Table 4.—Area of commercially harvested timberland by State, ownership group, and pine stocking class!

Commercially , :
‘ki
Ownership Total past harvested ___Pine stocking class
State group timberland _ timberland High Medium Low

-- Thousands of acres ------+-2++2+00-222--+-

Alabama Forest industry? 3,847.2 1,492.7 726.5 316.2 450.0
Nonindustrial 12.687.6 2,925.7 634.4 776.2 1,515.1

Total 16.534.8 4,418.4 1,360.9 1,092.4 1,965.1

Arkansas Forest industry 3.427.0 2,014.6 1,060.8 562.6 391.2
Nonindustrial 5,231.6 2,003.7 693.7 544.0 766.0

Total 8.658.6 4,018.3 1,754.5, 1,106.6 1,157.2

Louisiana Forest industry 3,248.5 1,059.3 555.4 264.4 239.5
Nonindustrial 4,783.2 838.6 347.9 219.5 271.2

Total 8,031.7 1,897.9 903.3 483.9 510.7

Mississippi Forest industry 2,353.4 1,261.6 635.3 348.4 277.9
Nonindustrial 8,102.8 3,273.2 1,058.3 791.3 1,423.6

Total 10.456.2 4534.8 1,693.6 1,139.7 1,701.5

East Oklaboma Forest industry 925.5 479.1 248.2 139.9 91.0
Nonindustrial 1,409.8 204.7 62.2 42.3 100.2

Total 2335.3 683.8 310.4 182.2 191.2

East Texas Forest industry 3,244.9 2,082.8 1,224.1 433.8 424.9
Nonindustrial 5143.3 1,977.4 680.7 509.1 787.6

Total 8.388.2 4,060.2 1,904.8 942.9 1,212.5

All States Forest industry 17,043.4 8,390.1 4,450.3 2,065.3 1,874.5
Nonindustrial 37,358.3 11,223,3 3477.2 2,882.4 4,863.7

Total 54.401.7 19,613.4 7,927.5 4,947.7 6,738.2

‘Includes clearcuts, seed tree andor shelterwood cuts, partial cuts, and salvage cuts on pine-site timberland. Pine
sites are upland sites on which pine is present or was formerly present.
2Includes land under long-term lease from nonindustrial private owners.


Forest type was assigned using the relative stock-
ng of dominant and/or codominant pine and hard-
vood trees. The definition of pine forests included
stands in which 50 percent or more of the stand was
‘omposed of southern pine species. Mixed pine-
iardwood stands contained a plurality of hardwood
:pecies, but pines constituted at least 25 percent.
3tands were classified as hardwood if pines con-
ributed less than 25 percent of the overall stocking.

Harvest Classification

The sample plots were selected in stands that had
indergone commercial harvest since previous meas-
irement. Harvested stands that shifted to nonforest
and use were excluded from the sample. Field crews
ised existing plot conditions and personal judgment
o distinguish between commercial harvest and other
activities such as thinnings or stand improvement.
cuts. Precommercial thinnings, commercial thinnings
n poletimber stands, and the removal of a small num-
ser of trees for firewood, posts, or other products were
rot included in the sample. Commercial harvest cuts
were grouped into four classes on the basis of cutting
ntensity and inspection of residual trees:

Complete clearcut—removal of all growing-stock

and cull trees.

Merchantable clearcut—removal of growing-stock
trees with cull trees left standing.

Partial cut—pine selection cuts, diameter-limit
cuts, highgrading, or any other practice that
tends to remove the most marketable trees leav-
ing a residual stand of growing-stock and/or cull
trees.

Other harvest—seed tree cuts, shelterwood cuts,
and salvage cuts.

“learcuts were distinguished from partial cuts by ex-
amination of the residual stand. Stands were only
lassified as clearcuts if all growing-stock trees were
elied. This method of classification follows Smith’s
1962) “broad” definition of the clearcut method using
“IA criteria to define merchantability.

stocking Assessment

Pine stocking was assessed by comparing existing
tocking of growing-stock trees with the area occu-
vancy standard used by FIA. The FIA standard is an
xpression of “normal” or “full” stocking for southern
orests. Described in terms of number of trees by 2-
nch diameter class. the standard is:

D.b.h. Number of trees
Inches Per acre

seedlings 600
2 560
4 460
6 340
8 240
10 155
12 115
14 90
16 72
18 60
20 51
22 42
24 36
26 31
28 27
30 24

Residual pine stocking includes planted trees, natu-
rally seeded trees, and residual trees found following
any harvest that occurred after the stand had been
harvested. Residual pine stocking was grouped into
three classes:

Low—0 to 29 percent stocked with pine,

Medium—30 to 59 percent stocked with pine,

High—greater than 60 percent stocked with pine.

Pine stocking classes are useful for examining pine
regeneration, but it should be noted that there is no
absolute measure of success or failure because man-
agement objectives vary among owners and forest
types. In general, pine stocking classes provide an
indication of probable future forest type. Appendix
tables 1 through 4 contain acreages by past forest
type, State, and ownership group.

RESULTS

Commercial Harvest Activity

Ninety percent of the pine-site timberland in the
study region is privately owned, with the rest held by
public agencies:

Ownership Total Timberland
group timberland harvested
aeeeeeee Percent --------
Public 10 4
Forest Industry 28 41
Nonindustrial private 62 55



LITERATURE CITED

Birdsey, Richard A.; van Hees, Willem W.S.; Beltz,
Roy C. 1981. Pine regeneration in southwest Ar-
kansas. Res. Pap. SO-165. New Orleans, LA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, South-
ern Forest Experiment Station. 10 p.

Cain, Michael D. 1988. A low-cost technique for in-
creasing pine volume in mixed pine-hardwood
stands. Res. Pap. SO-246. New Orleans, LA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, South-
ern Forest Experiment Station. 9 p.

Cubbage, Frederick W.; Gunter, John E. 1987. Con-
servation reserves. Journal of Forestry. 85(4):21—
27.

Fesco, R.S.; Kaiser, H.F.; Royer, J.P.; Weidenhamer,
M. 1982. Management practices and reforestation
decisions for harvested southern pinelands. Staff
Report AGES5821230. Washington, D.C.: U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting
Service. 74 p.

Knight, Herbert A. 1987. The pine decline. Journal of
Forestry. 85(1}:25-28.

McWilliams, William H. 1988a. Status of privately
owned harvested timberland in East Oklahoma:
1976-1986. Res. Note SO-340. New Orleans, LA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p.

McWilliams, William H. 1988b. Status of privately
owned harvested timberland in Mississippi: 1977-
1987. Res. Note SO-346. New Orleans, LA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, South-
ern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p.

MeWilliams, William H. 1989. Status of privately
owned harvested timberland in Arkansas: 1978~
1988. Res. Note SO-353. New Orleans, LA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, South-
ern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p.

McWilliams, William H.; Birdsey, Richard A. 1984.
Alabama survey points to lack of pine regeneration
on harvested lands. Forest. Farmer. 43(10):18.

McWilliams, William H.; Frey, Paul D. 1986. Status
of privately owned harvested timberland in Louisi-
ana: 1974-1984. Res. Note SO-329. New Orleans,
LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serv-
ice, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p.

MeWilliams, William H.; Skove, David J. 1987.
Status of privately owned harvested timberland in
East Texas: 1975-1986. Res. Note SO-338. New Or-
leans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p.

Phillips, Douglas R.; Abercrombie, James A., Jr.
1987. Pine-hardwood mixtures-a new concept in re-
generation on harvested lands. Southern Journal of
Applied Forestry. 11(4):192-197.

Smith, David Martyn. 1962. The practice of silvicul-
ture. Ed. 7. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 578 p.

USDA, Forest Service. 1971-1988. U.S. forest plant-
ing reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

USDA, Forest Service. 1988. The South’s fourth
forest: alternatives for the future. FRR-24. Spring-
field, VA: National Technical Information Service.
512 p.


11,000

10,000

9,000 FOREST INDUSTRY

8,ooof NONINDUSTRIAL

7,000h-

6,000

5,000

4,000

THOUSANDS OF ACRES

3,000

2,000

1,000F

OTHER
HARVEST

MERCH
clearcut

PARTIAL

CLEAaRcUT cur

Figure 3. —Area of commercially harvested timberland by method of
harvest and ownership class.

the most significant variables collected in the FIA
inventories are preharvest (or past) forest type and
ownership group. Another is the period of time cov-
ered by the inventory.

Forest Type and Ownership.—As would be ex-
pected, pine regeneration following harvest was most
evident in pine stands. A high stocking of pine should
ensure that harvested stands remain as pine-type
timberland. For both ownership groups combined, 54
percent of the harvested pine-type timberland had a
high stocking of pine (table II). Sixty-two percent of
the forest industry stands had high stocking com-
pared to 48 percent of the stands on nonindustrial
private land. Harvested stands with medium pine
stocking may or may not develop into pure pine

stands, but could represent adequate regeneration
under some management scenarios. Overall, 24 per-
cent of the stands had medium pine stocking.

The status of pine regeneration in mixed pine-
hardwood stands is also important for assessing the
future of the pine resource. Thirty-one percent of the
harvested stands had high pine stocking and 32 per-
cent had medium. Most of the stands with medium
pine stocking will likely evolve into pine and mixed
stands. Some of the medium-stocked stands will re-
vert to hardwood forest types, as will most of the
stands with low pine stocking, assuming no follow-up
management treatments to boost pine stocking.

Summing together the results for pine and mixed
stands—a means for evaluating regeneration of tim-
berland that had supported pine timber—indicates
that 46 percent of the harvested acreage had high
pine stocking. Forest industry had 57 percent in the
high stocking class and nonindustrial private owners
had 38 percent. Summing the medium and high
classes accounts for 82 and 66 percent of the stands for
the two ownerships, respectively. Twenty-seven per-
cent of the harvested pine and mixed stands (4.1 mil-
lion acres) were in the low stocking class. Sixty-nine
percent of this timberland (2.9 million acres) was on
nonindustrial private land.

Conversion of hardwood stands growing on pine
sites adds to the pine resource base. Thirty-nine per-
cent of the harvested hardwood stands had at least
medium pine stocking. Conversion was most inten-
sive on forest industry land.

Inventory Period. —The effects of forces that aren’t
directly measured by FIA—such as economic cycles—
are reflected by the inventory period. State-level in-
ventories provide a “snapshot” of resource conditions
that are highly dynamic. For this reason, the results

Table Il.—Area of commercially harvested pine and mixed pine-hardwood timberland by past forest type, pine

stocking class, and ownership group!

Ownership group

Past forest Pine stocking Total
type class private Forest industry? Nonindustrial
neces ence ee cere eeeeene Percent -------=--22-22--000-"+
Pine High 54 62 48
Medium 24 23 25
Low 22 15 27
Mixed pine-hardwood High 31 AT 20
Medium 32 28 35
Low 37 25 45
Total High 46 57 38
Medium 27 25, 28
Low 27 18 34

' Includes clearcuts. seed tree and/or shelterwood cuts, partial cuts, and salvage cuts on pine-site timberland.
Pine sites are upland sites on which pine is present or was formerly present.
“Includes land under long-term lease from nonindustrial private owners.


Prior to the most recent inventories, 96 percent of the
commercial harvest activity was conducted on private
land. Forest industry's share of the harvest area was
higher than their share of total timberland. Both pub-
lic and nonindustrial private owners harvested
smaller shares than their shares of total timberland.

Overall, 36 percent of the privately owned timber-
land showed evidence of commercial harvest (table I).
Harvesting tended to be heavier in States where more
recent inventories had been completed. The harvest
areas ranged from about 25 percent of the pine-site
timberland in Alabama and Louisiana to nearly 50
percent in Arkansas and east Texas. Harvesting was
greater on industry land, where 49 percent of the tim-
berland base was harvested; 31 percent of the nonin-
dustrial private timberland was harvested.

Forest types were impacted by harvesting in
roughly the same proportions as existed before cut-
ting, but with a slight preference for stands contain-
ing pine. Prior to harvest, the region’s pine sites were
45 percent pine, 26 percent mixed, and 29 percent
hardwood. Commercial harvests were 52 percent
pine. 26 percent mixed, and 22 percent hardwood (fig.
2). Forest industry showed a preference for cutting
stands containing pine.

By far, the most common harvest methods were par-
tial cuts (51 percent of the harvest area) and clearcuts
‘complete and merchantable) (42 percent) (fig. 3).

In many cases, partially cut stands were essentially
clearcut for a particular product—such as pine saw-
timber—with nonproduct trees left standing. These
residual trees often met FIA’s growing-stock criteria.
The seemingly high percentage of partially cut tim-
berland may have resulted from some stands being in
an intermediate stage of multipass harvest—say with
pines cut first and hardwoods cut later. Partial cuts
were most prevalent on nonindustrial private timber-
land, where 71 percent of the partial cuts were found.
Clearcuts were more common on industry timberland.

11,000

FOREST INDUSTRY

10,000}-
NONINDUSTRIAL

9,000F

8,000;-

7,000

6,000

5,000 F

4,000

THOUSANDS OF ACRES

3,000 >

2,000

1,000}-

°

MIXED PINE~
HARDWOOD

HARDWOOD

PINE TYPES TYPES

Figure 2.—Area of commercially harvested timberland by past
forest type and ownership group.

The two owner groups showed preferences for the
type of clearcut used. Seventy-four percent of the in-
dustry’s clearcuts were classified as complete. Sixty-
three percent of the nonindustrial private clearcuts
were merchantable clearcuts, with cull and sapling-
sized trees left standing. Some of the acreage with
residual stems may receive further clearing through
site-preparation activity scheduled for after the in-
spection by FIA field personnel.

Residual Pine Stocking

Several interrelated factors affect whether or not a
stand is well stocked with pine after harvest. Two of

Table L_—Area of commercially harvested timberland by State and past forest type!

Commercially

Past forest type

Inventory _Total past harvested Pine Mixed pine. Hardwood

State period timberland timberland types hardwood types
Alabama 1972-1981 16,534.7 4,418.4 2,321.2 1,184.3 912.9
Arkansas 1978-1987 8,658.7 4,018.3 2,043.0 1,022.3 953.0
Louisiana 1974-1983 8,028.6 1,897.9 1,112.4 456.9 328.6
Mississippi 1977-1986 10,.456.2 4,534.8 2,139.8 1,272.3 1,122.7
East Oklahoma 1976-1985, 2,335.3 683.8 346.3 186.7 150.8
East Texas 1975-1985 8,388.2 4,060.2 2,172.0 1,082.7 805.5

All States 54,4017 19,613.4 10,134.7 5,205.2 4,273.5

'ncludes clearcuts, seed tree and/or shelterwood cuts, partial cuts, and salvage cuts on pine-site timberland. Pine
sites are upland sites on which pine is present or was formerly present.


ALABAMA MISSISSIPPI

TTT TTT

100

50

° 1 A be pi
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
200 ARKANSAS EAST OKLAHOMA
E E ---- FOREST INDUSTRY
150r i NONINDUSTRIAL
E 1 E
100 Ul L_

THOUSANDS OF ACRES

sob . ros
onset PN
t / / a
° po oer veer een
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
LOUISIANA EAST TEXAS

200

isoF

aN E

TTT

° pt an To
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

Figure 4.—Area of forest planting by state and ownership group, 1970-1987 (USDA FS 1971-1988)

800
o Ff
g ronest  /-\
§ coo} ious TRY / ae
L -
s AYO
@ sof /
S va
= poy
x NONINDUSTRIAL
200
8
=
a
° A L L fl
1970 1975 1980 1985 7990
YEAR

Figure 5.—Area of forest planting in the study region by ownership
group, 1970-1987 (USDA FS 1971-1988).


“=> United States
‘A&)E Department of
‘& Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern Forest
Experiment Station

Residual Pine
Stocking After Harvest
on Private Timberland:
A Summary for Six
Southern States

William H. McWilliams


10

Table 2.—Area of commercially harvested mixed pine-hardwood timberland by State, ownership group, and pine
stocking elass’

Commercially .
stocki
Ownership Total past harvested Pine stocking class
State group timberland _timberland High Medium Low

ceceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Thousands of acres ---~--++-+-+-+2--0002-

Alabama Forest industry? 1,029.8 398.8 166.6 93.6 138.6
Nonindustrial 3,378.3 785.5 87.8 243.1 454.6

Total 4,408.1 1,184.3 254.4 336.7 593.2

Arkansas Forest industry 932.4 483.1 198.1 200.6 844
Nonindustrial 1,370.6 539.2 151.9 2116 175.7

Total 2.303.0 1,022.3 350.0 412.2 260.1

Louisiana Forest industry 638.3 272.2 115.2 77.3 79.7
Nonindustrial 1,259.3 184.7 46.0 62.7 76.0

Total 1.897.6 456.9 161.2 140.0 155.7

Mississippi Forest industry 612.6 319.7 131.6 918 96.3
Nonindustrial 2,166.9 952.6 219.0 310.9 422.7

Total 2,779.5 1,272.3 350.6 402.7 519.0

East Oklahoma Forest industry 281.0 132.7 51.8 46.5 34.4
Nonindustrial 344.5 54.0 oe 23.7 30.3

Total 625.5 186.7 51.8 70.2 64.7

East Texas Forest industry 890.9 517.8 324.4 87.0 106.4
Nonindustrial 1,491.8 564.9 120.7 209.2 235.0

Total 2,382.7 1,082.7 445.1 296.2 341.4

All States Forest industry 4,385.0 2,124.3 987.7 596.8 539.8
Nonindustrial 10,011.4 3,080.9 625.4 1,061.2 1,394.3

Total 14,396.4 5,205.2 1,613.1 1,658.0 1,934.1

Mncludes clearcuts, seed tree and/or shelterwood cuts, partial cuts, and salvage cuts on pine-site timberland. Pine
sites are upland sites on which pine is present or was formerly present.
2Includes land under long-term lease from nonindustrial private owners.


Appendix Tables

Table 1.—Area of commercially harvested pine-type timberland by State, ownership group, and pine stocking

class!
‘Commercially

Ownership Total past harvested _____ Pine stocking class

State group timberland _ timberland High Medium Low

Docceseeeeeseeeeenees Thousands of acres -

Alabama Forest industry” 1,998.0 834.6 450.9 193.6 190.1
Nonindustrial 5,425.2 1,486.6 460.5 4414 584.7
Total 7423.2 2,321.2 9114 635.0 774.8
Arkansas Forest industry 1,828.3 1,201.0 764.2 293.7 143.1
Nonindustrial 1,592.5 842.0 493.0 203.0 146.0
Total 3,420.8 2,043.0 1,257.2 496.7 289.1
Louisiana Forest industry 2,058.7 616.4 362.8 141.0 112.6
Nonindustrial 2,504.5 496.0 277.8 112.3 105.9
Tota) 4,563.2 1,112.4 640.6 253.3 218.5
Mississippi Forest industry 1,239.4 669.8 422.4 1179 69.5
Nonindustrial 2,943.5 1,470.0 730.7 356.7 382.6
Total 4,182.9 2,139.8 1,153.1 534.6 452.1
East Oklahoma Forest industry 441.1 260.0 179.1 58.4 22.5
Nonindustrial 283.7 86.3 62.2 12.0 12.1
Total 724.8 346.3 241.3 70.5 34.6
t Texas Forest industry 1,813.1 1,209.8 771.3 257.2 181.3
Nonindustrial 2177.9 962.2 543.1 188.7 230.4
Total 3,991.0 2,172.0 1,314.4 445.9 4ALLT
All States Forest industry 9,378.6 4,791.6 2,950.7 1,121.8 T7191
Nonindustrial 14.927.3 5,343.1 2,567.3 1,314.1 1,461.7
Total 24,305.9 10,134.7 5,518.0 2435.9 2,180.8

‘Includes clearcuts, seed tree and/or shelterwood cuts, partial cuts, and salvage cuts on pine-site timberland. Pine
sites are upland sites on which pine is present or was formerly present.
“Includes Jand under long-term lease from nonindustrial private owners.


cannot be used to characterize one State as having
“better” regeneration success than another.

For example, the Alabama inventory covered the
period from 1972 to 1981. This span included two peri-
ods of economic turmoil, the second of which, from
1978 to 1981, had an especially adverse effect on
forestry. The results for Alabama clearly reflect a
negative impact on investment in pine regeneration
(MeWilliams and Birdsey 1984) (fig. 4). By contrast,
Arkansas’s inventory spanned the recovery period
that took place after the economic slowdown. Invento-
ries show that 82 percent of the harvested pine and
mixed stands in Arkansas had at least medium pine
stocking, compared to 61 percent for Alabama. How-
ever, planting records indicate that reforestation lev-
els have risen sharply for both ownerships since the
Alabama inventory was completed. Based on these
records, forest planting in Alabama has surpassed all
other States of the region. Even though much of the
increase is due to the Conservation Reserve Program
‘CRP! (Cubbage and Gunter 1987), the next inventory
in Alabama is expected to show improved pine regen-
eration success.

DISCUSSION

Any comprehensive statement about pine regenera-
tion is confounded by the diversity of harvest meth-
ods. forest types. and management objectives common
to southern forestry. Difficult questions arise concern-
ing what timberland is in need of pine regeneration
and what constitutes adequate pine stocking.

One extreme viewpoint is that all sites capable of
supporting pine should be converted to pure pine
forests. Using the high pine stocking class as a meas-
ure, results indicate that 41 percent of the harvested
pine-site timberland was regenerated (table IID). In-
cluding stands with medium stocking increases the
success rate to 66 percent. This less-stringent crite-
rion may be justifiable in light of some current reports
that discuss management of mixed stands as a viable,

Table IL—Area of commercially harvested timberland by pine
stocking class and ownership group!

Ownership group

Pine stocking Total ip Broup
cl private Forest indust Nonindustrial

High 4 53 31

Medium 2% 25 26

Low 34 22 43

"Includes clearcuts, seed tree and/or shelterwood cuts, partial
cuts. and salvage cuts on pine-site timberland. Pine sites are up-
land sites on which pine is present or was formerly present.
“Includes land under long-term lease from nonindustrial private
owners,

low-cost alternative (Phillips and Abercrombie 1987,
Cain 1988). Pine regeneration success for forest in-
dustry ranged from 53 to 78 percent. The range for
nonindustrial private owners was 31 to 57 percent.

Although relative measures of success are preferred
because of their flexibility, the overall rate of replace-
ment for pine stands provides additional insight. The
replacement rate is computed by dividing the total
area with a high stocking of pine by the area of pine
stands that was harvested. For both ownerships com-
bined, the rate was 78 percent. The replacement rate
was 93 percent for forest industry and 65 percent for
nonindustrial private owners.

Assessing trends in pine regeneration success is dif-
ficult because there are few studies of past conditions,
and comparisons may be inappropriate due to differ-
ences in study methods and definitions. Fesco and
others (1982) found that 46 percent of the nonindus-
trial owners that had harvested pine stands also im-
plemented reforestation measures such as planting,
seeding, or leaving seed trees. The Fesco study cov-
ered the period from 1972 to 1981. Similarly, the re-
sults of this study, with an average inventory period
from 1975 to 1985, indicated that 48 percent of the
harvested pine stands on nonindustrial private land
had high pine stocking and an additional 25 percent
had medium pine stocking. So, there is strong evi-
dence that the pine regeneration situation is improv-
ing.

Planting records provide further evidence to sup-
port this finding for both ownerships. Between 1975
and 1985, forest planting increased by 59 percent (fig.
5). Planting increased by 40 percent on forest industry
land and by 153 percent on nonindustrial private
land. It should be noted that much of the increase in
planting on nonindustrial private land in recent years
has been conducted as part of the CRP and hasn't
contributed directly to reforestation of harvested tim-
berland.

CONCLUSIONS

Current trends in softwood growth and inventory
have made pine regeneration a central issue within
the southern forestry community. Recent changes in
reforestation patterns suggest the importance of mon-
itoring the situation on a continuing basis. Resource
analysts and planners need up-to-date information to
assess the impact of policies and to predict the future
of the pine resource.


aa ARKANSAS

EAST 5 ON
OKLAHOMA { __
we

Ve aOS AE By

LOUISIANA nm
Figure 1.—Study region and distribution of commercially harvested sample plots.
Sample Scheme Sampling error (by random sampling formula) in-
creases as area estimates are disaggregated. The rela-
Sample data were taken from the most recent FIA tionship between sampling error and the degree of
inventories for the six States of the study region. The disaggregation is:
oldest was the Alabama inventory (1982), and the
most recent was the Arkansas inventory (1988). The
sample included 3,383 sample plots located on a sys- Sampling Timberland
tematic 3-mile grid with each plot consisting of a clus- error area
ter of 10 satellite points (except in Alabama and Lou- Percent Thousands of acres
isiana where 5 points were used). At each point, trees ousanas of acres
greater than 5.0 inches in d.b.h. were selected for
4 . 0.3 19,613.4
measurement using a 37.5 BAF prism. Saplings were
. 0.5 5,591.2
measured on fixed-radius plots centered around the
. . : . 1.0 1,397.8
first three points. Well-established pine seedlings 2.0 349.4
were tallied using mil-acre plots at all points. " .
3.0 155.3
Timberland area estimates were based on photo- 40 87.4
interpretation and ground checks of sample plots, as 50 55.9
well as intensification plots interspersed between the 10.0 140
sample plots. Sampling error for the total area of com- 15.0 62

mercially harvested timberland was 0.3 percent.



MeWilliams, 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.

Commercial harvest activity and residual stocking of pine is examined
for privately owned pine-site timberland in Alabama, Arkansas, Loui-
siana, Mississippi, east Oklahoma, and east Texas. Pine regeneration
success is evaluated by preharvest forest type and ownership group.

Keywords: Clearcut, forest industry, future timber supply, nonindus-
trial private forest landowner, partial cut, pine regeneration.



Residual Pine Stocking After Harvest on Private
Timberland: A Summary for Six Southern States

William H. McWilliams

INTRODUCTION

Current resource statistics indicate that the peri-
odic net growth of softwoods in the South has de-
creased from levels of the recent past (Knight 1987).
Resource projections suggest a continuation of this
trend over the next decade (USDA FS 1988). Though
many forces are at work, the most commonly cited
reason for the decrease is a lack of pine regeneration
following harvest of pine stands on nonindustrial pri-
vate land. Other factors include pine mortality, an
increase in cull trees, and loss of timberland to other
land uses. Conversion of mature natural pine stands
to young plantations with far less merchantable
growth has also been a factor.

Future inventory and growth of pine depend heav-
ily on the current status of pine regeneration. The
USDA Forest Service-Forest Inventory and Analysis
Project (FIA) has been monitoring the status of pine
regeneration after harvest as part of its ongoing forest
inventory process (Birdsey and others 1981;
McWilliams and Birdsey 1984; McWilliams and Frey
1986; McWilliams and Skove 1987; McWilliams
1988a, 1988b, 1989). Residual pine stocking provides
a relative measure of probable pine regeneration suc-
cess.

The results compare forest types and ownership
groups, which are summarized for privately owned
timberland in six south central States in a standard-
ized format. State-level information is included to il-
lustrate the importance of the period covered by the
inventory rather than the effectiveness of individual
State reforestation programs.

METHODS AND DEFINITIONS

Study Region

The study region encompasses Alabama, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, east Oklahoma, and east
Texas (fig. 1). Data were collected on upland sites

where pine was present or was formerly present—
these are termed “pine sites.” Most of the study region
was located in the Coastal Plain Province. Physiogra-
phy of the Coastal Plain ranges from relatively flat
along the coast to hilly farther north. Parts of the
Ozark Plateau and Ouachita Highlands in Arkansas
and the mountain provinces and Piedmont in Ala-
bama were included. Some low-lying sites where
pines have become established following draining
were also covered. The region has undergone in-
creased planting over the past decade, most notably
on forest industry land.

Pine forests predominate, but mixed pine-hardwood
and hardwood forest types are very common on up-
land pine sites. Pine forests are dominated by the
loblolly-shortleaf forest type, but also include the
longleaf and slash pine types. Mixed stands are made
up primarily of oak species in combination with pines,
but sweetgum and hickory are also very common. Di-
verse oak-hickory forests comprise nearly all the
hardwood timberland on upland pine sites.

Private owners include forest industry and nonin-
dustrial private landowners. Forest industry timber-
land is defined as timberland owned by enterprises
that operate timber products facilities such as pulp or
paper mills, sawmills, wood chip mills, or chemical
extraction plants. Timberland under long-term lease
to forest industry from nonindustrial private owners
was also included in that classification.

The nonindustrial private owner group is com-
prised of individuals, farmers, and corporations. Most.
of the nonindustrial private owners are individuals.
They include such diverse interests as large trust
funds managing expansive forest tracts for timber
production to families interested in enhancing the
scenic quality of their property. Farmers include crop
growers and ranchers. The corporate classification
covers any corporation not directly involved in the
production of timber products, such as timberland
management entities, utility companies, banks, or in-
corporated hunting clubs.

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

Forest Experiment Station. Starkville. MS 39579.


SUMMARY

Residual stocking of pine was assessed on harvested
pine-site timberland in six southern States. Recent
forest inventories indicated that 36 percent of the pri-
vately owned timberland had been harvested. Across
all forest types, pine regeneration success ranged
from 41 to 66 percent depending on the level of resid-
ual pine stocking considered to be adequate. Regener-
ation for forest industry ranged from 53 to 78 percent.
The range for nonindustrial private owners was from
31 to 57 percent. The overall rate of replacement for
harvested pine stands was 93 percent for forest indus-
try and 65 percent for nonindustrial private owners.
Evidence here suggests that pine regeneration suc-
cess has been improving in the 1980's.

November 1989


Table 3.—Area of commercially harvested hardwood-type timberland by State, ownership group, and pine stock-

ing class!
Commercially ;
Ownership Total past harvested Pine stocking class

State group timberland _ timberland High Medium Low
voseersseeseeeeeeess Thousands of acres ---- :
Alabama Forest industry” 819.4 259.3 109.0 29.0 121.3
Nonindustrial 3,884.1 653.6 86.1 91.7 475.8
Total 4,703.5 912.9 195.1 120.7 597.1
Arkansas Forest industry 666.3 330.5 98.5 68.3 163.7
Nonindustrial 2,268.5 622.5 48.8 129.4 444.3
Tota) 2,934.8 953.0 147.3 197.7 608.0
Louisiana Forest industry 648.4 170.7 77.4 46.1 47.2
Nonindustrial 1,019.4 1579 24.1 445 89.3
Total 1,567.8 328.6 101.5 90.6 136.5
Mississippi Forest industry 501.4 272.1 81.3 78.7 112.1
Nonindustrial 2,992.4 850.6 108.6 123.7 618.3
Total 3,493.8 1,122.7 189.9 202.4 730.4
East Oklahoma Forest industry 203.4 86.4 17.3 35.0 34.1
Nonindustrial 781.6 64.4 wees 66 57.8
Total 985.0 150.8 17.3 416 919
East Texas Forest industry 540.9 355.2 128.4 89.6 137.2
Nonindustrial 1,473.6 450.3 16.9 111.2 322.2
Total 2,014.5, 805.5 145.3 200.8 459.4
All States: Forest industry 3,279.8 1,474.2 511.9 346.7 615.6
Nonindustrial 12,419.6 2,799.3 284.5 507.1 2,007.7
Total 15,699.4 4,273.5 796.4 853.8 2,623.3

‘Includes clearcuts, seed tree and/or shelterwood cuts, partial cuts, and salvage cuts on pine-site timberland. Pine
sites are upland sites on which pine is present or was formerly present.
“Includes land under long-term lease from nonindustrial private owners.

u