United States 

Department of 

Agriculture Dynamics of White Pine 

Forest Service in New England 

Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station 

Research Paper NE-699 

William B. Leak 

J.B. Cullen 

Thomas S. Frieswyk 
Abstract 

The growth, regeneration, and quality of white pine between the 1970's and 

1980's were analyzed for the six-state New England region. Growth was 

comparable among all states except for Rhode Island where the growth (1.71%) 

was low in comparison with other states and with the growth of red maple 

(4.29%) within the state. For all states, the proportion of acreage in white pine 

seedlinglsapling stands was too small (8%) to maintain the current volume and 

acreage of the species. However, stems in the 2- to 10-inch diameter class were 

adequately J-shaped over all states to sustain the species. Because many of 

these small stems must be in small openings or under partial canopies, efforts to 

regenerate and release white pine seem warranted. The percentage of volume in 

grades 1 and 2 more than doubled between the 1970's and 1980's in all states 

except Massachusetts and Connecticut where the percentage remained about 

constant. 

The Authors 

WILLIAM 8. LEAK is a research silviculturist with the Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station, Durham. New Hampshire. 

J.B. CULLEN is a forester in charge of the Forest Information and Planning 

Bureau within the New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands in Concord, New 

Hampshire. 

THOMAS S. FRIESWYK is a forester with the Forest Inventory and Analysis Unit 

of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station at Radnor, Pennsylvania. 

Manuscript received for publication 4 Janualy 1993 

USDA FOREST SERVICE 

5 RADNOR CORP CTR STE 2M) 

PO BOX 6775 

RADNOR PA 19087-8775 

June 1995 
Introduction 

White pine has been the dominant tree species in the 

economic and social history of New Engiand. No other 

species has played a more important role in the 

settlement, industrial growth, and international 

relationships of the region. Because of its rapid growth 

and utility, no species offers greater opportunities for 

management. Numerous papers have been written about 

the Characteristics, culture, and status of white pine such 

as Frothingham's (1914) early summary and proceedings 

from a symposium on eastern white pine in 1985 (Funk 

1986) at the University of New Hampshire. 

A very optimistic picture was presented at the University 

of New Hampshire symposium. It was reported that 

volumes and quality of white pine continued to increase in 

New Engiand. Acreage in white pine stands declined only 

slightly in the last decade over the region as a whole. 

Markets and prices continued to be relatively strong; 

however, despite the salability of white pine, growth was 

reported as twice the amount cut for the region, and equal 

to or exceeding the cut in each state. Traditional 

difficulties with quality, regeneration, white pine weevil. 

and blister rust disease were reported as manageable 

rather than insurmountable. 

However, in recent years, new environmental hazards 

have been recognized-primarily from atmospheric 

pollutants and the possible side effects. Because of the 

importance of white pine, its occurrence near industrial 

centers, and its known susceptibility to pollutants, a closer 

examination of the dynamics of white pine in the six New 

England states is worthwhile to determine whether this 

important resource is adequately growing and 

regenerating. Unless otherwise noted, this analysis is 

based primarily on the USDA Forest Service inventory 

and analysis data from the early 1970's (1971-73) through 

the early to mid-1980's (1982-85) (Dickson and McAfee 

1988a,b,c; Frieswyk and Malley 1985a,b; Powell and 

Dickson 1984). 

Status of Whlte Pine 

White pine is a common species in the white pine and 

white pinefhemiock cover typesdefined as stands where 

these species make up at least half the stocking. These 

two cover types, plus the hemlock and red pine types. 

comprise the white pinelred pine type group--a group of 

four cover types that contains about three-fourths of the 

white pine in the six-state area. (In Massachusetts, the 

oaWpine type group also is important because white pine 

comprises about 30 percent of the cubic-foot volume.) 

The white pine and white pinelhemlock types account for 

12 percent (3,907.000 acres) of the timberland in the 

region, ranging from 5 percent (17,000 acres in Rhode 

Island and 95,000 acres in Connecticut) to 24 percent 

(1,162,000 acres in New Hampshire). The white pinelred 

pine type group accounts for 16 percent (5,141,000 

acres) of the region's timberland, ranging among states 

from 5 to 28 percent (Table 1). 

White pine comprises 43 percent of the region's cubic 

volume in the white pinelred pine type group. The stands 

in Maine, Vermont, and Connecticut contain 26 to 37 

percent white pine; the stands in the other states are 

more pure, containing 51 to 76 percent white pine. On all 

timberland (all cover types) in the region, white pine 

accounts for 11 percent of the volume. Overall, the 

species is fairly abundant in New Hampshire and 

Massachusetts where it accounts for 19 and 24 percent of 

the volume, compared to 6 to 11 percent in the other 

states (Table 2). 

In the six-state area, about 76 percent of the white pinel 

red pine acreage is in sawtimber stands-defined as 

stands where half or more of the basal area (the crosssectional area of all trees on an acre) is in trees larger 

than 9.0 inches in diameter, and many trees are much 

larger. Only 6 percent of the acreage is in seedlinglsapling 

stands. The average basal area is 121 square feet per 

acre (Table 3). The general situation is that most white 

pinelred pine stands are characterized by large trees, high 

stocking, and few areas of young stems of regeneration. 

Keep in mind that the figures for individual states such as 

Rhode Island are tentative due to the small sample. 

Growth 

Choice of an appropriate measure of growth performance 

is critical. We defined growth as the average annual 

change in cubic-foot volume of the growing stock trees 

(live trees excluding rough and rotten as classified in the 

1970's) by species from one measurement period (1970's) 

to another (1980's) PLUS the removal volume (harvested, 

culturally removed, etc.) and MINUS the ingrowth (trees 

that became 5.0 inches diameter or larger during the 

measurement period). Technically, this growth measure is 

defined as gross growth minus mortality and minus 

ingrowth. lngrowth is related to long-term reproductive 

success, rather than growing conditions per se, so we 

wanted to keep it separate (Table 4) along with mortality 

and removals. We did not include cull increment (the 

volume of growing stock in the 1970's that became rough 

or rotten by the 1980's) in the calculations because this 

measure is somewht subjective. Because the available 

data do not permit the calculation of growth per acre, we 

have expressed growth, mortality, ingrowth, and removals 

of white pine as an annual percentage of the 1970's 

volume--comparable to the simple interest rate on a bank 

account. For comparison, we have calculated the same 

statistics for red maple, a species known to be very 

aggressive in New England forests. Remember, these 

growth figures by species include all cover types and type 

groups combined. 

Over all states (Table 4), growth of white pine (3.25%) is 

negligibly less than red maple (3.42%). And, mortality of 

pine (0.49%) is only moderately higher than red maple's 

(0.39%). However, pine growth in Rhode Island is low 

(1.71%), and it is notably less than red maple's (4.29%). 
Table 1.4umber of acres (thouyds) in tlmberland, the whlte plnelred pine 

type group,' and white pine types, by state in the 1980's 

State 

Maine (1 982) 

New Hampshire (1 983) 

Vermont (1983) 

Rhode Island (1985) 

Massachusetts (1965) 

Connecticut (1985) 

All 

Timberland Whiteired pine group White pine types 

.......................... Thousands of acres ............... ............. 

17,060 2,195 (13%) 1,537 (9%) 

4,812 1,356 (26%) 1,162 (24%) 

4,422 631 (14%) 432 (10%) 

372 17 (5%) 17 (5%) 

2,929 776 (26%) 664 (23%) 

1,777 166 (9%) 95 (5%) 

31,372 5,141 (16%) 3,907 (12%) 

'Consists of the white pine, white pinelhemlock, hemlock, and redlscotch pine 

ver types. % hite pine and white pinehemlock cover types. 

Table Z.-Cubic feet of growing stock of white pine and all species together, 

by state and type group in the 1980's 

nmberland Whiteired pine group 

State All species White pine Ail species White pine 

................................. Millions of cubic feet.. ....................... .. ........ Maine 22,796 1,736 (8%) 3,350 1,263 (37%) 

New Hampshire 6,019 1.529 (1 9%) 2.470 1,250 (51%) 

Vermont 6,275 449 (7%) 976 316 (32%) 

Rhode Island 404 44 (11%) 33 25 (76%) 

Massachusetts 4,652 1.107 (24%) 1,611 861 (53%) 

Connecticut 2,776 155 (6%) 414 106 (26%) 

All 44,954 5,020 (11%) 8.884 3,621 (43%) 

Table 3.-Acreage in the white plnelred pine type group, by stand size class and 

state; and average basal area per acre (square feet) In the 1980's 

State Sawtimber Poletimber Seedlingkapling All Basal area 

...Thousands of acres ............... ........... (Ffl 

Maine 1,537 (70%) 557 101 2,195 120 

New Hampshire 1,067 (79%) 185 103 1,356 124 

Vermont 522 (63%) 65 44 631 113 

Rhode Island 12 (71%) 5 0 17 123 

Massachusetts 640 (64%) 93 42 776 126 

Connecticut 148 (69%) 18 0 166 133 

All 3,926 (76%) 923 290 5,141 121 
Table 4.-Growth,' mobtallty, Ingrowth, and removals, In percent, of the 1970's 

cubic volume for plne and red maple, by states 

Growth Mortality lngrowth Removals 

State Pine Red maple Pine Red maple Pine Red maple Pine Red maple - 

...................................................................................... Maine 3.76 - ' 0.61 - 1.00 - 2.56 - NewHampshire 2.49 2.38 0.52 0.32 0.57 1.20 2.54 0.79 

Vermont 3.32 3.83 0.29 0.45 0.69 1.61 1.89 0.76 

Rhode Island 1.71 4.29 0.38 0.33 0.38 0.93 1.89 1.13 

Massachusetts 3.80 4.09 0.39 0.32 0.52 2.75 2.03 1.00 

Connecticut 2.99 4.27 0.10 0.56 1.09 1.27 0.05 0.99 

All 3.25 3.42 0.49 0.39 0.72 1.63 2.33 0.87 

'Growth percent is annual gross growth minus mortality minus ingrowth expressed 

a? a percent of the 1970's cubic volume. 

Pine is mostly white pine, but includes small amounts of red pine in Maine, 

yew Hampshire, and Vermont. 

Not reported as a separate species. 

New Hampshire has the second lowest pine growth rate 

(2.49%), but it exceeds that of red maple (2.38%). There 

is no obvious reason why Rhode lsland exhibits low pine 

growth rates: mortality is low (0.38%); the removal rate is 

fairly high (1 39%) but no higher than in other states 

except for Connecticut. The only unusual characteristic is 

that stands in the white pinelred pine group average 

higher in the percentage of pine (76%) in Rhode Island 

than in any other state, a condition that might cause 

intense within-species competition and increased risk from 

insectsldisease. In addition, pine ingrowth in Rhode lsland 

is low (0.36%), which raises questions about seed 

productionlviability, site, and understory conditionspoints discussed later. 

Sampling Error 

Any discussion of species' growth would be incomplete 

without some mention of sampling errors. The sampling 

errors for the 1970's cubic volumes--the denominators for 

the Table 4 percentages--are 30 to 31 percent for white 

pine in Rhode lsland and Connectcut, and less in the 

other states (Table 5). This means that unless a 1-out-of-3 

chance has occurred, the true cubic volume lies within 30 

Table 5.-Sampling errors (one standard deviation), In 

percent, for the 1970's cublc volume of growing stock 

State White pine Red maple 

................... Percent ...................... Maine 7 5 

New Hampshire 7 6 

Vermont 12 8 

Rhode Island 30 24 

Massachusetts 10 8 

Connecticut 31 14 

to 31 percent (or less) of the volumes used in the Table 4 

calculations. In addition, there is sampling error in the 

growth/mortality/ingrowth/removal volumes as well. But 

even with these sampling errors, the white pine growth 

percent in Rhode lsland seems low. 

Radial Growth 

As part of the 1980's survey, increment cores were taken 

from up to four dominant or codominant trees per plot for 

an estimation of site index--a measure of site quality 

based on average dominant-tree height at 50 years of 

age. These cores were used to determine annual ring 

widths, by year, for several species (Hornbeck et al. 

1988). The data for white pine from this study are shown 

by state (Fig. 1). 

Most states show a slightly parabolic trend overtimerising then falling- though the trend generally declines for 

Rhode lsland and Connecticut combined. The 

consistencies among states in certain peaks and troughs 

presumably are due to weather conditions. Massachusetts 

shows one of the more precipitous declines over the last 5 

to 10 years as well as the lowest end point, while Vermont 

shows little decline and the highest end point. But these 

growth rates do not correspond to the growth rates in 

Table 4: Massachusetts has a higher growth rate than 

Vermont from the 1970's to the 1980's. An independent 

study of ring widths in New Hampshire white pine stands 

(Cooke 1989) showed a steady decline over time for ail 

trees averaged together (Fig. 2); a similar trend occurred 

for dominant/codominant or intermediate crown classes 

examined separately. This steady decline was attributed 

to increasing stand density over time, as well as the 

influence of tree age or size on ring width. The differences 

in trends between figures 1 and 2 illustrate the sensitivity 

of white pine to stand dynamics, and the difficulty of using 

radial growth to detect abnormal growth decline. 
YEAR 

YUR 

YEAR 

YEAR 

4 RHODE ISLAND & CONNECTICUT-42TREES 

YEAR 

Figure l.-Average annual ring width (mrn) of dominant site index trees of white pine, by state, from 1920 

to 1980 (Hornbeck et ai. 1988). 

4 
1851 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 

YEAR 

Figure 2.dverage annual ring width (mm) of white pine on New Hampshire growth plots for all 

crown classes combined. 1851 to 1980 (Cooke 1989). 

Regeneration 

Three approaches were used to examine the regeneration 

dynamics of white pine: ingrowth percentages, 

percentages of seedlingkapling stands, and diameter 

distributions. 

The ingrowth percentages in Table 4 show the annual 

cubic-foot volume of growing stock trees that became 5.0 

inches diameter or larger during the measurement period 

expressed as a percentage of the 1970's volume. 

lngrowth is a measure of the rate at which small trees 

enter the poletimber class, and thus it is related to the 

abundance and growth rate of stems in the seedling1 

sapling size classes. lngrowth rates of white pine varied 

appreciably among states. Maine and Connecticut had 

rates of about 1 percent; New Hampshire, Vermont, and 

Massachusetts had intermediate rates of 0.52 to 0.69 

percent; and Rhode Island had the lowest rate of 0.38 

percent. White pine ingrowth rates were about half those 

of red maple, except in Connecticut where rates for the 

hVo species were quite similar. 

Percentages of the white pine type in seedling/sapling 

stands were examined for each state during the 1970 and 

1980 remeasurement periods. In a fully regulated, evenaged forest, about 20 to 25 percent of the acreage should 

be in seedlinglsapling stands to maintain continued 

production (Cullen and Leak 1988). This figure is based 

on a rotation of 80 to 100 years, coupled with yield-table 

data showing that 20 to 25 years are required for a stand 

to grow beyond the seedlinglsapling stage. 

Between the 1970's and 1980's, the seedlinglsapling 

acreage in the white pine type dropped fromabout 25 to 8 

oercent for all states combined (Table 6). and a , . comparable change took place in the red mapleihardwood 

types. During this period, total acreage in the white pine 

and red maplelhardwood types dropped slightly. 

Apparently, all states are short of acreage in young whhe 

pine, and the trend has been sharply downward over the 

last decade. However, since white pine can endure partial 

shade, it is possible that the species is regenerating to 
some extent under partial overstories or in very small 

openings that would not be included in the seedling1 

sapling acreage. To examine this possibility, we looked at 

the diameter distributions of white pine stems. To provide 

replacement trees for those that grow larger, die, or are 

removed, the numbers of trees plotted over diameter 

class must follow an inverse J-shaped form. Number of 

live trees in the 2- to 10-inch diameter class for white pine 

and red maple in all cover types combined follows this 

shape for the six-state region (Fig. 3A). Number of small 

pine is only about one-fourth the number of red 

maple, which reflects the general abundance of the two 

species. Multiplying the white pine numbers by three 

places the two curves at a similar position in Fig. 314; this 

shows that the red maple curve is the steeper of the 

two--which is characteristic of an aggressive, rapidly 

increasing species. This result aligns with Table 4, which 

showed that red maple has twice the ingrowth rate of 

white pine over the six-state region. 

Diameter distributions for the separate states are variable 

in shape (Fig. 3B). Massachusetts and Maine have weliformed J-shaped curves with no evidence of regeneration 

deficits, though the overall abundance in Maine is much 

lower. New Hampshire and Connecticut show marked 

deficits in the 4-inch class, probably for either of two 

reasons. First, it is possible that regeneration conditions 

(seed supply, weather, insectstdisease) were poor for a 

period of years and have since improved. Second, it is 

likely that many of the 2-inch white pine are in an 

understory position, and move very slowly into the 4-inch 

class. This latter explanation is logical in view of the 

minimal acreage in seedlingtsapling stands (Table 6), 

implying that much of the small white pine is in the 

understory. Vermont shows a deficit in the 4-inch class 

coupled with a rather low number of 2-inch trees, whereas 

Rhode Island has equal numbers of 2- and Cinch stems. 

These latter two curve forms denote inadequate numbers 

of small stems for recruitment into the larger sizes, leading 

to eventual losses in volume and acreage of white pine. 

To summarize the status of white pine regeneration: for all 

states combined, the diameter distribution of white pine is 

fairly regular and J-shaped, implying that white pine 

regeneration and development are adequate to maintain 

the species. However, the curve for white pine is less 

steep than that for red maple, and the ingrowth rate much 

less, which indicates that the latter species is more 

aggressive. 

Maine and Massachusetts have regular J-shaped 

distrubutions and moderate to high ingrowth rates, 

indicating that white pine regeneration and development 

are adequate; however, much of the white pine is in small 

openings or the understory. New Hampshire and 

Connecticut have reasonable numbers of 2-inch stems 

and deficiencies in the Cinch class; this could suggest 

that regeneration of small stems is adequate, but 

movement into the 4-inch class is slow due to overtopping 

and the need for release. Vermont and Rhode Island have 

low numbers of 2-inch stems, possibly due to poor 

regeneration conditions or the gradual displacement of 

white pine from good old-field sites better suited to 

hardwood species. 

Quality 

For all states combined, the proportion of board-foot 

volume in log grades 1 and 2 nearly doubled (Fig. 4) 

between the 1970's and 19BWs, and more than doubled in 

Maine, Vermont, and Rhode island. This general 

improvement is due to the increasing size of the trees 

over time as well as stand improvement practices. Grade 

1 logs are large (14 inches or more in diameter inside the 

bark on the log's small end) with about half the exterior 

free of knots or branches. Grade 2 logs may be smaller (6 

inches diameter) with small red or black knots from living 

or dead branches, respectively. Grade 1 accounts for onethird or less as much volume per state as grade 2. The 

lack of quality increase in Massachusetts and Connecticut 

is notable. However, both states had higher-than-average 

percentages of grade 1 and 2 in the 70's. Both states 

have slightly higher proportions of acreage in sawtimber 

stands than the other states (Table 3), indicating, perhaps, 

that the stands are slightly larger and older--a condition 

that would raise the grade potential. 

Table 6.-Percentage of acreage in seedllnglsapling stands in the whlte 

pine and red maplehardwood (northern and central) types durlng the 

1970's and 1980's, by state 

White pine type Red maplelhardwwd types 

State 1970's 1980's 1970's 1980's 

...................... ...... ...................P.................P Percent ........................................... 

Maine 36.5 5.9 35.7 14.1 

New Hampshire 21.8 9.2 10.6 4.6 

Vermont 22.5 13.6 4.1 4.7 

Rhode island 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 

Massachusetts 12.1 7.3 26.1 0.0 

Connecticut 22.6 0.0 21.1 4.9 

Ail 24.9 7.8 23.9 8.1 
RED MAPLE 

\ 

WHITE PINE 

I I 

2 i 6 8 

D.B.H. CLASS 

Figure 3.--Number of live white pine trees per acre by Pinch d.b.h. classes for (A) all states combined 

compared with number of red maple; and (0) separate states. 

MAINE N.H. VT R.I. MASS. CONN. ALL 

Figure 4.--Percentage of board-foot volume of white pine in grades 1 and 2, by states, in the 1970's 

and 1980's. 
Discussion 

Several features of this analysis of white pine dynamics in 

New England deserve to be highlighted. 

1. Growth rates seem fairly comparable in all states 

except Rhode island, where the percentage of growth 

based on cubic volume seems low (1.71%) in comparison 

with other states and in comparison with red maple 

(4.29%). No explanation can be given except for the 

possibility of localized poor site conditions, insecffdisease 

problems, or atmospheric/environmental impact. Because 

radial growth trends seem to be influenced by stand 

dynamics, abnormal growth trends cannot easily be 

detected. 

2. In all states combined, the proportion of acreage in 

seedlinglsapling stands is too small (8%) to sustain the 

current volume and acreage of white pine. However, the 

diameter distribution in white pine stems between 2 and 

10 inches seems adequately J-shaped in all states 

combined as well as in Massachusetts and Maine to 

sustain the white plne resource; many of the stems must 

be growing in vely small openings or under partial 

canopies. Diameter distributions in other states show 

deficiencies in the 2-inch class (Vermont and Rhode 

island) or the 4-inch class (New Hampshire and 

Connecticut). The former may indicate the need for 

intensive efforts to regenerate pine; the latter, a need to 

release overtopped pine. 

3. Increases in quality have been substantial. The 

percentage of volume in grade 1 and 2 has more than 

doubled from the 1970's to the 1980's in all states except 

Massachusetts and Connecticut, where the percentage 

has remained about constant. 

Literature Cited 

Cooke, R.R. 1989. Stand and Individual tree growth of 

eastern whlte pine. Durham, NH: University of New 

Hampshire. 149 p. MS. thesis. 

Cullen, J.B.; Leak. W.B. 1988. New Hampshlre's timber 

resource: present-past-future. Concord, NH: NH 

Dept. of Resources and Economic Development. 34 p. 

Dickson, DR.; McAfee, C.L. 1988a. Forest statistlcs for 

Massachusetts-1972 and 1985. Resour. Bull. NE106. Broomall, PA: US. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 29 p. 

Dickson, D.R.; McAfee, C.L. 1988b. Forest statistlcs for 

Rhode Island-1972 and 1985. Resour. Bull NE-104. 

Broomall. PA: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 96 p. 

Dickson, DR.; McAfee, C.L. 1988c. Forest statiatlcs for 

Connecticut-1972 and 1985. Resour. Bull. NE-105. 

Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 102 p. 

Frieswyk, T.S.; Malley, A.M. 1985a. Forest statistics for 

Vermont-1973 and 1983. Resour. Bull. NE-87. 

Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 102 p. 

Frieswyk, T.S.; Malley, A.M. 1985b. Forest statistlcs for 

New Hampshi-1973 and 1983. Resour. Bull. NE88. Broomail, PA: US. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 100 p. 

Frothingham, E.H. 1914. Whlte pine under forest 

management. Bull. 13. Washington, DC: US. 

Department of Agriculture. 70 p. 

Funk, D.T., comp. 1986. Eastern white pine: today and 

tomorrow. Symposium proceedings; 1985 June 12- 

14, Durham, NH. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-51. 

Washington, DC: US. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 124 p. 

Hornbeck, J.W.; Smith, R.B.; Federer, C.A. 1988. Growth 

trends in 10 species of trees in New England,l950- 

1980. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 18:1337- 

1340. 

Powell, D.S.; Dickson, D.R. 1984. Forest statistics for 

Maine-1971 and 1982. Resour. Bull. NE-81. Broomall, 

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

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 194 p. 
Leak, William 8.; Culien, J.B.; Frieswyk. Thomas S. 1995. Dynamlcs of whlte 

pine In New England. Res. Pap. NE-699. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 8 p. 

Analysis of growth, regeneration, and quality changes for white pine between the 

1970's and 1980's in the six-state New England region. Growth rates seemed 

comparable among ail states except Rhode Island, where the percentage of 

growth (1.71%) seemed low. Over all states, the proportion of acreage in 

seedlinglsapling white pine stands averaged too low (8%) to maintain the current 

volume and acreage of white pine. The diameter distribution of stems between 2 

and 10 inches was J-shaped for all states combined, but deficiencies were noted 

in ail states except Massachusetts and Maine. Many of the small stems must 

occur in small openings or under partial canopies. The percentage of volume in 

grades 1 and 2 more than doubled between the 1970's and 1980's in all states 

except Massachusetts and Connecticut, where the percentage remained about 

constant. 

Send requests for publications to: 

USDA Forest Service 

Publications Distribution 

359 Main Road 

Delaware. OH 43015 

a Printed on Recycled Paper 

W.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19951650-136/2(3007 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station is in Radnor, 

Pennsylvania. Field laboratories are maintained at: 

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts 

Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont 

Delaware, Ohio 

Durham, New Hampshire, In cooperatlon with the University of New Hampshire 

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperatlon with Yale University 

Morgantown, West Virglnia, in cooperation with West Virginia University 

Orono, Maine, in cooperation wlth the University of Maine 

Parsons, West Virginia 

Princeton, West Virginia 

Syracuse, New York, in cooperation wlth the State University of New York, 

College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University 

University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperatlon with The Pennsylvania State 

University 

Warren, Pennsylvania 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service is a diverse 

organization committed to equal opportunity in employment and program delivery. 

USDA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, 

age, disability, political affiliation, and familial status. Persons believing that they have 

been discriminated against should contact the Secretary, US. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call 202-720-7327 (voice), or 202-720-127 (m). 

'Caring for the Land and Serving People Through Research"