$G&;:,

.I t\

w

United States :. Department of

‘d’ Agriculture

,+l ‘h,

m

W

S Forest Service

 Southern Forest

Research Note

so-388

Experiment Station June 1987

Status of Privately Owned Harvested Timberland in East

Texas, 1975-l 986

William H. McWilliams and David J. Skove

SUMMARY

Harvesting was conducted on 4.7 million acres, or 43

percent of the privately owned timberland, in east Texas

between 1975 and 1986. Cutting was most intensive on

forest industry lands, where 59 percent of the total timberland base underwent some form of harvesting.

Seventy-nine percent of the pine and mixed pinehardwood stands receiving heavy cutting exhibited an

adequate level of pine stocking following harvest.

Addltional keywords: Clearcut, partial cut, pine regeneration, forest-type transition, timber supply.

INTRODUCTION

The Forest Inventory and Analysis Unit (FIA) of the

Southern Forest Experiment Station conducts periodic

inventories of forest resources in the Midsouth region of

the United States. An important component of these surveys is the collection of information on harvesting practices and the success of pine regeneration following harvest (McWilliams and Frey 1986). Monitoring pine

regeneration is especially important due to recent findings of declining pine-type acreage, a decrease in the

softwood inventory in southeast Texas, and similar findings for the Midsouth region (McWilliams and Bertelson

1986; USDA FS 1982). The findings for stands harvested on privately owned timberland since a 1975 survey of east Texas forests are summarized in this Research Note.

DATA COLLECTION

Data were collected during the 1986 inventory of east

Texas; the area covered is shown in figure 1. Forest

acreage and timber volume data were secured by a systematic sampling method involving a forest-nonforest

classification on aerial photographs and on-the-ground

measurements of trees at sample locations. The sample

locations were at intersections of a grid of lines spaced

3 miles apart. On-the-ground measurements included

collection of data describing crop tree removals, management activity, natural disturbance, and the stocking

of well established pine seedlings (6 inches or greater in

height). Sample locations were assigned a code describing any harvest that had taken place since the previous

measurement. Field crews used existing plot conditions

along with personal judgment to distinguish between

harvesting and other management activities such as

commerc~l thinning, precommercial

improvement cuttings.

HARVESTING

thinning, or stand

Forty-three percent of the 10.8 million acres of privately owned timberland in east Texas showed evidence

of crop tree removal since 1975 (table 1). This included

any acreage that had undergone clearcutting or seed

tree, shelter-wood, or partial cutting (see Definition of

Terms section). Acreage that received stand improvement cuts and poletimber stands that underwent thinning

are excluded. Forest industry timberland was most heavily impacted by cutting, with 2.2 million acres or 53 percent of their total forest being affected. Of the nonindustrial private stands, 2.4 million acres (35 percent)

showed evidence of harvesting.

Pine types were cut most heavily, receiving nearly half

the harvesting. The 2.2 million acres harvested represents 53 percent of the 1975 total privately owned pine

type timberland in east Texas. The rest of the harvesting

Southern Forest Experiment Station/T-102lO U.S. Postal Services Bldg., 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, La. 70113

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Berving Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mleeieelppi, E. Oklahoma, Tennessee, E. Texas, Puerto RICO, U.S. Virgin Islands

1
5HUR I

NACOSOOCHES

Figure l.- The fOf8St SUNBy f8@OflS Of 8SSt Texas.

William H. McW~lIiams is research fore&r, Southq Forest Experiment Station, Forest Servica-USDA, Starkyille. MS. David J. Skove was

assistant department head, Texas Forest Service, Texas A & M University, College &atbn, TX.

2
Table 1 .-Area of timberland harvested1 by ownership class, past forest type, and m&cd of harvest for private owners,

east Texas, 1976-1966

Ownership class Method of harvest

and Total past Total timberland Seed tree and

past forest type timberland harvested Clearcuts shelterwood cuts Partial cuts2

__._______________._.----.-.----.- musa& acres ______________________________

Forest industry

Pine types 1,825.l 1,208.3 630.2 38.5 539.8

Mixed pine-hardwoods 1,128.l 597.0 310.5 17.7 268.8

Hardwood types 883.8 462.8 250.5 . . . . 212.1

Total 3,834.8 2,285.Q 1,19J.2 54.2 1,020.s

Nonindustrial private

Pine types 2,302.4 963.7 156.4 29.7 777.8

Mixed pine-hardwoods 2,839.4 801.9 92.3 8.4 503.2

Hardwood ty@ 1,843.0 857.8 142.0 8.0 709.8

Total 6,984.8 2,423.4 390.7 42.1 1990.6

Total private

Pine types 4,127.5 2,170.O 786.6 66.2 1,317.2

Mixed pine-hardwoods 3,967.5 1,198.Q 402.8 24.1 772.0

Hardwood types 2,724.6 1,320.4 392.5 6.0 921.9

Total 10,819.8 4,689.3 1,581.g 96.3 3,011 .l

‘Excludes precommerclal thinning& commercial thlnnings in poletimber stands, and single-tree selection.

*Includes pWe@ectlon, diameter-limit, and salvage cuts. Thinnings in poletimber stands are excluded; heavy thinnings of dominant trees in sawtimber stands are included.

~88 split between the mixed pine-hardwood and hardwood forest types.

Partial cutting was the most prevalent harvesting practice, found on 64 percent of the privately owned harvested area. Partial cuts consist of selectIon methods,

such as pine-selection and diameter-limit cuts, and salvage operations removing groups of trees damaged by

insects, disease, wind, or other destructive agenti. Partial cut acreage inoltides sawtimber-site stands that received heavy thinninga of trees in the dominant stand.

Nearly all of the remajning harvested acreage was

clearcut. Seed tree and shelterwood cuts were used on

2 percent of the harvested acreage.

Distinct differences in ‘cutting practice8 showed up between the two ownership classes. Clearcuts were much

more common on forest industry property. Fifty-three

percent of the harvesting on forest industry land involved

clearcutting compared with only 16 percent for nonindustrial owners. Nonindustrial owners showed a preference

for partial cutting by using such methods 82 percent of

the time.

Another difference between ownerships was apparent

in the type of clearcut used. Classification of clearcuts

includes the distinction between complete and merchantable clearcuts. Complete clearcuts remove all

trees from a site, including rough and rotten stems. Merchantable clearcuts leave nonmerchantable trees standing. These residuals can make regeneration more difficult, and they tend to provide an inferior see&source for

the future stand. Three-fourths of the clearcuts on nonindustrial private land left nonmerchantable trees standing. In contrast, 79 percent of the forest industry

clearcuts removed all trees.

PINE REGENERATION

Stocking is quantified by comparing existing tree

stocking, in terms of number of trees or basal area, to a

“normal” stocking standard (see Definition of Term8 section). Forest Survey plots are characterized a8 understocked or overstocked in relation to this standard. Pine

regeneration on harvested sites can be assessed by

examining the degree of pine stocking following cutting.

The &tent of pine regeneration in harvested pine and

mixed pine-hardwood stands is an important factor affecting future pine timber supplies. The data indicates

that 57 percent of the 3.3 million acres of pine and mixed

pine-hardwood stands receiving heavy cutting (including

clearcuts and partial cuts) showed a high stocking of

pine. An additional 22 percent were in the medium pine

stocking class. Forest industry had 88 percent in the high

pine stocking class, while nonindustrial private owners

had 48 percent (fig. 2).

The findings for clearcut acreage show that 59 percent

of the timberland in pine and mixed pine-hardwood8 had

high stocking of pine, and an additional 18 percent had

medium stocking (table 2). The two ownerships had

varying success at reforesting clearcuts with pine. Twothirds of the forest industry clearcuts were classified as

3
HIGH PINE

STOCKING

IGI-I PINE

TOCKING

FOREST INDUSTRY NONINDUSTRIAL PRIVATE

Figure P.-Status of p&are/y owned pine and mixed pine-hardwood fype timberland harvested by clearcuts and partial

cuts, east Texas, 1975-1966.

having high pine stocking compared to less than onethird for nonindustrial private owners. Some of the

303,500 acres in pine and mixed pine-hardwoods with

low pine stocking have recently been cut and may be

scheduled for regeneration in the future.

Conversion of hardwood to pine showed up on forest

industry property where 58 percent of the clearcut hardwood type timberland exhibited high or medium pine

stocking. Such conversion was not apparent on nonindustrial timberland where 87 percent .of the clearcut

hardwood acreage had low pine stocking.

Pine stocking tended to be higher on partial-cut sites

than clearcut sites (table 3). Natural seeding from adjacent pines and existing residual stems contribute to

overall pine stocking of the stand. Fifty-six percent of the

partial-cut stands in the pine and mixed pine-hardwood

types-had high pine stocking and 28 percent had

medium stocking (a total of 82 percent compared to 75

percent after clearcutting). Nonindustrial owners had

more success at regenerating after partial cutting than

after clearcutting. Forty-nine percent of the nonindustrial

partial cuts in pine’and mixed pine-hardwood types had

high pine stocking compared to 28 percent following

clearcutting.

FOREST-TYPE TRANSITION

One issue related to harvesting, especially partial cutting, involves forest-type transition. Selective cutting

practices tend to remove the pine component, leaving

hardwoods and nonmerchantable pines on sites that

previously supported pine forest typ8s. This can cause a

shift toward hardwood types and therefore a net loss of

pine forests. Thirty-seven percent of the pine type

acreage shifted to mixed pine-hardwood and hardwood

forest types (table 4). Some timberland shifted toward

pine types; the net effect of partial cutting was a shift of

about 367,900 acres out of the pure pine type. Twothirds of this loss occurred on nonindustrial timberland.

Table P.-Area of timberland harvested using clearcuts by ownership

class, pasi forest type, and pine stocking. class for private

owners, east Texas, 1975-1966

Pine stocking class1

Ownership class

and

past forest type Total Low Medium High

___ __. __ _ _ Thousand acres _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Forest industry

Pine types 830.1 108.5 108.8 412.8

Mixed pine-hardwoods 310.5 85.1 35.1 210.3

Hardwood types 250.8 104.4 47.2 99.0

Total 1,191.2 278.0 191.1 722.1

Nonindustrial private

Pine types 158.5 77.9 30.8 47.7

Mixed pine-hardwoods 92.3 52.0 11.4 26.9

Hardwood types 142.0 123.8 8.1 12.1

Total 390.7 253.7 46.3 88.7

Total private

Pine types 788.5 186.4 139.8 460.5

Mixed pine-hardwoods 402.8 117.1 46.5 239.2

Hardwcod types 392.8 228.2 53.3 111.1

Total 1,561.g 531.7 239.4 810.8

l Low indicates O-29 percent stocked with pine (all size classes),

medium indicates 30-59 pement SbGkGd with pine (all size CkSseS),

and high indicates 80 percent or greater stocked with pine (all size

classes).

CONCLUSIONS

The status of pine regeneration on harvested timberland in east Texas appears favorable. .Pine stocking on

cut sites was highest on forest industry properties. However, the heavy cutting that has purred on forest industry lands may affect the balance of growth and removal8

of the forest. Sixty-two percent of the 681,700 acres of

4
Table 3.-Area of timbednct harvest6d usin9 partial oufs 1 by owner- Table 4.-Area of timberland harvested usin partial cuts1 by ownership class, past forest type, and pine stockin class for ship class, past Awest type, and present forest type tir prip&ate owners, east Texas, 1975-1966 vate owners, east Texas, 1975-1996

Pine stocking class2

Ownership class

and

Past forest type Total Low Medium High

__________ Tf)oljsa&ams ----------

Forest industry

Pine types 539.5 29.4 118.8 391.4

Mixed pine-hardwoods 288.8 59.4 69.8 139.8

Hardwood types 212.1 158.2 30.4 . 23.5

Total 1,020.5 247.0 218.8 554.7

Nonindustrial private

Pine types 777.7 109.2 142.1 525.4

Mixed pine-hardwoods 503.1 180.2 220.9 102.0

Hardwood types 709.8 599.3 104.8 5.9

Total 1990.8 888.7 487.5 834.3

Present forest type

Ownership class

and

past forest type

Mixed

Pine pine- Hardwood

Total types hardwoods types

Forest industry

Pine types 539.5 351.2 135.5 52.5

Mixed pine-hardwoods 288.8 58.1 125.4 82.3

H=dwdtypes 212.1 5.9 24.1 182.1

Total 1,020.5 415.2 288.1 317.2

Nonindustrial private

pit-a types 777.5 475.0 150.9 150.7

Mixed pine-hardwoods 503.2 38.1 238.0 227.1

H-types 709.8 . . . . . -41.8 888.2

Total 1990.5 514.1 43g.5 1948.0

Total private

Pine types 1,317.3 138.8 280.9 917.8

Mixed pine-hardwoods 771.9 239.8 290.5 241.8

Hardwood typss 921.9 757.5 135.0 29.4

Total ’ 3,011.l 1,135.7 888.4 1,189.0

1 Includes pine-selection, diameter-limit, and salvage cuts. Thinnings

in potetlmber stands are excluded; heavy thinnings of dominant trees

in sawtimber stands are included.

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

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

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

classes).

.

pine and mixed pine-hardwood type timberland in the

lowest pine stocking class is held by nonindustrial owners. Regeneration of this timberland is important for pine

timber supplies of the future.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

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

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station.

Forest type.-A classification of FIA plots according

to the relative stocking of pine and hardwood trees

tallied.

Pine: Forests in which pine species comprise the

plurality of all live tree stocking.

Mixed pine-hardwoods: Forests in which pines

comprise 25 to 50 percent of the stocking, and

hardwood species comprise the pturallty of all live

tree stocking.

Hatdwcbd: Forests in which hardwood species, singly

or in combination, comprfse a plurality of all live tree

stocking, except where pines comprise 25 to 50

Total private

Pine types 1,317.2 827.2 288.5 203.5

Mixed pine-hardwoods 772.0 98.2 388.4 309.4

Hardwood types 921.9 5.9 85.7 850.3

Total 3,011.l 929.3 718.5 1383.2

lincludes pine-selecUon, diameter-limit, and salvage cuts. Thinnings

in poletimber stands areexckrded; heaving thinnings of dominant trees

in sawtimber stands are Included.

percent of the stocking (see previous definition for

mixed pine-hardwoods).

Harvesting-A clas@cation assigned to FIA plots

that have undergone some form of crop tree removal

since the last survey. Precommercial thinnings, commercial thinnings tn poietimber stands, and the removal

of a small number of trees for firewood, posts, or other

products are excluded.

Clearcut: Stands that undergo removal of all utilizable

and/or nonwtilizable trees.

Seed tree and shebrwod cuts: Heavy cutting of a

stand with a small number of crop trees left to provide seed or shade to establish a new stand.

Partial cut: Pine-selection cuts, diameter-limit cutting,

highgrading, or any other sawtimber cutting practice

that leaves a residual stand of potential crop trees

and/or cull trees. Thinnings in poletlmber stands are

excluded; heavy thinnings of dominant trees in sawtimber stands are included.

Salvage: Removal of damaged or salvable dead

trees, often leaving a gap in the stand.

Pine stocking class. -A classification of timberland

according to the degree of live pine tree stocking. All size

classes are included.

High stodring: 90 percent or greater stocked with

pine.

Medium stocking: 30 to 59 percent stocked with pine.

5
Low stocking: 0 to 29 percent stocked with pine.

Stocking. -A measurement of the extent to which the

growth potential of the site is utilized by trees or preempted-by vegetative cover. Stocking is determined by

comparing the stand density in terms of number of trees

or basal area with a specified standard. The tabulation

below shows the density standard in terms of trees per

acre, by size class, required for full stocking:

D.b.h. Number of trees

(inches) per acre

seedlings 600

2 560

4 460

6 340

6 240

1 0 155

1 2 115

1 4 9 0

1 6 7 2

1 6 6 0

2 0 5 1

2 2 4 2

2 4 3 6

2 6 3 1

2 6 2 7

3 0 2 4

.

Timberland. -Land at least 16.7 percent stocked by

forest tr&s.of-arly size, or formerly. having such tree

cover, capable of producing crops of industrial wood.

Land that is currently developed for nonforest use or

withdrawn from tfmber utilization through statute or administrative regulation is excluded.

LITERATURE CITED

McWilliams, William H.; Frey, Paul D. 1966. Status of

privately owned harvested timberland in Louisiana,

1974-1964. Research Note SO-329. New Orleans,

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

Southern Forest Experiment Station; 5 p.

McWilliams, William H.; Bert&on, Daniel F. 1966.

Forest ‘statistics for Southeast Texas counties-l 986.

Resour. Bull. SO-1 14. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Seivlce, Southern Forest

Experiment Station; 29 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1982.

An analysis of the timber situation’in the United States:

1952-2030. Forest Resour. Rep. No. 23. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service;

499 p.

+,lJ.S,COVSlUWSNT~NCOFFICE:1987-761-086160037

,

’ ‘? ’ ..,)

I”

:, ,

..I

“’

_I ,. ”

6