Unit& States 

Department of 

Agriculture, 

New Orleans, 

Louisiana 

Forest Resource! Trends and 

Current Conditions in the 

Lower Mississippi Va 

Victor A. Rudis and Richard A. Birdsey 

Forest Resource Trends and Current Conditions 

in the Lower Mississippi Valley 

Victor A. Rudis and Richard A. Birdsey 

Forest resources in the lower Mississippi VaBley occupy some sf the best areas suited to supplying multiple benefits, The forests constitute some of &he more 

prductive timber sites in the United States; provide 

imgol-tant wintering areas for migratoq birds; supply 

essential habitat for a variety of fish, birds, and mammals; and aid in erosion comlrol, wakr retention, and 

wakr gwification. Past land clearing and projected 

declines in bottomland hardwood acreage, however, 

have caused widespread concern over the future of 

these forests (Spencer 198 1). Moreover, many remaining stands are in a degraded condition due do past 

high-~ading practices (Smith and Linnar"b;z 1980). 

Forest resource infomation has been gathered by 

the Forest Inventory and Analysis unit (formerly 

ey) sf the U.S. Forest Sewice since the 

19309ss, Data are obtained by a sampling method inwiving a forest-nonforest classific&ion on aerial phobgraphs and on-the-gromd measuurements of trees at 

sample locations, Sample locations are at the intersections of peqendicular grid lines spaced ad 3-mile Internal~. Sumeys are conduchd periodically in each 

Skate at approxirnably 10-year intervals. Detailed 

tree ia?foma&ion is derived from measwements on 

land classified as timberland. Timbwlarrd, sponymous with commercial forest land, is forest Band capable of producing crops of industrial wood and not withdrawn from timber utiiizatisn by statute or 

ahinistrative regulation, Desc~ptions of s 

eedures are provided in Frayer and Beltz (1 9843, Mwphy 119%8), and van Nees (1980). 

@usrent conditions ad trends in the Delta have 

ey records, Due $0 

proeedrrmres and infomation needs 

and Belitz 1986), irac%zasiesn of some =z-zc +-L z-- MARSH 

y dah in this e 

w88 not possible. Figure l.-Countks sf the Delta RegMn, 

Vicbr A. Ru&a and Riehmd A. Birhy are reaaseh foresbrs, huthem Forest EvPiiment Shtion, Forest &%~ee-USDA, Skkville, MS. 
Table 1.-Area of bsktopnlanol hard in the Delta by State and 

yew of suruey 

1x1 the mid-1930'8, 11.8 million acres in the Delh 

were classifid as timkr2rmd fS$emitzk;;e and CMsbpher 1970). In a 1976 report, Sternitzke (1976) had 

rwordd 7-2 million acres of timkrland, me labst 

ey statistics show 6.6 million acres of timberland, 

just more than half the 1930's estimate, and an 8 

percent decline in the past deeade. The loss of bottomland hardwod acreage BCCO~;UL$B for edualily al of 

the decline I@. 2). me acreage of sther fore~t 

types, loblolly-shortleaf and upland hardwood, has remained vi~aally mchmgd ~3ince the 1947-64 swvey pried, 

Since the time of the earEie8; s eys, htbmland 

hardwood acreage has declined 66 percent in Arkansas, 50 percent in Mississippi, and 45 percent in Louisiana (bbBe I). me rak of decline knm slowed wnsiderably in recent years, bowever. 

In the past two decades, shiRs to nonforest land 

u8es have ben 8tt~bPrQ;abIe mainly Z;o conversion of 

hdbmIarz9%. hmdwcird fareah b anieultwal crop@ 

2). hybeana eonetitute the mdor crop on conbotbmland acres (MacLbsaaSid and athere 

1979), More mcentlay, ~ce md mila have been replacing soybeans as agricultural cmps. Much of the remainaing acreage in SaoLbmrlad kmdwod ~OF&B~ ifi 

ently lans~table for cr6~) prdaadiorn, pri;nuaadlgr 

due to a lack of fled or aPainage cmC;r.raS. (MacDonald 

and sthers $979). 

Thorssand ares ----- 

P@vised from Murphy (1978) (966.1) 

2bvlised frclm Stemiae (1973) (3427.8) 

practiwd* Change8 in water flow dynamics have algs 

&cbd spedes compcositim in Ghe Delta foresb. 

Cunently, r~gecies c n in Delta botLomlaa~d 

hdwood forestbj include: o&s, sweetgum, tupelo, 

and cmress. sp&es com~rise 45 percent af a11 

trees, Hackbrry, mples, ashes, and hickories represent an additional 34 gercent of the trees. The remaining 20 percent is spread out over many other species 

(table 3). Trenda in the diameteilr distribution of live 

trees reflect the increasing age of remaining shnds 

(table 4). 

In the Louisiana portion of tbe Delta, major reducShib in the Def.l;a9s fore~t shnd stmetme and sp- tiom in oaks, swee , ash, and hickov have meies campsition hw as ~bn& matured and c between 1974 and 1984. Increases have ocas selective land cle timber removals were c principally in cypress and red maple, p6rith 
Table 2.-TimberhPul changes in the Della by Sl;rste, intem~rveyped~ ad &p of&& me eh~e 

Period of Ad&tions bm: bbiver~iom eQ: 

State change Net ehange A@eultm Merl A&cdLme aher' 

*--------------------- ybrsscm-& rnreg - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - a - - - --- 

Ark 

l9i59-llM9 -1,274.2 46.6 32.8 -1,251.6 - 97.0 

1%9-1978 - 149.4 160.7 34.7 - 2135.5 - 59.3 

Ito~iana 

196.1-1974 - 894.2 42.5 '95.9 - 873.3 -139-3 

1944-1984 - 445.1 125.4 93.7 - 437.6 -228.2 

Misskiwi 

1957-1967 - 423.3 10.0 12.8 - 387.2 - 58.9 

1%7-1977 - 12.4 1W.3 63.7 - 213,1 - 53.3 

lZncludes urban, induslsial, highway, ~toncommreial fssest, wa-, g.;ighkia-of-way, md other 

land llses. 

Table 3.-Number oflive tree8 in the botdsmhttd krdwd forest @p for the mst 

recent suroeys by species ad diameter ehs, Delb Region" 

Species 

Cgrp~ess 

Pines 

Eastern redeedar 

Hardwds: 

White od~~ 

Overcup 

Swmp chestnut 

White 

Post 

Delta pst 

Bur 

Red o&: 

Willow 

Nu-ll 

Wahr 

Chel~aybmk 

hwel 

Shmkzsrd 

buthem rd 

Pin 

Other rd 

Gum: 

Sweet 

Wabs Luplo 

Black %uplo 

Swmp t-upelo 

Maples: 

M maple 

Boxelder 

Silver maple 

Odher maples 
Table 3.-Number of live trees in the hw%mkma hpldwd fows1. &pe )lor the mst 

recent SU~~S by sp6:Se~ and dkmkr ehs, Dee& Re@n"Conh:nwd 

Elms: 

he~an 

wing4 

Slippv 

O&er elms 

Willow 

C~?&E;onwoaP3. 

S~~~BWOP"(? 

hagkg 

Pemimn~on 

River birch 

'bws md coium may not sum to bbls due to rs~6>mdiag. 

Table 4.-Number of liue h.ek?s per acre in the Deklh by Sh&, year ofi3umq, and diameter class 

Dimeks class 
some increase in cotbnwood and sycamore (table 5). 

Species typical of p~e~rly-drained, heaw clay soils, 

such as Nuttall oak, overcup oak, and wabr hickory, 

are declining, Species twica% of soils with abilndant 

moistwe, such as emress, are increasing. H 

valued oaks and conversion sf land a;(9 sycamore and 

cot~gfw~od plantations have also contribuled to species composition shifts. 

Partial harvesting and lack of' timber management, 

combined with natural a@ng of these stands, have left 

many stands with cull dmugh and rotkn) trees. Bot- 

.tomland hardwoods with more than 40 percent stockinge of cull. kR1?f8 comprise 1.5 mi%gioa acres, or 29 

percent of the total area (table 6). 

Tkends in the Louisiana Delta between 1944 and 

1984 suggest that more botbmland hardwood stands 

are becoming stocked with cull trees. Bottomland 

hardwoods with more than 40 percent stocking of cull 

trees represent 1.1 million acres in 1984, up from 0.8 

million acres in 1974 Stands with more than 40 percent stocking of cull trees represent 37 percent of the 

botbmllmd hardwoods in 1984, compared with 24 percent in 1974, 

ACCESS AND 43 

&mote.-roadless or relatively inaccessible-areas 

are highly valued because they supply scarce habitat 

fir wildlife such as black bears in need of seclusion, 

and they provide cspps&unities for viewing wildlife in 

primitive or semi-primitive settings. Approximately 

58 percent ofthe Delta" bothmland hardwoods is 112 

mile or more from all-wedher or potentially truckoperable unimproved roads; most are concentrated in 

the Atchafalaya Basin of Louisiana, Nationwide 

trends suggest a decline in remsk meas, palrticularly 

on private land (Cordell and Hendee 1982). 

Half the Delta" bottomland hardwoods are vvithin 

1/23 mile of roads; some other areas can be reached by 

boat, However, most of this timberland is in private 

omership, so public use may be restrichd. In. the 

huisiana Delta, more than half the land leased or 

smed for hunting is controlled by privsab hunting 

clubs (huisiana Depa&menk of Culture, Recreation, 

and Towism (DCRT), Baton huge, mpublished survey data for 19841, 

Most of the public bothmland hmdwods are managed for multiple uses, with efdlife prduction being 

a primaw use, Public omership of botbmland hardwoods rose from 0.4 million acres for the 1957-64 

period to 8.7 million acres for the 19477-84 period. The 

"wkkixsg is a memwe of sbnd density that i~ 

number of trees occupying a site to a apifred s 

with 100 percent ~hkisag ofaom4ng-shk trees is Mly s&W for 

proportion of public bottomland increased from 6 percent to 13 percent of the total httonnland hardwood 

acres between periods. Mvate omership declined 

from 6.4 million acres to 4.5 million acres dwing the 

same period, principally due to conversion of foresb to 

aacultural uses. Despik the decline, private landowners, principally nonindust~al grivaLe landowners, continue to control the majority of botbmland 

hardwods in. every Delta state (table 7). 

Based on past trends, increases in public omership 

of bottomland hardwood stands are likely. Tjke proportion of public holdings will increase markedly as private bottomland hardwood acreage is cleeuled for asiculture and other uses. Despite these shiftks, however, 

private landowners will likely continue to be the 

major landowner group in the Delta. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Delta's timberland area has csatinued to decline but at a slower rate. Ten years ago, 26 percent of 

the land area was timberland (Sternitzke 1976)- By 

1984, timberland had declined to 23 percent of all 

land. 

A simple straight line exbnsion of trends from the 

past decade (fig. 2) suggests a loss or" about 78,000 

acres per year. For the entire lower Mississippi Valley, other projections vary between 60,000 (MacDoazald and others 1979) and 120,800 (Forsflhe 1985) 

acres per year. Based on s ey data, the loss is equivalent to 190 acres per day, with other studies suggesting between 160 and 330 acres per day. 

The acreage that will remain bottomland hmdwoods in the Del :a is uncertain. Modification of existing policies and programs, additional le@slatiom that 

limits land clearing and drainage, and public acquisition and conversion of flood-prone, rmardnat apicultural lands to bottomland hmdwods have been suggested to reduce or reverse the projected decline in 

acreage (Forsythe 1986). 

Moncomdity values of bottomland hardwoodsaesthetics, woodland wildlife habitat, and oppodunities for primitive and semi-primitive recreation---are 

considerable. Hunting leases are believed be an 

important source of income for landowners in this 

area. These values will continue to be lost with evey 

acre of forest land cleared for other uses. Prsmotisn of 

nonconsumptive uses of these weas through tomist 

development and purchase of easemenb might be 

wed to offbet agricultural opportunities hregane, 

Many of the existing bottomland hardwood sbndls 

in the Delta contain an abmdance of older, lmge diameter growing-stock trees suikd b lmge-bodied 

birds (eagles) pxld cull trees suikd Lo woo6alpecker spew 

cies (pileate( &peekers) md other cavity-nesting 

wildlife. Stands stocked with these trees, however, 

have limited pokntial for further timber prduction, 
Table %.-tVunthr of live tree8 in hmrnkrad hctrdutd forpest tgp in the Loukiana Delb by swcks ad dkmeter class, 1974,1984, and ch~e 

space 1974" 

Dimekr el=, I9& Dimeter class, 1974 

Chmge 

in Loas 19-0 tyld 19.0 and 

Spies since 29'74 40hh 5.0-10.9 11.0-18.9 Zwger Tok1 5.0-10.9 11.0-18.9 lmger 

mi& s&: 

QJs.sercup 

mi& 

Swamp chestnut 

and ehidapin 

Post and Delb post 

Red 0Rk13: 

Wabr 

Willow 

Nu&k11 

bwel 

Glnenyb8~"k 

Wer red 

Maples: 

&d maple 

Wer maples 

Ashes: 

mi& ash 

aher mhes 

Willow 

Elm: 

be~can elm 

@dm elm 

S1r;ppp.y elm 

Wing& elm 

All spie8 -22,501 436,5@ 289,483 %2%,H% 21,920 459,051 319,302 118,971 28,778 

not SVJI to totals due ~LI rounding. 
Far the DeIea to achieve a greater balance between Table 6+--Am of in the by pe~mnt 

sustainable timber resowces along with wildlife re- gtowiw-stoc8 he8 and cull trees for the mt meent 

mwce~, mmagemed strategies will be needed to deal S~r~ey8' 

effectively with existing cull trees. Gn, k 

Given the past tren& and current condition of bot- Total 0-20 21-40 41-60 her 60 

tomland hardwood stands, intensive management on 8toekiw - - - - - - - - - - - - Thmand acres --..----..---.,- remaining timbrland, the majority being in nonin- or 1, 1,890.2 375.6 622.0 520.6 327.8 

dmt~al privsah ownership, is likely to be limited. 61-100 2,351.5 696.2 1,140.4 4263.6 88.4 

Cull trees are wcupying more of the stands, leaving 101-140 $04.3 472.7 261.8 69.8 .... less room for growing-stock trees. Hard mast produc- Over 140 70.4 70.4 ....... ...... .... 

aks and hickories-are Total 5,116.4 1,615.0 2,024.2 1,016.9 460.4 

dmlining. Aeswance of future multiple benefits will may not sum. to totals due to rouding, require mom active management to regenerate and 

retain hardwood stands with tree species that serve 

timber, ~ldlife, and other needs. 

Table 7.-Area of bottohnd hardwoods in the Delta by State and owwmhip class 

for the most recent surveys2 

State Ownership class 

(year of survey) Total Public Forest industry Other private 

-------....---- I'busad acms - - - .. - - - . - - - - - Arkansas (1978) 1,264.1 227.7 207.2 829.3 

Eo~siana (1984) 2,897.8 296.4 299.1 2,302.2 

Mississippi (1977) 954.5 109.5 204.7 fi40.3 

Total 5,116.4 633.7 711.0 3,771.8 

lPa?ve, and columns may not t3um to total8 due to mmding. 

Cordell, H. K,, and Hendee, J. C. Renewable resources 

reereation in the United States: supply, demand, 

ad c~tical poliey issues. Wmhington, D.C.: American FoP~s~~ Asociation; 11982. 88 p. 

For8@he, S. W, me prohetion of bottomllaatd hardwmd wetlanb sf the lower Mississippi Valley. 

Rans, N, Amer, Wildlife ad Nat. Resour. Conf. 50: 

56GS42; 1985. 

Frayer, W. E. and Beleg:, Re @. Loss of bottomland 

h~dwo~ in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain. In: Invenhspgsing and msnibisring endangered forests. 

fiweedings, NFRO conference, 1985, Zurich, 

Switzerland, Bimensdosf, Eidg: Anstalt fin das 

forstbiche Versuchswesexh; 1986; 307-309. 

MaeDonald, P* O,, Frayer, W. E. and Clauser, J. K. 

Documentation, chonslon, and future projection 

of bsthmland hardwod habitat loss in the lower 

Mississippi al laavial plain, Vo1 , I: basic report. 

Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Dept. Inkrior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 1979, 123 p. 

Murphy, P. A. Mississippi forests: trenh and outl;aook. 

Resour. Bull. SO-67. New Orleas, LA: U.S. Department of Agsicdtwe, Fore~t Srviice, Suthem 

Forest Experiment Station. 1978. 32 p. 

Smith, D. W. and Lim , N.E. "Plhe southern hardwood region. Zn: B J. W. (&.) Eee6onal Sidviculture of the UniGed Sbbs. New Ysrk: John Wi%ey 

and Sons, Inc. 1980; 145-230, 

Spencer, J. Soyban bwm, hardwood bust. American 

Forests. 87(2):22-26, 49---52, 1981, 

Sternitzke, H. S. hp haraang lmd use on Delta 

hardwood foresb. 1 of Fsrestv 74: 25-27; 

1976. 

Sternitzke, H. S. and Cfaristopher, J. F. Land clearing 

in the lower Mississippi Valley, &utPileasbm hographer 10: 63-66; 1970. 

Van Hees, W. W. S. hkansras krests: trends and 

prospects. Resow. Bull. SO-77. New Orleas, LA: 

Forest Service, U.S. Depdment of Apicazltwe, 

Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1980. 32 p. 

Rudis, V, A, and Bidsey, 8, A, Forest pess~lrce trends and 

emen.$, caladitisna ia: the X31~e1 Mi~~issipgi 3JsXleys Tt~sci.lir.. 

Bull, SO-$16 New @-learts, LA- U,S, IJepart~zent 3$ ~gl 6.d IC: b- 

.$ure, Forest s9'$-kic*p9 $OtT+%ap~~l IClCr;& ~WTP~~V~WS~ Lr A. u~""52x;?0~;: -" *Sf 

1986. 7 p.