United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Miscellaneous

Publication No. 1462

March 1989

* HR. Josephson is a former director of the

Division of Forest Economics and Marketing

Research of the USDA Forest Service in Washington, DC.
The great progress in southern forestry during the past

half century must be attributed in part to research scientists who provided scientific

knowledge and practical

technology for forest protection, management, and

utilization. Research has

pointed the way to better

control and use of fire and

to more effective methods

for regenerating desirable

tree species. Improved methods for managing forest

lands for timber and other

uses, better techniques for

controlling insects and diseases, and improved ways

of producing and using forest

products also have stemmed

from a wide variety of research investigations.

The combination of research

and action programs of

Federal, State, and industrial

forestry organizations has

been a major factor in improving the South’s timber supply

situation. Timber growth and

inventories have shown

impressive gains over recent

decades. Pulp and paper

and other forest industries

have expanded steadily.

Forest uses for livestock,

wildlife, and recreation have

been improved. Through

such developments, forestry

continues as the keystone of

the economy in many parts

of the South.

Many scientists and practical

forest managers have contributed to the growth of

forestry knowledge and new

technology. In earlier years,

most forest researchers in

the South were employed at

the Southern and Southeastern Forest Experiment Stations of the USDA Forest

Service. But in recent

decades, expanding staffs of

forestry schools and other

research organizations in the

region have also made

substantial contributions to

forestry knowledge.

Developing successful

forestry practices is typically

the result of integrating bits

of knowledge contributed by

many different people,

through formal research,

observation, and empirical

testing of new ideas. Because

the historical literature on

southern forestry is extensive

and varied, giving appropriate

credit to individuals is difficult

if not impossible. The magnitude of the task of citing all

contributors may be illustrated by the fact that in the
preparation of certain major

publications mentioned later,

authors reviewed and abstracted as many as a

thousand reports and articles

for each.

The scope of this document

is necessarily limited, and I

regret that recognition could

not be given to many who

have added to the fund of

knowledge relating to southern forestry.

study” being conducted by

the USDA Forest Service in

cooperation with State

forestry agencies, universities, and forest industry

groups in the South. An

earlier draft of this report

was reviewed by research

scientists and others familiar

with conditions and historical

events in the South. Their

very useful comments and

suggestions are gratefully

acknowledged.

This brief history was prepared as part of a comprehensive “southern timber

iii
Page

Growth of Forestry Research ..................................... 1

Research in Fire Management ................................... 8

Research in Forest Regeneration .............................. 16

Research in Forest Genetics ...................................... 21

Research in Management of Timber Stands ........... .25

Research on Forest Insects and Diseases ............... 35

Resource Surveys and Analyses ............................... 40

Economic Investigations ............................................. 45

Research in Timber Utilization ................................... 48

Research on Use of Forest Land by Livestock ........ 55

Research in Wildlife Habitat Management ................ 57

Research in Watershed Management ....................... 60

Summary ...................................................................... .62

Literature Cited ............................................................. 63

Literature Cited- Unpublished ................................... 78

i v
Formal research in forestry

in the South may be said

to have begun about 1921,

when the USDA Forest

Service established the

Southern Forest Experiment

Station in New Orleans,

LA.2 A visitor to the station

at this time would have

found a director, R.D.

Forbes - a Yale forestry

graduate and former State

Forester of Louisiana- plus

a staff of four professionally

trained foresters and one

clerk. This group was given

the responsibility for forestry

research in southern pine

types extending from Texas

through South Carolina.

Also in 1921, the Appalachian Forest Experiment Station was established at

2 A fascinating account of the early

years of the Southern Station is

contained in “A Biased History of

the Southern Forest Experiment

Station Through Fiscal Year 1933,”

by Philip C. Wakeley (Wakeley

1964 unpubl.). Additional recollections appeared in the Journal of

Forest History in April 1976. Over

the years, annual reports on

research accomplishments, plus

occasional bibliographies, have

provided a picture of the continuing

growth in investigations ahd research findings of the experiment

stations.

Asheville, NC, under director

E.H. Frothingham, with an

even smaller staff of three

technical foresters and a

clerk. Originally assigned

responsibility for research

in the hardwood forests of

the southern Appalachians,

after World War II this station

was renamed the Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station and given research

responsibilities in both pine

and hardwood types from

Florida through Virginia.

Prior to the establishment

of these experiment stations,

some limited research

pertaining to southern

forestry had been conducted by the U.S. Bureau of

Forestry (later the Forest

Service) and by some State

agencies, but funds for

such work were very limited.

Some early studies dealing

with lumber seasoning and

preservatives for railway

ties, for example, applied to

southern pine species. And

other national studies of

forest resources and a few

local reports on the timber

and naval-stores industries

provided some general

knowledge of southern

forest conditions and problems.

1
The early research efforts

of the Forest Service were

aimed primarily at improving

conditions on privately

owned forest lands. Although Federal and State

lands were of limited significance in the South, initial

research was, nevertheless,

closely linked to the administrative arm of the Forest

Service. In 1915, the Service

established separate status

for research, centered in a

new branch of research,

with field stations reporting

directly to the head of

research in Washington,

But policy and scientific

differences between administrations and researchers

continued for some time in

the case of fire management

(Schiff 1962).

The initial program of

research at the Southern

Station was ambitious for a

small staff. One of the key

assignments involved studies of growth and yield in

second-growth stands of

the four major southern

pines, conducted under the

technical guidance of Donald Bruce in the Washington

Office. This work led to

Miscellaneous Publication

50, containing “normal”

yield tables for unmanaged

2

pine stands (U.S. Forest

Service 1929). Although

these yield tables were

modified by later studies,

this publication undoubtedly

contributed greatly to wider

understanding of southern

pine growth potentials and

forestry opportunities.

Early studies of harvesting

and reproduction of longleaf

pine were begun in

Louisiana under E.W.

Hadley. At McNeill, MS,

studies by W.G. Wahlenberg

and coworkers determined

the interacting influence of

cattle grazing and fire on

tree regeneration and forage

for livestock. At Starke, FL,

empirical studies by Lenthal

Wyman searched for better

methods of producing naval

stores. Research on effects

of thinning in even-aged

stands of loblolly and

shortleaf pine was started

at Urania, LA, under W.R.

Hine. General studies of

“forestation” and fire impacts

by Phil Wakeley were also

included in the Station

program. The Experiment

Station at Asheville was

largely concerned with

studies of mountain hardwoods, but L.I. Barrett and

ighter conducted some

thinning studies in loblolly
and shortleaf pine stands

in the Piedmont.

The 1920’s saw a steady

expansion of these small

station staffs. By 1927, the

Southern Station roster had

grown to 23 employees.

Passage of the

McSweeney - McNary Forest Research Act of 1928

gave further impetus to

research in southern forestry

through expanded funding

and staffing. New programs

in the New Deal period of

the 1930’s brought additional finances to support a

growing research staff and

a broadened variety of

studies. In this period, the

Civilian Conservation Corps

also made valuable contributions by building access

roads to experimental

forests, constructing headquarters buildings, and

furnishing labor for installing

experimental plots.

The new recruits who joined

southern forest research

organizations in this period

came from several forestry

schools, “bringing new

interests, specialties, techniques, and enthusiasms

that helped create a stimulating intellectual climate”

(Wakeley 1964 unpubl.).

Continuing growth brought

the budget of the two

southern forest experiment

stations to nearly $350,000

by the outbreak of World

War Il.

During the war years of the

1940’s, available research

personnel were largely

occupied with emergency

projects designed to provide

information and other assistance to wartime agencies.

Monthly surveys of lumber

production and special

studies of equipment and

material needs of the forestproducts industries furnished essential data for

defense programs. Utilization specialists supplied

technical information to

loggers, millmen, and others

in the forest industries.

These specialists subsequently staffed the postwar

“Forest Utilization Service”

at both southern forest

experiment stations as part

of a nationwide effort to

relate utilization research

like that conducted at the

Forest Products Laboratory

at Madison, WI, more closely

to the needs of forest

industries. In the late 1960’s,

these programs of “technology transfer” from research

to field applications were

3
shifted to the State and

Private Forestry branch of

the Forest Service.

Following the end of World

War II, the Forest Farmers

Association Cooperative,

then located at Valdosta,

GA, spearheaded a drive

for more adequate programs of forestry research

to meet the growing demands for information on

use and management of

southern forests. The resulting expansion of research

by the Forest Service in the

South was conducted to a

large extent through about

20 research centers, with

investigations generally

oriented to local or subregional forest types and

problems. With the aid of

local advisory committees

and cooperators from forest

industry, forestry schools,

and other groups, these

centers became major

forces in the technical

advance of forestry in the

South.

In the 1950’s emphasis

shifted from such geographic orientation to a more

functional approach, with

research in depth on problems that could have broad

regional relevance. Also

beginning in this period,

scientists were provided

with modern laboratory

facilities and support staffs

at a number of experimental

forests and other locations,

such as the Southern

Institute of Forest Genetics

at Gulfport, MS, and the

forest fire laboratory at

Macon, GA. With increasing

frequency, Forest Service

researchers were located at

universities to foster closer

cooperation with university

scientists,

As part of a reorganization

of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture in the 1950’s,

research on forest insects

was transferred from the

Bureau of Entomology and

Plant Quarantine to the

Forest Service, and research

on forest diseases was

moved from the Bureau of

Plant Industry, Soils and

Engineering to the Forest

Service. Researchers from

these agencies had long

cooperated with experiment

station scientists and readily

became part of the Forest

Service organization.

Since the mid-1960’s the

experiment stations of the

Forest Service have been

administered under a sys4
tern using assistant station

directors, each responsible

for a portion of the total

research program or for

investigations in specific

geographic areas, The

Southeastern Station organized its research in some

23 “work units” at 12 separate locations, plus other

staffing including research

and development programs,

pioineering units, and

special research units

(Southeastern Forest Experiment Station 1983). The

Southern Station designated 21 similar work units to

carry out its research.

Research work units have

responsibility for solving

specified problems, selected with the assistance of

land managers, public

agencies, environmental

groups, and other research

organizations. Many of

these research units are

located on university campuses, where there are

opportunities to work with

faculty from forestry schools

and other departments.

Funding for research at the

two Forest Service forest

experiment stations in the

South reached a total of

about $25 million in fiscal

year 1981. In the following

3 years, funding in constant

dollars dropped somewhat

more than 10 percent.

Staffing in 1980 totaled 244

scientist years (USDA Forest

Service 1982b). More than

half of these scientists

worked primarily with the

southern pines, while the

remainder dealt mainly with

problems relating to hardwoods, particularly in bottomland areas.

Forestry schools in the

South also began studies

of forest and range problems in the 1930’s, supplementing a very limited

program of forestry-related

research at State agricultural experiment stations. In

the years after World War

II, university research programs expanded greatly,

both at the 14 schools or

departments in the South

and in other departments.

University research programs have been supported

primarily by State funds,

although significant assistance also has been provided through the

Mclntire-Stennis Forestry

Research Act of 1962, which

authorized Federal grants

for forestry research by

State universities. Coopera5
tive aid grants from the

Forest Service also helped

in educating graduate

students as well as supporting faculty research. The

total funds available for

university research in 1980

amounted to about $24.7

million, according to unpublished data from the USDA

Cooperative State Research

Service, and staffing in

1980 totaled 187 scientist

years.

Among other organizations

contributing to forestry

research was the Georgia

Forest Research Council,

which, under the leadership

of R.E. Ruark, acted as a

catalyst for many investigations. It also constructed

the forest fire laboratory at

Macon, GA, for use by the

Forest Service in carrying

out fire studies. The Tall

Timbers Research Station

in Florida became well

known for studies in fire

ecology and for sponsoring

many symposia on various

forestry problems, The

Tennessee Valley Author&y

published many studies

dealing with such topics as

industrial development and

management of forests and

related resources.

Forest industries also made

major investments in forestry

research. For example, in

the 1950’s, the International

Paper Company established

a research center at Bainbridge, GA, where scientists

carried out cooperative

studies of forest diseases,

prescribed burning, and

stand improvement under

the direction of Charles

Driver and C.J. Perkins.

Research staffs of other

companies such as Weyerhaeuser, Union Bag [now

Camp], and West Virginia

Pulp and Paper [now

Westvaco] likewise conducted many studies of forestry

problems. Forest industries

played a leading role in

cooperation with equipment

manufacturers in developing

and testing logging and

processing equipment and

technology.

In the South, the forest

industries also have frequently provided funds for

such Federal and State

research as the forest survey

and furnished experimental

forest areas for studies in

timber management. Industry members of advisory

committees helped develop

and guide research programs of public agencies.
And industrial foresters

deserve much credit for the

practical testing of new

ideas and alternative techniques for protection, management, and utilization of

southern forests.

With the substantial growth

in numbers of research

scientists and publications

over the past several

decades, the need for

coordination in research

planning and dissemination

of research findings has

grown accordingly (e.g.,

USDA Forest Service

1982b). Both the Forest

Service and other agencies

have issued a wide variety

of research publications

ranging from brief notes to

comprehensive handbooks

and monographs. Many

scientists have published

extensively in specialized

technical journals, And

numerous findings have

been reported in such

publications as the Southern

Lumberman, the Forest

Farmer, the Journal of

Forestry, and the Southern

Journal of Applied Forestry.

Another response to the

growth in programs and

publications has been the

increasing use of symposia,

workshops, conferences,

and working groups as

means of coordinating

research planning and

integrating the findings of

scientists in different organizations. Participation of

members of action agencies

in these sessions has also

provided an effective means

of getting research results

into practice with minimum

delays.
The selection of research

studies at the newly established forest experiment

stations in the South to a

large extent reflected the

condition of forest and

range lands in the region

and the related problems of

forest owners and timber

operators. By the end of

World War I, many people

considered southern forest

to be near extinction (White

1961). Lumbering had taken

a heavy toll on the vast

areas of State and Federal

timberlands released for

unrestricted sale and lumbering in the 1800’s. The

end of the virgin forest was

at hand, with much of the

deforested land burned

over and nonstocked with

timber trees. Many rural

residents believed that

annual woods burning was

necessary to improve livestock grazing and eliminate

pests. Their self-prescribed

fires effectively prevented

reestablishment of pines on

many cutover areas Southwide. Both the attitudes of

southerners toward fire and

flammability of the luxuriant

“rough” of ground vegetation

offered major challenges to

pioneers in fire control.

With the rise of the conservation movement in the early

years of this century, fire

exclusion on southern pine

forests became the policy

of most foresters and

conservationists, Publications dealing with fire in the

South were largely preoccupied with the evils of widespread and uncontrolled

fire, as in the writings of

Pinchot and others. But

because such “educational

efforts were not very successful, the Forest Service

and State forestry organizations came to rely on legal

prohibitions as the only

feasible way to control

wildfire. Forest fuels built

up in the absence of frequent burning, and the

result was many damaging

wildfires and intensified

conflicts with local residents.

In this early period, observers such as H.H. Chapman of Yale University and

Austin Carey of the USDA

Forest Service aroused the

forestry profession by

eloquent and persistent

arguments that intentional

burning of the woods at

proper intervals would be a

better solution to the fire

problem. As early as 1911,
a forest administrator in

Florida, I.F. Eldridge, also

broke with convention by

using fire to reduce

harzardous fuels in longleaf

pine stands. Roland Hayes,

a botanist at Alabama

Polytechnic Institute, observed that selective periodic fire served to forestall

hardwood succession. And

in Louisiana, lumberman

Henry Hardtner began to

use what he called controlled burning in the regeneration and management of

longleaf pine.3

The issue of fire exclusion

versus controlled burning

in southern forests necessarily became a subject for

forest researchers as well

as forest administrators.

Fire was a central problem

in the regeneration of

3 The differing viewpoints and

extensive conflicts over use of fire

in southern forests have been

described in considerable detail

(Pyne 1982).

4 These have been enumerated in

an unusually interesting bibliography and commentary on fire

ecology and fire use in the pine

forests of the South by A. Bigler

Crow (1982). Another bibliography

by Cushwa (1968) also covered

the period 1920 - 66.

cut-over stands, in protection of plantations and

young natural stands, and

in control of unwanted

vegetation, as well as a

means of enhancing livestock grazing and wildlife

habitat. In the past five or

six decades, a large number

of studies of different aspects of wildlife and prescribed burning consequently were undertaken

through the South.4

Early studies by H.H. Chapman in the 1920’s and

subsequently by Forest

Service researchers such

as Phil Wakeley, Paul

Siggers, and W.G. Wahlenberg demonstrated that in

longleaf pine forests, controlled fires not only help

avoid destructive wildfires

but also retard the

brownspot needle disease.

Trees in burned areas

showed earlier height

growth and better stand

development than trees in

unburned stands. Fungicidal control of brownspot

also was found to be

effective but has been

considered useful primarily

in tree nurseries. Studies

by Heyward and Barrette

(1934) determined that

prescribed fires do not

9
adversely affect soil chemistry or soil fauna. In later

years, other evaluations of

impacts of fire on nutrient

cycling (e.g., McKee and

Lewis 1982a and b) gave

similar reassurance to

advocates of controlled fire.

Another early observer of

the role of fire in management of livestock was S.W.

Greene, a range specialist

in the Bureau of Animal

Husbandry, who urged

judicious use of fire for

range improvement. His

studies showed that burning

increases the palatability

and nutritive value of southern rangelands, and that

cattle gain more weight in

annually burned ranges

than on unburned areas

(Greene 1931). Also in

1931, H.L. Stoddard, working with the U.S. Biological

Survey, published a notable

study on the bobwhite

quail that showed the value

of controlled fire in quail

habitat management.

In 1933, the Southern Forest

Experiment Station summarized a number of investigations in a review of the

highly controversial issue of

prescribed burning versus

fire exclusion. This “fire

statement,” covering the

pros and cons of fire effects,

came out firmly on the side

of judicious use of fire for

both silvicultural and other

forest management purposes (Crow 1982).

In subsequent years, E.L.

Demmon and others provided much additional information on the occurrence and

silvicultural impacts of fire.

H.H. Chapman’s work with

loblolly pine in Arkansas

and Louisiana (1942) paralleled his earlier informative

studies of fire in longleaf

pine management. Studies

by Wahlenberg and coworkers at McNeill, MS, confirmed the earlier studies

by Greene on benefits of

prescribed fire on forest

ranges. Other investigators

such as C.E. Bickford, J.W.

Squires, and RD. McCulley

developed further recommendations for protective

burning in longleaf and

slash pine forests, L.E.

Chaiken and LT. Haig

determined that fire could

be used effectively in other

pine types to control unwanted hardwoods. Effects

of fire on oleoresin yields of

longleaf and slash pines

were described by V.L.
Wahlenberg’s definitive

work on longleaf pine (1948)

cited many research findings on the beneficial role

of fire for silvicultural purposes.

Since the 1940’s, dozens of

scientists have issued

reports on various aspects

of prescribed burning (Crow

1982). Research by E.R.

Ferguson, R.W. Cooper,

E.V. Brender, T. Lotti, and

others demonstrated that in

pine types other than

longleaf, and in pinehardwood forests, prescribed burning is somewhat less effective and

more difficult than in longleaf

forests but still helps suppress unwanted vegetation

and improves grazing and

wildfire habitat. In hardwood

types, on the other hand,

studies revealed serious

problems of decay in trees

damaged by fire (e.g.,

Hepting 1935).

Continued concern over

effects of repeated fires on

soil productivity was answered by studies that

revealed little or no adverse

impacts on fertility or soil

movement (e.g., McKee

and Lewis 1982a and b).

On the Francis Marion

National Forest in South

Carolina, for example,

organic matter in surface

soils and growth rates of

trees both increased slightly

following well-conducted

burning (Cooper 1973).

Prescribed burning for

seedbed preparation, followed by clearcutting, also

resulted in less runoff and

streamflows than reported

for mechanical means of

site preparation (Douglas

and others 1982).

The value of prescribed fire

for improving forage for

livestock in the coastal

plain of the South has been

supported by many observations and studies following the early work at McNeill,

MS (Wahlenberg and Reed

1939). In a series of studies

in Georgia, H.H. Biswell

and coworkers demonstrated that fire was a necessity

for improvement of forest

ranges and beef cattle

production. The benefits of

prescribed burning for

livestock production in

other parts of the South

were subsequently described by other well-known

range scientists such as

R.S. Campbell, J.T. Cassidy,

L.K. Halls, B.L. Bouthwell,

and W.O. Shepherd. Other

11
studies evaluated the effects

of different seasons and

frequencies of burning on

herbage production and

tree growth (e.g., Grelen

1983). The early work of

H.L. Stoddard with the

bobwhite quail indicated

how fire can be used to

perpetuate one of the

South’s premier game

species. In more recent

years the accumulating

knowledge of beneficial

effects of fire on wildlife

habitat has been summarized in various publications

and symposia (e.g., Wood

1981 and Kormarek 1981).

Fire research efforts of

agencies other than the

Forest Service have notably

included work by the Tall

Timbers Research Station

at Tallahasee, FL. Under

the leadership of E.V.

Kormarek, Sr., this organization conducted numerous

symposia on the complex

influences of fire on plant

and animal environments

and the use of fire in land

management. Fire ecology

conferences starting in

1962, and published proceedings resulting therefrom have provided much

knowledge on the ecology

of prescribed burning and

its impacts on wildlife.

Much of the accumulating

information on prescribed

burning was summarized in

a notable symposium conducted in Charleston, SC,

in 1971 (USDA Forest

Service 1971). Another

treatise on prescribed

burning was issued in an

Environmental Protection

Agency source document

(Chi and others 1979).

Major textbooks on fire,

including an initial work by

A.D. Folweiler and A.A.

Brown in 1939 and a

definitive text (*Forest Fire

Control and Use”) published

by K.P. Davis in 1959,

contained considerable

information on prescribed

burning. Many local how-todo-it manuals, with specific

guidelines, also have been

issued by different agencies

and industry organizations.

With the accumulation of

research findings and

empirical evidence of favorable effects of prescribed

burning, particularly in the

coastal plain region and

lower Piedmont, the Forest

Service and State forestry

agencies in the early 1940’s

reversed a long-standing

1 2
policy of fire exclusion and,

along with many landowners, adopted prescribed

burning programs. In the

mid-l 970’s, for example,

controlled burning was

carried out on more than 2

million acres annually on

industrial, public, and other

ownerships in the South

(Johansen and McNab

1982)

Today, prescribed burning

is recognized as an essential, relatively inexpensive,

and effective tool of management in the pine forests

of the South, with benefits

including fire-hazard reduction, site preparation for

forest regeneration, control

of undesirable vegetation,

and improvement of habitat

for wildlife and livestock.

Nevertheless, members of

the public and environmental groups express considerable concern that smoke

from woods fires contributes

seriously to air pollution.

Public pressure and legislation threaten to curtail or

eliminate intentional woods

burning, particularly near

highways, airports, and

population centers.

Research conducted in

response to such concerns

has indicated that smoke

from prescribed woods

burning does not produce

highly damaging sulfur

oxides, and nitrogen oxides

are produced only with

high fire temperatures

(Cooper 1973). Also, by

reducing the incidence of

wildfires, total emissions

from forest burning may be

reduced.

Scientists at the fire laboratory in Macon, GA, have

identified ways to minimize

smoke impacts from prescribed burning and have

issued recommendations

for actions to ensure that

smoke does not reach

sensitive areas (Southern

Forest Fire Laboratory

1976). Prescriptions, based

on indepth treatment of

smoke, fuels, emissions,

smoke transport, and dispersion, outline a system

for predicting and modifying

smoke concentrations from

prescribed fire. As an aid in

starting prescribed burns

when conditions are most

favorable, methods have

also been developed for

dropping jellied fuels of

potassium permanganate

from aircraft.

1 3
Because of factors such as

cost and concern over air

pollution, prescribed burning is not universally practiced throughout the South,

and control of wildfire

remains a serious problem.

In 1978, for example, more

than 130,000 wildfires

burned some 3.2 million

acres of forest land in the

11 Southern States.

A continuing program of

research aimed at control

of wildfire has, therefore,

long been considered

essential, and this research

has led to significant improvements in prevention

and suppression of wildfire.

Early research by G.M.

Jemison, R.M. Nelson, and

T.T. Keetch at the Southeastern Station, for example,

helped develop improved

systems of fire-danger

rating, a matter of great

importance to forest administrators. Improved understanding of fire behavior

and damage stemmed from

the work of G.M. Byram

and coworkers in studies

involving physics, chemistry,

meteorology, and new forms

of operations research.

Other investigations at the

southern fire laboratory in

Macon, GA, have included

mathematical and physical

models of free-burning fires

and techniques of simulation that provide an improved basis for fire planning.

Studies of fire retardants

and aerial bombing techniques using air tankers to

drop water and chemicals

on fires have helped improve

fire control. Development

and widespread use of

fireplows in constructing

firelines for control of both

wildfire and prescribed

burns, pioneered by such

men as Art Shepherd, have

been of tremendous value

to firefighters in the relatively

flat terrain of the South.

Scientists have also developed better techniques for

local fire-weather forecasts

(e.g., Paul and Clayton

1978) useful both for timing

of prescribed fires and for

presuppression activities, In

1979, a national fire effects

workshop (USDA Forest

Service 1978a) brought

together much of the available information on the

effects of fire on fuels, soils,

air, water, and fauna and

flora.

In the area of fire prevention,

studies have developed a
better understanding of

attitudes of different groups

toward fire and possible

ways to modify the behavior

of fire setters. Psychological

studies provided information

on the many and varied

reasons why rural residents

practice woods burning

(Shea 1940, Dunkelberger

and Altobellis 1975). Researchers at universities in

Louisiana and Mississippi,

including A.W Baird, A.L.

Bertrand, BE. Griessman,

T. Hansborough, and H.F.

Kaufman, together with

W.L. Doolittle and others in

the Forest Service, conducted a series of studies of

fire-prevention factors and

techniques (e.g., Bertrand

and Baird 1975). Recommendations flowing from

these studies have stressed,

for example, the importance

of personal contact in

communicating fireprevention messages (e.g.,

Doolittle and Welch 1974).

It seems clear that the

development and application of knowledge regarding

fire impacts, control, prevention, and prescribed uses

have had major effects on

the forest situation in the

South. Fire agencies have

been able to reduce acreage

burned and damages from

wildfire while saving on

fire-control costs. Losses of

timber and other resources

have been greatly reduced,

with consequent increases

in timber growth and encouragement of investments

in timber growing. Stand

composition in southern

forests has been widely

modified through prescribed

burning to favor pine over

unwanted hardwoods. And

values of wildlife, livestock

production, and recreation

undoubtedly have also

been enhanced through

improved fire management.

15
Along with the need for

protection of southern

forests from fire, the problem

of restocking cutover and

burned pine lands was

likewise of critical importance for forest recovery.

But natural regeneration

was hindered by the lack of

seed sources in many areas,

by competition from hardwoods, and in the case of

longleaf pine by freeroaming hogs that destroyed most seedlings. In

producing seedlings for

plantations, foresters faced

many questions of seed

source, nursery practice,

and ways of controlling

diseases such as brownspot

in longleaf pine and fusiform

rust in slash and loblolly

pines.

Early studies on regeneration of southern pines,

conducted by Phil Wakeley

and L.J. Pessin and coworkers, were aimed at establishing guides for selection of

nursery stock to be planted

in the field. Development of

productive tree nurseries,

tests of planting methods,

spacing studies, and determination of causes of

seedling mortality rounded

out these early investigations.

These initial reforestation

studies conducted by

researchers were overshadowed, according to Wakeley

(1964 unpubl.), by the

practical observations and

practices of F.O. Bateman,

chief ranger of the Great

Southern Lumber Company

at Bogalusa, IA, who

developed and directed a

company program of tree

planting and natural regeneration that proved to be

one of the most comprehensive and successful reforestation programs of all

time. Also in Louisiana,

Henry Hardtner, president

of the Urania Lumber Company, pioneered practical

natural reforestation by the

simple yet effective steps of

protecting forests from

wildfire and by fencing

company lands against the

omnipresent razorback

hog, a scourge that outranked fire in its ability to

destroy seedlings of longleaf

pine. Among other companies starting regeneration

programs in the earlier

years of this century were

the Crossett Lumber Company in Arkansas and the
Chesapeake Corporation of

West Point, VA (Clepper

1971).

Information gained from

early regeneration studies

and the extensive planting

trials at Bogalusa, IA, was

summarized in a technical

bulletin on artificial regeneration in the southern pine

region (Wakeley 1935)

issued just in time to guide

the widespread treeplanting efforts of the young

men in the Civilian Conservation Corps camps established Southwide in the

1930’s. Planting guidelines

thus made available

stressed the importance of

proper geographic seed

source, the need to consider

soil type and characteristics

in selecting species for

planting, criteria for seedling

selection and planting

methods, and fencing

requirements.

Continuing studies of pine

regeneration led in later

years to issuance of other

major publications on planting the southern pines

(Wakeley 1951 and 1954).

In 1965, the Georgia Forest

Research Council also

published the 360-page

book “A Guide to Loblolly

and Slash Pine Plantation

Management in the Southeastern United States,” with

contributions from some 24

researchers (Wahlenberg

1965). Such documents

were widely used by forestry

organizations to guide

reforestation efforts during

the postwar tree-planting

boom in the South.

Many other research contributions have enhanced the

effectiveness and efficiency

of regeneration practices,

The need to protect

seedlings in nurseries from

diseases such as fusiform

rust quickly led to a search

for control methods. As a

result of work by scientists

such A.A. Foster (1961)

and S.J. Rowan (1979)

chemicals like ferbam,

applied under specific

schedules, were found to

be effective in protecting

nursery seedlings. Other

studies found that applying

benomyl, a systemic fungicide, to the roots of pine

seedlings before planting

reduced brownspot disease,

increased survival, and

stimulated early height

growth. Tests of various

fumigants showed that

ethylene dibromide could

provide practical control of

1 7
the black root rot, with

dramatic increases in production of nursery stock.

Guides for nursery management based on such

research have been summarized in a southern pine

nursery handbook (USDA

Forest Service 1984a).

Scientists have also known

for some time that tree

roots and certain fungi form

a sybiotic association called

mycorrhizae. Studies by

D.H. Marx, J.L. Ruhle, and

their associates demonstrated that some fungi are

more beneficial than others

in improving seedling survival and growth. As a

followup to this research,

cooperative work with

Abbott Laboratories and

participating nurserymen

led to development of

effective techniques for

large-scale production and

use of preferred inoculum

in commercial production

of container-grown and

other seedlings (Marx and

others 1982).

The search for improved

methods of obtaining desirable forest regeneration

also included the direct

seeding of pine in lieu of

nursery production and

field planting of seedlings.

Effective procedures including use of bird and animal

repellents, seedbed preparation, and timing of seeding

were developed, notably at

the Alexandria, LA, research

center in cooperation with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (e.g., Mann and

Derr 1964). Control of

stocking has been somewhat difficult with direct

seeding, however, and use

of repellent chemicals has

heen challenged on environmental grounds. Foresters

have also pointed out that

genetically improved seed

may be used more efficiently

in producing nursery stock.

Container-grown seedlings

also have been used effectively in the South (e.g.,

Barnett and McGilvray

1981). Studies have shown

that costs of producing

container stock are relatively

low, and site requirements

for producing containergrown seedlings are minimal

(Guldin 1983). Container

seedlings also can be

planted over a longer

season, survival rates are

relatively high, and managers can make efficient

use of genetical

seed. Getting su

1
results into use in the

production of seedlings

has been facilitated through

issuance of handbooks and

through southern nursery

conferences (e.g., Lantz

1984) and a southern

containerized forest tree

seedling conference (e.g.,

Guldin and Barnett 1981).

Research on reforestation

has undoubtedly contributed greatly to the extensive

tree-planting programs

carried out in the South. By

1979, some 20 million acres

of southern pine plantations

had been established, with

new plantings covering

more than 1.5 million acres

annually.

Forest researchers also

have given considerable

attention to methods for

obtaining natural regeneration of the southern pines.

Findings indicate that several practical methods are

available (e.g., Lawson

1979). A 36-year study of

four silvicultural methods in

loblolly and shortleaf pine

stands showed that adequate and low-cost regeneration can be obtained with

seed-tree, clearcutting,

selection, and diameter-limit

cutting. Difficulties in regenerating longleaf pine led

many foresters in the 1950’s

and 1960’s to plant alternative species such as slash

pine. However, research

developed new guidelines

for use of the shelterwood

system, and longleaf has

regained an important role

in pine management (Croker

and Boyer 1975).

Management guidelines

based on the findings of

such research have been

widely used both by industrial foresters and by public

service foresters in providing

technical assistance to

landowners who are reluctant or unable to invest in

systems of clearcutting and

planting. Natural regeneration is a low-cost method

but provides limited control

of stocking, takes more

time, and provides less

opportunity for genetic

improvement than planting

selected seedlings.

In the case of southern

hardwoods, considerable

research also has been

conducted both on ways of

obtaining natural regeneration of preferred hardwoods

and on establishment of

plantations, particularly of

cottonwood in the Delta

1 9
area. The work of L.C.

Maisenhelder, J.S.

McKnight, F. Bonner, R.L.

Johnson, and E.C. McGee,

for example, has provided

guidelines for obtaining

regeneration of desirable

species, through both

appropriate cutting practices and establishment of

plantations of selected

species.

Underlying the many practical recommendations that

have been developed for

regenerating both pines

and hardwoods in. southern

forests are additional studies by many different researchers. These have

covered various aspects of

seed collection, seed germination, nursery practices,

insect and disease control,

care of planting stock, site

preparation, and field planting procedures. And much

information on forest regeneration also has been

obtained as pan of research

on the genetic selection

and improvement of forest

trees and management of

forest stands.
Two major aspects of

regeneration research are

tree and seed selection

and the longer term task of

breeding superior trees.

Over the past several

decades, genetic improvement of the southern pines

has evolved from an idea in

the minds of farsighted

scientists to an integral part

of forest management.

As early as the 1920’s, P.C.

Wakeley and others undertook research to determine

the comparative survival

and growth of southern

pines originating from

different places and parent

lines. These and many

subsequent studies soon

demonstrated the importance of genetic selection

to obtain seed from appropriate areas and parent

trees, and to select highquality nursery stock for

field planting. Selections of

longleaf pines for example,

turned up individual trees

of high resistance to the

brownspot needle disease.

These trees have yielded

open-pollinated progeny

with considerable resistance

to brownspot, and intercrosses have yielded highly

resistant offspring (Snyder

and Derr 1972).

Other progeny tests of

selected superior trees of

longleaf pine confirmed

observations that trees

from gulf coast sources

were superior in survival

and growth to trees from

elsewhere (Bey and Snyder

1978). Family variation

within a region proved to

be large enough to permit

additional genetic gains.

And progeny of crosses of

elite trees showed higher

survival, less brownspot,

and more wood volume

than average trees.

Tree-improvement work

with slash pine began as

early as 1941 at Olustee,

FL, with the aim of developing trees with high gum

yields for the ailing gum

naval stores industry. The

finding that individual trees

varied greatly in gumyielding ability was a major

stimulus to efforts to select

and breed superior trees.

Ensuing research by H.L.

Mitchell, CR Gansel, and

others led to establishment

of “turpentine” seed orchards consisting of strains

of pines with high gum

2 1
yields. The best of such

trees have produced about

twice as much gum as

average trees and significantly more wood volume

than woods-run trees.

Other research with slash

pine, conducted by R.J.

Dinus, F.F. Jewell, H.R.

Powers, P.V. Siggers, G.A.

Snow, P.C. Wakeley, and

0.0. Wells, for example,

found significant genetic

variation in resistance to

fusiform rust related to

geographic origin and tree

parents. Field tests showed

the feasibility of sizable

improvements in survival

and growth by selection of

seed from the more resistant

parents.

Because of its many desirable properties for wood

products and oleoresin,

slash pine became the

popular choice in many

tree-planting programs.

Some of the widespread

plantings failed, however,

and this fact stimulated

investigations relating to

site relationships, fertilization, drainage, and seed

sources. Based on results

of studies of such factors,

foresters can now make

intelligent decisions as to

where slash pine can best

be established.

Studies of the genetics of

loblolly pine also showed

much genetic variation in

growth and resistance to

disease, both by geographic

area and by individual trees

(Sluder 1980). These genetic studies have notably

involved a Southwide seedsource study, begun in

1951 under the sponsoring

of a committee on southern

forest tree improvement.

Committee work, such as

cone and seed testing

services and publication of

proceedings of conferences, has provided much

guidance and stimulation

both to genetics research

and to reforestation programs of southern forestry

agencies (e.g., University of

Georgia 1983).

Several industry - university

cooperative treeimprovement programs

also have been developed

in the South, at North

Carolina State University,

the University of Florida,

and at Texas A. and M.

University. Loblolly pine

seed orchards established

rth Carolina State
show crop gains on 25-year

rotations that are estimated

to be as high as 12 percent

in cubic volume and 32

percent in harvest values

(Zobel and Talbert 1984).

Rates of return on investments in these seed orchards appear to be as

high as 17 to 19 percent

after taxes. Yields from

first-generation orchards

are not great enough to

allow most members to

meet regeneration needs

with improved stock.

As a result of work by these

and other scientists, tree

improvement is a reality

today, and a major phase

of forestry in the South is

the production and use of

seed from pine trees that

show superior growth, form,

and resistance to disease

(e.g., Powers and others

1979). It is estimated that

by the early 1980’s some

10,600 acres of seed orchards had been established over the South. These

include orchards for production of genotypes resistant

to fusiform rust, although

only limited quantities of

seed from such sources

are as yet available (Powers

and others 1979).

Seed orchard management

also has been the focus of

related studies that show

that proper spacing and

fertilization can significantly

increase yields of seed.

Research in crossbreeding

pines has produced a

variety of hybrids, including

crosses of shortleaf and

slash pines, for example,

that outperform the parents

(Wells and others 1978).

Research relating to hardwoods has included development of clones of

cottonwoods and hybrid

poplars that grow considerably faster than average

trees (e.g., Randall 1973).

Much of the information

developed on the genetics

and breeding of southern

pines has been summarized

in Agriculture Handbook

471 (Dorman 1976). This

major compilation includes

material from more than a

thousand references on

factors affecting flowering

and seed production; geographic, racial, stand, and

tree variation in genetic

characteristics; techniques

for enhancing production of

superior seed; methods of

vegetative propagation;

and techniques for breeding

new strains of southern

2 3
pines. Agriculture Handbook 587, on pollen management, covers the coilection, processing, storage,

and use of pollen from

superior trees and provides

a synthesis of research and

practical experience as to

the best methods and

equipment for handling tree

pollen of southern pines

and hardwoods (Franklin

1981). In 1984, Bruce Zobel

and John Talbert summarized many years of research

on the genetics of southern

pines in their major book

“Applied Forest Tree Improvement:

2 4
Management of forests for

timber products has long

been the subject of a major

part of the work of forest

scientists in the South.

Once forests are regenerated, many closely related

questions remain. What

growth and yields can be

expected from natural and

from planted stands? How

can undesirable hardwoods

and other unwanted vegetation be controlled? Will

fertilization be effective and

economic? Should harvesting be by seed-tree,

clearcutting, selection cutting, or other methods?

Such questions faced forest

managers for a wide variety

of types, sites, and stand

and ownership conditions

through the extensive and

widely varying southern

region.

Early studies of southern

pine management conducted in the early 1920’s by

RD. Forbes and his small

staff at the Southern Forest

Experiment Station were

aimed largely at determining

desirable cutting practices

in longleaf and other southern pines. Another task

was to develop “normal

yield tables for unmanaged

pine stands. In this early

period, informal studies of

so-called practical forestry

were also undertaken by a

number of southern forest

landowners through the

crusading efforts of such

men as Austin Carey (White

1961). In the 1930’s, an

expanding program of

studies included work by

H. Bull, A.L. McKinney, and

others to evaluate thinning,

pruning, and improvement

cutting in loblolly and

longleaf pines. Scientists

such as W.F. Bond and

RR. Reynolds issued the

first in a long series of

publications on both silvicultural and financial aspects

of southern pine management.

The period prior to World

War II also saw the beginning of research on management of bottomland in the

South by G.H. Lentz, J.A.

Putnam, H. Bull, and others,

This work usually featured

destructives studies of

important timber species to

provide an understanding

of such attributes as tree

charactistics, distribution,

and relation to site factors.

A 207-page report on trees

of the Mississippi bottom2 5
lands, prepared in 1932 by

Putnam and Bull, won the

admiration of an influential

audience and its subsequent support for the

establishment of a research

center and hardwood laboratory at Stoneville, MS.

The postwar period after

1945 saw a major expansion

of forest management

research in both pine and

hardwood types with a

wide variety of investigations

by many scientists. This

work has provided the

basis for guidelines that are

now available for cultural

and hatvestig practices for

all the major species in all

important forest types in

the South. Since the

mid-l 940’s more than 190

scientists at the Southern

Forest Experiment Station

published papers and

articles dealing with the

culture of timber stands,

including silvicultural practices, basic physiology,

control of unwanted

vegetation, soils and fertilization, and nutrient cycling.

At the Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station, hundreds of publications on

forest management also

were issued during these

years by more than 200

scientists.

At schools of forestry

throughout the South, other

research scientists, such as

T.S. Coile at North Carolina

State University and J.L.

Clutter at the University of

Georgia, likewise produced

much useful information on

timber growth and yields

and other aspects of forest

management. Research

staffs of pulp and paper

companies conducted and

cooperated in many studies

of thinning, hardwood

control, harvest cutting,

forest regeneration, and

timber harvesting equipment and methods.

The classification of “timber

culture” is necessarily somewhat arbitrary, however,

and many other studies

relating to fire, regeneration,

genetics, or economics

also included aspects of

cultural practices. Scientists

working in different areas of

research, as cited elsewhere, have also made

significant contributions in

the broadly defined field of

timber management.

Much of the research in

forest management con2 6
ducted by the Forest Service

experiment stations has

been carried out at research

centers located in more or

less distinct forest types or

subregions of the South,

and with investigations

centered in associated

experimental forests.

Thus at Crossett, AR, the

Southern Station and the

Crossett Lumber Company

entered into a cooperative

agreement in the 1930’s

that made possible a world

famous series of studies on

the Crossett Experimental

Forest, an area of loblolly

and hardwoods with some

shortleaf pine. Other important studies of timber management have been conducted over the years in

many parts of the South,

but the work at Crossett

was among the earliest and

produced a great deal of

technical knowledge about

forest management potentials.

Under the long-term leadership of RR. Reynolds, a

series of treatments under

all-aged or “selection” systems of silviculture were

started (Reynolds 1980).

An initial study of selective

logging produced much

valuable information on

costs, grades, and values

of lumber manufactured

from second-growth trees.

Such findings were of great

interest to foresters and to

timberland owners looking

for guidance in retaining

and managing cutover

forest lands.

The studies at Crossett

demonstrated rapid growth

and prompt restocking of

residual stands, under

management that featured

frequent light cuttings to

favor the better trees. Tests

of truck logging showed

that selection management

was feasible in the typical

immature and understocked

stands of the area and

could replace conventional

but unprofitable railroad

logging of such stands.

Investigations of controlled

burning contributed to the

development of local techniques for this important

management tool.

The studies at Crossett,

demonstrating impressive

rates of growth in volunteer

stands of second-growth

southern pines, greatly

promoted the adoption of

forest-management practices in many parts of the

2 7
South. As a demonstration

area, the Crossett Forest

had no peer. Thousands of

visitors from the United

States and abroad, including many owners of small,

nonindustrial properties,

have been impressed by

the annual harvests of

timber from so-called “farm

forties,” as well as by other

demonstrations of high

levels of timber growth and

profitable forestry practices.

Research on even-aged

management was later

included in the program at

Crossett. C.F. Grano and

associates provided comparisons with the demonstrably effective selection

methods of management

that had long been under

intensive study at Crossett.

Research has documented

advantages of even-aged

systems of timber management that are now practically

universal on the extensive

holdings of pulp and paper

companies and other large

ownerships in the South.

Studies similar those at

Crossett have been undertaken at other research

centers and experimental

forests in major subregions

throughout the South.

Examples include the research center at Alexandria,

LA, long under the direction

of W.F. Mann, Jr., which

concentrated on problems

of management in the

longleaf and loblolly -

shortleaf pine types. Here

such practices as direct

seeding, thinning, and

plantation management

received special attention.

A research center at Nacogdoches, TX, emphasized

research on techniques of

prescribed burning and

management of wildlife

habitat. On the Hitchiti

Experimental Forest near

Macon, GA, studies were

mainly directed toward

management of loblolly

pine in the Georgia Piedmont (e.g., Brender 1973).

Scientists at Cordele, GA,

and Olustee, FL, working in

cooperation with university

researchers, developed

guidelines for management

of slash pine in the coastal

plain region (e.g., Bailey

and others 1982). At these

and other research centers,

the research and demonstrations of forestry practices provided fundamental

knowledge on the silviculture of all the major southern

pine types- information of

2 8
immense practical value to

both private and public

landowners.

One of the major activities

in the field of timber management has been the

development of growth and

yield tables, both for natural

stands and managed plantations. The initial set of

yield tables in Miscellaneous

Publication 50 (1929) was

supplemented by Schumacher and Coile’s 1960

publication “Growth and

Yield of Natural Stands of

the Southern Pines” and by

a subsequent work describing soil-site relationships

and yields of slash and

loblolly pines (Coile and

Schumacher 1964). The

comprehensive information

on growth and yields developed by researchers has

been summarized in an

annotated bibliography

(Williston 1975) and in

general reviews by Farrar

(1979) and Burkhart (1979).

Many scientists have contributed to this wealth of

knowledge. J.L. Clutter and

associates at the University

of Georgia (1984), in cooperation with Forest Service

scientists, developed data

on stand structure and

yields of loblolly pine plantations in the lower coastal

plain of the Southeast.

Growth and yield data for

loblolly and shortleaf pine

in the west gulf coastal

plain were published by

Burton (1980). Similar

findings have been made

available for essentially all

major forest types and

conditions in the South.

In this research on timber

yields, cooperation with

forest industry groups and

universities has been an

important factor, as in the

case of a plantation management research cooperative at the University of

Georgia and cooperative

slash pine density studies

at Cordele, GA. The growth

and yield data thus developed have proved to be

essential for analyses of

thinning and other management alternatives and for

evaluation of attainable

yields.

Research and experience

in timber harvesting have

led most large landowners

in the southern pine region

to opt for clearcutting and

planting or seeding of pine

stands. These practices

have proved to be most

2 9
compatible with use of fire

and machines to control

competing vegetation.

Comprehensive guides for

such management have

been issued by the Georgia

Forest Research Council

(Wahlenberg 1965) and by

Langdon and Bennett

(1976) among others.

Research has also shown

that for landowners wishing

to retain a natural forest, or

avoid the costs of site

preparation and planting,

forests can be managed on

a selection system. The

shelterwood system also

has proved to be a low-cost

and reliable system in the

case of longleaf and shortleaf pine (e.g., Lawson

1979).

In essentially all pine management programs, control

of hardwoods and other

undesirable vegetation is

essential for satisfactory

regeneration, survival, and

growth of the preferred

pines. This fact is, of course,

a major argument for prescribed burning. Early

studies indicated that hardwoods could also be controlled by injecting unwanted trees with chemicals

such as sodium arsenate.

Subsequently, sprays of

2,4,5-T, picloram, and

glyphosate were found to

be effective (e.g., Peevy

1976). More recent studies

showed promise for forestry

applications of newer herbicides (Mann and Hayes

1978). Also worthy of note

is a lengthy Agriculture

Handbook called *Pesticide

Background Statements,”

prepared by the Mitre

Corporation (USDA Forest

Service 1984b). The detailed

data contained therein are

essential in the preparation

of environmental impact

statements for projects

involving the application of

herbicides.

Use of herbicides has saved

landowners millions of

dollars in site preparation

and timber-stand improvement and greatly increased

growth of the more valuable

pines. Intensified concern

over environmental impacts

from use of herbicides,

however, and regulatory

restrictions make future use

of such chemical controls

somewhat uncertain and

suggest the need for continuing improvements in technology.

Research in use of fertilizers

has demonstrated that
significant increases in

timber yields often can be

achieved by application of

nitrogen, phosphorus,

potassium, or trace elements, and that yields of

forage for livestock and

wildlife can be similarly

enhanced. Related research

on use of sewage sludge

for fertilization of forests

showed this to be effective

in increasing growth of

loblolly and Virginia pines

on depleted soils such as

mine banks (e.g., Berry and

Marx 1977). Criteria have

been developed, as in the

case of slash pine, for

evaluating potential responses from use of different fertilizers, along with

recommendations for rates

and timing of applications

(Stone 1983, p. 86).

Nutrient cycling has likewise

received considerable attention from forest scientists.

This has been due in pan

to increased interest in

making use of forest

biomass for energy as well

as conventional logs and

boltwood, with consequent

questions of nutrient depletion (e.g., Wells 1977).

Studies have shown, for

example, that normal harvesting of tree boles results

in nutrient losses that

approximate nutrient inputs;

but with harvesting on very

short rotations and total

use of biomass, nutrient

losses may exceed the

natural supply. Better understanding of the physical

and chemical properties of

forest soils also has resulted

from the work of scientists

such as W.F. Miller at

Mississippi State University

(1976).

The profitability of forest

fertilization has been a

matter of much uncertainty,

in large part because of

wide variations in forest

conditions and responses

to fertilization. Nevertheless,

studies of slash pine stands

in the Southeast (e.g., Fight

and Dutrow 1981) have

indicated that proper application of fertilizers at the

right time could yield returns

as high as 27 percent on

investments in this practice.

Hardwood management

has also been of much

significance in the South.

Hardwood types cover

more than half the forest

area of the region, including

bottomlands with many

valuable species and highproducing sites. The upland

3 1
hardwoods, which so often

compete with pines, also

produce useful timber

products as well as food

and habitat for wildlife, and

recreation opportunities.

Logging practices in southern hardwood forests have

generally involved the

removal of only the higher

quality trees, thus greatly

reducing the quality and

productivity of residual

stands. Cutting also has

often favored development

of undesirable shadetolerant species, which now

dominate many highly

productive hardwood sites.

The research and demonstration efforts of J.A.

Putman, L.C. Maisenhelder,

4.S. f’vlcKnight, and

coworkers provided valuable guidelines for the

regeneration and culture of

important bottomland hardwoods in both natural

stands and in plantations

(e.g., Putnam ‘I 951). Studies

of cutting methods in

bottomland forests have

pointed to clearcutting as

the best practice if the

objective is timber p

tion (e.g., Johnson 1

summary of information on

hardwood si~vic~ltur~ indicates that optimum species

mix, high growth rates, and

desirable tree form occur in

full sunlight, with reproduction from advance growth,

sprouts, and new seedlings

(Prewitt 1982). Thinning

stands helps concentrate

growth on selected trees

and permits some control

of species composition, but

even-aged management

without thinning has been

shown to offer advantages

in avoidance of soil damage,

epicormic branching, and

damage to crop trees. Much

information on the silviculture of upland hardwoods

also has been developed

through studies in Texas

(e.g., Walker 1972) and

elsewhere (USDA

Service 4 980a).

have shown much promise

in many areas. Researchers

have provided valuable

information on effects of

site and spacing on tree

growth, as well as the

ante of fertilization,
1960). Although the total

area of hardwood plantations is still limited, in 1979

some 16 companies were

reported as having hardwood planting programs,

mainly for cottonwoods

(Prewitt 1982). Studies

have also revealed potentials for growing eucalypts

in Florida for use in pulp

and paper and possibly

other products (Geary and

others 1983).

Extensive cooperation

between researchers and

industrial and other groups

concerned with the management of southern hardwoods has been an important factor in southern

forestry research. A southern hardwood forestry

group, for example, organized in 1951, held regular

field meetings to study

hardwood management,

sponsored classes in log

and lumber grading, established long-term timber

growth studies, and assisted

in other research programs.

A hardwood research cooperative in North Carolina

involved industry and university participants in a series

of growth and yield studies.

In the area of forest mensuration and biometrics,

recruitment of Roy Chapman in the early 1930’s

added the first in a series

of specialists who have

contributed statistical expertise to a wide variety of

research investigations. In

later years other scientists,

including J.G. Osborne,

C.A. Bickford, T.C. Evans,

Frank Freese, and H.T.

Schreuder, provided similar

assistance to improve

sampling design and other

statistical techniques in

many research projects.

L.R. Grosenbaugh led in

the development of procedures for variable radius

plot sampling and other

techniques that helped

increase efficiency in timber

inventories and management planning (Grosenbaugh 1958). Cooperative

efforts with F.X. Schumacher, of Duke University,

included publication of an

early text on sampling

methods in forestry and

range management (Schumacher and Chapman

1942). Scientists at the

University of Alabama

provided an understanding

of relationships such as

that between point density

measurements and subse3 3
quent timber growth (e.g.,

Johnson 1973).

The rapid expansion in

availability and use of

computers and computer

specialists in recent

decades greatly increased

efficiency in many research

projects. These have included timber inventories, predicting furture stand development with alternative

management practices,

estimating allowable cuts,

and identifying optimum

rotation ages for specified

timber-management objectives.

The information obtained

from the many studies

conducted by forest scientists on the various aspects

of southern forest management has been brought

together from time to time

in major publications. Knowledge relating to longleaf

pine was summarized by

W.G. Wahlenberg in 1946

in a lengthy monograph. In

1960, he published a similar

comprehensive treatise on

loblolly pine, covering its

ecology, regeneration,

protection, growth, and

other aspects of management. This book was based

on the author’s personal

experience plus reviews of

nearly 1,500 articles by

other researchers. The

comprehensive “Silivicultural

Systems for the Major Forest

Types in the United States”

has provided guidelines for

management of all the

important pine and hardwood types in the South

(Burns 1983). Symposia

and conferences for both

practicing foresters and

researchers have also

provided summaries of new

information for both pines

and hardwoods, together

with recommendations for

management of various

species (e.g., Barnett 1981).

3 4
As interest in forestry spread

across the South, it soon

became evident that insects

and diseases seriously limit

yields of timber and cause

major losses of structures

built of wood. Cone and

seed insects reduce seed

production. Nursery diseases diminish output of

quality planting stock. Tip

moths, sawflies, webworms,

weevils, bark beetles, rusts,

root rots, canker rots,

parasitic nematodes, and

other pests take their toll of

timber in established stands.

Termites, wood borers,

stains, and wood roots

cause enormous losses in

buildings and other structures.

An early example of successful research was the

work of Ralph M. Lindgren,

A.D. Chapman, and T.C.

Scheffer in devising means

of chemical control of sap

stain in southern pine

lumber.5 This was achieved

5 Much information on pathology

research by Federal and university

research scientists is contained in

a ‘History of Forest Pathology

Research in the South and Southeast” (Verrall 1982).

through use of fungicidal

dips, effective procedures

for chemical application,

and proper handling of

wood during harvesting,

milling, and seasoning

(Scheffer and Lindgren

1940). Results of this work

were of enormous economic

importance to the southern

pine lumber industry and to

all owners and users of

southern pine timber. Success in producing new

knowledge of such great

practical importance to the

southern economy also

brought recognition to the

young Southern Forest

Experiment Station and

greatly strengthened support for the new field of

forestry research (Wakeley

1964 unpubl.).

In many research efforts

involving insects and disease, a logical and often

time-consuming procedure

was the initial step: learning

the life history of forest

pests and their relationships

to the natural habitat.

Applied studies of chemical

controls and integrated

pest management subsequently added to the base

of scientific knowledge and

3 5
guidelines for forest protection. Such research has

been supplemented by

annual surveys of insect

and disease conditions

conducted cooperatively by

administrative and research

agencies (e.g., USDA Forest

Service 1980b).

Among the many scientists

making major contributions

to knowledge of forest

diseases was George

Hepting, author of the 1971

volume *Diseases of Forest

and Shade Trees,” an

important fundamental

work for American forest

pathologists. Scientists in

the Bureau of Plant Industry

and in the Forest Service

after 1954 dominated forest

disease research in the

South for many years, but

after 1960 universities

began adding pathologists

to their staffs. Many of these

researchers transferred

after long experience in

Federal service, including

J.S. Boyce, Jr., E.F. Jewell,

E.P. Van Arsdell, E.R. Toole,

and A.F. Verrall.

One of the more serious

diseases in the South, the

brownspot needle disease

of longleaf pine, was the

subject of early investigations by H.H. Chapman, of

Yale University, during the

1920’s. His work, followed

by the studies of Paul

Siggers and other pathologists during the 1930’s and

1940’s, demonstrated methods of control through

prescibed burning during

the seedling stage of tree

development (e.g., Siggers

1944). The fungicides

Bordeaux mixture and

benomyl were found to be

effective in protecting planting stock in tree nurseries.

Fusiform rust, another highly

destructive disease of

southern pines, particularly

slash and loblolly, also has

been the subject of much

research by both pathologists and geneticists, Careful selection of seed from

more-resistant sources has

been the principal way of

dealing with this disease,

and spraying with ferbam

has helped provide control

(Mexal and Snow 1978).

Much of the accumulated

knowledge of this disease

has been summarized in

proceedings of a symposium on management of

fusiform rust in southern

pines (Dinus and others

1977).

3 6
A mysterious disease of

loblolly and shortleaf pines,

designated initially as “littleleaf disease,” likewise has

been of much concern to

forest pathologists and

forest managers. Studies

by W.A. Campbell, O.L.

Copeland, B. Zak, and

coworkers led to the identification of a fungus, Phyfophthora cinnamomi, as the

causal factor (e.g., Campbell

and Copeland 1954). The

symptoms of littleleaf disease proved to be an

expression of nitrogen

starvation resulting from

the killing of feeder roots

by this fungus in heavy

soils with poor drainage

and aeration. Management

guidelines developed from

this research included

directions for handling

diseased plants, breeding

for resistance, and favoring

soil-building hardwoods.

Annosus root rot has been

another cause of signicant

mortality of southern pines,

especially in thinned stands.

Research by scientists

such as R.C. Froelich, C.S.

Hodges, E.G. Ruhlman,

and E.W. Ross identified

methods of preventing or

reducing losses from this

disease by silvicultural

practices that include rating

hazard by soil characteristics, summer thinning, and

prescribed burning; selection of less susceptible

species in planting programs; and direct control

through application of borax

on freshly cut stumps (e.g.,

Kuhlman and others 1976

and Froehlich and others

1977).

Among the numerous insect

pests in southern forests,

the southern pine beetle

and the black turpentine

beetle have been particularly destructive of standing

trees. Major outbreaks of

the southern pine beetle

have occurred periodically,

as in the late 1970’s. An

extensive program of research on this pest has

been carried out in recent

years, particularly through

a Combined Forest Pest

Research, Development,

and Applications Program

centered at Pineville, LA.

This program combined the

efforts of Federal, university,

industry, and other organizations both in cooperative

studies and in test applications of findings on an

operational scale. In the

search for effective controls,

much information has been

37
acquired and summarized

in technical publications

and symposium proceedings (e.g., Coster and

Searcy 1979, Hastings and

Coster 1981, Thatcher and

others 1980, and USDA

1981).

Researchers have also

developed hazard-rating

systems that relate forest

stand conditions to potential

beetle infestation and appropriate control measures

(Belanger and others 1981).

Numerous insecticides

such as chlorpyrifos have

been identified and tested.

Possible use of predators,

such as the clerid beetles,

has been studied, along

with pheromones and other

chemical attractants and

inhibitors, Basic studies

have evaluated enzyme-,

protein-, and hormonerelated factors in pine beetle

population growth. Still

other experiments have

determined the effects of

cultural practices such as

thinnings to favor more

resistant tree species.

Systems for modeling pine

beetle population have also

been developed (Stephen

and others 1980). Through

such investigations, a

number of recommendations have been developed

that may prevent or reduce

outbreaks of the southern

pine beetle (Swaine and

Remion 1981).

Research on the black

turpentine beetle revealed

that infestations in thinned

loblolly pine plantations, for

example, can be limited by

minimizing injury to residual

trees, avoiding harvesting

on waterlogged soils, and

applying lindane to damaged or infected trees

(Feduccia and Mann 1976).

Damage from cone and

seed insects in seed orchards can be limited

through use of carbofuran

(e.g., DeBarr 1978). The

pales weevil, a pest causing

high losses on some recently cutover and planted pine

lands, can be suppressed

by chlorpyrifos and other

insecticides (Nord and

others 1978). Tests of the a

microbial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis, have

shown much promise in
protecting trees from

defoliation.6

Much research also has

been conducted on ways

of protecting wood products

from subterranean termites

and other wood-destroying

insects and fungi. In the

late 1930’s, T.E. Snyder

initiated work on termites,

and MB. Christian sought

ways of controlling powderpost beetles in hardwood

lumber. Starting in the

1940’s, H.R. Johnson and

coworkers identified pesticides and procedures for

protecting wood in houses

* The great variety and importance

of forest insect pests have been

described in “Eastern Forest Insects” by Whiteford Baker (1972).

In 1985 the Forest Service published an update of this book,

*Insects of Eastern Forests,”

Miscellaneous Publication 1426.

and other structures from

attack by termites and other

insects. Related research

developed ways of protecting wood structures from

decay associated with rain

seepage and condensation

in air-cooled buildings by

use of nonpressure preservative treatment (Verrall

1982).

Results of these studies,

together with work on wood

preservatives at such locations as the Forest Products

Laboratory at Madison, WI,

and Mississippi State University, have benefited

consumers through greatly

improved performance of

wood in many uses. Federal

Housing Administration

standards, for example,

and military manuals for

prevention of insect and

disease attack in structures

are based on findings of

this research.

3 9
Another early venture of

the southern forest experiment stations was a regional

survey of timber resources,

conducted under authorizations in the McSweeneyf&Nary Forest Research

Act of 1928. The southern

forest survey was part of a

nationwide effort designed

to provide an inventory and

appraisal of both current

and prospective timber

resources and timber requirements in the United

States, an essential basis

for evaluating the timber

situation and outlook.

The forest survey represented, in effect, a major intensification of forest resource

analyses contained in series

of national publications

dating back to the period

1878 - 82, when Franklin B.

Hough issued a surprisingly

comprehensive “Report

Upon Forestry.” This was

followed by other timber

resource reports, notably a

Bureau of Corporations

Report of 1911 and the

Copeland Report of 1933,

as well as more recent

timber resource studies,

including Timber Reviews

of 1952 and 1970 and

culminating in *An Analysis

of the Timber Situation in

the United States,

1952 - 2030” (USDA Forest

Service 1982a). The earlier

resource studies contained

generalized and necessarily

limited information on timber

resources. The more recent

national reports have included considerable data by

States and increasing detail

on the changing forest

situation.

Some early reports on forest

and range resources were

issued in the South, as in

the case of the Bureau of

Economic and Business

Research in Florida, which

published studies dealing

with timber resources and

industries and the naval

stores industry in that State

(Campbell and McCracken

1932). In the 1930’s and

1940’s, the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

also issued reports on

forest pastures and conditions of vegetation on rural

lands.

In 1931, the southern forest

survey staff, under the

leadership of G.H. Lentz,

followed by lnman (“Cap”)

Eldridge, undertook the

major task of obtaining

detailed information on

forest areas throughout the
South: the volume, size,

and ownership of the timber

resources thereon, and the

growth, mortality, and

utilization of timber. Information on the gum naval stores

industry also was included

in recognition of the significance in earlier years of

that southern forest-based

industry.

Survey reports issued in

the 1930’s soon revealed a

surprising recovery of

southern pine forests,

despite the extensive logging and widespread fires

characteristic throughout

the South. Improving forest

conditions reflected better

control of wildfires and the

natural ability of southern

pines to restock cutover

and burned areas. Natural

seeding of abandoned

croplands during the 1920’s,

the depression years of the

1930’s, and the period after

World War II also was of

considerable importance.

Establishment of pine

plantations by the Civilian

Conservation Corps in the

1930’s and by many industrial and other landowners

after World War II also added

to the pine timber resource

base.

The survey reports that

came from the printers

beginning in ‘1934 were of

special interest to the pulp

and paper industry, then

on the threshold of a

spectacular expansion

throughout the South.

Information on the increasing availability of pine

pulpwood supplies undoubtedly helped stimulate

construction of more and

larger mills, even in the

depressed years of the

1930’s. Pulping capacity at

southern pulp mills, amounting to about 3,000 tons per

day in 1930, nearly quadrupled by 1940, while the

number of mills rose about

25 percent (from 40 to 49)

in this period. Continued

expansion in the years after

World War II raised pulping

capacity in the South to

some 110,000 tons per day

by 1979, or about 65 percent

of the Nation’s total pulping

capacity.

The 1960’s and 1970’s also

saw the rapid development

of a major southern pine

plywood industry, as well

as marked resurgence of

the southern pine lumber

industry, all guided in part

by resource data from the

forest survey. Increasingly
detailed resource data also

helped guide investments

in acquisition of timberlands

and forest management to

support long-range industrial expansion.

By the early 1940’s, the

southern forest survey had

covered most of the South

with a grid of lines and

plots established by field

crews who traveled on foot

through thousands of miles

of forested areas, swamps,

coastal plains, and mountains. The timber inventory

information collected in this

field work was summarized

in some 53 reports, which

provided the first set of

comprehensive and statistically valid data on the varied

timber resources of the

South. Prominent among

the analysts and authors of

these reports in this prewar

era were A.R. Spillers, S.B.

Hutchinson, RX. Winters,

and F.A. Ineson.

In 1946, after the return of

personnel from wartime

duties and increases in

apropriations, resurvey of

southern forests was begun,

followed by subsequent

resurveys at approximately

1 O-year intervals. These

more recent resource inventories utilized new techniques involving land classification through

interpretation of aerial

photographs, measurements of timber on preselected variable-radius field

plots, and use of computers

for rapid and detailed

compilations of resource

data.

Many members of the Forest

Service and cooperating

agencies made significant

contributions in this work

under such survey leaders

as P.A. Wheeler, J.F.

Christopher, J.W. Cruikshank, J.F. McCormack,

and J. McClure. More than

40 other authors also

prepared publications on

timber resources, industrial

use of timber products,

trends in timber growth,

and related information.

Other specialists is statistics

and biometry helped develop improved methodology

that materially improved the

efficiency and usefulness of

the forest survey. These

improvements related to

sampling methods, use of

variable plots, and better

methods of projecting

timber growth and inventoifferent manage-
ment alternatives (e.g.,

Larson and Goforth 1974).

C. Mesavage and J.W.

Girard (1946) developed

volume tables for estimating

the board foot and cubic

foot contents of standing

timber. Many other permanent and temporary survey

staff members contributed

by interpreting aerial photos,

measuring field plots, compiling inventory growth and

utilization data, and publishing reports.

Cooperators in State

forestry agencies and in

forest industries likewise

made very substantial

contributions of money,

field crews, or other assistance to speed up and

intensify the survey program. The major study

entitled “The South’s Third

Forest” (Southern Forest

Resource Analysis Committee 1969), prepared by P.A.

Wheeler under industry

sponsorship, also illustrated

the value of survey data for

evaluation and development

of forestry programs, This

analysis traced the development of forestry practices

in the South and identified

measures needed to assure

adequate timber supplies

for the expanding wood

industries in the region.

During the Korean War of

the early 1950’s, special

analyses of timber resource

data for different parts of

the South helped determine

the adequacy of timber

supplies for new industrial

plant capacity, particularly

for expanded pulp and

paper production. Other

surveys of equipment requirements of the forest

industries provided essential data for defense planning. Also in the 1950’s,

cooperative surveys with

the Forest Products Laboratory provided information

on the range in specific

gravity of wood in southern

pine trees. Subsequently,

inventories to determine

weights and volumes of

both timber and other

vegetation furnished a

measure of the potential

availability of biomass for

energy production.

Significant progress also

has been made in broadening surveys to encompass

nontimber resources and

uses (USDA Forest Service

1978b). As early as 1959,

studies were undertaken to

obtain data on range owner4 3
ship and utilization in surveys of the Arkansas Ozarks.

in the early 1960’s,

procedures for

incorporating evaluations of

deer habitat were tested in

a resurvey of north Georgia.

A cooperative survey of

timber and range resources

in Louisiana in 1973 included evaluations of forage

availability and use, fire

history, and range condition.

And in 1977, the Southeastern Station broadened its

timber inventory work in

South Carolina to obtain

data on wildlife habitat,

range, water, soils, understory vegetation, and recreation.

Information provided by the

forest survey on the timber

situation and outlook in

each State has provided a

measure of the effectiveness

of Federal, State, and private

forestry programs, together

with an indication of opportunities for changes in these

programs. Such use of

forest resource data is

illustrated in individual State

reports and programs, and

in periodic national assessments and programs called

for by the Forest and

Rangeland Renewable

Resources Act of 1974.

44
Closely related to surveys

and analyses of forest

resources have been a

number of studies of forest

land ownership, conducted

over the past several

decades by Forest Service

researchers such as L.M.

James, A.S. Todd, A.

Pleasanton, and W.C.

Anderson; by scientists in

southern universities, such

as C.B. Marlin (1978) in

Louisiana; and by the

American Forestry Association in North Carolina

(Pomeroy and Yoho 1964).

These studies have provided key information on such

matters as owner characteristics, extent of landholdings, problems encountered

in management of private

forest lands, and landowner

responses to forestry assistance programs. Generally

these have shown a preponderance of small forest

ownerships held by a wide

variety of owners who, for

various reasons, have been

unwilling or unable to invest

capital in planting or other

timber-growing measures

(e.g., Birch and others

1982).

A number of studies have

shown, nevertheless, that

cultural measures to produce southern pines could

be undertaken in many

areas at moderate costs

and with significant returns

on investments. In the

Southeastern United States,

for example, analysis suggests that over 100 million

acres of forest land would

qualify for some management treatment, with investment returns ranging from

3 to 16 percent (Dutrow

1978). Conversion of oak -

pine types to pine plantations, for example, has

been identified as a principal

way of increasing pine

timber supplies on millions

of acres of southern forests.

Guides have been prepared

to aid investors contemplating such action (e.g., Anderson and Guttenberg 1971).

In recognition of the large

importance of nonindustrial

ownersips in the timber

supply picture, and evidence of promising investment opportunities, a number of public programs

have been adopted to assist

owners in improving the

management of their forests.

In addition to Federal

technical assistance and

cost sharing, several South45
ern States have established

incentive programs funded

by severance taxes or by

funding from the forest

industries, as in Texas,

Many private firms have

also developed “tree farm

family” programs or related

efforts to work with other

landowners in increasing

timber production.

An evaluation of the Federal

Forestry Incentives Program, conducted by representatives of the Forest

Service, the University of

Minnesota, the USDA’s

Agricultural Stabilization

and Conservation Service,

and several State forestry

agencies, have indicated

that this assistance program

has been a cost-effective

way to increase timber

yields on nonindustrial

forests (Risbrudt and Ellefson 1983). Investments in

such measures as site

preparation and planting,

precommercoial thinning,

and cull tree removal were

estimated to yield more

than an 8-percent real rate

of return while producing

significant increases in

future yields of timber. In

addition, soil and water

conservation, wildlife habitat, recreation, and esthetics

4 6

were enhanced in varying

degree.

Economic aspects of forest

management in both pine

and hardwood types have

been given considerable

attention by researchers in

the South. In the 1930’s,

W.E. Bond and associates

issued the first in a series

of reports on the costs and

returns of sustained-yield

forestry in southern pine

types (Bond and others

1937). W.A. Duerr and S.

Guttenberg developed

guidelines for determining

the financial maturity of

timber (e.g., Duerr and

others 1956). Various analyses of economic aspects of

timber management, fire

control, or other phases of

forestry also have been

conducted as part of broad

er silvicultural investigations,

Application of operations

research techniques to

sawmill operations demonstrated how profits might

be maximized by changing

production or marketing

factors (Row and others

1965). Methods of computer

analysis were also developed for logging operations

to help estimate the most

profitable timber-harvesting
procedures (Koger and

Webster 1984).

Among other studies of

forest policy issues was the

monumental work of the

forest taxation inquiry,

designed to find general

solutions to problems of

forest property taxation

(Fairchild 1935). Subsequent studies of forest

taxation more specifically

oriented to the South

included the work of such

scientists as R.R. Craig and

W.C. Siegel at the Southern

Forest Experiment Station,

Leon Hargreaves, Jr., at the

Georgia Forestry Commission, and W.O. Klemperer

at the Virginia Polytechnic

Institute. Legislators and

others have used such

studies in evaluating possible impacts of various tax

policies on forest ownership

and forestry practices.

The marketing of southern

pine and hardwood products has likewise been a

subject for research by

many scientists. For more

than a century, periodic

surveys of production,

prices, and end uses of

foresty products have been

conducted by the U.S.

Bureau of the Census, the

Forest Service, and various

State agencies. Beginning

in the 1950’s, such researchers as H.E. Dickerhoof, CA. Fasick, W.C.

Anderson, and D.L. Halley,

Jr., conducted local

marketing studies on consumer attitudes toward use

of wood and competing

products and related factors

affecting consumption of

southern wood products.

Studies of pulpwooding

revealed the production

and marketing structure of

this important southern

industry (e.g., Rawlins and

Sorensen 1968). Both

Federal and State agencies

have issued series of local

price and market reports

for stumpage, logs, and

pulpwood of southern

timber species,

47
The research and development efforts of both public

and industrial research

organizations in the South

have led to many improvements in logging, manufacture of wood products, and

use of wood materials for

construction and other

purposes.

Investigations dealing with

properties and uses of the

southern pines began as

early as 1882 in the Division

of Forestry in the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

although funds and trained

personnel were, of course,

extremely limited. Such

work led to the discovery

that lumber from longleaf

pine trees tapped for naval

stores was as strong as

that from untapped timber;

therefore, much of the

prevailing waste of tapped

trees was unnecessary.

Other studies showed that

seasoning lumber enhanced its strength. Wesearch around the turn of

the century on preservative

treatment of railway ties

and other wood products

similarly helped point the

way to better use and

conservation of timber

resources.

The Forest Products Laboratory of the USDA Forest

Service, established in

1910 at Madison, WI, in

cooperation with the University of Wisconsin, soon

became a major center of

knowledge leading to more

rational and less wasteful

use of timber. Because of

their relative abundance

and usefulness, the southern pines became the

subject of much of the

research at this world

famous laboratory. In 1910,

there were no highly efficient

sawmills or dry kilns; pulp

and paper production was

limited and primitive; hardwoods were seldom used

for paper; there were no

plywoods, particleboards,

or laminated timbers: and

wood preservation was of

limited application.7

7 “History of the U.S. Forest Products Laboratory, 1920- 1963,” by

Charles l-i. Nelson (1971), provides

a detailed description of the

extensive research conducted at

this institution. Research performed

in subsequent years has been

described in annual reports of the

laboratory.

48
The early timber testing

work of the Bureau of

Forestry and several university laboratories was soon

materially expanded at the

Madison laboratory to

include strength tests of

various sizes and grades of

most commercial timbers

and effects of factors such

as defect and moisture

content. As early as 1915,

the Southern Pine Association and the American

Society of Testing Materials

adopted lumber-grading

rules prepared at the Madison laboratory. These and

subsequently developed

standards for plywood and

other products have provided architects and engineers

with accurate data for

design of structures, reliable

data for commercial specifications, and a basis for

substitution for scarce

species or materials.

Another major highlight of

utilization research at the

Forest Products Laboratory

was the development and

patenting of an efficient dry

kiln by H.D. Tieman. This

highly practical development was the result of years

of intensive research on the

fundamental principles of

drying, shrinkage, and

effects of moisture content

in wood of various species.

The laboratory at Madison

also sponsored courses in

kiln drying to disseminate

knowledge of modern drying

methods. These efforts

have helped reduce use of

green lumber in construction, with consequent improvement in performance

and consumer benefits.

Research aimed at improving the efficiency of sawmills

led to better equipment

and plant layout and more

productive cutting practices.

Thus lumber yields, particularly from small logs, can

be substantially increased

through computer-based

selection of the “best opening face” of each log-a

discovery of special significance in view of the increasing proportion of small logs

in the available timber

suPPlYIn the area of pulp and

paper research, early work

by industrial researchers

and by scientists at the

Madison laboratory and

other institutions pointed

the way to successful

production of kraft pulps

from southern pines, and

the ensuing enormous

4 9
expansion of the southern

kraft pulp and paper industry. With rapid growth in

demand for kraft pulps,

papers, and board, the

discovery that southern

pines were suitable for

these products was of great

importance. C.F. Herty and

others also found that it

was feasible to make

newsprint from the southern

pines. At the Madison

laboratory, scientists such

as C.E. Currens and G.H.

Chidester found that strong

white pulps could be made

from southern pines through

a modified kraft process in

combination with two-stage

bleaching.

Development of the semichemical pulping process

at Madison also ranked as

a major accomplishment.

This process, involving a

combination of chemical

and mechanical pulping,

provided an efficient method

for pulping hitherto unusable southern hardwoods

and proved to be particularly

suitable for production of

the corrugating medium

used in container board.

Related studies also led to

development of a high-yield

“cold soda” process for

50

pulping hardwoods. And a

new process for “press

drying” paper, using both

heat and pressure simultaneously, yielded highstrength papers from hardwoods while saving on

energy otherwise usable for

drying. The basic work of

such men as C.W. McMillin

(1978) helped in such

developments through

better understanding of

wood chemistry, fiber characteristics, and relations of

such factors to properties

of wood pulps, paper, and

fiberboards.

Wartime activities at the

Madison laboratory in the

1940’s included the development and testing of

packing boxes and other

containers for military use.

Improved designs and

specifications for shipping

different commodities in

lumber, veener, plywood,

and container board resulted in large reductions in

breakage and financial

savings in both military and

civilian uses. Development

of pallets for movement

and storage of goods was

likewise of great importance

to the military, as well as to

many peacetime users.
Building on the wartime

experience in providing

technical services to the

forest industries, a “Forest

Utilization Service” was

established at the various

experiment stations of the

Forest Service. This program provided a means of

stimulating research at

utilization laboratories and

a way of getting results of

research into practice with

minimum delays. In the

South, men such as M.M.

Lehrbas, CR. Lockard, RD.

Carpenter, R.H. Page, and

W.R. Smith provided such

liaison between the Madison

laboratory and the forest

industries. They provided a

wealth of information to

timber producers on such

matters as lumber seasoning, milling, wood preservation, gluing of wood products, pulp chip procurement

and storage, and log and

lumber grading. Some

years later, similar assistance was provided by

extension specialists at

some of the southern

universities.

In the early postwar years,

investigations were undertaken to develop log and

tree grades for southern

pines, supplementing

grades for hardwoods

developed in earlier years.

These provided a means of

improving efficiency in

logging and milling and

making more accurate

appraisals of timber values.

The work of C.R. Lockard,

R.D. Carpenter, R.A. Campbell, L.M. James, J.A.

Putnam, and others

provided effective log grading rules both for southern

pines and for hardwoods

(e.g., Lockard and others

1950).

The 1960’s also saw the

development of technology

that permitted efficient

manufacture of plywood

from the southern pines.

This resulted from coooperative efforts of the plywood

industry and Forest Products Laboratory researchers, who provided

technical information on

wood characteristics, adhesives, machining techniques, and criteria for

commercial standards. The

expansion of this new

southern pine plywood

industry has been spectacular, with production in 1982

reaching more than half the

total U.S. output of structural

panels. During the 1960’s,

use of sawmill residues for

5 1
pulp chips also expanded

rapidly, thanks in large part

to experiments by the pulp

and paper industry.

Another postwar development in utilization research

was the establishment or

expansion of forest products

laboratories in a number of

Southern States. These

included a laboratory at

North Carolina State University, well known for research

on pulp and paper. A

laboratory at Mississippi

State University developed

special expertise in wood

preservation, Universities in

Georgia, Alabama, Virginia,

and Texas also built up

forest products laboratories.

The Forest Service established two regional laboratories in the South in the

1960’s, one at Alexandria,

LA, initially under the direction of Peter Koch, and one

at Athens, GA, under RR.

Bloomquist.

Research conducted at

Federal, State, and industrial

laboratories has led to

many new products or

uses as well as greatly

improved efficiency in the

manufacture of conventional

wood-based materials.

Research on housing sys52

terns, for example, has

helped reduce costs and

improve performance of

both conventional and

factory-built housing. New

markets have been developed for preservativetreated wood foundations.

Construction techniques

using improved vapor

barriers have provided

practicable and economical

methods of moisture control.

Other developments in use

of wood include glued

laminated arches, beams,

and other items made of

southern pine as well as

other superior species.

Development of these

engineered products

stemmed in large part from

the work of many researchers in design, adhesives, finger jointing, timber

connectors, wood preservatives, and finishing.

Research at Madison and

other laboratories also led

to the development and

commercial manufacture of

a variety of panel products

(e.g., USDA Forest Service

1978c). These include

fiberboard, pa&i&board,

flakeboard, oriented strand

board, honeycomb panels,

composite framing, panels
composed of a particleboard core between layers

of veneer, and other sandwich materials of wood with

metal or plastic. New products such as resin-treated

papers and densified products called “compreg” and

“impreg” also have been

produced and have proved

important for military and

other purposes.

Early work on wood preservation was soon expanded

at the Madison laboratory

and at other institutions

such as Mississippi State

to include fundmental

studies of chemical, physical, and toxic qualities of

various preservatives, and

ways of improving preservatives and treating processes, Greater efficiency in the

wood-preserving industry

and ways of adjusting to

environmental regulations

have been important benefits of this research. Related

studies of the flammability

of different woods treated

with fire-retardant chemicals

also helped improve woodtreating processes. Research on paints and

painting methods has

provided knowledge that

resulted in better performance of wood in construction and savings in timber

resources and consumer

dollars.

Engineering research and

development relating to

logging and manufacture of

wood products likewise

produced much new technology and improved equipment. For example, a cooperative project involving the

Georgia Pacific Company,

Auburn University, and

equipment manufacturers

led to development of

machines for chipping trees

in the woods. Other companies, such as International

Paper, working with equipment manufacturers did

much to develop pulpwood

and tree harvesters.

The information developed

through such utilization

research has heen issued

in many publications, including a major work by Peter

Koch on utilization of the

southern pines (1972). In

1978 a symposium on

complete tree utilization of

southern pines also provided much useful information

on the latest developments

in various aspects of southern pine timber utilization

(McMillin 1978).

5 3
Research dealing with the

naval stores industry involving the tapping of longleaf

and slash pines for oleoresin

was launched at a relatively

early date. Work by Charles

F. Herty in 1903 resulted in

improved methods of tapping trees using cups and

gutters rather than the

highly destructive system of

chopping a box in the base

of tapped trees. In the early

1920’s, Lenthall Wayman,

workin? in Starke, FL,

developed more efficient

methods of chipping trees.

In the 1930’s, a number of

other members of the

southern forest experiment

stations joined the Florida

project in naval stores,

including V.L. Harper, T.A.

Liefeld, L.E. House, and

C.H. Coulter. A series of

reports dealing with resin

production resulted from

this work, including a major

handbook (USDA Forest

Service 1935).

After 1940, work on chemical

stimulation of gum yields

included the discovery that

gum flows could be greatly

increased by treating the

faces of tapped trees with

a sulphuric acid pasteresulting in yields up to 150

percent greater than from

untreated trees (Stubbs

and others 1984). Development of plastic cups and

gutters for gum collection

improved the quality of

gum. And new equipment

such as rossing tools helped

lower costs and improve

working conditions. It was

also determined in more

recent years that application

of the herbicide paraquat

to wounds on southern

pines causes wood to be

soaked with resin that can

be recovered during the

pulping process. Such

treatments yielded increases of more than 150 percent

in extractives from slash

and longleaf pines (Drew

and Roberts 1978). Related

studies of insect attacks on

tapped trees revealed that

spraying with lindane would

limit mortality that often

followed chipping (Merkel

and Clark 1981). Cooperative work on this significant

development was carried

out for a period through a

lightwood research coordinating committee (Esser

1979).
The long-established practice of grazing cattle and

hogs on the “open range”

of the South, with woodsburning the primary tool of

management, posed many

questions for researchers

at forestry and agricultural

experiment stations in the

region. Could grazing be

made compatible with

timber production? Would

both timber growing and

livestock production be

profitable on forest lands?

An impressive series of

investigations dealing with

the grazing of cattle on

forest ranges, particularly

on the coastal plain, was

begun in the 1940’s by

scientists such as H.H.

Biswell, R.S. Campbell, J.T.

Cassidy, L.K. Halls, R.A.

Read, and B.L. Southwell.

Both studies and

observations indicated that

in the longleaf - slash pine

belt, properly managed

cattle grazing does little

harm to pine regeneration

and growth and utilizes

grass and other forage that

might otherwise feed wildfires (e.g., Campbell and

Cassidy 1951).

Studies of prescribed burning demonstrated that

controlled fires improve the

nutrient content and digestibility of forage and

increase its availability for

livestock (e.g., Duvall and

Whitaker 1964). Related

studies revealed how open

strips of improved pasture

can serve as firebreaks, as

well as provide feed and

access to adjoining forest

range (Halls and others

1960).

Supplemental feeding and

access to improved pastures proved to be important

elements in efficient systems

of cattle management that

utilize forest ranges (Duncan

and Epps 1958). Forage on

forest areas was found to

be generally deficient in

energy and nutrients required for good animal

growth, especially for breeding herds. Hence crude

protein, phosphorus, and

trace elements often must

be supplied for efficient

livestock production (Lewis

1983). In other studies

seasonal use proved to be

preferable to year-round

forest grazing. Proper

stocking of both trees and

livestock was likewise shown

55
to be essential for a desirable balance of the combination of timber and cattle.

Economic evaluations of

cattle-management systems

indicated that with good

management, herd control,

and supplemental feeding,

cattle grazing on longleaf

pine forest ranges can

yield acceptable returns on

the necessary investments

(e.g., Halls and Duvall 1961).

The grazing of hogs in

longleaf pine forests, with

consequent destruction of

seedlings, has been a

matter of conflict since

foresters came to the South.

Studies by W. Hopkins

(1951) and others confirmed

the need to exclude the

piney woods pigs if new

forests of longleaf pine

were to survive. Firms such

as the Great Southern

Lumber Company and the

Urania Lumber Company

had long fenced their

holdings, but the regional

custom of allowing hogs to

roam free and graze anywhere was persistent. It

was not until the mid-l 950’s

that southern legislatures

passed effective laws controlling the free ranging of

the half-wild razorback

hogs.

Information on management

of livestock on forest ranges

has been made available

through many publications

(e.g., Burd and others 1984)

as well as through symposia

on specific forest types

such as the slash pine

ecosystem (Lewis 1983).

Many studies by agricultural

experiment stations and

universities have added to

knowledge of basic ecological relationships relevant

for both tree growing and

management of forest

ranges and livestock.8

6 The substantial amount of research on range management

conducted in the South in recent

years is evidenced by a bibliography that shows more than a

thousand entries for only the 6-year

period 1973-78. This bibliography

was a project of the Committee on

Renewable Resources and is

available for searching through the

Bibliographic Retrieval Service,

Inc., with access through the

technology transfer group of the

USDA Forest Service in Washington, DC.
Ways of enhancing production of wildlife by improvements in forest habitats

have been studied by many

researchers in the South.

The grazing of cattle on

forest ranges, for example,

was found to produce

variable impacts on wildlife

as well as on timber production (e.g., Pearson 1980).

Moore and Terry (1981)

found that continuous

year-round grazing on

southeastern pine lands

often degrades both wildlife

habitat and range conditions, whereas short periods

of grazing followed by rest

periods tend to improve

wildlife habitat.

The classic early work of

H.L. Stoddard (1931) dealing with management of

quail outlined methods for

enhancing habitat of this

important game species,

Strong interest in whitetailed deer in the South

also stimulated considerable research on this species

by scientists such as R.A.

Read, LX. Halls, H.L. Short,

J.R. Stransky, and T.H.

Ripley. A symposium on

deer, convened in Nacogdoches, TX, in 1969, consolidated known information

and proposed guides for

improving deer habitat and

production in forest areas

(Halls 1969).

Other research included

evaluations of forage availability and digestibility and

the physiology and nutrition

of deer (e.g., Halls and

Boyd 1982). Related studies

explored relationships between deer management

and habitat and silvicultural

practices. These revealed

substantial changes in

yields of forage with timberstand development and

emphasized the need for

maintaining a productive

understory by periodic

thinnings and prescribed

burnings.

Cooperative work with State

game agencies has often

been of major significance

in wildlife management

research, as in the case of

studies with the Louisiana

Wildlife and Fish Commission dealing with deer

potentials in selectively cut

pine- hardwood stands

(Blair and Brunett 1977).

Much additional research

also has been conducted

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and by State game

5 7
commissions, particularly

on production and management of quail, deer, and

turkey. These studies have

been financed in considerable part by “PittmanRobertson funds” derived

from Federal excise taxes

on sales of arms and

ammunition.

With the emphasis on

environmental considerations in recent years, managers of public lands such

as national forests have

also given increasing attention to management programs that recognize

nongame wildlife habitat

requirements. The Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station and Clemson University, for example, have

provided comprehensive

descriptions of bird-habitat

relationships for some 234

bird species found in southern forests (Hamel and

others 1982). Studies of

endangered species such

as the red-cockaded woodpecker have been undertaken to determine possible

means of sustaining remaining populations (Hooper

and others 1980).

These investigations of

wildlife communities and

58

habitat requirements have

shown the need for a

diversity of tree species,

stand ages and habitat,

and retention of snags and

cavity trees for some

species. It is apparent that

such measures directly

affect timber rotation ages,

silvicultural methods, and

timber-harvesting techniques. To forest managers

on public lands at least,

knowledge of such relationships has become essential

for achieving an acceptable

balance between timber

and other nontimber uses,

such as wildlife, grazing,

and recreation.

Recreational uses of southern forests have long included hunting for deer, quail,

and squirrels as part of the

culture of the rural South.

This has often led to sharp

conflicts with modern

timber-growing practices. In

partial response, pulp and

paper companies and other

large landowners (including

the Forest Service) have

generally permitted public

hunting and often manage

their forest land to increase

hunting opportunities. Some

industrial and other large

owners lease forest lands

to selected hunting groups
in the hope that incendiary

fires and vandalism will

thereby be reduced and

some income realized.

Forest managers also have

had to accommodate increasing numbers of

campers, fishermen, and

other recreational users of

forest lands (Cordell 1979).

Damage to property has

usually been found to be

the most important problem

associated with these

recreational uses of southern forests.

5 9
Around 1930, the Southern

Forest Experiment Station

undertook a limited program

of research on methods of

controlling floods and soil

erosion by establishing

forest cover on eroding

areas. These investigations

were centered in northern

Mississippi, where massive

gully erosion and siltation

of rich farmlands provided

spectacular examples of

damage to land and people.

Under the leadership of

H.G. Meginnis in association

with W.M. Broadfoot, G.H.

Lentz, and J.D. Sinclair,

experimental work was

begun with erosion and

runoff plots and the planting

of pine to maintain soil

cover (Meginnis 1935).

This highly successful

research, and later studies

in the Piedmont area of the

Carolinas, where soil erosion also was severe, plus

related studies by the Soil

Conservation Service and

the Agricultural Research

Service, have provided a

sound technical basis for

extensive planting and land

management programs to

control destructive erosion

in forest areas. Related

studies on soil moisture by

60

R. Zahner and D.C.

McClurkin, for example,

also helped explain relationships between soil water

and timber growth.

Growing concern over

protection of the environment, accompanied by

such events as passage of

the Water Pollution Control

Act of 1972 and subsequent

amendments, also led in

the 1970’s to expanded

research on nonpoint pollution from forest areas. These

investigations have included

evaluations of the impacts

of alternative forms of land

management on municipal

watersheds and effects of

herbicides, pesticides, and

fertilizers on water quality.

In pine flatwoods, for example, studies of timber harvesting showed negligible

effects on movement of

stream sediments, some

temporary increases in

water yields and peak flows,

and significant removal of

nutrients only with windrowing of residual material

(Swindel and others 1983).

Measures to control unwanted vegetation resulted in

some increases in water

yields and speed of runoff,
with mechanical control

techniques showing more

impact than chemical or

manual methods (Douglas

1981). Studies of chemical

controls for vegetation

revealed that some herbicides enter nearby streams

even when crews follow

recommendations for application.

Prescribed burning in areas

containing ephemeral

streams in the Piedmont of

South Carolina showed no

significant effects on stream

runoff, sediment, or nutrient

concentrations (Douglas

and Van Lear 1983). Similar

results were reported in

coastal plain pine forests

(Richter and others 1982).

Tests of effects of normal

silvicultural practices on

nonpoint pollution conducted by J.D. Hewlett (1983)

and associates at the

University of Georgia

showed no significant

effects on water quality or

soil fertility. Such research

findings have been applied

in the development of “best

management practices”

required by Federal and

State water-quality legislation to assure acceptable

standards of water quality.

Research at the Coweeta

Hydrologic Laboratory in

the mountains of North

Carolina outside the southern pine region likewise

added greatly to the fund

of knowledge on general

relationships between water

and forest management.

Experiments by CR. Hursh

and M.D. Hoover at this

famous installation have

shown effects of various

treatments of hardwood

vegetation on streamflows

and soil movement. Results

have been widely used in

the management of both

public and private forest

watersheds.

6 1
Summary

It is evident from this brief

history that southern forests

are used for many purposes,

including production of

timber, livestock, wildlife,

recreational opportunities,

and water. Most research

investigations have related

primarily to single or limited

combinations of these uses,

although some work has

provided general concepts

for integrating timber and

related benefits (Boyce

1978).

The hundreds of research

scientists working in the

South in recent decades

have produced thousands

of publications that provide

information on a wide

spectrum of forestry activities from seed collection to

ultimate use of forest products and services. Research

findings have led to increases in timber production and

greater efficiency in production and use of timber

products; enhanced values

of forest and range resources; and expanded

employment, income, and

nontimber uses throughout

the South. The new knowledge and new technology

produced by forestry scientists have unquestionably

been of major and lasting

benefit to the economy of

the South and to the Nation

as a whole.

6 2
Literature Cited

Anderson, Walter C.; Guttenberg,

Sam. 1971.

Investor’s guide to converting

southern oak-pine types. Res.

Pap. SO-72. New Orleans, LA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station. 10 p.

Bailey, Robert L; Pienaar, Leon

V.; Shiver, Barry D.; Rheney, John

W. 1982.

Stand structure and yield of

site-prepared slash pine plantations. Res. Bull. 291. Athens, GA:

University of Georgia, College of

Agriculture. 83 p.

Baker, Whiteford. 1972.

Eastern forest insects. Misc. Pubi.

1175. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 641 p.

Barnett, J.P., ed. 1981.

Proceedings, I st biennial southern silvicuitural research conference; 1980 November 6-7;

Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep.

SO-34. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 375 p.

Barnett, J.P.; McGilvray, John M.

1981.

Container planting systems for

the South. Res. Pap. SO-167.

New Orleans, IA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 21 p.

Belanger, Roger P.; Porterfield,

Richard L; Rowell, Charles E.

1981.

Development and validation of

systems for rating the susceptibility of natural stands in the

Piedmont of Georgia to attack by

the southern pine beetle. In:

Hedden, Roy L.; Barras, Stanley

J.; Coster, Jack E., tech. coords.

Hazard-rating systems in forest

insect pest management: symposium proceedings; 1980 July

31 -August I; Athens, GA. Gen.

Tech. Rep. WO-27. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 79-86.

Berry, Charles R.; Marx, Donald H.

1977.

Growth of loblolly pine seedlings

in strip mined kaolin spoil as

influenced by sewage sludge.

Journal of Environmental Quality.

6: 379-381.

Bertrand, A.L.; Baird, A.W. 1975.

Incendiarism in southern forests:

a decade of sociological research.

Bull. 838. Starkville, MS: Mississippi Agricultural Experiment

Station. 40 p.

Bey, Calvin F.; Snyder, E. Bayne.

1978.

Genetic gains through testing

and crossing longleaf pine plus

trees. Res. Note SO-241. New

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

5 P.

63
Birch, Thomas W.; Lewis, Douglas

G.; Kaiser, H. Fred. 1982.

The private forest landowners of

the United States. Res. Bull.

WO-1. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service and Economics Research

Service. 64 p.

Blair, R.M.; Brunett, L.E. 1977.

Deer habitat potential of pinehardwood forests in Louisiana.

Res. Pap. SO-136. New Orleans,

LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

11 p.

Bond, W.E.; Wahlenberg, W.G.;

Kirkland, B.P. 1937.

Profitable management of

shortleaf - loblolly pine for sustained yield. Gen. Pap. 70. New

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

37 p.

Brender, E.V. 1973.

Silviculture of loblolly pine in the

Georgia Piedmont. Rep. 33.

Macon, GA: Georgia Forest

Research Council. 74 p.

Burd, Nathan A.; Lewis, Clifford

E.; Pearson, Henry A. 1984.

Management of southern pine

forests for cattle production. Gen.

Rep. R&GR4. Atlanta, GA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Region. 22 p.

Burkhart, Harold E. 1979.

Growth and yield of the southern

pines-states of the art. In:

Southern Forest Economics

Workshop; 1979 March 22;

Chapel Hill, NC. Chapel Hill, NC:

Duke University. 11 p.

Burns, Russell M., camp. 1983.

Silvicultural systems for the major

forest types of the United States.

Agric. Handb. 468. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 191 p.

Burton, J.D. 1980.

Growth and yield in managed

stands of loblolly and shottleaf

pine in the west gulf coastal

plain. Res. Pap. SO-159. New

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

23 p.

Campbell, A.S.; McCracken, Ernest

M. 1932.

Studies in forest resources in

Florida. I. Timber Conservation,

vol. l., no. 3. II. The lumber

industry, vol. 1. no. 4. Ill. The

naval stores industry, vol. 1, no.

5. Gainesville, FL: University of

Florida. 113, 84, and 105 p,

Campbell, R.S.; Cassidy, J.T. 1951.

Grazing values for cattle on pine

forest ranges in Louisiana. Bull.

452. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana

Agricultural Experiment Station.

31 p.

64
Campbell, W.A.; Copeland, O.L.,

Jr. 1954.

Littleleaf disease of shortleaf and

loblolly pines. Circ. 940. Washington, DC: US. Department of

Agriculture. 41 p.

Chapman, H.H. 1942.

Management of loblolly pine in

the pine-hardwood region of

Arkansas and Louisiana. Bull. 49.

New Haven, CT: Yale University,

School of Forestry. 150 p.

Chi, C.T.; Horn, D.A.; Rexnik, R.B.,

and others. 1979.

Source assessment: prescribed

burning: state of the art.

600/2-79lOlgh. Washington, DC:

Environmental Protection Agency.

107 p, [Available from the National

Technical Information Service,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 .J

Clepper, Henry. 1971.

Professional forestry in the United

States. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 337 p.

Clutter, Jerome L.; Harms, William

FL; Brister, Graham H.; Rheney,

John W. 1984.

Stand structure and yields of

site-prepared loblolly pine plantations in the lower coastal plain of

the Carolinas, Georgia, and north

Florida. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-27.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 173 p.

Coile, T.S.; Schumacher, F.X. 1964.

Soil-site relations, stand structure, andyields of slash and

loblolly pine plantations. Durham,

NC: T.S. Coile, Inc. 296 p.

Cooper, R.W. 1973.

Beneficial and detrimental effects

of forest fires. In: Eighth annual

meeting, Middle St. Interstate

Forest Fire Protection Compact;

[Dates of meeting unknown];

[Place of meeting unknown].

[Place of publication unknown]:

[Publisher unknown]: 57-66.

Cordell, H.K. 1979.

The status and future of outdoor

recreason on the South’s private

forests. In: 28th annual forest

symposium; [Date of meeting

unknown]; [Place of meeting

unknown]. Baton Rouge, LA:

Louisiana State University: 5-31.

Coster, Jack E.; Searcy, Janet L.

1979.

Evaluating control tactics for the

southern pine beetle: symposium

proceedings. Tech. Bull. 1613.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service.

118 p.

Croker, C. Jr.; Boyer, W.D. 1975.

Regenerating longleaf pine naturally. Res. Pap. SO-105 New

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

21 p.

65
Crow, A. Bigler. 1982.

Fire ecology and fire use in the

pine forest of the South: chronological bibliography. Baton

Rouge, LA: Louisiana State

University. 131 p.

Cushwa, C.T. 1968.

Fire: a summary of literature on

the U.S. from the mid 1920’s to

1966. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 117 p.

Davis, K.P. 1959.

Forest fire-control and use. New

York: McGraw-Hill. 584 p.

Dinus, R.J.; Schmidt, R.A., and

others. 1977.

Management of fusiform rust in

southern pines: symposium

proceedings; 1976 December

7-8; [Place of meeting unkonwn]. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 163 p.

Doolittle, W.L.; Welch, G.D. 1974.

Fire prevention in the South:

personal contact pays off. Journal

of Forestry. 72: 468-490.

Dorman, Keith W. 1976.

The genetics and breeding of

southern pines. Agric. Handb.

471. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

407 p.

Douglas, James E. 1981.

Environmental impacts of weed

control alternatives on water. In:

Proceedings, 1981 John S. Wright

Forestry Conference; [Date of

meeting unknown]; [Place of

meeting unknown]. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

305 p.

Douglas, James E.; Van Lear, David

H. 1983.

Prescribed burning and water of

ephemeral streams in the Piedmont of South Carolina. Forest

Science. 29: 181 - 189.

Douglas, James E.; Van Lear, David

H.; Valverde, Carmen. 1982.

Streamflow changes after prescribed burning and clearcutting

pine stands in the South Carolina

Piedmont. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-24.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station: 454 -460.

Drew, John; Roberts, Donald R.

1978.

Extractive enhancement in pines

by paraquat treatment. Forest

Processing Journal, 28(9):

21 -26.

Duerr, W.A.; Fedkiw, John;

Guttenberg, Sam. 1956.

Financial maturity: a guide to

profitable timber growing. Tech.

Bull. 1146. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture. 47 p.

66
Duncan, D.W.; Epps, EA., Jr. 1958.

Minor mineral elements and

other nutrients on forest ranges

in Louisiana. Bull. 516. Baton

Rouge, LA: Central Louisiana

Agriculture Experiment Station.

19 p.

Dunkelberger, J.E.; Altobellis, A.T.

1975.

Profiling the woodburner. Bull.

469. Auburn, AL: Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station. 35 p.

Dutrow, G.F. 1978.

Economic management opportunities to increase timber supplies

in the Southern U.S. In: Proceedings on complete tree utilization

of southern pines; [Date of

meeting unknown]; [Place of

meeting unknown]. Madison, WI:

Forest Products Research Society: 6-14.

Duvall, V.L.; Whitaker, L.B. 1964.

Rotation burning: a forage management system for long-leaf

pine- bluestem ranges. Journal

of Range Management. 17: 3226.

Esser, Mary H., camp., ed. 1979.

Sixth annual lightwood research

conference Proceedings.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 151 p.

Fairchild, Fred Roger. 1935.

Forest taxation in the United

States. Misc. Publ. 218. Washington, DC. U.S. Government Printing

Office. 681 p.

Farrar, R.M. 1979.

Status of growth and yield information in the South. Southern

Journal of Applied Forestry. 5:

162-166.

Feduccia, D.P.; Mann, W.F., Jr.

1976.

Black turpentine beetle infestation

after thinning in a loblolly pine

plantation. Res. Note SO-206.

New Orleans, IA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Sewice, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 3 p.

Fight, Roger D.; Dutrow, G.F. 1981.

Financial comparisons of forest

fertilization in the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast. Journal

of Forestry. 79: 214-215.

Folweiler, A.D.; Brown, A.A. 1939.

Fire in the forests of the United

States. Baton Rouge, LA:

Louisiana State University.

164 p.

Foster, A.A. 1961.

Control of black root rot of pine

seedlings by soil fumigation in

the nursery. Rep. 8. Macon, GA:

Georgia Forestry Research Council. 5 p.

67
Franklin, E. Carlyle, ed. 1981.

Pollen management handbook.

Agric. Handb. 587. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 98 p.

Froehlich, R.C.; Kuhlman, E.G.;

Hodges, C.S.; Weiss, M.J.; Nichols,

Gau. 1977.

Fomes annosus root rot in the

South: guidelines for prevention,

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

Forest Experiment Stations and

State and Private Forestry. 17 p.

Geary, T.E.; Meskimen, G.F.;

Franklin, E.C. 1983.

Growing eucalypts in Florida for

industrial wood products. Gen.

Tech. Rep. SE-23. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station, 43 p.

Greene, Smith W. 1931.

Effect of annual grass fires and

organic matter and other constituents of virgin longleaf pine soils.

Journal of Agricultural Research.

U-50(10).

Grelen, Harold E. 1983.

Comparisons of seasons and

frequencies of burning in a young

slash pine plantation. Res. Pap.

SO-185 New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 5 p.

Grosenbaugh, L.R. 1958.

Point-sampling and linesampling: probability theory,

geometric implications, synthesis.

Res. Pap. SO-160. New Orleans,

IA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station. 34 p.

Guldin, Richard W. 1983.

Regeneration costs using

container-grown southern pine

seedlings. Res. Pap. SO-187.

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

Station. 29 p.

Guldin, Richard W.; Barnett,

James P., eds. 1981.

Proceedings of the southern

containerized forest tree seedling

conference; 1980 August 25-21;

Savannah, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep.

SO-37. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 156 p.

Halls, L.K. 1969.

White-tailed deer in the southern

forest habitat. In: Proceedings of

a symposium; 1969 March

25-26, Nacogdoches, TX. New

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, and

the Wildlife Society and Stephen

F. Austin State University. 130 p.

68
Halls, L.K.; Boyd, Charles E. 1982.

Influence of managed pine stands

and mixed pine/hardwood stands

on well being of deer. Res. Pap.

SO-183. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 22 p.

Halls, L.K.; Duvall, V.L. 1961.

Projects and costs of forest

grazing. Forest Farmer. 20(7):

157-162.

Halls, L.K.; Hughes, R.H.; Peevy,

F.A. 1960.

Grazed firebreaks in southern

forests. Inf. Bull. 226. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 8 p.

Hamel, Paul 8.; Legrand, Harry E.,

Jr.; Lemnantz, Michael Ft.;

Gauthreux, Sidney A., Jr. 1982.

Bird- habitat relationships on

southeastern forest lands. Gen.

Tech. Rep. SE-22. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 417 p.

Harper, V.L. 1944.

Effects of fire on gum yields of

longleaf and slash pines. Tech.

Bull. 494. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture. 32 p.

Hastings, Felton L.; Coster, Jack

E. 1981.

Field and laboratory evaluations

of insecticides for southern pine

beetle control. Tech. Rep. SE-21.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 40 p.

Hepting, G.H. 1935.

Decay following fire on young

Mississippi delta hardwoods.

Tech. Bull. 494. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

32 p.

Hepting, G.H. 1971.

Diseases of forest and shade

trees. [Place of publication

unknown]: [Publisher unknown].

[Pagination unknown].

Heyward, F.D.; Barrette, R.M. 1934.

Effect of frequent fires on chemical

composition of forest soils in the

long-leaf pine region. Bull. 265.

Gainesville, FL: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station. 39 p.

Hewlett, John D. 1983.

Forests and water quality. Athens,

GA: University of Georgia, School

of Forest Resources.

69
Hooper, Robert G.; Robinson,

Andrew F., Jr.; Jackson, Jerome

A. 1980.

The red-cockaded woodpecker.

Gen. Rep. SA-GUS. Atlanta, GA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southeastern

Area, State and Private Forestry.

8 P.

Hopkins, W. 1951.

Wood logs vs. pine logs. [Place

of publication unknown]:

Louisiana Forestry Association,

14 p.

Johansen, Ragner W.; McNab,

W.H. 1982.

Prescribed burning on large land

holdings in the South during

1975. Res. Note SE-316. Asheville,

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

Forest Experiment Station. 4 p.

Johnson, E.W. 1973.

Relationship between point

density measurements and subsequent growth of southern pine.

Bull. 447. Auburn, AL: Alabama

Agricultural Experiment Station.

109 p.

Johnson, R.L. 1970.

Renewing hardwood stands on

bottom lands and loess. In:

Silviculture and management of

southern hardwoods; 19th annual

forest symposium, proceedings;

[Dates of meeting unknown];

Baton Rouge, LA. Baton Rouge,

LA: Louisiana State University:

113-121.

Koch, Peter. 1972.

Utilization of the southern pines.

Agric. Handb. 420. (2 ~01s.)

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture. 734 and 1663 p.

Koger, Jerry L; Webster, Dennis

B. 1984.

L-O-S-T: Logging Optimization

Selection Technique. Res. Pap.

SO-203. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 66 p.

Kormarek, E.V. 1981.

Proceedings of conference on

wildlife impacts. Tall Timbers

Research Station Prescribed Fire

and Wildlife; 1981. [Place of

publication unknown]: [Publisher

unknown]. [Pagination unknown].

Kuhlman, E.G.; Hodges, C.S.;

Froehlich, R.C. 1976.

Minimizing losses to Fames

annosus in the Southern United

States. Res. Pap. SE-151.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 16 p.

Langdon, Gordon 0.; Bennett,

Frank A. 1976.

Management of natural stands of

slash pine. Aes. Pap. SE-147.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 12 p.

70
Lantz, Clark, camp. 1984.

Proceedings, 1984 southern

nursery conferences; 1984 June

11 - 14 and July 24-27; Alexandria, LA, and Asheville, NC.

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region.

224 p.

Larson, Robert; Goforth, Marcus.

1974.

TRAS and timber volume projection model. Tech. Bull. 1508.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service.

15 p.

Lawson, E.R. 1979.

Natural regeneration of shortleaf

pine. In: Proceedings: symposium

for the management of pines of

the interior South. Tech. Publ.

SA-TP2. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: l-6.

Lewis, Clifford E. 1983.

Forage resources and integrated

management in the slash pine

ecosystem. In: Symposium on

the managed slash pine ecosystem; 1981 June 9-11;

Gainesville, FL. Gainesville, FL:

University of Florida. 1983:

[Pagination unknown].

Lockard, CR; Putnam, J.A.;

Carpenter, R.D. 1950.

Log defects in southern hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture. 37 p.

Maisenhelder, L.C. 1960.

Cottonwood plantation for southern bottom lands. Occas. Pap.

179. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 24 p.

Mann, W.F., Jr.; Derr, H.J. 1964.

Guides for direct-seeding slash

pine. Res. Pap. SO-12. New

Orleans, IA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

27 p.

Mann, W.F., Jr.; Hayes, M.J. 1978.

Status of some new herbicides.

Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-21. New

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

17 p.

Marlin, Clifton B. 1978.

A study of owners of small timber

tracts in Louisiana. Bull. 710.

Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana

Agricultural Experiment Experiment Station. 65 p.

Marx, D.H.; Ruelle, J.L.; Kenney,

A.J., and others. 1982.

Commercial inoculum of

Pisolithus tinctorius on container

grown seedlings. Forest Science.

28: 373-400.

71
McKee, William, Jr.; Lewis,

Clifford E. 1982a.

Changes in soil fertility following

prescribed burning on coastal

plain sites. Res. Pap. SE-234.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Experiment Station.

23 p.

McKee, William, Jr.; Lewis,

Clifford E. 1982b.

Influence of burning and grazing

on soil nutrient properties and

tree growth in a Georgia coastal

plain site after 40 years. In:

Proceedings of the 2d biennial

southern silvicultural research

conference; 1982 November

4-5; Atlanta, Ga. Gen. Tech.

Rep. SE-24. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Experiment Station: 79-85.

McMillin, C.W., ed. 1978.

Complete tree utilization of

southern pine: proceedings of a

symposium; 1978 April 17-19;

New Orleans, LA. Madison, WI:

Forest Products Research Society.

484 p.

Meginnis, H.G. 1935.

Effect of cover on surface runoff

and erosion in the loessial

uplands of Mississippi. Agric.

Circ. 347. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture. 16 p.

Merkel, Edward P.; Clark, E.W.

1981.

Insecticides for preventing insectcaused mortality of paraquattreated slash pines. Res. Pap.

SE-219. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station. 7 p.

Mesavage, C.; Girard, J.W. 1946.

Tables for estimating board foot

volumes of timber. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 94 p.

Mexal, J.G.; Snow, G.A. 1978.

Seed treatment with systemic

fungicides for the control of

fusiform rust in loblolly pine. Res.

Note SO-238. New Orleans, LA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 4 p.

Miller, W. Frank. 1976.

Physical and chemical properties

of forested soils. Bull. 734.

Starkville, MS: Mississippi Agricutural Experiment Station, 112 p.

Mbore, William H.; Terry, W.S.

1981.

Short duration grazing may

improve wildlife habitat in southeastern pine lands, Proceedings

33d annual conference, Southeast

Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies; 1979 October 21-24;

Hot Springs, AR. [Place of publication unknown]: Southeast

Association of Fish Wildlife

Agencies: 279-287.

72
Nelson, Charles A. 1971.

History of the U.S. Forest Products

Laboratory 1910-1963). Madison, WI: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest

Products Laboratory. 177 p.

Nord, John C.; Flavell, Thomas H.;

Pepper, William D.; Layman, Harry

F. 1978.

Field test of four insecticides for

control of pales and pitcheating

weevils in first-year pine plantations. Res. Note SE-255. Asheville,

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

Forest Experiment Station. 9 p.

Paul, James T.; Clayton, Joe,

camps. 1978.

User manual: forestry weather

interpretation system (WIS).

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station and Southeastern Area,

State and Private Forestry, and

the U.S. National Weather Service.

83 p.

Pearson, H.A. 1980.

Livestock in multiple use management of southern forest range. In:

Proceedings, southern forest

ranges and pasture resource

symposium; 1980 May 13-14;

New Orleans, LA. Morrilton, AR.

Winrock International: 75-88.

Pee-q, F.A. 1976.

Timber stand improvement-tree

injection and pellets. In: Bymes,

U.R.; Holt, Harvey A., eds. Herbicides in forestry: John S. Wright

Forestry, Conference proceedings; 1976 February 3-5; West

Lafayette, IN. West Lafayette, IN:

Purdue University: 85-92.

Pomeroy, Kenneth B.; Yoho,

James G. 1964.

North Carolina lands: ownership,

use, and management of forests

and related lands. Washington,

DC: American Forestry Association. 372 p.

Powers, H.R., Jr.; Kraus, John F.;

Duncan, H.J. 1979.

A seed orchard for rust resistant,

pines-progress and promise.

Res. Rep. 1. Macon, GA: Georgia

Forestry Commission. 8 p,

Prewitt, E. Lavalle, Jr. 1982.

The silviculture of southern

hardwoods. In: Proceedings of

the Society of American Foresters

national convention: 1981

September 19-22; Cincinnati,

OH. Bethesda, MD: Society of

American Foresters: 24-27.

Putnam, J.A. 1951.

Management of bottomland

hardwoods. Occas. Pap. 116.

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

Station. 60 p,

73
Putnam, J.A.; Bull, H. 1932.

The trees of the bottomlands of

the Mississippi River Delta. Gen.

Pap. 27. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

207 p.

Pyne, Stephen J. 1982.

Fire in America: a cultural history

of wildland and rural fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press. 654 p.

Randall, J.K. 1973.

Superior cottonwoods developed

at the delta station. Mississippi

Agriculture Experiment Station

Research Highlight 37(7): l-5.

Rawlins, N.O.; Sorensen, H.B.

1968.

An analysis of the production

and marketing structure of southern pulpwood. Austin, TX: Texas

Agricultural Experiment Station.

24 p.

Reynolds, RR. 1980.

The Crossett story: the beginning

of forestry in southern Arkansas

and northern Louisiana. Gen.

Tech. Rep. SO-32. New Orleans,

IA: US Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station. 40 p.

Richter, D.D.; Ralston, C.W.;

Harms, W.R. 1982.

Prescribed fire: effects on water

quality and forest nutrient cycling.

Science. 215: 661 -663.

Risbrudt, Christopher D.;

Ellefson, Paul V. 1983.

An economic evaluation of the

1979 forest incentives program.

Sta. Bull. 550. St. Paul, MN:

University of Minnesota Agriculture Experiment Station. 55 p.

Row, Clark; Fasick, Clyde;

Guttenberg, Sam. 1965.

Improving sawmill profits through

operations research. Res. Pap.

SO-20. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

26 p.

Rowan, S.J. 1979.

Rainfall and frequency of ferbam

sprays important for fusiform rust

control. Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry. 3(4): 167-168.

Scheffer, T.C.; Lindgren, R.M.

1940.

Stains of sapwood and sapwood

products and their control. Tech.

Bull. 714. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture. 124 p.

Schiff, Ashley R. 1962.

Fire and water. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. 225 p.

Schumacher, F.X.; Chapman, R.A.

1942.

Sampling methods in forestry

and range management. Bull. 7.

Raleigh-Durham, NC: Duke

University School of Forestry.

213 p.

Schumacher, F.X.; Coile, T.S. 1960.

Growth and yield of natural stands

of the southern pines. Durham,

NC: T.S. Coile, Inc. 115 p.

74
Shea, John P. 1940.

Getting at the roots of man-caused

forest fires. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 78 p.

Siggers, P.V. 1944.

The brown spot needle blight of

pine seedlings. Tech. Bull. 870.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture. 36 p.

Sluder, Earl R. 1980.

A study of geographic variations

in loblolly pine in

Georgia-2Oth-year results. Res.

Pap. SE-213. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station. 30 p.

Snyder, E.M.; Derr, H.J. 1972.

Breeding longleaf pines for

resistance to brown spot needle

blight. Phytology. 62: 325-327.

Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 1983.

Directory of research programs.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station, 14 p,

Southern Forest Fire Laboratory.

1976.

Southern forests smoke management guide. Gen. Tech. Rep.

SE-lo. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station. 140 p.

Southern Forest Resource Analysis

Committee. 1969.

The South’s third forest. [Place of

publication unknown]: Southern

Forest Resource Analysis Committee. 111 p.

Stephen, F.M.; Searcy, J.L.; Hertel,

G.D., eds. 1960.

Modeling southern pine beetle

populations. Tech. Bull. 1630.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service.

174 p.

Stoddard, H.L 1931.

The bobwhite quail: its habits,

preservation and increase. New

York: Charles Scribner and Sons.

559 p.

Stone, E.L., ed. 1963.

The management slash pine

ecosystem: proceedings of a

symposium; 1981 June 9-l 1;

Gainesville, FL. Gainesville, FL:

University of Florida. 434 p.

Stubbs, Jack; Roberts, Donald R.;

Outcalt, Kenneth W. 1964.

Chemical stimulation of lightwood

in southern pines. Gen. Tech.

Rep. SE-25 Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station. 51 p.

Swaine, K.M.; Remion, M.C. 1981.

Direct control methods for the

southern pine beetle. Agric.

Handb. 515. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

15 p.

75
Swindel, B.F., and others. 1983.

Multi-resource effects of harvest,

site preparation and planting,

pines flat woods. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 7(l):

6-15.

Thatcher, Robert C.; Searcy,

Janet L; Coster, Jack E.; Hertel,

Gerard D. [1980].

The southern pine beetle. Tech.

Bull. 1631. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture. 266 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

1935.

A naval stores handbook dealing

with the production of pine gum

or oleoresin. Misc. Publ. 201.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture. 201 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

1981.

Southern pine beetle program

accomplishments report. Agric.

Inf. Bull. 438. Washington, DC:

US. Department of Agriculture.

23 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 1971.

Prescribed burning symposium

proceedings; 1971 April 14-16;

Charleston, SC. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station. 160 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 1978a.

National fire effects workshop;

1978 April 10-14; Denver, CO.

Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-13. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 64 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 1978b.

Integrated inventories of renewable natural resources: proceedings of the workshop; 1978

January 8-12; Tucson, AZ. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-55. Fort Collins,

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 482 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 1978~.

Structural flakeboard from forest

residues. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-5.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service.

241 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 1980a.

Mid-South upland hardwood

symposium for the practicing

forester and land manager:

proceedings; 1980 April 30-May

2; Harrison, AR. Tech. Publ.

SA-TP-12. Atlanta, GA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southeastern Area, State

and Private Forestry. 186 p.

76
U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 198Ob.

Forest insect and disease conditions in the South. For. Rep.

SA-FR-17. Atlanta, GA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southeastern Area, State

and Private Forestry.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 1982a.

An analysis of the timber situation

in the United States, 1952-2030,

For. Aesour. Rep. 23. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 499 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 1982b.

1980 - 1990 National program of

research for forests and associated rangelands. Gen. Tech. Rep.

WO-32. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 60 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 1984a.

Southern pine nursery handbook.

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 1984b.

Pesticide background statements.

Vol. 1. Herbicides. Agric. Handb.

633. Washington, DC: US.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 1985.

insects of eastern forests. Misc.

Publ. 1426. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service.

U.S. Forest Service, Office of

Experiment Stations, and Cooperating Agencies. 1929.

Volume, yield, and stand tables

for second-growth southern pines.

Misc. Publ. 50. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 56 p.

University of Georgia. 1983.

Proceedings of the 17th southern

forest tree improvement conference; 1983 June 6-9; Athens,

GA. Athens, GA: University of

Georgia. 375 p. [Available from

National Technical Information

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161.1

Verrall, Arthur F. 1982.

A history of forest pathology in

the South and Southeast. Gen.

Tech. Rep. SO-36. New Orleans,

LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 200 p.

Wahlenberg, W.G. 1946.

Longleaf pine. Washington, DC:

Pack Forestry Foundation in

cooperation with U.S. Forest

Service. 429 p.

Wahlenberg, W.G. 1960.

Loblolly pine. Raleigh-Durham,

NC: Duke University, School of

Forestry. 603 p.

77
Wahlenberg, W.G., ed. 1965.

A guide to loblolly and slash

pine management in the Southeastern United States. Rep. 14.

Macon, GA: Georgia Forest

Research Council. 360 p,

Wahlenberg, W.G.; Reed, H.R.

1939.

Effects of fire and cattle grazing

on longleaf pine lands as studies

at McNeill, Mississippi. Tech.

Bull. 683. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture. 52 p.

Wakeley, P.C. 1935.

Artificial reforestation in the

southern pine region. Tech. Bull.

492. .‘*,ohington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture. 114 p.

Wakeley, P.C. 1951.

Planting the southern pines. 3

vols. Occas. Pap. 122. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture. 579 p.

Wakeley, P.C. 1954.

Planting the southern pines.

Monogr. 18. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

233 p.

Walker, Lawrence C. 1972.

Silvicultural of southern upland

hardwoods. Bull. 22. Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin

State University. 137 p.

Wells, Carol G. 1977.

Nutrient cycling and its relationship to fertilization. In: Proceedings, southern forest soils workshop; 1976 October 19 -21;

Charleston, SC. Atlanta, GA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southeastem Area, State

and Private Forestry: 78-89.

Wells, O.O., and others. 1978.

Shortleaf and slash pine hybrids

outperform parents in parts of

the Southeast. Southern Journal

of Applied Forestry. 2(!): 28-32.

White, Roy R. 1961.

Austin Carey, the father of southern forestry. Forest History. 5(l):

2-5.

Wood, Gene W., ed. 1981.

Prescribed fire and wildlife in

southern forests. Georgetown,

SC: Belle W. Barruck Forest

Science Institute. 170 p.

Zobel, Bruce; Talbert, John. 1984.

Applied forest tree improvement.

Philadelphia: John Wiley and

Sons. 505 p.

Li~e~a~~~e Cite

Unpublished

Wakeley, Philip C. 1964.

A biased history of the Southern

Forest Experiment Station through

fiscal year 1933. vyped

manuscript, available from the

USDA Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station, 701

Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, LA

70113.1

78