@

United State8

Department of

Agrtcuiture

m

Forest Service rch Now

Status of Privately Owned Harvested Timberland in Mississippi, 1977-87

William H. McWilliams

SUMMARY

Commercial harvesting was’conducted on 5.7 million

acres or 38 percent of the privately owned timberland in

Mlsslsslppt from 1977 through 1087. Three-fourths of

the harvesting was on nonindustrial private timberland.

Partial cutting was the harvesting method most often

used by nonindustrial owners, while clearcuts were

most common on forest industry land. Forty-seven

percent of the pine and mixed pine-hardwood stands

were harvested. Three-fourths of the harvested pine

and mixed pine-hardwood stands were at least 60

percent stocked with pine following harvest.

Addlthd keywordsz clearcut, forest-type transition,

partial cut, pine regeneration, timber supply.

lNIl?ODUCTlON

The Forest Inventory and Analysisunit (FIA) ofthe

Southern Forest Experiment Station recently complet- I

ed its fifth survey of Mississippi’s forest resources. The

resultsof thesurveyindicatesignificantchangesin the

privately owned softwood resource. To summarize

briefly, the acreageof pine-type timberland decreased,

the volume of softwood inventory decreased slightly,

and softwood removals now exceed growth (Kelly, in

press). Similar trends are taking place in many areas of

the Southern United States and will impact future

softwood timber supplies (USDA-FS, in press). Private

owners control 88 percent of Mississippi’s pine and

mixed pine-hardwood timberland. This note provides

information on the status of harvesting and regeneration on privately owned timberland in Mississippi from

1977 through 1087, a critical factor affecting the future

softwood resource.

DATA COLLECTION

Data were collected during the 1987 forest survey of

Mississippi (fig. 1). Data on forest area and timber

volume were obtained by a systematic sampling method

involving both a forest/nonforest classification of aerial

photographs and on-the-ground measurements of trees

at sample locations. The sample locations were at

intersections of a grid of lines spaced 3 miles apart.

On-the-ground measurements included data describing crop tree removals, management activity, natural

disturbance, and the stocking of well-established pine

seedlings (8 inches or greater in height). Sample

locations were assigned a code describing any harvest

since previous measurement in 1077. Field crews used

existing plot conditions along with personal judgment

to distinguish between harvesting and other management activities such as commercial thinning, precommercial thinning, or stand improvement cuttings.

HARVESTING

Thirty-eight percent of the privately owned timberland in Mississippi showed evidence of commercial

harvesting since 1077 (table 1). Commercial harvesting

included clearcutsand partial cuts. Partially cut timberland was defined to include heavily cut stands such as

those that underwent diameter-limit or pine selection

cuts (see Definition of Terms in Appendix). Threefourths of the 5.7 million acres harvested was on

nonindustrial private land; however, forest industry

land was more heavily cut. Half of the forest industry

stands were harvested, compared to slightly over onethird of the nonindustrial private stands. Forty-eight

percent of the pine-type timberland (2.2 million acres)

. BouthemRwestBxputmentstat&T-10210 U.S. Watal Sewlees Bldg., 701 Loyola Avenue, Mew Orteanr, La. 70113

Forqt Servke, U.S. Department of Agrtcutture.

Sewing Akbrmr, Arkansas, Loulsknr, Mfulwlppl, E. Oklahoma, Tennessee, E. lbxas, Puerto Rico, U.S. Vlrgln Islands

1
DE SOT0 [ NARSr(lLL ’ OENTON TIPPAd ALCORN

J 1.

I

. I L . ir

N

L .a.-.

f-UNION

-.-.__

WC31 \ I I

Figure 1 .-The forest survey fegiOn8 of Mississippi.

William H. McWilliams is research forester at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, maintained by the Southern Forest Experiment Station,

Forest Service-USDA, Starkville, MS.
.L Table 1 .-Area of Timberland harvested by ownership class, past fc-eSt type, and method of harvest for p&ate

owners, Mississippi, 19774771

Total Method oi harvest

Ownership class and Total past timberland Seed tree and

past forest type timberland harvested Clearcuts shelterwood cut8 Partial cutd

-~--~~---~--- Thousand acres -

Forest industry

Pine types I.1931 947.5 453.0 6.1 188.4

,Mixed pine-hardwoods 945.9 327.4 205.2 . . . 122.2

Hardwood types 1,777.7 499.7 234.9 . . . 255.9

Total 3,016.4 1,465.6 893.1 6.1 596.4

Nonindustrial private

Pine types 3,259.4 1514.1 460.3 12.2 l,cu1.6

Mixed pine-hardwoods 2.426.3 1,022.o 278.5 23.3 760.1

Hardwood types 5223.2 1,7292 342.1 5.7 1,372.4

Total 11,9cI9.9 4,259.3 1,081.o 4x2 3,134-l

Total private

Pine types 4J52.5 2,161.6 913.3 18.3 1,230.o

Mixed pine-hardwoods 3,071.Q 1349.4 483.8 23.3 542.3

Hardwood types 7,400.Q 2.210.9 577.0 5.7 1928.2

Total 14,925.3 5721.9 1,974.l 47.3 3,700.5

%xcludes precommercial thinnings, commercial thinning8 in poletimber stands, and singtatree 8etectlon.

2Includes pine selection, diameter-limit, and salvage cuts. Thinning8 in poletimber stand8 are excluded: 8ome

heavy thinning8 of dominant trees in sawtimber stand8 8re included.

and 44 percent of the mixed pine-hardwood timberland

(1.4 million acres) were impacted by harvesting. Thirty

percent of the hardwood-type timberland (2.2 million

acres) was cut.

Partial cutting was the predominant harvesting

practice on two-thirds of the harvested timberland. A

portion of the partially cut timberland may have been in

an intermediate stage of harvest. Stands containing

merchantable pine and hardwood timber are often

harvested in stages, e.g. with pines cut first and

hardwoods cut later. Stands having only pines removed

areclassified as partial cuts. Also, some thinninga may

be included as partial cuts because judgment concerning the difference between partial cuts and heavy

thinninga is difficult to make in the field. Clearcuts

made up nearly all of the remaining harv8st area and

totaled 2.0 million acres.

Considerabledifferences werefound in the harvest

practices of the two ownerships. Clearcuts were much

more common on forest industry timberland. Sixty-one

percent of the hanresting on foreat industry timberland

was conducted as clearcuts, compared to 25 percent

for nonindustrial private own8rs. For8st industry clsarcuts tended to result in morecomplete removal of tnaes.

Classification of clearcuts included the distinction

between complete and merchantable clearcuts. Merchantable clearcuts remove only merchantable trees,

leaving rough and rotten trees standing. These reaiduals often hinder regeneration and tend to provide an

inferior seed source for the future stand. Seventy-eight

percent of the forest industry clearcuts removed all

trees. In contrast, 62 percent of the nonindustrial

private clearcuts left nonmerchantable trees standing.

Some of the acreage with residuals may have been

scheduled for site-preparation activity subsequent to

the visit by FIA field crews.

Nonindustrial private owners have a preference for

partial cuts; three-fourths of their harvested area was

partially cut. Partial cuts were found in all forest types

butweremostpmvalentin hardwoodstands. Acommon

practice is to selectively remove pine and select hardwood timber, leaving a stand of substantially less value.

PINE REGENERATION

Stocking is quantified by comparing existing tree

stocking, in terms of numbsr of tr88s or basal area, with

the “normal” stocking standards used by FIA (see

Definition of Terms in Appendix). Inventory plots are

characterized as understocked or overstocked in relation to this standard. Pine regeneration on harvested

sites can be ass8sW by examining the degree of pine ’ stocking follo#ng harvest Such assessment la intended to provide a relative measurs of pine regeneration

success and should not be used as an absolute measure

because management obj8ctlv8s vary considerably

among owners. For example, the FIA standard for a

fully stocked stand of seedlings is 600 weMstablish8d,

trees per acre. Owners practicing intensive pine plantation management may not require this many pine

seedlings if followup hardwood control activities are

scheduled. Alternatively, a landowner practicing natural

stand management on a limited budget may consider

600 seedlings a minimum for successful pine

regeneration.

3
Pine regeneration is most important in harvested

pine and mixed pinehardwood stands because they

previously supported pine timber. Forty-seven percent

of the 3.5 million acres of such stands that were heavily

cut (clearcut and partially cut stands) exhibited a high

stocking of pine. Stands with medium pine stocking

may represent adequate pine regeneration; 28 percent

of the harvested stands had medium pine stocking.

Forest industry had the most successful pine regeneration in harvested pine and mixed pine-hardwood

stands, with 90 and 24 percent in the high and medium

pine stocking classes, respectively (fig. 2). Nonindustrial

private owners had 42 percent with high pine stocking

and 29 percent with medium pine stocking.

Both ownerships were successful at reforesting pure

pine stands. Eighty-two percent of the heavily cut

stands had at least medium pine stocking. The findings

for clearcut stands indicate that half the stands previously in pine and mixed pine-hardwood had high pine

stocking and 22 percent had medium stocking (table2).

Pine regeneration following clearcuts on forest industry

timberland wasvery successful. Eighty-eight percent of

the clearcut pine and mixed pine-hardwood stands had

medium or high pine stocking, compared to 59 percent

for nonindustrial private owners.

Conversion of hardwood stands to pine was evident

for both ownerships. Forty-six percent of the clearcut

hardwood stands had medlum or high pine stocking.

Fore& industry had 60 percent and nonindustrial private

FOREST INDUSTRY NONINDUSTRIAL

PRIVATE

PINE STOCKINB CLA8Q:

c l LOW - O-29 k STOCKED WITH PINE

(ALL SUE CLASSES)

ffg MEOIUM - 30-59 Y. STOCKED WITH PINE

(ALL SIZE CLASSES)

m

HIQH - 60 Y. OR GREATER STOCKED WITH

PINE (ALL SIZECLASSES)

Figure 2.-Wtus of plns snd mlxsd pins-h&dwood typs timberlsnd hsmsted using clssrcutr and psrtlsl outs, Mlsslsslppl, 1077-87. Numbsrs ins/do p/s chsrts nprsssnt

percentage o? 8isnds in s psrtioulsr stocking class.

owners had 36 percent in this condition following

clearcutting.

Pine regeneration in partially cut pine and mixed

pine-hardwood stands was about the same as for

clearcuts. About three-fourths of these stands had at

least medium pine stocking (table 3). Both ownerships

had similar success at regenerating partially cut stands.

Regeneration tends to be higher in partially cut stands,

even if management activity aimed at pine regeneration

is absent. Natural seeding from adjacent pines and

existing residual stems contribute to overall pine stocking of the stand.

FOREST-TYPE TRANSITION

Forest-type classification is based on the stocking

of dominant and codominant trees of a given stand.

Shifts between forest types, termed forest-type transitions, take place as the relative stocking of pine and

hardwood trees of the main canopy change over time.

Forest-type transition results from both natural and

man-induced forces. Partial cutting practices that

remove merchantable pines and leave hardwoods

and nonmerchantable pines on sites previously supporting pine forest types cause timberland to shift to

hardwood types.

Forty-two percent of the pine-type timberland that

was partially cut shifted to mixed pine-hardwood and

hardwood forest types (table 4). Some acreage shifted

Table 2.-Area of timberland harvested using clearcuts by ownership clsss, past forest type, and p/no stocking class for

p&ah owners, Mississippi, 197747

Pine stocking clessl

Ownership class and

past forest type Total Low Meduim High

Thousand acre8 -

Forest industry

Pine types 453.0 25.2 114.5 313.3

Mixed-pine hardwoods 203.2 55.2 51.6 98.6

Hardwood types 234.0 94.2 64.2 76.5

Total 8Q3.1 174.4 230.3 488.4

Nonindustrial private

Pine types 460.3 198.1 101.4 160.8

Mixed-pine hardwoods 278.6 107.7 39.7 131.2

Hardwood types 342.1 217.0 62.8 61.5

Total 1,031.O 523.6 203.9 353.5

Total private

Pine types 913.3 223.3 215.9 474.1

Mixed-pine hardwoods 493.8 162.7 91.3 229.9

Hardwood types 577.0 312.0 127.0 139.0

Total 1,974.l 598.0 434.2 941.9

‘Low indicates O-29 peroent stocked with pine (all size classes);

medium indicstes3fMQpercent stocked with pine (all sizeclasses);

and hlgh indicates 60 percent or greater Mocked with pine (ail size

clssses).

4
Table 3.-Are8 of timber/end h8tVeS&d using perti cuts by ownership C/a&?, p8St fOfeSt hype, end pine stocking Ci8SS for

private owners, Mississippi, 1977-871

Pine stocking class*

Ownership class and

past forest type Total Low Meduim High

--------Thousand 8,3es--- ____ -_

Forest industry

Pine types i 88.4 27.6 35.7 125.1

Mixed-pine hardwoods 122.2 42.8 34.2 45.2

Hardwood types m-p- 255.8 210.7 34.6 10.5

Total 566.4 281.1 104.5 180.6

Nonindustrial private

Pine types 1,041.g 134.6 246.7 $58.3

Mixed-pine hardwoods 720.1 267.7 327.8 104.6

Hardwood types 1,169.a 1,372.4 116.5 66.1

Total 3,134-l 1.612.1 693.0 829.0

Total private

Pine types 1,230.O 162.2 264.4 783.4

Mixed-pine hardwoods 642.3 330.5 362.0 149.8

Hardwood types 1,626.2 1 JOO.5 151.1 76.6

Total 3,700.5 1,693.2 797.5 1,009.6

llncludes pine-selection, diameter-limit, and salvage cuts. Thinnings in poletimber stands are excluded; some heavy thinning of

dominant trees in sawtimber stands are included.

2Low indicates O-29 percent stocked with pine (all size classes):

medium indicates 30-59 percent stocked with pine (all size classes):

and high indicates 60 percent or greater stocked with pine (all size

classes).

to pine types; the net effect bf partial cutting was a

loss of 407,800 acres of pine-type timberland. A shift

of 482,200 acres of mixed pine-hardwood to hardwood was offset by acreage shifting into mixed pinehardwoods; the net loss was 147,000 acres. The

overall impact of forest-type shifts was 554,800-acre

increase in hardwood-type timberland. Eighty-six

percent of the increase was on nonindustrial private

land.

CONCLUSIONS

The status of regeneration on timberland harvested

over the past decade is an important factor affecting

future timber supplies. The results for stands that

previously supported pine are favorable. Threefourths of the area harvested was at least 80 percent

stocked with pine. Some of the poorly stocked stands

may have been cut recently and may be scheduled for

future reforestation.

Pine regeneration efforts were most successful on

forest industry land. However, cutting was extensive

on industry land; over half of the pine and mixed

pine-hardwood stands were harvested. This will affect

short-term growth from industry’s timberland because newly established pines don’t contribute to

growth until they reach the lower limit of merchantability @O-inches d.b.h.).

5

Table 4.-Area of timberf8nd hervested usrng partial cuts by

ownership class, pesf forest type, and present forest

type for private owners, Mississippi, 1977-871

Present forest type

Mixed

Ownership class and Pine pine- Hardwood

past forest type Total types hardwoods types

-------Thousand acres----

Forest industry

Pine types 188.4 119.0 34.4 35.0

Mixed-pine hardwoods 122.2 39.1 29.4 53.7

Hardwood types 255.8 5.7 5.9 244.2 -----

Total 566.4 163.8 69.7 332.9

Nonindustrial private

Pine types 1,041.6 567.5 296.3 155.6

Mixed-pine hardwoods 720.1 64.7 247.0 408.4

Hardwood types 1,372.4 6.2 80.3 1,285.Q

Total 3,134.l 658.4 625.6 1,650.l

Total private

Pine types 1,230.O 706.5 332.7 190.8

Mixed-pine hardwoods 842.3 103.6 276.4 462.2

Hardwood types 1,628.2 11.9 86.2 1,530.l

Total 3.700.6 822.2 695.3 2,163.0

llncludes pine-selection, diameter limit, and salvage cuts. Thinnings in poletimber stands are excluded; some heavy thlnnlngs of

dominant trees in sawtimber stands are included.

Pine regeneration was less prevalent on nonindustrial private timberland. Eighty-three percent of the

878,700 acres of harvested pine and mixed pinehardwood stands having poor regeneration is held by

nonindustrial private owners. Pine timber supply can

only be secure on this timberland if efforts are made

to improve pine stocking.

LITERATURE CITED

Kelly, John F. 1988. Forest resources of Mississippi.

Resour. Bull., New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; (in press).

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

South’s fourth forest: alternatives for the future. Govt.

Print. Off., Washington, D.C. (in press).

F/A.-Forest Inventory and Analysis unit of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

FoCest Experiment Station.

Forest type.-A classification of FIA plots according

to the relative stocking of pine and hardwood trees

tallied.

Pine: Forests in which pine species comprise the

plurality of all live tree stocking.