Land-Cover Change in the Gulf Coastal Plains and 

Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative, 1973 to 

2000

By Mark A. Drummond, Michael P. Stier, and Alisa W. Coffin

Open-File Report 2015–1018

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
ii

U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Cover photo: Upland forest cover in the South Central Plains ecoregion.

(Photo by U.S. Geological Survey)

Suggested citation:

Drummond, M.A., Stier, M.P., and Coffin, A.W., 2015, Land-cover change in the Gulf Coastal Plains and 

Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative, 1973 to 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2015–1018, 13 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151018. 

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain

copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be 

secured from the copyright owner. 
iii

Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Approach .................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Summary of Findings.................................................................................................................................................. 3

Land-Use and Land-Cover Change, 1973 to 2000 ................................................................................................. 7

Causes and Drivers .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Consequences and Challenges of Land-Cover Change ....................................................................................... 10

References Cited...................................................................................................................................................... 13

Figures

1. Land-cover patterns in the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative .................... 2

2. Photos of the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks region .......................................................................................... 4

3. Trends in land use and land cover for five target years between 1973 and 2000 ................................................ 6

4. Summary of the most extensive types of land-cover conversions between 1973 and 2000................................. 8

5. Total change and absolute net change between 1973 and 2000......................................................................... 9

6. Comparison of the sector-based changes between 1973 and 2000, as a percent of the initial land-cover 

total in 1973 ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

7. Cumulative development contributes to forest cover decrease.......................................................................... 11

8. Forest management activities in the region........................................................................................................ 12

Tables

1. Estimated land-cover extent and margin of error for five target years between 1973 and 2000........................... 6

2. Average annual extent of land-cover change for the four time intervals of the study and margin of error............ 8

3. Spatial extent, or footprint, of land-cover change sorted by the number of time intervals during which an 

area underwent change ....................................................................................................................................... 8
iv

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

SI to Inch/Pound 

Multiply By To obtain

Length

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area

square kilometer (km2) 247.1 Acre

square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)
Land-Cover Change in the Gulf Coastal Plains and 

Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative, 1973 to 

2000

By Mark A. Drummond,

1 Michael P. Stier,1 and Alisa W. Coffin2

Introduction

Land-use change and other human-caused effects on land cover and biophysical 

conditions have a pervasive yet variable influence across the national landscape. The 

contemporary human influence on conditions is occurring at a relatively rapid pace, even while 

conservation efforts strive to maintain ecological integrity and essential ecosystem services. The 

underlying causes of these changes are numerous, ranging from demographic and socioeconomic 

changes to technological advances and government policies. Because of the breadth of human 

influence on the national landscape, it is vital to improve the understanding of historical, current, 

and future land-use and land-cover change, its causes, and its ecological and climate interactions 

(U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2010). 

Here, baseline land-cover change information for the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC; fig. 1) from target years between 1973 and 2000 is 

summarized in brief. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, facilitated by the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, are regionally focused networks consisting of “applied conservation science 

partnerships” whose function is to “provide scientific and technical expertise to produce 

landscape-scale conservation designs” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010, p. 1–2). The 

following report provides a broad overview of many of the land-use and land-cover trends 

relevant to landscape management and further research.

1

U.S. Geological Survey 

2

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service
2 

Figure 1. Land-cover patterns in the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative (LCC). 

Approach

The historical baseline of land-cover change between 1973 and 2000 was established 

using a random sample approach, stratified by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

ecoregions (Loveland and others, 2002). The sampling approach was a cost-efficient method for 

characterizing historical land-cover change across the conterminous United States (Stehman and 

others, 2003, 2005; Sohl and others, 2004). Estimates of land-use and land-cover change were 

derived from nearly 2,700 area sample sites (10×10 kilometers [km] and 20×20 km). Statistical 

estimates of error are provided at the 85-percent confidence level. The changes were originally 

summarized using the EPA Level III ecoregions described by Omernik (1987; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1999) and are reassessed here using the LCC area (Millard

and others, 2012). 
3 

The research relied on three decades of Landsat satellite data, along with other 

information on land use and biophysical factors. Satellite data from the Landsat Multispectral 

Scanner System (MSS), Thematic Mapper (TM), and Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) 

instruments were acquired from the Landsat data archive. Ancillary data, including aerial 

photography, aided interpreters in manually delineating land use and land cover from the Landsat 

data at a minimum mapping unit of 60×60 meters (m). Landscape changes were classified using 

10 different land-use/land-cover categories for the target years 1973, 1980, 1986, 1992, and 

2000. The classification system is a modified Anderson Level 1 (Anderson and others, 1976) and 

consists of the following general land-cover classes: water, urban/developed, mechanical 

disturbance, mining, barren, forest, grassland/shrubland, agriculture, wetland, and 

nonmechanical (primarily natural) disturbance.

Summary of Findings

The Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks region (fig. 2) has seen overall declines in forest 

cover and agriculture as areas of urbanization and mechanical disturbance (forest harvesting) 

have increased (fig. 3, table 1). Much of the high rate of change is related to intensive pine 

plantation forestry in the southern coniferous forest belt of the South Central Plains and 

Southeastern Plains ecoregions, where large expanses of mixed forest have been replaced with 

loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and shortleaf pine (P. echinata). Whereas the total area of forest land 

use increased, the intensive cutting regime resulted in a transitional grassland state that 

contributes to an overall decrease in forest cover. 

The trends among various types of land conversion that contribute to the overall net 

change, however, are complex. For example, while forests in the South Central Plains were still 

being cleared for agriculture (primarily pasture) between 1973 and 1980, the trend reversed 

(agriculture to forest) after 1986 as plantation forestry intensified. In the Ozarks, forest cover loss 

to agriculture was the prevailing trend, causing a subregional increase in agricultural land cover 

that differs from the overall LCC trend. The dynamics of change in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain 

indicate that conversions from forest to agriculture contributed to a net loss of forest, although 

larger extents of forest and agriculture were lost to development. Though coastal and other 

wetland dynamics are highly variable, results indicate an overall loss of wetlands to water 

(wetland inundation), agriculture, and development. 
4 

A 

B 

Figure 2. Photos of the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks region. A, Managed pine forest in the South 

Central Plains. B, Rice fields on the Mississippi Alluvial Plain. C, Ozark Highlands. D, Mosaic of forest and 

agriculture (tobacco). (All photos by U.S. Geological Survey)—Continued on next page
5 

C 

D 

Figure 2. Photos of the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks region. A, Managed pine forest in the South 

Central Plains. B, Rice fields on the Mississippi Alluvial Plain. C, Ozark Highlands. D, Mosaic of forest and 

agriculture (tobacco). (All photos by U.S. Geological Survey)
6 

Figure 3. Trends in land use and land cover (in percent) for five target years between 1973 and 2000.

Margin of error can be found in table 1.

Table 1. Estimated land-cover extent (in percent) and margin of error, calculated at an 85-percent 

confidence level, for five target years between 1973 and 2000. 

1973 1980 1986 1992 2000

Land-cover

type

Land-cover 

total

Margin of 

error, ± 

Land-cover 

total

Margin of 

error, ± 

Land-cover 

total

Margin of 

error, ± 

Land-cover 

total

Margin of 

error, ± 

Land-cover 

total

Margin of 

error, ± 

Water 2.6 0.8 2.6 0.8 2.6 0.8 2.6 0.8 2.6 0.8

Developed 2.0 0.4 2.1 0.4 2.4 0.5 2.6 0.5 3.1 0.6

Mechanically

disturbed 1.7 0.5 2.1 0.3 2.6 0.5 3.2 0.4 3.9 0.8

Mining 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1

Barren 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

Forest 52.2 3.9 51.3 4.0 50.4 3.7 50.1 3.9 49.7 3.3

Grassland/Shrubland 0.9 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.3 0.2 1.4 0.2 1.0 0.2

Agriculture 33.4 4.4 33.7 4.6 33.5 4.6 32.8 4.5 32.2 4.2

Wetland 7.1 1.4 7.1 1.5 7.0 1.5 7.0 1.4 6.9 1.4

Nonmechanically

disturbed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7 

Land-Use and Land-Cover Change, 1973 to 2000

Cycles of tree cutting and regrowth contribute to a fast, generally increasing rate of 

landscape change. The total annual extent of land-cover change (all gross gains and losses) 

increased from 0.72 percent (1973–1980) to 1.2 percent (1992–2000) of the LCC total area (table 

2). The extent of change includes both the expansion and decline of all land cover types that 

determine the net changes shown in figure 3. Moreover, the region has a large total footprint of 

change, with 17.7 percent (±1.2) of the total area changing at least once between 1973 and 2000 

(table 3). 

• The cyclic harvest-regrowth dynamics that contribute to the large spatial footprint of land 

change are highest in the Ouachita Mountains and the South Central Plains. 

Approximately half (8.8 percent) of the total spatial extent of change underwent a landcover change during two or more time intervals, which is indicative of the cyclic pattern 

of forest harvest and regrowth (table 3).

• Forest harvest (forest to mechanically disturbed) was the most extensive type of land 

conversion during all time intervals (fig. 4). Despite extensive tree planting, harvest 

cycles contributed to an overall net loss of forest cover. Forest cover declined by 4.7 

percent from 1973 to 2000. 

• Forest cover, similar to other land-cover types, had a greater extent of change that is 

somewhat obscured by the broad spatial scale of the study (fig. 5). Total change in forest 

cover (gross gains and losses) was greater than 65,000 square kilometers (km2

), while net 

change at the scale of the LCC was approximately 18,000 km2. 

• Between 1973 and 1980, conversions from forest to agriculture were a leading type of 

change, although the trend reversed after this interval. By the 1992–2000 interval, 

conversions from agriculture to forest were more than twice as extensive as forest 

clearance for agriculture, resulting in a gain in forest cover of nearly 2,500 km2

. 

• Agricultural land had a net decline of 3.5 percent between 1973 and 2000 (fig. 6), 

primarily as cropland and pasture were reforested (approx. 1,950 km2), converted to 

grassland cover (approx. 3,200 km2

), and lost to development (approx. 3,400 km2). 

• Urban growth and other development expanded by an estimated 56 percent (approx. 

3,515 km2), from 2.0 percent in 1973 to 3.1 percent in 2000. The expansion occurred on 

forest (53 percent of total development) and agriculture (38 percent of total 

development). 
8 

Table 2. Average annual extent of land-cover change for the four time intervals of the study and margin 

of error, calculated at an 85-percent confidence level.

[LCC, Landscape Conservation Cooperative; km2, square kilometers]

Time interval Average annual change 

in the LCC, in percent

Margin of 

error, ± 

Annual extent of change, 

in km2

1973–1980 0.72 0.07 5,240

1980–1986 1.00 0.10 7,270

1986–1992 1.28 0.16 9,340

1992–2000 1.19 0.09 8,620

Table 3. Spatial extent, or footprint, of land-cover change (in percent) sorted by the number of time 

intervals during which an area underwent change (margin of error is calculated at an 85-percent confidence 

level). 

[LCC, Landscape Conservation Cooperative; km2, square kilometers]

Number of time intervals 

with land-cover change Percent of LCC Margin of 

error, ± 

Area of change,

in km2

1 8.9 0.5 64,710

2 7.3 0.8 52,770

3 1.4 0.3 10,230

4 0.1 0.0 1,080

Total footprint 17.7 1.2 128,800

Figure 4. Summary of the most extensive types of land coversions between 1973 and 2000. This figure 

shows the cumulative land-cover conversions for all four time intervals combined. 
9 

Figure 5. Total change and absolute net change between 1973 and 2000, in km2. Diagonal shading 

indicates a net decline (margin of error is calculated at an 85-percent confidence level). 

Figure 6. Comparison of the sector-based changes between 1973 and 2000, as a percent of the initial 

land-cover total in 1973. 
10 

Causes and Drivers

• Silviculture is economically important across the South, where pine plantations increased 

2.5-fold between 1970 and 1997, from approximately 49,000 km2 to 120,000 km2. 

Another 35,000 km2 were added by 2007 (Zhang and Polyakov, 2010). Demand for 

timber is expected to increase. 

• The warm and wet climate (40–70 inches of annual precipitation) is favorable for 

productive, fast-growth pine forests and is augmented by the genetic modification of tree 

species, nutrient additions, thinning, and other vegetation management. 

• Higher quality land is generally used for agriculture, while lower quality land is used for 

silviculture, but shifts between these uses can also depend on other factors, such as

changes in prices of the respective commodities and external demand as well as 

encroaching urbanization. 

• The Conservation Reserve Program (enacted 1985) and other conservation efforts have 

resulted in some conversion from lower quality cropland and pasture uses to forest use. 

• Pine plantations might become increasingly important economically as a source of woody 

biomass. 

• Population growth and urbanization vary across the LCC, with large areas of rural 

population as well as more densely populated urban areas. As pine plantations are 

converted to residential land-use in some areas, including ecoregions outside the LCC, 

there might be increasing pressure to expand pine plantations onto the agricultural and 

natural forest land of the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks (Prestemon and Abt, 2002) 

(fig. 7). 

Consequences and Challenges of Land-Cover Change

• The extensive but spatially variable changes in forest composition, structure, and pattern 

affect wildlife habitat, biodiversity, and ecosystem services (fig. 8). 

• Despite a significant amount of activity affecting regional forest cover, there are local 

areas experiencing a net gain in forest cover, primarily along the loess plains and terraces 

east of the Mississippi River. 

• Stream alterations and wetland drainage caused by historical ditching, agriculture, and 

ongoing urban development—when combined with the flat terrain, high rainfall, and high 

water table of the coastal plain—contribute to problems with water quality, flooding, and 

the degradation of aquatic habitats. 

• Wetland losses from agriculture, urbanization, and inundation that leads to surface-water 

expansion in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain degrade wildlife habitat and ecosystem 

services. 

• Drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, and other natural disturbance might have a 

cumulative effect on forest cover and economically productive silvicultural activities. 

• Insect outbreaks and diseases have ecological and economic effects on forests that might 

be exacerbated by climate change (Mistretta, 2002). 

• As new lands for plantations are sought, conversion of hardwood forests to pine 

plantations could adversely affect ecosystem services such as wildlife habitat and carbon 

storage (Sohngen and Brown, 2006). 
11 

A 

B 

Figure 7. Cumulative development contributes to forest cover decrease. A, New housing development. 

B, Construction of a new dam and reservoir. (All photos by U.S. Geological Survey)
12 

A 

B 

Figure 8. Forest management activities in the region. A, Recent forest clearance. B, Sustainable 

management of forests and woodlots are a concern. (All photos by U.S. Geological Survey)
13 

References Cited

Anderson, J.R., Hardy, E.E., Roach, J.T., and Witmer, R.E., 1976, A land use and land cover 

classification system for use with remote sensor data: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 964, 28 p. 

Loveland, T.R., Sohl, T.L., Stehman, S.V., Gallant, A.L., Sayler, K.L., and Napton, D.E., 2002. 

A strategy for estimating the rates of recent Unites States land-cover changes: 

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 68, p.1091–1099. 

Millard, M.J., Czarnecki, C.A., Morton, J.M.,Brandt, L.A., Briggs, J.S., Shipley, F.S., Sayre, 

Roger, Sponholtz, P.J., Perkins, David, Simpkins, D.J., and Taylor, Janith, 2012, A national 

geographic framework for guiding conservation on a landscape scale: Journal of Fish and 

Wildlife Management, v. 3, no. 1, p. 175–183. 

Mistretta, P.A., 2002, Southern forest resource assessment highlights—Managing for forest 

health: Journal of Forestry, v. 100, no. 7, p. 24–27. 

Omernik, J.M., 1987, Map supplement—Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: Annals 

of the Association of American Geographers, v. 77 p. 118–125. 

Prestemon, J.P, and Abt, R.C., 2002, The southern timber market to 2040: Journal of Forestry, 

v. 100, no. 7, p. 16–22. 

Sohl, T.L., Gallant, A.L., and Loveland, T.R., 2004, The characteristics and interpretability of 

land surface change and implications for project design: Photogrammetric Engineering and 

Remote Sensing, v. 70, no. 4, p. 439–448. 

Sohngen, Brent, and Brown, Sandra, 2006, The influence of conversion of forest types on carbon 

sequestration and other ecosystem services in the South Central United States: Ecological 

Economics, v. 57, p. 698–708. 

Stehman, S.V., Sohl, T.L., and Loveland, T.R., 2003, Statistical sampling to characterize recent 

United States land-cover change: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 86, no. 4, p. 517–529. 

Stehman, S.V., Sohl, T.L., and Loveland, T.R., 2005, An evaluation of sampling strategies to 

improve precision of estimates of gross change in land use and land cover: International 

Journal of Remote Sensing, v. 26, no. 22, p. 4941–4957. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, Level III ecoregions of the continental United 

States: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects 

Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon, scale 1:7,500,000. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010, Form and function: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office 

of the Science Advisor, LCC Information Bulletin no. 1, 7 p. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2010, Our changing planet—The U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program for Fiscal Year 2011: U.S. Global Change Research Program, Office of 

Science and Technology Policy, 84 p. 

Zhang, Daowei, and Polyakov, Maksym, 2010, The geographical distribution of plantation 

forests and land resources potentially available for pine plantations in the U.S. South: Biomass 

and Bioenergy, v. 34, p. 1643–1654. 

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151018