Table 8.—Area of timbertand in plantations by State and site class, Midsouth States*

Site class"
All 20- 50- 85- 120- 165-
State classes 9 a 119 164 224 2225
Alabama
SF
Arkansas 1,915.5 0.0 38.0 288.9 805.8 735.1 47.7
SE! 0.0314 0.0000 0,3865 0.1391 0.0820 0.0861 (0.3450
at 345 0 7 32 147 131 8
Louisjana 2,735.7 22.4 292.8 4133.2 942.7 316.8 27.7
SE 0.0410 0.5044 0.1382 6.0681 0.0752 0.1327 0.4534
483 4 st 201 166 56 5
issippi 3,227.2 249 2249 NIZ «1,575.8 659.5 24.7
ere 0.0385 0.4843 (0.1603 0.0885 0.0581 0.0924 0.4863
a 550 4 39 124 267 115 4
Oklahoma (cast) 621.3 0.0 13.0 42.7 110.0 378200775
SE 0.0918 0.0000 0.6759 0.372% 02304 = 0.1208 0.2755
a 112 0 3 9 2 66 13
‘Tennessee 636.9 0.0 31.8 108.2 215.6 214.6 66.7
SE 0.0934 0.0000 0.4279 0.2312 0.1631 0.1635 0.2949
112 ° 6 20 38 37 i
Texas (cast) 2,541.9 66 911 900.1 1,191.0 347.7 53
SES 0.0421 0.0000 (0.2497 0.0167 0.0658 0.1265 0.0000
nt 445 1 18 156 208 61 1
All States 16,278.7 59.4 1,005.3 4,199.7 6,807.1 3,843.6 363.5
SE! 0.0172 0.3106 0.0752 0.0362, 0.0280 0.0379 0.1254
n 2,862 10 179 736 1,194 680 63

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

‘Potential yield in cubic feet per acre of mean annual growth at culmisatioa of the increment in fully

‘Sampling © one standard relativized scale ranging from 0.0000 to 1.0000.
‘frors are one ‘iror on a to .

"Number of sample plot. me


Table 1.—Area of timberland by State and stand type, Midsouth States*

Stand type
All
State timberland Natural Plantation
wee eee see Thousand acres-- =~ --- ~~~
Alabama 21,932.0 17,331.7 4,600.3
SE! 3.00: 6.0088 0.0312
nt 3,917 3,102 815
Arkansas 17,246.6 15,331.2 1915.5
SE! 6.0020 0.0067 6.0514
nt 3,033 2,688 345
Louisiana 13,783.0 11,0473 2,735.7
SE" 6.0030 0.0106 6.0410
nt 2,413 1,930 483
Mississippi 16,9816 137544 3,227.2
SE. 6.0030 1.0385
nt 2,899 et 3 550
‘Oklahoma (east) 4,895.5 42742 621.3
SE! 0.0060 6.0146 0.0918
cu 820 708 112
Tennessee 13,265.2 12,6283 636.9
SE! 6.0030 0.0056 34
at 2,215 2,163 112
Texas (east) 11,773.8 9,232.0 2541.9
SEY 6.0030 6.6120 60421
nt 2,056 1,611 445
All States 99,877.7 83,599.0 16,278.7
SE! 0.0010 6.0035 6.0172
a 17,413 14,551 2,862

sadinge’"* i FowS and columns may not som to totals due to

rounding.
*Samplis

fro to 1.0000.
jumber of sample plots.

TABLES

11


Table 12.—Volume of softwood and hardwood growing stock by State and stand type, Midsouth States*

‘Stand type
All types Natural Plantation
State Soft? Hard! Soft Hard! Soft! Hard*
wee e cece eee eee een ‘Million cubic feet. -

M1015 11,9740 8539.2 11,5148
SE 0.0213 0.0201 0.0237 0.0195
3,917 3,917 3,102 3,102
‘Arkansas 7,923.0 1,066.7 6924.4 — 10,845.4
SES 0.0281 0.0195 0.0294 0.0189
a 3,033 3,033, 2,688 2,688
Louisjana 9,928.0 8,916.3 76448 8678.4
SE 0.0255 0.0245 0.0292 0.0232
rs 2413 2,413 1,930 1,930
Mississippi 9,086.8 —10,331.6 7319.3 9,858.9
SE 0.0260 6.0218 6.0290 0.0212
2,899 2,899 2,349 2,349
Oklahoma (east) 1,394.8 1,606.7 1,047.0 1,590.9
s, « 6.0562 0.0454 0.0676 6.0438
a 820 820 708 708
Tennessee 13,753.4 2,408.9 —13,548.9
set 0.0160 6.0492 0.0157
a 2.275 2,163 2,163

Texas (east) 5,057.2 6,398.4 4,879.4 c 1778

SE! 0.0284 0.0342 0.0273 0.0591 0.1141

a 2,056 1,611 1,611 45 M5

All States 62,705.9 40,282.0 60,9168 9915.1 1,789.1

5 0.0087 0.0126 0.0084 6.0246 6.0445

Ld 17,413 14,551 14,551 2,862 2,862

igonmoed spots, nd Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

extors are one standard error on a relativized scale ranging from 0.0000 to 1.0000.
Wi orf sample pion.


Figure 1.—Southern forest survey regions, Midsouth, U.S.A.


United States
Department of Agriculture

Forest Service
Southern Forest

Experiment Station
701 Loyola Ave., Rm.T-10210

New Orleans, LA 70113-1920

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Penalty for Private Use $300



‘Table 9.—Area of timberland in plantations by State and type of harvest, Midsouth States*

State
Alabama 2,499.3 1,980.2 220.4 10.4 276.9 113
SE! 0.0447 0.0508 0.1586 0.7326 0.1413 0.7036
v 446 353 al 2 48 2
Arkansas 853.1 615.2 128.0 5.7 36.4 17.7
SE 0.0796 0.0944 0.2100 0.0000 0.2559 0.5658
153 ll 23 1 b 3
Louisjana 1910.8 1,278.8 4116 0.0 213.9 65
SE 0.0508 0.0637 0.1161 0.0000 0.1622 0.0000
337 226 B 0 37 1
Mississippi 1,783.8 1,254.0 288.3 61 230.0 54
SE! 0.0543 0.0658 0.1413 0.0000 0.1585 0.0000
a 302 212 4a 1 40 1
Oklahoma (cast) 523.3 478.2 38.9 0.0 62 0.0
SE! O.101L 0.1063 0.3901 0.0000 0.0000, 0.0000
94 86 7 oO 1 0
Tennessee 470.5 383.5 36.7 5.7 446 0.0
sz" 0.1094 0.1215 0.3980 0.0000 0.3612 0.0000
83 68 7 1 7 0
Texas (east) 1,719.4 1,420.1 149.5 5.3 138.4 62
SE! 0.0534 0.0596 0.1945 0.0000 0.2022 0.0000
a 33 251 6 1 a 1
All States 9,760.1 7410.0 1273.5 33.2 996.4 471
SE! 1.0230 0.0268 0.0667 0.4159 0.0755 0.3490
a 1,718 1,307 225 6 172 8

‘Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

"Sampling eres are ope standard earor on » relfivized scale ranging
frp 010000 to 1.0000.

Number of sample plots.


Table 15.—Volume of softwood and hardwood growing stock in plantations by State and diameter class, Midsouth States*

Diameter class (inches in d.b.h.)

All 5.0- 10.0- 15.0-
classes 99 149 19.9 220.0

State Soft’ Hard! = Sot! Hard' — Soft’ Hard' —Soft* Hard? Soft’ Hard*

wetter eee e eee eee eee ene Million cubic feet. -

Alabama 2,562.2 4592 1,499.3 2106 8285 144.0 204.4 71.7 30.0 32.9
SE! 6.0473 0.0762 6.0469 0.0760 0.0774 «0.1077 (0.1433 0.1352 0.2309 0.1600
a 815 815 815 815 B15 815 B15 815 815 815

998.6 221.3 449.0 91.7 400.4 90.9 128.6 29.5 20.6 93

0.0897 0.1172 0.0887 0.1127 0.1317 0.1574 0.1722 0.1650 0.3270 0.3166
345 345 35 345 345 345 345 345 345 345

2,283.3 237.9 888.3 94.2 984.5 33.1 343.0 423 674 18.3
0.0519 0.1191 0.0567 0.1263 0.0729 0.1492 0.1101 0.1866 = 0.2260 0.2631
483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483

1,767.5 472.7 856.7 178.3 659.5 164.5 221.6 95.4 29.6 34.4
0.0589 0.0905 0.0644 0.0876 0.0812 0.1183 0.1257 0.1479 0.2444 0.2275
550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550

347.7 15.8 276.6 85 52.9 5.3 16.3 17 2.0 0.3

0.0851 0.2561 0.0882 -0.3032--0.2502--0.3348 «0.5052. 0.5779—(0.5181 1.0000

a 112 112 2 112 12 112, 112 M2 112 112
Tennessee 484.0 204.4 2572 65.4 196.1 66.9 26.9 53.0 38 19.1
SEF 0.1030 0.1655 0.1082 0.1439 0.1523 0.1756 0.2528)» -0.2365 0.5523 0.3479
a 2 112 2 112 2 M2 112 112 112 2
Texas (cast) 14718 177.8 961.0 29 401.2 56.7 90.8 27.7 18.8 20.5
SES 0.0591 0.1141 0.0577 0.1169 0.1067 0.1768 0.1880 0.1985 0.3118 0.2224
n 445 445 445 445 445, 445 445 445 445 445
All 9915.1 1,789.1 5,188.2 721.6 3,523.2 611.4 = 1,031.5 321.3 172.2 134.8
SE 0.0246 0.0445 0.0250 0.0424 0.0384 0.0577 0.0616 0.0753 0,1191 0.1016
a 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862

qQumbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
wood species.

‘Softwood species,
ling errors are one standard error on a relativized scale jing from 0.0000 to 1.0000.
‘Samgln eos om masing


‘Table 11.—Softwood and hardwood tree density in plantations by State, species group, and diameter class, Midsouth States*

Diameter class (inches in d.b.h.)
All 10 3.0 10.0- 15.0-
classes 49 99 149 199 220.0
State
ner
nw
SE!
n
Louisjana 365.5 312.8 262.9 297.4 81.6 12.4 179 23 27 0.6 0,3 0.2
Ss, 0.0574 0.0637 0.0792 0.0660 0.0565 0.0971 0.0677 0.1185 0.1040 0.1483 0.2059 0.1933
o 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483
Mississippi 261.1 385.6 179.9 357.4 68.3 22.2 11 44 16 12 0.1 0.4
SE 0.0487 0.0522 0.0657 0.0545 0.0593 0.0698 0.0748 0.0931 0.1177 0.1185 0.2103 0.1382
nw 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550
Oklahoma (cast) 330.1 451.3 157.1 442.1 165.5 16 6.7 14 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0
SE 0.0801 0.1127 0.1607 0.1143 0.0791 0.2352 0.1952 0.2554 0.4781 0.3969 0.5250 0.6221
nw 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 2 2 112 2 12
Tennessee 284.5 450.9 159.8 406.5 106.5 32.9 17.1 19 1d 2.9 01 0.7
SEF 0.0884 0.0806 0.1376 0.0887 0.0979 0.1224 0.1388 0.1358 0.2426 0.1796 0.5782 0.2236
wn 12 112 112 112 112 112 2 2 112 112 12 112
Texas (cast) 373.1 360.0 257.5 344.5 104.8 12.8 98 20 09 05 0.1 0.2
se 010566 0.0541 0.0700 0.0558 = 0.0535 0.0980 0.0883. 0.1431 OI7IS 0.1743 (0.2868 0.1884
n 445 445 445, 445 445 445 445 445 445 445 445 445
All Stptes 329.9 371.8 228.7 351.4 87.9 16.4 7 3.0 15 08 0.1 0.2
E." 0.0210 0.0231 0.0289 0.0239 0.0230 0.0350 0.0343 0.0467 0.0566 0.0608 0.1063 0.0740
2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862

*Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
ies.
‘Hardwood species.
ing errors are one standard error on a relativized scale ranging from 0.0000 to 1.0000.
*Nuntber of sample plot.


Table 6.—Area of timberland in plantations by State and age class, Midsouth States*

Age class (years)!

All Mixed:

State classes 5 15 25 35 45 251 age"
Alabama 4,600.3 2,143.2 1,009.1 465.7 171.2 27.8 179 765.2
SES 0.0312 0.0486 0.0728 = 0.1085 .1801 «0.4483 (0.5586 (0.0841
a 815 378 178 85 30 5 3 136
Arkansas 1915.5 846.8 421.2 94.4 84.1 33.2 16.6 419.2
SE* 0.0514 0.0799 0.1148 0.2448 = 0.2594 0.4137 0.5842 0.1151
a 345 153 7 17 5 6 3 ny
Louisjana 2,735.7 996.6 602.5 298.8 3118 49.4 25.7 451.0
S. 0.0410 0.0730 0.0953 0.1368» 0.1338 0.3394 0.4710 0.1107
ni 483 173 107 52 55 10 6 80
Mississippi 3,227.2 1,309.7 4374 292.4 170.1 479 195 950.3
SE* 0.0385 0.0643 0.1143 0.1404 0.1847 0.3494 «0.5476 0.0763
nt 550 223 15 50 30 g 3 161
Oklahoma (east) 621.3 168.4 307.1 46.9 19 0.0 0.0 97.0
SES 0.0918 0.1851 0.1351 0.3551 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (0.2456
cy 112 30 55 9 1 0 oO 7
Tennessee 636.9 151.6 106.6 78.1 63.3 14.6 12.0 210.9
SEY 0.0934 0.1950 0.2330 © 0.2725 «0.3029 (0.6322 (0.6968 0.1650
a 112 26 19 14 1 3 37
Texas (cast) 2,541.9 1,110.1 684.3 1325 46.4 0.0 56 562.9
SE! 0.0421 6.0684 0.0888 0.2067 «0.3507 0.0000 0.0000 (0.0985
a 445 192 121 25 8 0 1 98
All States 16,278.7 6,726.3 3,568.2 1,408.7 848.8 172.8 97.4 3,456.5
SE 0.0172 0.0282 0.0394 0.0634 0.0819 (0.1820 0.2425 0.0400
nt 2,862 1,175 632 252 150 32 18 603

*Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Values are midpoints of 10-year ranges; i.e., 5 = 0-10 years, 15 = 11-20 years, etc,
‘Stand structure disturbed to the point where no single age class could be defined; i.e., two or more strata
>IQ years difference in age.
ing errors are one standard error on a relativized scale ranging from 0.0000 to 1.0000.
‘INumber of sample plots.


APPENDIX


Table 21.—Volume of softwood and hardwood sawtimber in plantations by State and age class, Midsouth States*

Age class (years)'
All Mixed
classes 5 5 3 35 45 251 age’
State Sot! Hardt Son! Hard! Soft Hard! Son! Hardt Sot? Hardt Soft! Hardt Son! Hard! Son’ Hardt
ss e2+ ++ obfillion board feet. - - - eeeeee

Alabama 6,424.3 984.0 211.3 178.4 $67.3 146.0 1,385.5 785 1,389.4 65.7 203.1 24.0 232.2 28.6 2,435.5 462.8
SE 0.0771 0.1124 = 0.2294 += 0.2033 0.1286 0.2629 1130 0.3409 0.1282 0.3516 = 0.3621 0.8219 «0.5546 = 0.5222 0.1001 0.1757
81s 8s 378 378 178 178 85 85 30 30 3 5 3 3 136 136
Arkansas 3,240.2 496.1 107.0 53.9 146.8 211 408.1 75.3 799.0 24.8 482.8 9.0 122.0 119 1174.4 300.0
SE" 0.1263 0.1609 osna 0.2832 0.2332 «0.4138 «0.2151 0.6524 «0.1846 0.5278 = 0.2091 0.5287 0.5347 (0.3994 0.1725 0.1716
n 345 345 153 153 7 1 17 17 5 15 6 6 3 3 4 w
Louisiana 8,362.0 576.3 158.4 87.9 467.4 19 = 1,272.0 62.6 3,066.7 49.5 TIA 11.7 505.3 13 2,160.6 291.4
SE 0.0714 0.1471 0.4182 0.3261 0.2286 «= 0.4601 «0.0920 0.4958 = 0.0631 0.4566 «0.1109 0.4242 0.1438 = 1.0000 0.1195 0.1955
n 483 483 173 173 107 107 52 32 5S 55 10 10 6 6 80 80
Mississippi 5,548.1 1,271.9 141.0 136.5 226.6 68.4 1,237.0 124.5 1,039.6 88.6 445.0 20.5 815 455 2377.5 787.8
SE 0.0789 0.1284 0.2762 «(0.2350 0.2380 «0.4301 «0.1387 0.3200 0.1584 0.5053 0.2310» 1.0000 0.5138 = 0.9027 0.0923 (0.1679
nt 550 550 223 223 715 5 50 50 30 30 8 8 3 3 161 161
Oklahoma (cast) 469.2 18.3 1.0 3.0 118.4 6.3 161.5 05 40.7 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 147.5 5.7
0.2365 0.3354 1.0000 1.0000 0.1989 0.6074 0.4651 1.0000 0.0000 -0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3503 0.4532
12 112 30 3% 55 35 9 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 17 7
Tennessee 1,351.2 568.0 8.7 95 49.1 18.9 2314 43.7 379.0 412 944 33.5 99.6 68 489.0 414.3
SEN 0.1435 0.2164 0.7346 «0.5816 0.4484 «(0.6883 0.3240 0.5332 0.2045 0.3072 0.1309 0.9615 0.3746 = 1.0000 0.2092 0.2560
at 2 2 26 6 19 19 4 “ wu u 3 3 2 2 37 37
Texas feast) 3,166.9 451.0 65.6 65.4 TALL 40.7 572.6 25.8 407.2 16 0.0 0.0 33.6 12 1,376.7 316.2
SB" 0.1078 0.1549 0.3548 «= 0.3412 0.1120 0.2602 0.2126 = 0.4189 0.3083 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1558 0.1886

445 445 192 192 121 121 2s 25 8 8 o 0 1 1 98
All States 28,561.7 4,365.5 693.0 534.7 2,286.8 373.3 5,268.2 411.0 7,121.7 274.1 1,956.7 988 1,074.2 954 10,1611 2,578.3
SB 0.0378 0.0625 0.1477 0.1173 0.0745 0.1655 0.0608 0.1948 0.0535 0.2139 0.0995 0.4211 0.1655 0.4631 0.0524 0.0838
at 2,862 2,862 ATS 1,175 632 632 252 252 150 150 32 322 18 18 603 603

{umbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to

{Yahues are mid-points of ran, ten § oO yea, 18 = 1 .

*Stand structure tue pon where ‘where no single age class could be be defined Le, two oc moce strata >10 years difference in age.
§Softwood species.

‘Hardwood

s*international 1/4-inch Rule.

Sampling errors are one standard error on a relativized scale ranging from 0.0000 to 1.0000.

"Number of sample plots.



Table 18.—Volume of softwood and hardwood sawtimber by State and ownership, Midsouth States*

Ownership
All National Other Forest Nonindustrial
classes forest public industry private
State Son Hardt Sort Hard* Soft’ Hard’ Son Hardt Sont Hard*
wee eee ene ene ene ee -Million board feet. - ~~ -----------2-+-0220200--
Alabama 6,424.3 984.0 66.2 9.4 16.0 116 2,480.2 3325
SE! 0.0771 0.1124 0.3775 04502 0.7552 0.6107 0.1198 0.1829
” 815 B15 18 18 7 7 356 356
Arkansas 3,240.2 496.1 443.6 65.5 67.5 13.3 1,307.1 233.2
SE! 0.1263 0.1609 0.3321 0.3189 0.5866 = 0.6608 90.1986 0.2144
ao 345 345 x» 30 5 5 226 226
Louisjana 8,362.0 576.3 1,027.5 63.6 0.0 0.0 3,775.5 A716
SE! 0.0714 = 0.1471 0.2060 0.3491 = 0.0000 0.0000 0.1011 = 0.2023
a” 483 483 37 37 4 4 265 265
Missigsippi 5,548.1 1,271.9 767.3 200.3 248.6 33.4 1,899.0 TALS
SE! 0.0789 0.1284 0.2140 (0.2686) 0.3829 0.4137 0.1309 0.1962
” 550 550 39 39 13 13 257 257
Oklahoma (cast) 469.2 18,3 77.3 48 0.0 0.0 316.4 10.5
SE" 0.2365 0.3354 0.5680 0.6267 0.0000 00,0000 0.2844 0.4277
nm 112 112 12 12 0 0 2 92
Teangssee 1,351.2 568.0 63 21 221.2 117.3 161.5 65.9
SE 0.1435 0.2164 = 0.0000 0.0000 0.2355 «0.3288 = 0.2897 (0.3402
Lond 2 2 1 1 10 10 32 32
Texas (cast) 3,166.9 45L0 451.7 19.4 0.0 00 1,657.5 244.9 = 1057.7 186.7
SE! .1078 = 0.1549 0.2620 0.2994 += 0.0000 0.0000 0.1294 = 0.2024 «90.2194 = 0.2572
Lad 445 445 35 35 1 1 32 312 7
All States 28,561.7 4,365.5 2,839.9 365.0 553.2 175.7 11,5972 1,376.4 13,5714 2,448.4
SE! 0.0378 0.0625 0.1207 0.1803 0.2251 0.2804 «= 0.0569 0.0859 0.0557 0.0934
Lad 2,862 2,862 172 172 40 4 1,560 1,560 1,090 1,090
*Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
‘Softwood species.
tHardwood species.
int i 1/4-inch Rule.
ling errors are one standard error om a relativized scale ranging from 0.0000 to 1.0000.
“Number of sample plots.

27


ALABAMA
ARKANSAS &
LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI
OKLAHOMA
TENNESSEE

TEXAS

MIDSOUTH

° 5 10 15 20 25
TIMBERLAND IN PLANTATIONS (PERCENT)

Figure 2.— Percent of total timberland in plantations by State and
Midsouth, U.S.A. Error bars are one standard error.

Again, this is a conservative estimate of sawtimber-
sized stands because some of the sample plots can no
longer be identified with certainty as to stand origin.
Louisiana leads all Midsouth States with 756,700
acres in sawtimber stands, 28 percent of all planta-
tion timberland in the State.

There are 5,139,300 acres of Midsouth plantations
with less than 60 percent softwood stocking. Several
things may account for this: (1) initial planting den-
sity may have been purposely low, depending on man-
agement goals; (2) seedling survival may have been
poor with no follow-up treatment; (3) no effort was
made to control competition. A total of 9,709,700 acres
are adequately stocked with softwoods, whereas
1,429,700 acres are overstocked and would benefit
from thinning. Mississippi has the most acreage in
understocked stands, 1,467,200 acres, or 45 percent
of plantation timberland.

Most of the Midsouth’s plantations (11,014,200
acres) are on good sites, with the potential of produc-
ing >120 ft®/acre/yr. Alabama has almost one-third of
the plantation area in the Midsouth capable of pro-
ducing >225 ft®/acre/yr.

Approximately one-fourth of the area that was in
plantations during the prior forest survey underwent
some form of commercial harvest before the most re-
cent survey. A total of 1,273,500 acres were partially
harvested and 996,400 acres were clearcut. A small
amount of plantation timberland underwent either a
seed tree/shelterwood harvest or a salvage harvest

4

(<80,000 acres). Most of the plantation harvests were
done in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A total of 3,634,000 acres underwent site prepara-
tion before planting in the Midsouth States. Missis-
sippi had the most; site preparation was done on 36
percent of its plantation timberland since the previous
forest survey. Stand improvement was done on 2,901,800
acres of Midsouth plantations, mostly to reduce hard-
wood competition. Louisiana had the highest proportion
of land undergoing stand improvement. Only 1,043,000
acres were thinned in the region. Again, Louisiana led
all other States, both in total plantation thinnings
(323,300 acres) and in proportion of plantations thinned
(12 percent of Louisiana plantation timberland).

Hardwood stem density is higher than softwood
across the Midsouth States. Hardwoods average 372
t.p.a., whereas softwoods average 330 t.p.a. for a total
of just over 700 t.p.a. Hardwood sapling stocking is
especially high, 53 percent higher than softwoods.
Only Louisiana and Texas had total softwood stock-
ing higher than hardwoods. Texas led all States with
a softwood density averaging 373 t.p.a.; Louisiana was
a close second at 366 t.p.a.

Total growing-stock volume in the Midsouth States
is 112,903.0 million ft*. Forty-four percent of this is
softwood (50,197.1 million ft?) and 56 percent is hard-
wood (62,705.9 million ft). Alabama leads the Mid-
south in softwood volume, and Tennessee leads in
hardwood volume.

Twenty percent of Midsouth softwood growing-stock
is in plantations (9,915.1 million ft?), Alabama and
Louisiana lead in Midsouth softwood plantation vol-
ume, accounting for 49 percent of the volume. How-
ever, Oklahoma has the highest proportion of its
growing-stock volume in plantations (fig. 3). Hard-
woods are only a minor component of plantation vol-
ume, making up 15 percent of this volume and only 3
percent of total Midsouth hardwood volume.

Most softwood growing-stock volume in plantations
is owned by forest industry (50 percent). Nonindus-
trial private forest (NIPF) owners hold 41 percent; the
remaining 9 percent is in public ownership. In three
Midsouth States, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennes-
see, forest industries own less softwood volume than
NIPF owners. By contrast, in Texas, forest industry owns
2.5 times as much softwood volume as NIPF owners.

Fifty-two percent of Midsouth softwood growing-
stock volume is in trees 5.0 to 10.0 inches in d.b.h.
Eighty-eight percent is in trees <15.0 inches in d.b.h.;
only 2 percent is in trees >20.0 inches in d.b.h.

The Midsouth States have 209.9 billion foot board
measure (fbm) of softwood sawtimber and 194.0 bil-
lion fom of hardwood sawtimber on all timberland.
Fourteen percent of the softwood sawtimber is in plan-
tations, whereas only 2 percent of hardwood sawtim-
ber is in plantations. Louisiana leads all Midsouth
States in total softwood sawtimber volume (44.9 bil-


The stocking standard (developed in the 1950's by a
consortium of forestry professionals from industry and
government) was based on normal yield tables of av-
erage stocking in natural, uncut stands. The survey
standard was derived by reducing these normal stock-
ing averages to averages found on recently cut areas
judged to be well managed. Thus, the stocking stan-
dard used by the forest survey represents about 50 to
70 percent of normal stocking for stands of pole- and
sawtimber-sized trees. The seedling and sapling tree
standard was reduced even further to less than 50
percent below normal stocking. Originally set at 1,000
trees per acre (t.p.a.), it was lowered to 600 t.p.a. in
the 1960’s to reflect standards based on new studies
of southern forests. Reasons for adopting standards
so much lower than normal for small trees were based
on the well-recognized tendency for young forest
stands of varying stocking levels to reach or approach
normal stocking as they grow older.

‘Table L—Midsouth States and year of field work

State Year
‘Alabama 1990
‘Arkaneas 1988
Louisiana 1991
Gkishosrn (cast) 1993
Tennessee 1989
Texas (cast) 1992

A stand is designated as artificially or naturally
regenerated when data are collected on each sample
plot. On many plots this is an easily observed phe-
nomenon as evidenced by young pine trees in rows on
intensively prepared sites. However, in other situa-
tions, artificial regeneration may be difficult to detect
and might go unnoticed. Such situations include di-
rect seeding (both aerial and surface), hand planting
on uneven terrain, hand planting on forest land that
had not been site prepared, or any other application
making it difficult to discern the difference between
an artificial or natural stand origin. Additionally, as
plantations become older, with subsequent mortality
and/or management activity, it becomes an arbitrary
decision as to when these stands are no longer consid-
ered to be plantations.

In this study, the data from the previous forest sur-
vey were screened to see if a sample plot had been
artificially regenerated. If it had been and there had
been no commercial harvesting on the plot between
surveys, the stand was still considered to be a planta-
tion. New plantations were noted by the field crews
on the current survey. This methodology aids in track-
ing plantation failures and documents their current
status; otherwise, they would become classified as

natural stands, and subsequently, information would
be lost about these particular types of plantations.
Due to such unavoidable constraints, the estimate
of plantation area for the Midsouth States is conser-
vative. Undoubtedly, more plantations could be iden-
tified by screening three survey periods. Additionally,
some plots that were destined to be artificially regen-

ited before all site preparation and planting (if
planned) could be completed. This activity probably en-
compasses a period of 1 to 3 years or more in the South.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The most recent forest surveys of the seven Mid-
south States between 1987 and 1993 show the area of
timberland to be 99,877,700 acres. Alabama has the
most timberland (21,932,000 acres) and east Okla-
homa, the least (4,895,500 acres). Most of the Midsouth
timberland originated from naturally regenerated
stands (83,599,000 acres). Sixteen percent of timber-
land (16,278,700 acres) is in stands that were regen-
erated artificially. Alabama has most of these
plantation stands (4,600,300 acres), and Oklahoma the
least (621,300 acres). Four Midsouth States ranked
closely in the proportion of their total timberland in plan-
tations: Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, with
22, 21, 20, and 19 percent, respectively (fig. 2).

Most timberland across the Midsouth States (67
percent) is in nonindustrial private ownership. In con-
trast, most of the Midsouth plantations (65 percent)
are on forest industry timberland (8,946,500 acres).
Thirty-nine percent of plantations are on nonindus-
trial private forest (NIPF) land, whereas less than 7
percent are on public land.

The predominant forest type group of Midsouth
plantations is the loblolly-shortleaf type (9,872,400
acres). The oak—pine, oak—hickory, and longleaf—siash
pine forest type groups are also well represented. Most
of the plantings are loblolly pine except where spe-
cific sites dictate the use of shortleaf, slash, and
longleaf pine. Some plantations are classed as oak—
hickory and bottomland hardwood forest types because
softwood stocking was too sparse (relative to hard-
woods) to be classed as a pine type. However, these
types cannot be defined with certainty because the
forest survey does not distinguish between softwood
and hardwood artificial regeneration—only that a
stand is artificially regenerated. Probably few plan-
tations in the Midsouth States are planned to be es-
tablished as hardwoods.

The predominant plantation stand size in the Mid-
south is seedling-sapling size, (54 percent) (8,830,900
acres). Only 18 percent of the plantation area (3 per-
cent of all timberland) is in sawtimber-sized stands.


Table 7.—Area of timberland in plantations by State and basal area class, Midsouth States*

Basal arca class (Square feet per acre)!

Missigsi ‘ippi 3,227.2 1,132.1 576.9 623.1 522.0 373.1
SE — 0.0385 0.0696 0.0991 0.0952 0.1043 0.1240
194 107 6:

Oklahoma (cast) 621.3 79.3 175.8 186.0 139.9 40.3
SE 0.0918 0.2722 0.1810 0.1758 0.2037 0.3835
112, 4 3h 33 25 9

Tennessee 636.9 38.8 117.5 138.6 154.9 137.2
SE 0.0934 0.2554 0.2218 0.2041 0.1929 0.2051
La 112 15 2 a“ 2 a
Texas (cast) 2,541.9 814.0 473.7 573.7 367.0 3634
se 0.0421 0.0810 0.1078 0.1023 0.1230 0.1236
445 141 82 91 66 65

All 16,278.7 5,242.2 2,931.2 3,352.8 2,695.1 2,057.4
SE 0.0172 0.0322 0.0436 0.0407 0.0455 0.0523
2,862 918 515 592 477 360

‘Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
upon all live trees 21.0 inch in db.b.
" ling errors are one standard error on a relativized scale ranging

"WRumber ee vanapre P plots.


Table Il —Softwood growing-stock volume by stand type in poletimber
. and ‘savtinber ‘stands (combined) for each State and for the

Table III.—Total growing-stock volume by stand types in poletimber

and sawtimber stands (combined) for each State and for

Midsouth the Midsouth
State and Number of Standard Cubic feet State and Number of Standard Cubic feet
stand type sample plots deviation per acre, mean Comparison stand type sample plots. deviation per acre, mean Comparison
Alabama Alabama
Natural 1,484 76 838.3, s* Natural 1,484 169.3 1,469.4 Ns*
Plantation 331 7126 1,212.2 Plantation 331 848.7 1383.6
‘Arkansas Arkansas
Natural 1,219 781.4 910.5 s* Natural 1,219 780.9 1,421.8 Ns*
Plantation 128 1,016.0 1,254.2 Plantation 128 1,059.6 1,464.4
Louisiana Louisiana
Natural 736 885.2 1,301.7 se Natural 736 903.4 1,837.9 st
Plantation 248 855.7 1527.4 Plantation 248 891.0 1,636.8
Mississippi Mississippi
Natural 1,046 871.8 1,055.5 s* Natural 1,046 1,684.4 885.6 st
Plantation 224 831.9 1235.9 Plantation 224 1,464.9 8478
Oklahoma (east) Oklahoma (cast)
Natural 253 571.9 668.8 Nst Natural 253 578.6 945.9 st
Plantation 72 4762 1578 Plantation R 4726 7813
Tennessee Tennessee
Natural 721 5778 536.9 s* Natural 721 724.7 1,404.6 Ns*
Plantation 68 05/8 1,190.3 Plantation 68 919.5 1,530.7
Texas (east) Texas (cast)
‘Natural 769 1,052.3 1,290.1 s* Natural 169 1,033.7 1,778.4 st
Plantation 210 726.2 1128.7 Plantation 210 736.5 1,236.4
Midsouth Midsouth
‘Natural 6228 3309 957.7 s* Natural 6,228 857.7 1,549.1 st
Plantation 1,281 826.0 1,241.2 Plantation 1,281 871.6 1,404.8

*Mcans of natural stands and plantation stands are significantly different
at PS0.05.

‘Means of natural stands and plantation stands are not significantly
different at PS0.05.

CONCLUSION

Currently, there are 16,278,700 acres of timberland
in plantations in the Midsouth States. Fifty-five per-
cent of this land is owned by forest industry, 61 per-
cent is in the loblolly—shortleaf pine forest type group,
54 percent is in sapling-seedling size trees, and 32
percent is <60 percent stocked with softwoods.

Twenty percent of the softwood growing-stock vol-
ume in the Midsouth is in plantations (9,915.1 mil-
lion ft’). Plantations have a higher mean per-acre
softwood volume than natural stands, possibly because
adequate pine stocking is achieved sooner in planta-
tions than in naturally regenerated stands and that
the management regime in the Midsouth favors pine,
the latter to the detriment of hardwoods. Further
study is needed to determine if there are other pos-
sible reasons for this difference in volumes.

Midsouth mean per-acre volumes for upland pole-
timber and sawtimber stands (where softwoods are
present) average ~1,500.0 ft®/acre with natural stands
averaging slightly higher than plantations.

At this time, under the current harvesting and man-
agement regimes, plantation forestry as practiced in
the Midsouth has not dramatically increased total
stand volume. It does appear, however, that plantation
forestry does substantially increase softwood volume.

*Means of natural stands and plantation stands are not significantly
different at PS0.05.

‘Means of natural stands and plantation stands are significantly different
at P<0.05.

LITERATURE CITED

Powell, Douglas S.; Faulkner, Joanne L.; Darr, David
R. [and others]. 1993. Forest resources of the United
States, 1992. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-234. Fort Collins,
CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Sta-
tion. 132 p. + map.

Rosson, James F., Jr. 1994a. Current stand charac-
teristics of Louisiana timberland harvested between
1975 and 1991. Res. Pap. SO-279. New Orleans, LA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southern Forest Experiment Station. 22 p.

Rosson, James F., Jr. 1994b. The status of precom-
mercial-sized softwoods in Louisiana, 1991. Res.
Pap. SO-278. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Ex-
periment Station. 20 p.

Rosson, James F., Jr. 1995. The forest resources of
Louisiana, 1991. Resour. Bull. SO-192. New Orleans,
LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southern Forest Experiment Station. 71 p.

Zar, Jerrold H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. 2d ed.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 718 p.


Table 13—Volume of softwood and hardwood growing stock by State and ownership, Midsouth States

Ownership
All National Other Forest Nonindustrial
classes forest public industry private
State Soft Hard? Soh! Hard? «= Soft’ = Hard’ «= Soft!’ = Hard’ = Soh! Hard!
ween eee e eee nee e cece eee e e+ Million cubic fect ------+++0000 cece ec eee e ene ee
Alabana 25622 4592 29.4 54 99 8 12152 1689 1,307.8
SE! 6.0473 62 0.2904 «0.3408 0.5004 0.5246 ose 6 0.1030
at 815 815 18 18 7 356 434 434
Arkansas 9986 2213 1139 293 208 53 4799 955 3839 | AS
SE! 0.0897 0.1172 0.3006 0.2579 0.5314 0.4191 0.1183 0.1792 0.1473 0.1872
a 345 345 30 30 5 5 2% 226 Es a
isi 22833 2379 185.1 17.1 48 0.0 11917 1076 9016 1132
SE 6.0519 0.1191 0.1772 0.2755 0.6630 0.0000 0.0686 0.1817 0.0876 0.1754
rs 483 483 37 37 4 4 265 265 17 177
Missigsippi 17675 472.7 1913 62.0 53.7 16.7 696.7 128.9 «825.8 265.1
SE! 6.0589 0.0905 0.1603 0.2209 02803 03915 00931 OATS 0088S 0.1295
a 550 550 39 39 13 B 257 mL mL
Oklahoma (east) 347.7 158 24.6 25 0.0 00 «2957 LT 27.5 16
SE! 0.0851 0.2561 0.3280 0.6835 0.0000 0.0000 0.0859 0.3019 0.4849 (0.7016
nt 112 112 12 12 0 0 92 92 8 8
Tennessee 484.0 204.4 24 130 53.1 344 1428 «37.8 285.7 1310
SEP 0.1030 0.1655 0.0000 0.0000 0.1721 0.2847 0.1671 0.2830 0.1403 0.2197
nw 112 112 1 1 10 10 52 $2 9 49
Texas (cast) 14718 1778 145.9 8.6 0.0 00 «9547 999 371.1 693
SE 6.0591 0.1141 0.1771 0.2444 0.0000 0.0000 0.0682 0.1540 0.1381 0.1820
a 45 445 35 35 1 1 312 312 97 7
All States 9915.1 1,789.1 692.7 126.1 142.4 59.1 49766 6503 41035 953.5
SE! 0.0246 6.0445 0.0927 0.1417 0.1614 0.2361 6.0328 0.0649 0.0408 0.0653
a 2,862 2,862 172 172 0 40 «1,560 1,560 1,090 1,090

{Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
tSoftwood

‘Hardwood species.
‘Relig fase one nanan err oa eave el nga from 00010 1.000,


United States
Department
Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern Forest
Experiment Station

New Orleans,
Louisiana

Research Paper
$0-290
September 1995

Forest Plantations in the Midsouth, U.S.A.

James F. Rosson, Jr.

Ss



Forest industry land—Lands owned by companies
or individuals operating wood-using plants (either
primary or secondary).

National forest land—Federal lands that have
been legally designated as national forests or purchase
units and other lands under the administration of the
Forest Service, including experimental areas.

Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land (cor-
porate)—Lands privately owned by private corpora-
tions other than forest industries and incorporated
farms.

Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land (in-
dividual)—Lands privately owned by individuals
other than forest industries or farmers.

Other Federal land—Federal lands other than
national forests.

State, county, and municipal land—Lands owned
by States, counties, and local public agencies or munici-
palities, or lands leased to these governmental units
for 50 years or more.

Stand-Size Classes

Nonstocked stands—Stands less than 10 percent
stocked with live trees.

Poletimber stands—Stands at least 10 percent
stocked with live trees, with half or more of this stock-
ing in sawtimber or poletimber trees, and with pole-
timber stocking exceeding that of sawtimber stocking.

Sapling-seedling stands—Stands at least 10 per-
cent stocked with live trees, with more than half of
this stocking in saplings or seedlings.

Sawtimber stands—Stands at least 10 percent
stocked with live trees, with half or more of this stock-
ing in sawtimber or poletimber trees, and with saw-
timber stocking at least equal to poletimber stocking.

Stocking

Stocking is a measure of the extent to which the
growth potential of the site is utilized by trees or pre-
empted by vegetative cover. Stocking is determined
by comparing the stand density in terms of number of
trees or basal area with a specified standard. Therefore,
full stocking is 100 percent of the stocking standard.

Stocking categories are arbitrarily defined as follows:

Optimally stocked—Stands 61 to 100 percent
stocked with growing-stock trees. These stands are
growing toward a fully stocked condition (ideal space
required for each tree increases with age). Optimum
growth and bole form occur in this range.

Overstocked—Stands greater than 100 percent
stocked with growing-stock trees. These stands will
become stagnant with mortality of individuals increas-
ing as stocking increases over 100 percent.

Understocked—Stands 0 to 60 percent stocked
with growing-stock trees. These stands will take a very
long time to reach full stocking. Meanwhile, poor bole
form will result, and much of the productivity will be
placed on heavy limbs instead of on the bole.

The following tabulation shows the density standard
in terms of trees per acre by size class required for
full stocking.

Trees per ‘Trees per
D.b.h. acre D.b.h. acre
Inches Inches

Seedlings 600 16 72
2 560 18 60

4 460 20 61

6 340 22 42

8 240 24 36

10 155 26 31
12 115 28 27
14 90 30 24

Tree Classes

Commercial species—Tree species currently or
potentially suitable for industrial wood products.

Cull trees—Rough or rotten trees.

Growing-stock trees—Living trees of commercial
species classified as sawtimber, poletimber, saplings,
and seedlings. Trees must contain at least one 12-ft
or two 8-ft logs in the sawlog portion currently or po-
tentially (if too small to qualify) to be classed as grow-
ing stock. The log(s) must meet dimension and
merchantability standards to qualify. Trees must also
have currently or potentially one-third of the gross
board-foot volume in sound wood.

Hardwoods—Dicotyledonous trees, usually broad
leaved and deciduous.

Live trees—All living trees. Included are all size
classes, all tree classes, and both commercial and non-
commercial species.

Noncommercial species—Tree species of typically
small size, poor form, or inferior quality that normally
do not develop into trees suitable for industrial wood
products.

Rotten trees—Live trees of commercial species that
are unmerchantable for sawlogs currently or poten-
tially because of rot deduction in the sawlog section.
See definition of growing-stock trees.

Rough trees—Live trees of commercial species that
are unmerchantable for sawlogs currently or poten-
tially because of roughness or poor form in the sawlog
section. Also included are all live trees of noncommer-
cial species. See definition of growing-stock trees.

Salvable dead trees—Standing or downed dead
trees that were formerly growing stock and are con-


Definition of Terms

Dimension Classes of Trees

Poletimber trees—Softwoods 5.0 inches to 8.9
inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) and hard-
woods 5.0 to 10.9, inches in d.b.h.

Rough, rotten, and salvable dead trees—See
“tree classes.”

Saplings—Trees 1.0 inch to 4.9 inches in d.b.h.

Sawtimber trees—Trees 9.0 inches and larger in
d.b.h. for softwoods and 11.0 inches and larger for
hardwoods.

Seedlings—Trees less than 1.0 inch in d.b.h. and
greater than 1 ft tall for hardwoods, greater than 6
inches tall for softwoods, and greater than 0.5 inch in
diameter at ground level for longleaf pine.

Forest Land Classes

Forest land—Land at least 10 percent stocked by
forest trees of any size, or formerly having such tree
cover, and not currently developed for nonforest uses.
Minimum area considered for classification is 1 acre.
Forest land is divided into timberland, reserved tim-
berland, and woodland.

Reserved timberland—Public timberland with-
drawn from timber utilization through statute or ad-
ministrative regulations.

Timberland—Forest land that is producing, or is
capable of producing, crops of industrial wood and is
not withdrawn from timber utilization. Timberland is
synonymous with “commercial forest land” in prior
reports.

Woodland—Forest land incapable of yielding crops
of industrial wood because of adverse site conditions.

Forest Type Groups

Elm-ash-cottonwood—Forests in which elms,
ashes, or cottonwoods, singly or in combination, com-
prise a plurality of the stocking. Common associates in-
clude willows, sycamore, American beech, and maples.

Loblolly-shortleaf pine—Forests in which pines
(except longleaf and slash pines) and eastern redcedar,
singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the
stocking. Common associates include oaks, hickories,
and gums.

Longleaf-slash pine—Forests in which longleaf
or slash pine, singly or in combination, comprises a
plurality of the stocking. Common associates include
other southern pines, oaks, and gums.

Nontyped—Timberland currently unoccupied by
any live trees or seedlings; for example, very recent
clearcut areas.

Oak-gum-cypress—Bottomland forests in which
tupelo, blackgum, sweetgum, oaks, or southern cy-
press, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality
of the stocking except where pines comprise 25 to 49
percent, in which case the stand would be classified
oak—pine. Common associates include cottonwoods,
willows, ashes, elms, hackberries, and maples.

Oak-hickory—Forests in which upland oaks or
hickories, singly or in combination, comprise a plu-
rality of the stocking, except where pines comprise 25
to 49 percent, in which case the stand would be classi-
fied oak—pine. Common associates include yellow-pop-
lar, elms, maples, and black walnut.

Oak-pine—Forests in which hardwoods (usually
upland oaks) comprise a plurality of the stocking, but
in which softwoods, except southern cypress, comprise
25 to 49 percent of the stocking. Common associates
include gums, hickories, and yellow-poplar.

Miscellaneous Definitions

Basal area—The area in square feet of the cross
section at breast height of a single tree or of all the trees
in a stand, usually expressed in square feet per acre.

D.b.h. (diameter at breast height)—Tree diam-
eter in inches, outside bark, usually measured at 4.5 ft
above ground.

Mortality—Number or sound-wood volume of
growing-stock trees or live trees that died from natu-
ral causes during a specified period.

Natural stands—Stands with no evidence of arti-
ficial regeneration including those stands established
by seed-tree regeneration methods.

Plantations—Planted or artificially seeded stands.

Sawlog top—The point on the bole of a sawtimber
tree above which a sawlog cannot be produced. The
minimum sawlog top is 7.0 inches in diameter out-
side bark (d.o.b.) for softwoods and 9.0 inches in d.o.b.
for hardwoods.

Site class—A classification of forest land in terms
of potential capacity to grow crops of industrial wood.

Tree grade—A classification of the sawlog portion
of sawtimber trees based on: (1) the grade of the butt
log or (2) the ability to produce at least one 12-ft or
two 8-ft logs in the upper section of the sawlog portion.

Upper-stem portion—That part of the main stem
of a sawtimber tree above the sawlog top to a d.o.b. of
4.0 inches or to the point where the main stem breaks
into limbs.

Ownership Classes
Farmer-owned land—Lands operated as a unit

of 10 acres or more and from which the sale of agricul-
tural products totals $1,000 or more annually.


Table 20.—Volume of softwood and hardwood sawtimber in plantations by State and diameter class, Midsouth

Diameter class (inches in d.b.h.)

9.0- 15.0-
classes 14.9t 19.9 220.0
State Soft Hard Soft’ Hardt Soft? Hard? Soft’ Hard*
cece eee ee eee eee eee Million board feet. -------------------+--
Alabama 6424.3 984.0 5,088.6 462.7 1,160.5 353.4 175.2 167.9
SE” 0.0771 0.1124 0.0743 0.1296 6.1521 0.1378 30 0.1629
at 815 815 815 815 815 815 815 815
Arkansas 32402 496.1 2,374.5 (2975 7408 152.4 124.9
SE 0.1263 0.1609 0.1331 0.1863 0.1812 0.1684 0.3376 0.3205
nit 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345
Louisiana 8,362.0 $76.3 5.9364 263.0 20116 2158 414.0 4
SE 0.0714 0.1471 0.0709» 0.1708 0.1140 0.1856 0.2356 0.2714
att 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483
Mississippi 5548.1 1.2719 4,066.3 557.3 13015 S114 180.3 203.2
SE” 0.0789 6.1284 0.0798 0.1328 «6.1291 0.1544 0.2536. (0.2299
ait 550 550 550 550 550 550 ‘550
Oklahoma (cast) 469.2 18,3 367.8 97 90.9 72 10.5 13
SE 0.2365 0.3354 0.1948 0.3880 0.5052 0.5550 0.5144 1.0000
att 112 112 112 M2 n2 H2 42 12
Tennessee 1,351.2 1,184.9 217.0 144.9 256.5 213 945
SB 0.1435 0.2164 G.1471 0.2001 0.2592 0.2441 0.5459 0.3651
rs 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112
Texas (east) 3166.9 451.0 25515 1928 5078 143.0 107.6 115.1
SE* 0.1078 0.1549 0.1056 0.1808 0.1927 0.2027 0.3205 0.2257
att 445 44 445 445 445 445 445 445
All States 28,561.7 4,365.5 21.569.9 2,000.0 5,958.1 1,639.8 1,033.7. 725.7
SEO 6.0378 0.0625 0.0373 0.0663 0.0641 6.0773 0.1249 0.1046
at 2,862 2,862 «2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862 2,862

‘*Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
‘Softwood sawtimber trees are 29.0 inches in d.b.h.; hardwood sawti

{Softwood species.
14-inch Rule.

trees are 211.0 inches in d.b-h.

Yo
ing errors are one standard error on a relativized scale ranging from 0.0000 to 1.0000.
*Nunber of . ranging

sample plots

29


Table 19.—Volume of softwood and hardwood sawtimber in plantations by State and forest type group, Midsouth States*

Forest type group
All Longleaf-siash Lobloll
State Sont Hard! = Sof! = Hard!’ = Soft! = Hard’ = Sof! = Hard’ = Soft! «= Hard’ = Soft! = Hard’ = Soft! = Hardt
reer rr rrrrn Million board feet**.-.-------+--+---++ weet eee eee e ee eeeeee
Alabama 6424.3 984.0 1,029.8 4827.0 494.7 0.5 296.3 1109 163.8, 0.0 21 16.0 0.0
SE. 0.0771 0.1124 0.1678 0.3174 0.09: 0.1982 0.1836 0.3206 0. 1 1,0000 0,000
nt 815 81s 87 540 113 113 1 2 2 2
Arkansas 3,240.2 496.1 0.0 0.0 2,889.4 1708 305.3 1953 419 48.9 36 0 81L 0.0 0.0
SEM 0.1263 0.1609 + 0.0000 0.0000 6.1356 0.2087 0.2457 0.2328 «0.5098 0.2695 0.6162 0.5418 0.0000 0,000
n 345 345 0) 0 225 225 6 69 6 6 5 5 0 0
Louisiana 8,362.0 576.3 3,162.6 15.6 4.7909 2445 380.1 181.2284 51.7 00 83.2 0.0 0.0
SE 0.0714 0.1471 0.0918 0.4359 0.0909 0.1871 0.3130 0.2700 0.7084 0.4517 0,0000 0.4027 0.0000 0,0000
ni 483 483 108 108 289 289 cr 37 2 2 7 7 0 0
ississippi 5548.1 1,271.9 737.0 17.5 3,836.5 284.8 «872.6 «372.5 93.9 380.6 &1 216.4 0.0 0.0
SE 6.0789 6.1284 0.1965 0.5449 0.0955 0.1604 0.1500 0.1730 0.3188 0.2298 0.7753 0.4544 0.0000 0.0000
nt 550 550 67 67 240 240 142 142 89 89 12 12 0) )
Oklahoma (east) 469.2 18,3 0.0 0.0 429.9 112 25.2 41 14.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SE. 0.2365 0.3354 0.0000 0,0000 0.2531 0.4430 0.6019 0.5418 + 0.5988 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
nt 112 112 0 0 87 87 7 7 8 8 0) 0 0 0
Tennessee 1351.2 $68.0 0.0 0.0 1,056.7 129.0 176.3 «1426331559 = 13113 73.8 7A
spr 6.1435 9.2164 0,000 0.0000 6.1588 0.2271 0.3318 «0.3094 «0.5183 0.3643 1.0000 0.6430 0.7438 0.5546
ni 112 112 0 0 68 68 2 2 18 18 2 2 2 2
Texas (east) 31669 451.0 642.6 «14.4 2,146.1 127.3 2956 1748S 282 S62 S418 0.0 0.0
11078 0.1549 0.2152 0.4901 0.1353 0.1757 0.2405 0.2632 0.6678 «0.4449 0.3948 «0.3612 0.0000 0.0000
45 “5 31 31 291 21 88 88 28 28 7 7 0 t)
All States S617 43655 SSTI9 | 748 199766 14622 24956 13665 3487 86017935749 89.7274
SEN 0378 6.0625 6.0747 0.2164 0.0465 0.0744 0.0929 6.0923 0.1734 0.1513 0.3753 0.2421 0.6394 0.7337
nt P86 ria 293 293° «1,740 1,740 508 508 282 282 35 35 4 4

tIncludes oak-

and elm-ash-cotton’

‘Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
wood types.

‘Tocludes white pine-Nemlock forest type.

‘of sample plots.

errors are one standard error on a relativized scale ranging from 0.0000 to 1.0000,


lion fbm) and in plantation softwood sawtimber vol-
ume (8.4 billion fom). The latter is 29 percent of the
softwood plantation volume in the Midsouth States.

In contrast to the softwood cubic-foot volume, NIPF
owners hold more plantation softwood sawtimber than.
does forest industry. Only Louisiana, Oklahoma, and
Texas have more softwood sawtimber in forest indus-
try than NIPF ownership.

Most softwood sawtimber is in trees 9.0 to 15.0
inches in d.b.h. (76 percent); very little is in trees 20.0
inches in d.b.h. or larger (only 4 percent). Louisiana
has 40 percent of the Midsouth plantation sawtimber
volume in these large trees and 34 percent of the vol-
ume in trees 15.0 to 20.0 inches in d.b.h.

Most inventory data show different mean volumes
among different geographic regions and in subsamples
of the data. However, these differences are based on
samples and may in fact arise by statistical chance.
The smaller the difference, the larger the probability
that it is simply a matter of sampling. In this study,
t-tests were conducted on differences in softwood per-
acre volumes between plantations and natural stands
in order to test the assumption that the numbers re-
ported are in fact the same (the null hypothesis). These
tests were run for individual State totals as well as
the Midsouth total. There are minor technical objec-
tions to running t-tests repeatedly in this fashion, but
the large numbers of samples reported in the tests
offset some of these technical objections, which are
more applicable when sample sizes are small (n<15)
(Zar 1984). All these t-tests were performed at P <0.05.

The results of the t-tests indicate that there are dif-
ferences in softwood volume between natural stands
and plantations for the Midsouth as a whole and for
all the individual States except Oklahoma (table JI).
Oklahoma has the smallest mean volume per acre and
a nominal difference of only 90 ft? between planta-
tions and natural stands.

Another series of tests was conducted to discern dif-
ferences in total volume (softwood and hardwood) be-
tween plantations and natural stands (table III). Three
States (Alabama, Arkansas, and Tennessee) appear
to have no significant differences between plantations
and natural stands. Consequently, the apparent ex-
cess of total volume for plantation means for these
States should probably be discounted. There is a rea-
sonable probability that even in these States, the stand
volume is at least equal for plantation and natural
stands. The rest show greater per-acre volumes in
natural stands than in plantations.

Differences based on the t-tests are rather robust
when sample sizes are large. Although the variances
tested equal, the sampling variation is quite large.
Increasing sample size would not reduce the varia-
tion but would reduce the standard error. Because the
numbers are aiready large, it would take many more
samples to reduce the error. The best strategy to im-

ARKANSAS <<
AXSSS8
MISSISSIPPI ———

OKLAHOMA (K

ALABAMA

LOUISIANA

TENNESSEE |
MIDSOUTH ——

rn L 1 L
° 5 10 15 20 25 30

SOFTWOOD GROWING-STOCK VOLUME
IN PLANTATIONS (PERCENT)

Figure 3.— Percent of total softwood growing-stock volume in plan-
tations by State and Midsouth, U.S.A. Error bars are
one standard error.

prove the estimate would be the implementation of a
plot selection procedure that enhanced within-stand
homogeneity of the plots. This would help reduce the
variation, but perhaps at the cost of increased vari-
ability in other inventory objectives.

There were problems associated in selecting the
plots used in these comparisons. Criteria used in the
selection process were that a plot had to be on an up-
land site, it had to contain trees of poletimber or saw-
timber size, and softwoods had to be present. No
consideration was given to ownership, degree of dis-
turbance, disturbance history, site, stocking condition,
basal area, or age of the stand. Besides the difficulty
in describing disturbance objectively, stratifying by
these additional conditions would have drastically de-
pleted the sample population. Moreover, the time it takes
a plantation, versus a natural stand, to reach 1,500 ft?
of softwood volume per acre will affect stand productiv-
ity over several stand generations. These are all factors
that may, singly or in combination, greatly influence the
current plot-volume means being compared.

Regardless of the shortcomings of these data, they
are the only ones describing the forest resources over
the expanse of the Midsouth region. Overall, for the
poletimber and sawtimber population described, mean
per-acre softwood growing-stock volumes in planta-
tion stands are 30 percent greater than natural stands
(table If). In contrast, mean per-acre total
growing-stock volume in natural stands is 10 percent
higher than in plantations (table III).


Table 10.—Area of timberiand in plantations by State and management activity, Midsouth States*

Management activity

All Thinning Stand Site Natural
Alabama . 4 30.5
SE! 0.0312 6.0427 0.1936 0.0821 0.0767 0.4283
a 815 478 27 145 160 5
1,915.5 113.5 194.9 291.6 693.4 22.1
SE 0.0514 0.0874 0.1699 0.1385 0.0887 0.5069
a 345 128 35 52 126 4
Louisjana 2,735.7 1,236.6 323.3 670.6 494.1 11.2
SE 0.0410 6.0649 0.1314 0.0901 0.1056 0.7147
a 483 220 56 119 6 2
Mississippi 3,227.2 1,228.6 1749 604.1 AATLI 48.5
SE. 0.0385 0.0666 0.1821 0.0967 0.0683, 03472
a 550 207 31 105 199 8
Oklahoma (cast) 621.3 4113 672 86.7 56.1 0.0
SE! 0.0918 0.1155 0.2960 0.2602 0.3243 0.0000
v 112 4 12 16 10 0
Tennessee 636.9 471.8 14.1 15.5 69.8 58
SE 0.0934 0.1092 0.6434 02771 0.2884 0.0000
112 83 3 13 12 1
Texas (east) 2,541.9 1,806.3 120.3 371.1 235.1 9.0
SE 6.0421 6.0519 02171 0.1223 0.1545 0.7988
a 445 314 21 67 4 2
All States 16,278.7 8,572.9 1,043.0 2.9018 3,634.0 127.0
set 0.0172 0.0248 6.0738 6.0438 0.0390 0.2124
rs 2,862 1,504 185 517 634 2

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
‘Sampling ervos are one standard error on a relatvized scale ranging

Number of sample plots.


Table 16—Volume of softwood and hardwood growing stock in plantations by State and age class, Midsouth States*

Age class (years)t
All Mixed
classes 5 is 25 35 45 251 age!
State Sot Hardt Sot! Hard! Sof! Hard’ = Soft!’ —sHard! Soft? ‘Hard’ Soft! ‘Hard! Soft! Hard! Soft Hard!

Alabama 2,562.2 459.2 175.4 15.9 672.3 15.5 618.3 50.0 327.7 315 47.4 10.9 39.7 3 681.5 204.1
SE« 0.0473 0.0762 0.1189 0.1623 0.0557 0.1618 0.0709 0.1801 0.0947 0.2528 «0.2513 0.4009 0.4453. «(0.3331 0.0759 0.1135
at 815 815 378 378 178 178 as as n x» s 3 3 3 136 136

Arkansas 998.6 221.3 369 241 190.1 15.5 314 187.5 12.8 107.1 45 27.8 47 302.4 128.3
SEn 0.0897 0.1172 0.2296 «= 0.2150 0.1002 20.1219 225 0.1252 0.3386 «0.1558 0.4999 0.5803 1 0.1392 (0.1285
Ls 345 345 153 153 71 17 7 1 Is 6 6 3 3 4 4

Louisiana 2,283.3 237.9 77 37.5 408.2 26.9 4A 31.1 642.5 28.9 130.7 83 78.3 17 $27.5 103.4
SEn 0.0519 O.1191 0.2301 0.2805 = 0.0795 0.2952 0.0578 904265 «0.0520 0.3786 «0.0891 03153 0.12730. 0.1014 = 0.1563
® 173 173 107 107 2 52 3s Es 10 0 6 80 80

Mississippi 1,767.5 472.7 60.4 59.6 204.0 32.8 456.0 43 259.6 37.8 792 13 247 12.9 683.6 287.4
sEe 0.0589 0.0905 0.1986 0.2013 0.1055 0.2743 «(0.0808 0.2589 0.1200 0.2803 0.1999 06814 0.6374 0.7855 0.0718 0.1132
a" 550 550 223 p<) 18 8 0 Ey x» n» 8 8 3 3 161 161

Oklahoma (east) 347.7 15.8 24.2 26 208.2 2.7 52.1 Ol 65 16 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.9 8.8
SEr 0.0851 0.2561 0.2532 0.5735 0.0828 0.5424 0.2591 1.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1943 0.3033
n 112 112 » x» 35 35 9 9 1 1 0 o o 0 0 7

Tennessee 484.0 204.4 10.8 45 548 9.0 1143 17.5 117.4 24.7 23.0 10.1 20.7 3.7 143.0 134.9
sEw 0.1030 0.1655 0.3487 0.4548 «0.1681 0.4312 0.1592 0.3840 0.1300 0.3099 0.0813. «0.8723 0.4010 0.7235 0.1752 0.2021
a 112 12 6 26 ot) it) 4 “ u HW 3 3 2 2 0 37

Texas (east) 1471.8 177.8 132.8 28.6 636.7 25.0 193.7 14.0 87.6 19 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.6 410.5 107.8
sSEe 0.0591 0.1141 0.1541 0.2172 0.0582 0.1899 0.1255 0.3168 + 0.2317 0.9070 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1089 0.1511
a 44S “45 192 192 121 121 25 8 $ o 0 1 i 98 98

All States 9,915.1 1,789.1 511.9 2329 2,374.3 187.3 2,005.6 1789 1,628 139.1 387.5 41.1 201.7 349 2,805.3 974.7
SE 0.0246 0.0445 0.0735 0.0940 0.0312 0.1010 0.0364 0.1362 0.0404 «0.1436 0.0841 0.1386 © 0.3387 0.0403 0.0592
at 2,862 2,862 1,175 1175 632 632 252 282 150 150 32 32 18 18 03 603

a sum to totals due to .
{Values are midpolnts of 10-year ranges; Le., 5 = 0-10 years, 15 = 11- Yours, etc.
‘Stand suctre dud ths past wars wo tingle 2ge tas coud to Sctisod Le. ewo or more sata >10 yours difference in age

raamplise of one standard error on a relativized scale ranging from 0.0000 to 1.0000.


Forest Plantations in the Midsouth, U.S.A.

James F. Rosson, Jr.

INTRODUCTION

Continued population growth and the assumed ex-
pansion of the United States economy will impact
heavily on the forest resources of the United States.
Additionally, changes in social values and attitudes
are increasing the demand on the forest resource to
produce a variety of goods and services. Such demands
are shifting harvesting pressure from western to east-
ern forests. The South currently accounts for most of
the timber removals in the United States—55 percent,
up from 45 percent in 1970 (Powell and others 1993).

Recent surveys in the Midsouth have revealed large
increases in softwood removals. For example, the sixth
Louisiana forest survey shows a removal-to-growth ra-
tio of 1.27 to 1 (Rosson 1995). Clearly, such harvest-to-
growth ratios cannot continue indefinitely without
depleting the softwood reserve. With little likelihood that
demand will decrease, it is imperative that harvested
timberland be regenerated in a timely manner and that
adequate stocking be maintained throughout the regen-
eration cycle. Two publications have addressed such is-
sues in Louisiana (Rosson 1994a, 1994b).

Plantation forestry is one means of controlling the
temporal and spatial aspects of stand regeneration
after harvest. Although plantation forestry has been
criticized for fostering clearcutting, monocultures, and
loss of biological diversity, intensive plantation forestry
can ultimately reduce harvesting pressure and dis-
turbance on natural stands and stands intended to be
set aside for esthetics, recreation, or watershed pro-
tection. The reasoning is that maximum timber pro-
duction can be concentrated in plantations—land
intended solely for timber production. Otherwise, as
demands on the resource continue to increase, more
and more of the timberland base must be brought into
the harvest rotation to meet demand, usually from
lands that are less than optimally stocked.

Reported here is the status of forest plantations in
the Midsouth States (fig. 1). It is important to know if
plantations are meeting their fullest potential and
what shortcomings, if any, need to be addressed. In-

formation gathered includes plantation area, forest
type, ownership, volume, site class, and stocking. Ad-
ditionally, comparisons were made to see if there was
any difference between plantation and natural-stand
volumes. Data were taken from the latest forest sur-
veys of each Midsouth State (table I). The appendix
contains definitions of terms and resource tables.

METHODS

The sample design consisted of two phases: dot
counts for estimating timberland area and measure-
ments on sample plots for stand and tree attributes.
Sample plots were located on a 3-mile-square grid and
were revisited during successive inventories. At each
plot location, a 10-point satellite plot was used to
sample tree attributes. Trees 25.0 inches in diameter
at breast height (d.b.h.) were selected with a 37.5-
basal-area-factor prism. Saplings (trees 21.0 inch and
<5.0 inches in d.b.h.) were measured on 7.1-ft-radius
plots at satellite points 1, 2, and 3. Saplings were also
tallied (to supplement stocking assessment only) at
the other seven points where fewer than two live trees
25.0 inches in d.b.h. were sampled at a specific point.
Stocking is expressed as the relative measurement (in
percent) of sampled stand density (based upon the ag-
gregation of individual tree density) to a specified den-
sity (see stocking definition in the appendix). Seedlings
(trees <1.0 inch in d.b.h.) were tallied at any point
where no live trees >1.0 inch in d.b.h. occurred in the
respective point sample. This sampling procedure was
based on a theoretical maximum plot stocking of 160
percent. Therefore, each satellite point in the sample
could not be more than 16-percent stocked. The seed-
ling sample was limited to only the four dominant seed-
lings at each point where no trees >1.0 inch in d.b.h.
occurred. Therefore, complete enumerations of seed-
lings were not done in the sample. Complete sapling
enumerations were done on satellite points 1, 2, and
8, but not on points 4 through 10. For additional de-
tails on the sample design, see Rosson (1995).

James F. Rosson, Jr., is a research forester in the Forest Inventory and Analysis unit, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Forest Experiment Station, Starkville, MS 39759.


‘Table 2—Area of timberland in plantations by State and ownership, Midsouth States*

Ownership
All Nati Other Nonindustrial
State ownerships forest public industry private
nar ‘Thousand acres-----------------
Alabama 4 46.8 39.8 2,031.2 2,482.5
SE 0.0312 0.3457 0.3746 0.050) 0.0448
815 18 7 56 434
Arkansas 1,915.5 1728 28.3 1,246.5 4675
SE. 0.0514 0.1805 0.4481 0.0651 0.1088
v 345 30 3
Louisiana 2,735.7 149.4 29.6 1,534.3 1,022.4
SE! 0.0410 0.1945 0.4389 0.0576 0.0720
a 483 37 4 265 17
Mississippi 3,227.2 74.6 1,498.7 1,426.5
SE! 0.0385 0.1594 0.2797 1.0598 0.0614
w 550 13 257 aL
Oklahoma (cast) 621.3 50.3 0.0 526.6 44.
SE 0.0918 0.3426 0.0000 0.1008 0.3653
112 12 oO
Tennessee 636.9 3.6 281.8
SE! 0.0934 0.0000 0.1423
w 2 1 49
‘Texas (cast) 2,541.9 133.2 588.5
‘ 0.0421 0.0962
e 445 35 7

*Numbers ia rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
fing errors are one standard error on  relativized scale ranging
from to 1.0000.


Table 4.—Area of timberland in plantations by State and stand-size class, Midsouth States*

Stand-size class
All ‘Sapling-
State classes Nonstocked seedling —-Poletimber Sawtimber
Alabama 4,600.3 105 2.7120 12504 627.3
SE! 0.0312 0.7301 0.0426 0.0650 0.0932
a 815 2 480 23 110
Ad 1,915.5 0.0 1,195.6 438.3 281.5
SE! 6.0514 0.0000 6.0666 0.1125 0.1410
a 345 0 216 69 50
Louisjana 2,735.7 11.2 1,285.0 682.7 156.7
S, 6.0410 0.7127 6.0636 0.0892 0.0845
w 483 2 226 118 137
Mississippi 3.2272 0.0 1,858.0 7244 644.8
SE! 0.0385, 0.0000 6.0531 0.0880 0.0935
aw 550 0 318 124 108
Oklahoma (east) 621.3 0.0 223.7 337.7 59.9
SE! 0.0918 0.0000 0.1597 0.1284 0.3139
112 0 40 60 12
Tennessee 636.9 0.0 215.5 229.4 192.1
SE! 0.0934 0.0000 0.1632 0.1581 0.1730
112 0 37 4 34
Texas (cast) 2,541.9 0.0 1341.1 820.1 380.7
SEt 6.0421 0.0000 6.0616 0.0807 0.1207
445 0 233 143 69
All States 16,278.7 2L7 88309 4,483.1 2,942.9
SE 0.0172 0.5136 0.0244 0.0350 0.0435
a x 4 1,550 788 520

*Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
"Sampling errors are one standard error on 2 relativized scale ranging
10,0008 to 1.0000.

*Number of sample plots.
Table 5—Area of timberland in plantations by State and softwood stocking class, Midsouth States*
Stocking class (percent)
all 30- 60- 90.
State classes <30 59 89 119 2120
note e reenter ee eee ee Thousand actes - ------------------
Alabama 4600.3 361.1 7818 1,644.60 1.414.5 398.2
SE! 0.0312 0.1235 0.0832 0.0562 6.0609 0.1175
a 315 65 139 290 251 70
‘Arkansas 1,915.5 256.3 461.3 630.6 408.7 158.5
SE 6.0514 0.1479 1095 0.0932 0.1166 = 0.1885
345 82 114 7) 29
Louisiana 2,735.1 142.0 442.8 902.6 931.6 316.7
SE! 6.0410 0.1995 0.1118 0.0770 =—-0.0757 0.1328
483 25 B 161 166 53
Mississippi 3,227.2 589.0 878.2 982.0 604.8 173.1
SE! 0.0385 0.0980 0.0796 0.0750 0.0967 0.1830
J 550 97 M47 171 106 29
Oklahoma (cast) 621.3 55.9 130.0 210.7 159.7 649
SE! 0.0918 03251 0.2114 0.1648 = 0.1902 0.3014
a 12 10 2B 37 30 12
Tennessee 636.9 118.9 122.3 232.5 112.2 51.1
SE! 0.0934 0.2205 0.2174 0.1570 = 0.2271 0.3371
a 112 20 22 al 20 9
Texas (cast) 2,541.9 185.2 614.3 742.6 T324 267.2
SE! 6.0421 0.1745 0.0940 0.0851 0.0857 0.1448
a 445 32 105 129 131 4
All States 16,278.7 1.7084 3,430.9 5,345.7 4,364.0 1,429.7
SE! 0.0172 6.0575 0.0402 6.0319 0.0355 0.0629
a 2,862 295 596 943 TB 250

‘*Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
‘Sampling errors are one standard error on a relativized scale ranging
10,0000 to 1.0000.

Number of sample plots.

14


CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......... 0. cece eee eect eee n eee ennee 1
METHODS - 2
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............. 60. .ceeeeeeeee 8
CONCLUSION .. 6

APPENDIX
Definition of Terms
Tables ...



Table 14.—Volume of softwood and hardwood growing stock in plantations by State and forest type group, Midsouth States*

Forest type group
All Longleaf-slash Loblolly-shortleaf Bottomland
types pine pine Oak-pine Oak. hardwoods! Other!

State Soft* Hardt Soft! Hard! Soft! Hardt Soft? Hardt Soft Hard* Soft! Hardt Soft! Hardt

sees ~ Million cubic feet -

Alabama 2,562.2 459.2 423.3 23.5 1,943.8 235.5 159.2 120.5 31.3 778 0.0 0.7 4. 1.2
SE” 0.0473 0.07620. 0919 0.2867 0.0552 0.0927 0.1240 0.1486 =—-0.2380 0.2310 0.0000 =—:1.0000 1.0000 1,0000
nit 815 815 87 540 540 13 3 m1 7 2 2 2 2

‘Arkansas 998.6. 221.3 0.0 0.0 888.7 93.6 93.2 79.4 14.4 23.2 22 25.1 0.0 0.0
SE” 0.0897 0.1172 0.0000 0,0000 0.0938 §=-0.1428 ~=—-0.1933. 0.1939 0.2902 0.2132 (0.6160 0.4661 ~=—:0.0000- «0.0000
nit 345 345 0 0 225 225 69 69 4% 46 5 5 0 0

Louisiana 2,283.3 237.9 751.3 13.0 1,433.3 102.0 88.2 60.9 10.4 283 0.0 33.7 0.0 0.0
SE" 0.0519 0.1191 0.0683. 0.2619 = 0.0672, «0.1473 0.2419 0.2343 :0.4530 0.3279 0.000 0.3178 0,0000 0.0000
a 483 483 108 108 289 289 57 37 2 2 7 7

Mississippi 1,767.5 472.7 286.6 10.3 1,191.1 125.0 257.8 151.3 29.6 130.1 23 56.0 0.0 0.0
SE* 0.0589 0.0905 0.1161 0.2948 90.0707 «0.1136 = 0.1028) 0.1321 0.2054 =—0.1734 0.7064 ~=—-0,3928 +~—:0,0000-—:0,0000
ait 550550 61 67 240 240 142 142 89 a9 12 12 0 ty)

Oklahoma (east) 347.7 15.8 0.0 0.0 3219 63 19.5 5.1 6.3 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SE“ 0.0851 0.2561 0.0000 0.0000 0.0829 -0,3701 «0.2455 0.3641 0.3313 «(0.5733 0.0000 0.0000 -:0.0000~=—s:0.0000
a 112 112 0 0 87 87 7 17 8 8 0 0 0 0

Tennessee 484.0 204.4 0.0 0.0 401.2 58.5 50.8 523 95 58.8 24 28.3 20.1 6.6
SE" 0.1030 0.1655 0.0000 0.0000 0.1016 0.2074 02161 0.2392 0.3682 0.2756 «1.0000 0.6639 0.6757 0.2212
ni 112 112 0 ° 68 68 2 2 18 18 2 2 2 2

Texas (cast) 14718 1778 184.8 71 11525 655 «117.0 62.2 14 249 100 18.0 0.0 0.0
SE” 0.0591 0.1141 0.1406 0.2863 0.0651 0.1268 0.1445 0.1842 0.5022 0.4455 0.3714 ~—0,3332——:0,0000 ~—-0.0000
a 445 445 Eyy 31 291 291 88 88 3B 2 7 7 o 0

All States 9,915.1 1,789.1 1,646.0 54.0 7,332.6 686.5 785.8 531.7 108.9 347.4 17.0 161.7 24.8 17
SE 0.0246 6.0445 0.0479 0.1562 0.0284 0.0533 0.0512 0.0727 0.1168 0.1083 0.3228 «0.2086 «0.5981 0.4465
nt 2,862 2,862 293 293 «1,740 1,740 508 508 282 282 35 35 4 4

*Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
"Includes oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood types.
ISohwcod gece nk ore te.

SHardwood species.

‘Sampling errors are one standard error on a relativized scale ranging from 0.0000 to 1.0000.
Number of sample plots.


FOREWORD

The USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Sta-
tion, Midsouth Forest Inventory and Analysis (MIDSO-FIA) unit,
headquartered in Starkville, Mississippi, conducts forest inven-
tories covering the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missis-
sippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas and the U.S. Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico. The MIDSO-FIA mission is to develop,
analyze, and maintain forest resource information essential for
the formulation of forest policies and programs.

The MIDSO-FIA inventories of the Midsouth United States are
part of a nationwide effort originally authorized by the McSweeney-
McNary Act of 1928. More recent legislation pertinent to the MIDSO-
Planning Act of 1974, the National Forest Management Act of 1976,
and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Research Act of
1978.

SUMMARY

The latest forest surveys of the seven Midsouth States show
16,278,700 acres of forest plantations, mostly planted pine. Twenty
percent of the Midsouth softwood growing-stock volume is in plan-
tations. Plantations average 1,241.2 ft8/acre in softwood growing-
stock volume in poletimber and sawtimber size stands versus 957.7
ft8/acre for natural stands. Results of the analysis show that per-
acre pine volume is enhanced across the Midsouth by plantation
forestry but that there is little difference between plantations and
natural stands in total per-acre volume.


Rosson, James F., 1995. Forest plantations in the Midsouth, U.S.A. Res.
Pap. SO-290. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, For-
est Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 30 p.

Timberland that has been artificially regenerated in the seven Midsouth
States was analyzed by ownership, forest type, stocking class, age, tree
density, basal area, site class, and volume, Growing-stock volumes of
natural stands and plantations were compared.

Keywords: Artificial regeneration, forest inventory, forest survey, mono-
culture, pine plantation, plantation forestry, planted pine.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs
on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs and mari-
tal or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities
who require alternative means of communication of program information (braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-2791.

‘Io file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wash-
ington, DC 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal
employment opportunity employer.


‘Table 17—Volume of softwood and hardwood sawtimber by State and stand type, Midsouth States*

‘State

“set
-

‘SEA
-

‘ae
-

‘Missigsippi 39,597.22 33,6127 34,049.1 32,3408 5,548.1 1271.9
SE 0.0308 0.0286 0.0334 0.0283 0.0789 0.1284
- 2,899 2,899 2349 2349 550 550

‘Oklahoena (east) 4,161.2 3,850.4 3,692.1 3,832.1 469.2 18.3
SE! 6 0.0750 0.0727 0.0790 0.0718 0.2365 0.3354
- 820 18 ne 2 112

Te 96135 43,9571 8.2624 43,389.1 13512
se 0.0549 0.0222 0058s Sha 1 as 0.2164
= 2.215 2215 2,163 2163 112 12

Texas, (east) 35,0775 15,5684 31,910.7 15,1174 3,166.9 451.0
SE! 0.0369 003" 0.0384 0.0369 0.1078 0.1549
- 2,056 1,611 1611 45 “5

“ast oe ONE be acrid isis hoes
- 17413, «17,413 145510 14,551 2,862 2,862

‘Numbers in rows and cohumas may not sum to totals due to rounding.

deemed Ue eh a
‘errors are one standard error on « relativized scale ranging from 0.0000 to 1.0000.
“Number of sample plots.


sidered merchantable. Trees must be at least 5.0
inches in d.b.h. to qualify.

Softwoods—Coniferous trees, usually evergreen,
having leaves that are needles or scalelike.

Volume

Volume of cull—The cubic-foot volume of sound
wood in rough and rotten trees at least 5.0 inches in
d.b.h. from a 1-ft stump to a minimum 4.0-inch top
diameter outside bark (d.o.b.) of the central stem or
to the point where the central stem breaks into limbs.

Volume of growing stock—The cubic-foot volume
of sound wood in growing-stock trees at least 5.0 inches
in d.b.h. from a 1-ft stump to a minimum 4.0-inch top
d.o.b. of the central stem or to the point where the
central stem breaks into limbs.

Volume of live trees—The cubic-foot volume of
sound wood in growing-stock, rough, and rotten trees
at least 5.0 inches in d.b.h. from a 1-ft stump to a mini-
mum 4.0-inch top d.o.b. of the central stem or to the
point where the central stem breaks into limbs.

Volume of sawlog portion of sawtimber trees—
The cubic-foot volume of sound wood in the sawlog
portion of sawtimber trees. Volume is the net result
after deductions for rot, sweep, and other defects that
affect use for lumber.

Volume of sawtimber—The board-foot volume (In-
ternational 1/4-inch Rule) of sound wood in the sawlog
portion of sawtimber trees. Volume is the net result
after deductions for rot, sweep, and other defects that
affect use for lumber.

Volume of timber—The cubic-foot volume of sound
wood in growing-stock, rough, rotten, and salvable
dead trees at least 5.0 inches in d.b.h. from a 1-ft stump
to a minimum 4.0-inch top d.o.b. of the central stem
or to the point where the central stem breaks into limbs.

10


‘Table 3.—Area of timberland in plantations by State and forest type group, Midsouth States*

Forest type group
All Longleaf- _ Loblolly- Bottomland

State types slash pine shortleaf pine Oak-pine Oak-hickory hardwoods! Other!

rrr Thousand acres-------------------->
Alabama 46003 4656 3,081.5 635.8 395.1 117 106
SES 6.0312 0.1085 0.0396 = 0.0925 0.1180 0.6905 0.7276
a 815 87 540 13 nm 2
Arkansas 1915.5 00 = 1,242.4 388.2 256.6 23 00
SE 6.0514 0.0000 6.0652 0.1197 0.1478 += 0.4480 0.0000
a 345 0 225 cr) 6 5 tC)
Louis 2735.7 6006 1,644.5 324.6 128.7 313° 00
SE! 6.0410 0.0954 0.0554 = 1311 0.2097 0.3909 0.0000
a 483 108 289 57 2 7 0
Mississippi 32272-3714 1,395.3 843.0 534.6 82900
s, 6.0385 0.1242 6.0621 0.0813 0.1031 0.2653 0.0000
rs 550 67 240 142 89 12 0
Oklahoma (cast) 621.3 0.0 4199 97.0 445 00 00
SE! 0.0918 0.0000 0.1061 0.2457 0.3647 0.0000 0.0000
a 112 0 87 17 8 0 0
Tennessee 636.9 0.0 384.8 122.4 105.4 139 104
SE! 0.0934 0.0000 0.1213 0.2173 0.2343 0.6464 0.7496
a 112 0 68 2 18 2 2
Texas (cast) 2,541.9 1752 1,643.9 522.1 159.9 4.7 00
SE! 6.0421 0.1795 0.0548 0.1024 0.1880 0.3743 0.0000
nw 445 31 21 88 2B 7 0
All 16.2787 1,612.8 9,872.4 2,933.0 1,624.7 2148 209
SE 6.0172 0.0592 0.0229 0.0436 0.0589 0.1632 0.5233
a 2,862 293 1,740 508 282 35 4

‘Numbers in rows and columas may not sum to totals due to rounding.

ee ae ‘Mandard care relativized scale ranging from 0.0000 to 1.0000.
errors are one ona w If .

Raber bf ramp pow.

13