Forest Experiment 

Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis; undistributed field manual. 
McWilliams, William H. 1992. Recent trends in afforestation and 

reforestation of nonindustrial private pine forests in Alabama. 

Resour. Bull. SO-164. New Orleans, LA. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 

12 p. 

Recent trends in two factors underlie changes in the area of nonindustrial private pine forest in Alabama- afforestation and reforestation - are presented and discussed in this report. While the 

area of nonindustrial pine forest continues to decrease, it is 

decreasing at a slower rate than in the past. 

Keywords: Conservation Reserve Program, forest stewardship, 

loblolly-shortleaf, planted pine, regeneration, timber supply. 

Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or wlth any 

handicapping condition are welcome to use and enjoy all facilities, programs, 

and services of the USDA. Discrimination in any form is strictly against 

agency policy, and should be reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC 20250. 

9:U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1992-666-020/40025