United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern

Research Station

Resource Bulletin

SRS–58

James F. Rosson, Jr. James F. Rosson, Jr.

Forest Resources of

East Oklahoma, 1993

Forest Resources of

East Oklahoma, 1993
March 2001

Southern Research Station

P. O. Box 2680

Asheville, NC 28802

Cover photograph courtesy of Jim Leach—Oklahoma Forestry

Division. Maintaining adequate forest cover is important to

ensure a water supply that is both sustainable and of sufficient

quality in Oklahoma. This scene is on the Mountain Fork River

in McCurtain County.
Forest Resources of

East Oklahoma, 1993

James F. Rosson, Jr., Research Forester

Forest Inventory and Analysis

Starkville, Mississippi
Foreword

This resource bulletin describes the principal findings of

the sixth inventory of east Oklahoma’s forest resources.

Data on the extent, condition, and classification of forest

land and associated timber volumes, growth, removals, and

mortality are described and interpreted. Although data on

nontimber commodities associated with forests were also

collected, evaluations of these data are not included in this

bulletin.

At the time of the east Oklahoma survey, periodic surveys

were mandated by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974, the National Forest

Management Act of 1976, and the Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978. These

surveys are part of a continuing, nationwide undertaking

by the regional experiment stations of the U.S. Department

of Agriculture Forest Service. Inventories of the 13

Southern States (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia)

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are conducted by

the Southern Research Station, Forest Inventory and

Analysis Research Work Unit (FIA) operating from its

headquarters in Asheville, NC, and from an office in

Starkville, MS. The primary objective of these periodic

appraisals is to develop and maintain the resource information needed to formulate sound forest policies and

programs. More information is available about Forest

Service resource inventories in Forest Service Resource

Inventories: An Overview (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1992).

Tabular data included in FIA reports are designed to

provide a comprehensive array of forest resource statistics,

but additional data can be obtained for those who require

more specialized information. The forest resource data for

Southern States can be accessed directly via the Internet

at: www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu. Data in a format common

to the three FIA units in the Eastern United States

(Eastwide Data Base) are also available (Hansen and

others 1992). These data may be obtained at the Internet

site referenced above.

Information concerning any aspect of this survey may be

obtained from:

Forest Inventory and Analysis

Southern Research Station

P.O. Box 2680

Asheville, NC 28802

Phone: 828/257-4350

James H. Perdue

Project Leader

Acknowledgments

The Southern Research Station gratefully acknowledges

the cooperation of public agencies and private landowners

in providing access to sample plots. Also recognized is the

cooperation and excellent field assistance provided by the

Oklahoma Division of Forestry and the Georgia-Pacific

Corporation in the collection of sample plot data.

The following members of the FIA staff completed the

field measurements:

Ben Baumgart Jennifer Martin Thomas Shipkey

Karla Burnley Travis Mills Brian Slagle

Kelly Gouge Jan Moore Gary Sullivan

Eric Johnson Walter Passmore Blaine Tarbell

Jennifer Lepley Les Prewitt Ernie Walley

Jack London Ken Reed Larry Westrick

Rick Marcrum

ii
Contents

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Forest Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Stand Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Softwood Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Softwood Sawtimber Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Hardwood Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Hardwood Sawtimber Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Stand Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Stand Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Basal Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Species Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Species Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Change in Number of Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Growth, Removals, and Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Softwoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Softwood Sawtimber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Hardwoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Hardwood Sawtimber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Plantations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Disturbance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Treatment Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Central and West Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Inventory Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Statistical Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Conversion Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Species List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Index of Detailed Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Detailed Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

iii

Page
1

Highlights from the Sixth Inventory of East

Oklahoma

Important findings of the sixth east Oklahoma forest

survey are presented below. Comparisons, unless otherwise noted, are based on estimates for January 1, 1986,

and January 1, 1993.

• Timberland area for the eastern 18 counties of Oklahoma was 4.9 million acres. This was a 154,300-acre

increase since 1986.

• Most of east Oklahoma’s timberland was in

nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) ownership, 3.3

million acres (67 percent of all timberland). Forest

industry and public lands held 21 and 12 percent,

respectively, of timberland. All of the increase in

timberland since 1986 was in the NIPF component.

• The oak-hickory forest-type group remained the

predominant type in east Oklahoma forests (53 percent

of timberland). Substantial gains were made in the

loblolly-shortleaf pine forest-type group (an increase of

142,500 acres).

• Poletimber was the predominant stand-size class (41

percent) followed by sawtimber and sapling-seedling

stand-size classes (31 and 28 percent, respectively).

There was a 406,800-acre decrease in saplingseedling stands and a 199,600-acre and a 361,500-acre

increase in sawtimber and poletimber stand-size classes,

respectively. This is primarily attributable to the large

amount of ingrowth of plantations into these categories

since 1986.

• The current softwood volume, 1,431.1 million cubic

feet, was a 371.3-million-cubic-feet increase over the

1986 inventory.

• The hardwood inventory increased by 458.2 million

cubic feet. The new inventory was 2,482.2 million cubic

feet.

• The new softwood net growth was 115.0 million cubic

feet per year, a substantial increase over the 49.4 million

cubic feet reported for 1986.

• Hardwood net growth was 89.1 million cubic feet per

year. This was a substantial increase over the 49.5

million cubic feet reported for 1986.

• Removals of softwood decreased slightly. They were

55.5 million cubic feet per year compared to 57.3 million

cubic feet per year in 1986.

• Removals of hardwoods decreased from 1986 levels,

from 43.8 to 32.8 million cubic feet per year.

• The timberland area in plantations continued to increase.

The new estimate was 621,300 acres versus 548,100

acres in 1986. Plantations made up 13 percent of east

Oklahoma timberland.

• Twenty-five percent of east Oklahoma softwood volume

was in plantations, 360.7 million cubic feet.

• A total of 626,300 acres of timberland showed evidence

of harvesting (13 percent of east Oklahoma timberland).

• Since the 1986 survey, east Oklahoma had 357,100

acres undergo some form of management activity (7

percent of all timberland).
2

Introduction

The findings of the sixth forest survey of east Oklahoma

are summarized in this report. At the time field work

began, the FIA survey was administered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station, headquartered in New Orleans,

LA. Since the conclusion of field work, the Southern

Forest Experiment Station merged with the Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station to become the Southern

Research Station, which is headquartered in Asheville,

NC. The following States are now under the administration of the Southern Research Station: Alabama, Arkansas,

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North

Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,

Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Prior to the 1993 survey, Oklahoma had been inventoried

five times. The first survey, in 1936, only covered what

were then considered to be the five pine-production

counties in the southeastern part of the State (Eldredge

1938). In 1956, the survey was expanded to include 17

counties in eastern Oklahoma (U.S. Department of

Agriculture 1957). The next survey was in 1966

(Sternitzke and Van Sickle 1968), followed by 1976

(Murphy 1977), and 1986 (Birdsey and May 1988). In the

1976 and subsequent surveys, Bryan County was included

in the inventory, bringing the total number of counties to

18.

The first forest survey effort of central and west Oklahoma

(the area west of the 18 eastern counties) was conducted

in 1989 (Rosson 1995b). This was a cooperative effort of

the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and

Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Oklahoma

Division of Forestry. Although not directly compatible

with survey methods used in the eastern 18 counties, the

1989 survey revealed important baseline information on

volume and growth patterns of these xeric forests to the

west of the 18-county survey region. Hopefully future

surveys of Oklahoma will include the entire State.

East Oklahoma is divided into the Southeast unit (unit 1)

and the Northeast unit (unit 2) (fig. 1). These divisions

facilitate field work and analysis because the unit boundaries are aligned fairly closely with vegetative and physiographic regions of the State.

Figure 1—Forest survey units of east Oklahoma.

Northeast

Southeast

Haskell

Pittsburg Latimer Le Flore

Coal

Atoka

Pushmataha

McCurtain

Bryan

Choctaw

Ottawa

Delaware Mayes

Cherokee Adair

Sequoyah

Muskogee

McIntosh
3

Several publications about the sixth survey of east Oklahoma already have been released: two forest survey unit

reports (Franco and others 1992, 1993), a county statistical report (Miller and others 1993), and a biomass report

(Rosson 1993).

The survey documented in this bulletin is dated January 1,

1993. Plot measurements began in June 1992, and were

completed in December 1992. A total of 902 plots were

classified as forest. Of these, 820 were identified as

timberland. Seventy-four plots were unproductive and 8

were in reserved status. On timberland plots, measurements were made of 14,277 trees greater than or equal to

5.0 inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). A total of

10,334 trees greater than 1.0 but less than 5.0 inches in

d.b.h. were also measured on those plots.

Tables and figures in this bulletin present data for January

1, 1993. Data from the previous survey (dated January 1,

1986) were used for trend analysis. The appendix describes survey methods and data reliability, defines terms,

provides a cross-reference of tree common names with

their scientific names, and includes 22 standard tables.

Forest Area

Total land area for the 18 eastern Oklahoma counties was

10.1 million acres. Fifty-four percent (5.4 million acres) of

this land area was covered by forest. Of this, 4.9 million

acres were classified as commercially productive (timberland).

The real change in timberland over time is illustrated in

table I. Timberland area was at the second highest level

since the first survey in 1936. After the 1956 survey, area

dropped from 5.6 million acres to 4.3 million acres by

1976. This decrease occurred even with the addition of

Bryan County to the eastern survey area in 1976. Between

1976 and 1986, timberland area increased by 10 percent

(425,100 acres). Since 1986, timberland area increased by

only 3 percent (154,300 acres).

Most of the timberland in eastern Oklahoma was in the

Southeast unit. A total of 3.6 million acres were situated in

this unit. This was 73 percent of all timberland in the

eastern counties. The trend of change in timberland area

for each unit was the same as for the entire survey region,

i.e., a decrease from 1956 to 1976 and an increase from

1976 to 1993.

Table I.—Timberland area by survey unit, east Oklahoma, 1936 to 1993*

Survey year Forest survey 

unit 1936† 1956 1966 1976‡ 1986‡ 1993‡

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Northeast 0.0 1,624.1 1,241.2 1,081.6 1,270.2 1,331.2

Southeast 2,961.0 4,007.9 3,576.2 3,234.4 3,471.0 3,564.2

 All units 2,961.0 5,632.0 4,817.4 4,316.1 4,741.2 4,895.5

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

†

Only five counties in southeast Oklahoma (Haskell, Latimer, LeFlore, McCurtain, and Pushmataha) were surveyed in 

1936; none were surveyed in northeast Oklahoma. 

‡

Reflects the addition of Bryan County to the Southeast survey unit. 
4

Although timberland area has increased between the 1986

and 1993 surveys, many acres of timberland were lost to

nonforest uses, e.g., agriculture, highways, and rights-of

way. A total of 218,600 acres were diverted in this

manner. The majority of these acres were lost to agriculture, 134,100 acres (table II). Countering the loss of

timberland was an addition of timberland, e.g., agriculture

and rights-of-way. Approximately 372,800 acres were

added and this, combined with the 218,600 diverted acres,

equaled a 154,300-acre net increase in timberland area for

the survey period (table II). As in diversions, most of the

additions came from agricultural land (277,300 acres).

Magnitudes of timberland area change in individual

counties since the previous survey are illustrated in figure

2. Two counties (McCurtain and Ottawa) had net losses of

more than 20,000 acres. Six counties had gains of more

than 20,000 acres, while the remaining 10 counties had

timberland area changes of less than 20,000 acres per

county.

Table II.—Changes in timberland by forest survey unit, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

Additions Diversions Forest survey 

unit 

Total 

land Timberland Change Total Agriculture Other† Total Agriculture Other†

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Northeast 3,357.2 1,331.2 61.1 157.5 105.0 52.5 -96.5 -64.3 -32.2

Southeast 6,746.7 3,564.2 93.2 215.3 172.2 43.1 -122.1 -69.8 -52.3

 All units 10,103.8 4,895.5 154.3 372.8 277.3 95.6 -218.6 -134.1 -84.5

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

†

Includes urban, industrial, highway, water, rights-of-way, etc. 

Figure 2—East Oklahoma counties with gains and losses in timberland, 1986 to 1993.

Change less than 20,000 acres

Gain of 20,000 acres or more

Loss of 20,000 acres or more
5

The relative proportion of timberland to nonforest area in

each county is illustrated in figure 3. Two counties (Coal

and Ottawa) had less than 20 percent of their land area in

timberland. Only Pushmataha County had a very high

concentration of timberland (more than 80 percent). The

remaining 15 counties had timberland densities ranging

from 20 percent to 80 percent.

Figure 3—Percentage of county area in timberland, east Oklahoma, 1993.

81–100

61–80

41–60

21–40

 0–20

Percent
6

The primary ownership of timberland in east Oklahoma

was NIPF. A total of 3.3 million acres were in this

ownership class (67 percent) (fig. 4). A notable difference

in ownership proportions was evident between the survey

units. In the Northeast unit, 89 percent of timberland was

in NIPF ownership. No national forest or forest industry

timberland fell on the FIA sample population in this survey

unit. The Southeast unit had 58 percent of ownership in

the NIPF category.

Figure 4—Proportion of timberland, in thousand acres, by ownership, east Oklahoma, 1993.

National forest

 222.7

Other public

 359.5

Forest industry

 1,047.3

Nonindustrial private

 3,266.1

144.9

1,186.4

222.7

214.6

1,047.3

2,079.7
7

There were only three counties in east Oklahoma where

NIPF ownership made up less than 60 percent of all

timberland—LeFlore, McCurtain, and Pushmataha (fig. 5).

Only one of these (McCurtain) had less than 40 percent of

all timberland in NIPF ownership.

Figure 5—Percentage of county timberland held by nonindustrial private forest landowners, east Oklahoma, 1993.

81–100

61–80

41–60

21–40

 0–20

Percent
8

Only two counties in east Oklahoma had sizable concentrations of forest industry ownership. These were

McCurtain and Pushmataha Counties in the Southeast unit.

No other counties had more than 20 percent of their

respective timberland area under forest industry ownership

(fig. 6).

Figure 6—Percentage of county timberland held by forest industries, east Oklahoma, 1993. There were no counties with more than

70 percent of timberland in forest industry ownership.

61–80

41–60

21–40

 0–20

Percent
9

Most of the timberland area increase was in NIPF ownership. There, 154,400 acres were added since the last

inventory (table III). The increase was distributed evenly

between the forest survey units.

The predominant forest-type group in east Oklahoma was

the oak-hickory (53 percent) (fig. 7). Regionally, it was

most dominant in the Northeast unit where it occurred on

87 percent of the timberland area. At 40 percent in the

Southeast unit, it still was the predominant forest-type

group. The Southeast unit also contained 98 percent of the

loblolly-shortleaf pine forest-type group in east Oklahoma.

Table III.—Area of timberland by forest survey unit, ownership, and change, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

Forest survey 

unit

All 

owners Public Change

Forest 

industry Change

Nonindustrial 

private Change

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northeast 1,331.2 144.9 -20.2 0.0 0.0 1,186.4 81.2

Southeast 3,564.2 437.3 18.7 1,047.3 1.3 2,079.7 73.2

 All units 4,895.5 582.1 -1.4 1,047.3 1.3 3,266.1 154.4

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

Figure 7—Proportion of timberland, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, east Oklahoma, 1993.

Bottomland hardwoods include the oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood forest-type groups.

Loblolly-shortleaf

1,098.6

Oak-pine

702.2

1,163.8

Oak-hickory

2,590.8

Bottomland hardwoods

503.8

25.2 21.2

121.0

1,077.4 676.9

1,427.0

382.9
10

Changes in forest-type groups between the 1986 and 1993

surveys were minor. The most noteworthy was an addition

of 147,000 acres to the loblolly-shortleaf pine forest-type

group in the Southeast unit (table IV).

Stand Volume

Total volume in all live trees greater than or equal to 5.0

inches in d.b.h. was 3,913.3 million cubic feet. This was an

829.5-million-cubic-feet increase since the 1986 survey (27

percent). Most of the volume in east Oklahoma was in

hardwood, 63 percent versus 37 percent for softwood.

Regionally, 74 percent of live-tree volume was in the

Southeast unit.

Sawtimber volume was 8,011.6 million board feet,

measured in the International 1/4-inch rule (see Definitions

in the appendix). This was a 13-percent increase since the

last survey. The sawtimber volume was almost evenly

divided between softwood and hardwood, with 52 percent

in softwood and 48 percent in hardwood. As with the livetree volume, a large proportion of sawtimber volume was

in the Southeast unit, 77 percent.

In east Oklahoma, 23 percent of the total live-tree volume

was in rough-and-rotten trees. Most of this cull volume

came from the hardwood component (96 percent).

Additionally most of the cull was in rough trees, and 86

percent was in hardwood versus 14 percent in softwood.

There were 276.2 million fresh tons (153.9 million dry

tons) of woody biomass in east Oklahoma. Most of this

biomass was in the hardwood component, 73 percent.

Regionally the Southeast unit held 72 percent of the total

woody biomass in east Oklahoma. For more detailed

information on the biomass component see Rosson (1993).

Table IV.—Area of timberland by forest survey unit, forest-type group, and change, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

Forest survey 

unit

All 

types

Loblollyshortleaf ChangeOakpine ChangeOakhickory ChangeOak-gumcypress ChangeElm-ashcottonwood Change Nontyped†

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northeast 1,331.2 21.2 -4.6 25.2 -12.6 1,163.8 51.2 69.9 7.5 51.0 19.5 0.0

Southeast 3,564.2 1,077.4 147.0 676.9 -32.1 1,427.0 -60.0 339.9 42.1 42.9 -3.8 0.0

 All units 4,895.5 1,098.6 142.5 702.2 -44.6 2,590.8 -8.8 409.9 49.6 94.0 15.6 0.0

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

†

Timberland <16.7 percent stocked. 
11

Softwood Volume

Softwood live-tree volume for the 1993 survey was

1,431.1 million cubic feet, a 371.3-million-cubic-feet

increase since 1986. Most of the softwood volume (96

percent) was in the Southeast unit (fig 8). Only 51.1

million cubic feet of volume were in the Northeast unit.

Figure 8—Proportion of live-tree volume, in million cubic feet, by species group, east Oklahoma, 1993.

980.7

51.1

1,501.5

Softwoods

1,431.1

Hardwoods

2,482.2

1,380.0
12

Therefore, practically all of the volume increase between

surveys for softwood was in the Southeast unit (table V).

The primary ownership of softwoods was almost evenly

divided between forest industry and NIPF ownerships,

591.3 and 530.5 million cubic feet, respectively (table VI).

National forests also had a sizable inventory holding with

233.2 million cubic feet (16 percent of all softwood

volume). Most of the increase in softwood volume was on

forest industry land. There, volume increased by 230.2

million cubic feet, 62 percent of the total softwood

increase.

Table V.—Change in live-tree volume by forest survey unit, east Oklahoma, 

 1986 to 1993*

Softwood Hardwood

Forest survey 

unit Volume Change Volume Change

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northeast 51.1 5.7 980.7 189.7

Southeast 1,380.0 365.6 1,501.5 268.5

 All units 1,431.1 371.3 2,482.2 458.2

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

Table VI.—Change in live-tree volume by ownership, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

Softwood Hardwood

Ownership Volume Change Volume Change

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

National forest 233.2 31.1 95.1 -7.9

Other public 76.1 17.6 223.9 34.8

Forest industry 591.3 230.2 240.0 17.3

Nonindustrial private 530.5 92.3 1,923.2 414.0

 All owners 1,431.1 371.3 2,482.2 458.2

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding. 
13

The softwood volume by diameter class is shown in figure

9. The majority of the volume was in trees less than 20.0

inches in d.b.h. (97 percent). Additionally, 58 percent was

in trees in the 10-inch diameter class and smaller. Between

the 1986 and 1993 surveys, most of the volume change

was in the 6-, 8-, and 10-inch diameter classes (88-, 96-

and 27-percent increases, respectively). The highest

concentration of volume was in the 6- through 11-inch

range of diameters.

Shortleaf pine had most of the softwood volume (fig. 10).

After 1986, its volume increased by 11 percent. Loblolly

pine volume was about one-third that of shortleaf pine,

362.6 versus 1,035.0 million cubic feet, respectively.

Noteworthy was the increase from 113.3 to 362.6 million

cubic feet in loblolly pine volume, a 220-percent increase

since 1986. This was mostly because loblolly pines

established in plantations in the recent past were then large

enough to be included in the volume estimate (this includes

trees greater than or equal to 5.0 inches in d.b.h.).

2-inch diameter class

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Million cubic feet

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1986

1993

Figure 9—Softwood live-tree volume by 2-inch diameter class, east Oklahoma, 1986 and 1993.

Billion cubic feet

0 1

Loblolly pine

Shortleaf pine

Baldcypress

Other softwoods 1993

1986

Figure 10—Softwood live-tree volume by species, east Oklahoma, 1986 and 1993.
14

The spatial distribution of softwood volume across east

Oklahoma was not evenly dispersed. In the Northeast unit,

where softwood volume was very low, there were no

stands with more than 2,000 cubic feet per acre (fig. 11).

Over 95 percent of the timberland area was in stands with

less than 500 cubic feet per acre. This is obvious for an

area that has little softwood volume. The Southeast unit

had a slightly different situation. There were some stands

with more than 2,000 cubic feet of softwood volume per

acre but on only 71,200 acres (2 percent of the unit’s

area). Furthermore, higher proportions of the total

softwood volume were found on these small amounts of

timberland. For example, all stands containing more than

1,000 cubic feet per acre (12.2 percent of the unit) held

48.8 percent of all softwood volume in the unit. In

contrast, 2.5 million acres (70 percent) of timberland

contained stands with less than 500 cubic feet per acre in

softwoods.

>2,000

1,500 - 2,000

1,000 - 1,500

500 - 1,000

<500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Northeast unit

Cubic feet per acre

Volume

Area

Cubic feet per acre

>2,000

1,500 - 2,000

1,000 - 1,500

500 - 1,000

<500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Southeast unit

Volume

Area

Figure 11—Timberland area and live-tree volume of softwoods by stand-volume class, east Oklahoma, 1993.

Percent

>2,000

1,500 - 2,000

1,000 - 1,500

500 - 1,000

<500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Entire State

Cubic feet per acre

Volume

Area
15

Softwood Sawtimber Volume

Softwood sawtimber volume was 4,161.2 million board

feet. As in live-tree volume, most of the sawtimber volume

was in the Southeast unit (fig. 12). Only 4 percent of the

sawtimber volume was in the Northeast unit.

Between the 1986 and 1993 surveys, east Oklahoma had a

319.9-million-board-feet increase in softwood sawtimber

Figure 12—Proportion of sawtimber volume, in million board feet, by species group, east Oklahoma, 1993.

1,692.4

170.6

Softwoods

 4,161.2

3,990.6

2,157.9

Hardwoods

3,850.4
16

volume (table VII). Paralleling the distribution of live-tree

softwood volume, most of the increase in softwood

sawtimber volume was also in the Southeast unit (97

percent).

The distribution of softwood sawtimber volume by

ownership is shown in table VIII. The NIPF owners had

the largest sawtimber volume, 1,713.3 million board feet.

Following closely was forest industry with 1,256.0 million

board feet. Together these two ownership classes accounted for 71 percent of the softwood sawtimber volume.

Of particular interest were the changes since the 1986

survey. Forest industry sawtimber volume decreased by

24.0 million board feet, while NIPF increased by 192.6

million board feet. The NIPF increase accounted for 56

percent of the increase between surveys.

Table VIII.—Change in sawtimber volume by ownership, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

Softwood Hardwood

Ownership Volume Change Volume Change

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Million board feet† - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

National forest 929.9 80.6 193.8 -55.7

Other public 262.0 70.8 470.3 30.2

Forest industry 1,256.0 -24.0 278.7 -76.8

Nonindustrial private 1,713.3 192.6 2,907.4 705.4

 All owners 4,161.2 319.9 3,850.4 603.2

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

†

International 1/4-inch rule. 

Table VII.—Change in sawtimber volume by forest survey unit, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 

 1993*

Softwood Hardwood Forest survey 

unit Volume Change Volume Change

- - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet† - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Northeast 170.6 10.0 1,692.4 399.8 

Southeast 3,990.6 309.9 2,157.9 203.4 

 All units 4,161.2 319.9 3,850.4 603.2 

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

†

International 1/4-inch rule. 
17

The effective density of softwood sawtimber volume

shows many acres with little volume (fig. 13). In the

Northeast unit, no stands had more than 7,000 board feet

per acre. Furthermore, more than 90 percent of timberland

had less than 1,000 board feet per acre of softwood

sawtimber, primarily because fewer softwood stands were

in the Northeast unit. The Southeast unit had some stands

with more than 7,000 board feet per acre. These stands

accounted for less than 5 percent of timberland in the unit

but included almost 30 percent of softwood sawtimber

volume. In contrast, 72 percent of the timberland was

composed of stands with less than 1,000 board feet per

acre. Most softwood sawtimber volume (64 percent) was

in stands between 1,000 and 7,000 board feet per acre, 25

percent of timberland area in the unit.

Hardwood Volume

In terms of live-tree volume, east Oklahoma is a hardwood

region with 63 percent of its volume in hardwoods. The

1993 hardwood inventory was 2,482.2 million cubic feet.

Both the Northeast and Southeast units had over 50

percent of their volume in hardwoods (fig. 8). Clearly the

Northeast unit was dominated by hardwoods (95 percent).

There was a 458.2-million-cubic-feet increase in the

hardwood inventory since 1986 (table V). Most of the

increase was in the Southeast unit (59 percent), but a

notable gain of 189.7 million cubic feet occurred in the

Northeast unit.

>9,000

5,000 - 6,999

3,000 - 4,999

1,000 - 2,999

<1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Northeast unit

7,000 - 8,999

Board feet per acre

Volume 

Area

Board feet per acre

>9,000

5,000 - 6,999

3,000 - 4,999

1,000 - 2,999

<1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Southeast unit

7,000 - 8,999

Volume

Area

Figure 13—Timberland area and sawtimber volume of softwoods by stand-volume class, east Oklahoma, 1993.

Percent

>9,000

5,000 - 6,999

3,000 - 4,999

1,000 - 2,999

<1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Entire State

7,000 - 8,999

Board feet per acre

Volume

Area
18

Nonindustrial private forest land owners held most of the

hardwood inventory (77 percent) (table VI). This was also

where the increase in the inventory occurred. Of the

458.2-million-cubic-feet increase for east Oklahoma, 90

percent was on NIPF land.

The distribution of volume by diameter classes is illustrated in figure 14. Hardwoods showed a slightly different

distribution than softwoods (fig. 9). First, more of the

volume was carried in the larger diameter trees in the

hardwood inventory. Trees in the 26-inch diameter class

carried close to 50.0 million cubic feet of volume, whereas

in softwoods the 18-inch diameter class was the 50.0-

million-cubic-feet cutoff. The second difference was in the

change in inventory since the last survey. In softwoods,

most of the change occurred in the 6- to 12-inch diameter

classes. In contrast, hardwood increases were obvious up

to the 20-inch diameter class. For those interested in

quality hardwoods, it was encouraging to see inventory

gains in trees with diameters greater than 16.0 inches in

d.b.h.

Along with the 458.2-million-cubic-feet increase in volume

were expected increases in important species and species

groups (fig. 15). All showed noteworthy increases with the

exception of sweetgum, blackgums, and willow. These

2-inch diameter class

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Million cubic feet

0

100

200

300

400

500

1986

1993

Figure 14—Hardwood live-tree volume by 2-inch diameter class, east Oklahoma, 1986 and 1993.

Billion cubic feet

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Select white oaks

Select red oaks

Other white oaks

Other red oaks

Sweetgum

Blackgum

Hickory species

Ash species

Hackberry species

Willow

Other hardwoods

1993

1986

Figure 15—Hardwood live-tree volume by species, east Oklahoma, 1986 and 1993.
19

particular inventories did not decline, but remained stable.

Most of the gains by species were moderate, with the

highest gain being reported in the other white oaks

category. There the gain was 229.6 million cubic feet, 23

percent over that reported for 1986.

The effective density graphs showed a more even distribution of hardwood volume than softwood volume (fig. 16).

For all of east Oklahoma, 60 percent of timberland was

composed of stands with less than 500 cubic feet per acre

of hardwood volume. Approximately 23 percent of the

inventory was in such stands. Stands with moderate

hardwood volume (500 to 1,500 cubic feet per acre) made

up 36 percent of timberland area and held 60 percent of

the hardwood volume. Stands with volumes considered

high for east Oklahoma (more than 1,500 cubic feet per

acre) occurred on only 4 percent of timberland, but held

17 percent of the hardwood inventory volume. There

were slight differences in the regional distribution characteristics, of which the most pronounced was stands with

less than 500 cubic feet per acre in hardwoods. In the

Southeast unit, 68 percent of timberland area was

composed of such stands while in the Northeast unit only

36 percent of timberland was in this stand-volume class.

>2,000

1,500 - 2,000

1,000 - 1,500

500 - 1,000

<500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Northeast unit

Cubic feet per acre

Volume

Area

Cubic feet per acre

>2,000

1,500 - 2,000

1,000 - 1,500

500 - 1,000

<500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Southeast unit

Volume

Area

Figure 16—Timberland area and live-tree volume of hardwoods by stand-volume class, east Oklahoma, 1993.

Percent

>2,000

1,500 - 2,000

1,000 - 1,500

500 - 1,000

<500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Entire State

Cubic feet per acre

Volume

Area
20

Hardwood Sawtimber Volume

East Oklahoma had 3,850.4 million board feet of hardwood sawtimber volume (table VII). Although the

Northeast unit was composed mostly of hardwoods (91

percent of sawtimber volume), most of the hardwood

volume was in the Southeast unit (56 percent).

There was a 603.2-million-board-feet increase in hardwood sawtimber volume since the previous inventory

(table VII). Most of this increase was in the Northeast

unit, 399.8 million board feet (66 percent of the total

increase).

Most of the hardwood sawtimber inventory was held by

NIPF owners, 2,907.4 million board feet (76 percent)

(table VIII). It follows that most of the increase in the

hardwood inventory was also in the NIPF ownership 

class, 96 percent (table VIII). The national forests and

forest industry lands showed slight decreases in the 

inventory since the previous survey (table VIII).

As the effective density graphs show for hardwood livetree volume, there are few stands in east Oklahoma with

high volumes of hardwood sawtimber (fig. 17). Only 7

percent of the survey region had stands classed as having

more than 3,000 board feet per acre of hardwood sawtimber volume. On this 7 percent of timberland was 48

percent of the total hardwood sawtimber inventory. Highvolume stands were not common in east Oklahoma.

Additionally, 77 percent of timberland was made up of

stands with less than 1,000 board feet per acre. Seventeen

percent of the hardwood sawtimber volume was on this

type of timberland.

>9,000

5,000 - 6,999

3,000 - 4,999

1,000 - 2,999

<1000

7,000 - 8,999

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Northeast unit

Board feet per acre

Volume

Area

Board feet per acre

>9,000

5,000 - 6,999

3,000 - 4,999

1,000 - 2,999

<1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Southeast unit

7,000 - 8,999

Volume

Area

Figure 17—Timberland area and sawtimber volume of hardwoods by stand-volume class, east Oklahoma, 1993.

Percent

>9,000

5,000 - 6,999

3,000 - 4,999

1,000 - 2,999

<1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Entire State

7,000 - 8,999

Board feet per acre

Volume

Area
21

Stand Structure

Stand Size

There was a fairly even balance among the stand-size

classes in east Oklahoma (fig. 18). Poletimber stands were

predominant with 2.0 million acres (41 percent), followed

by sawtimber stands with 1.5 million acres (31 percent),

and sapling-seedling stands with 1.4 million acres (28

percent). The balance among the three stand-size classes

was most pronounced in the Northeast unit with sawtimber stands highest in timberland area, followed by

poletimber and sapling-seedling stands—37, 35, and 28

percent, respectively. However, poletimber stands were

more predominant in the Southeast unit. There, they

occupied 43 percent (1.5 million acres) of all timberland

followed by sapling-seedling and sawtimber stands at 29

and 28 percent, respectively.

Regional changes in stand-size classes are shown in table

IX. Sawtimber stands increased by 199,600 acres. Most of

Figure 18—Proportion of timberland, in thousand acres, by stand-size class, east Oklahoma, 1993.

468.4

Sapling/seedling

1,394.5

1,001.0

Poletimber

2,004.3

Sawtimber

1,496.6 

367.3

1,027.3

1535.9

495.6
22

this (63 percent) was in the Southeast unit. Poletimber

stands increased by 361,500 acres since the last survey.

The predominant increase was in the Southeast unit,

accounting for 90 percent of this addition to poletimber

timberland. In contrast, sapling-seedling stands decreased

by 406,800 acres. As with poletimber stands, most of the

decrease was in the Southeast unit (88 percent), offsetting

the increase in poletimber acreage.

The changes in stand-size classes by ownership are shown

in table X. Changes in sawtimber stands were predominant

on NIPF ownership. There, such stands increased by

242,900 acres. The area of sawtimber stands decreased

slightly on national forest, other public, and forest industry

lands. In contrast to sawtimber stands, the poletimber

stand increase was predominantly on forest industry lands,

307,100 acres (85 percent of the increase). This increase

was offset by a 299,300-acre decrease in sapling-seedling

stands on forest industry lands. This was 74 percent of the

decrease in this stand-size class.

Table X.—Change in timberland by ownership and stand size, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling and seedling Nonstocked

Ownership Area Change Area Change Area Change Area Change

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

National forest 102.4 -20.9 60.1 -1.4 60.2 2.3 0.0 0.0

Other public 127.3 -15.9 132.1 47.6 100.0 -13.2 0.0 0.0

Forest industry 203.1 -6.6 569.0 307.1 275.2 -299.3 0.0 0.0

Nonindustrial private 1,063.8 242.9 1,243.2 8.2 959.1 -96.7 0.0 0.0

 All owners 1,496.6 199.6 2,004.3 361.5 1,394.5 -406.8 0.0 0.0

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

Table IX.—Change in timberland by forest survey unit and stand size, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

Sawtimber Poletimber Sapling and seedling Nonstocked Forest survey 

unit Area Change Area Change Area Change Area Change

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northeast 495.6 73.2 468.4 36.9 367.3 -49.0 0.0 0.0

Southeast 1,001.0 126.4 1,535.9 324.6 1,027.3 -357.8 0.0 0.0

 All units 1,496.6 199.6 2,004.3 361.5 1,394.5 -406.8 0.0 0.0

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding. 
23

Basal Area

Average stand basal area for east Oklahoma was 75.1

square feet per acre, a large proportion of which was in

rough-and-rotten trees (39 percent). Additionally most of

the total basal area came from the hardwood component

(71 percent). Basal area by ownership categories showed

no obvious differences, except on national forest lands.

There, stand basal area averaged 98.2 square feet per acre.

Basal area trends by diameter classes are shown in figure

19. Two diameter classes for the State showed very small

decreases, the 4- and 28-inch classes. Substantial gains

were made in the 6-, 8-, 16- through 26-, and 29-inch and

larger diameter classes. The continued increases in basal

area across the range of diameter classes means that east

Oklahoma’s forests are continuing to mature. Neither

survey unit departed substantially from the State average.

One exception might be that gains in the 6- and 8-inch

diameter classes were not as great in the Northeast unit as

in the Southeast unit.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 >29

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Northeast unit

+7.5

+5.6 +8.7 +0.9 +2.4

+6.1

+12.6

+17.1

+25.9

+8.6

+29.8

+8.3

+2.6 -7.7

+34.5

Basal area (square feet per acre)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 >29

Basal area (square feet per acre)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Southeast unit

-0.9

-1.7

+29.3 +46.4

+14.4

+3.6

+7.5

+17.3

+16.9

+16.7 -0.1 +52.9+26.8 +4.5 +79.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Entire State

246 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 >29

+1.1

-0.3

+24.5 +33.9

+10.9

+4.4

+9.1

+17.4

+20.4

+13.6

+12.1 +31.4 +17.7 -1.7 +54.8

2-inch diameter class

Basal area (square feet per acre)

Figure 19—Basal area of all live trees by diameter class, east Oklahoma, 1993. Numbers above bars are percentage changes since the 1986 inventory.
24

Tables XI through XIV illustrate trends and shifts in

timberland area by stand basal-area classes for survey

units, ownership, stand-size class, and forest-type groups.

The greatest change between 1986 and 1993 was in the

81- to 100- and 0- to 20-square-feet-per-acre classes

(table XI).

Timberland area in the 81- to 100-square-feet-per-acre

class increased by 301,300 acres (Table XII). Most of this

(72 percent) was in the Southeast unit. The increase in this

basal-area class was offset by a 268,900-acre decrease in

the 0- to 20-square-feet-per-acre class. Again most of this

shift was in the Southeast unit (96 percent).

Fifty percent of the timberland area increase in the 81- to

100-square-feet-per-acre class was on forest industry land

(table XII); increases on NIPF and public lands made up

the remaining increases, 32 and 17 percent, respectively.

The decrease in the 0- to 20-square-feet-per-acre class was

much different, in that forest industry lands accounted for

86 percent of the decline.

Table XII.—Area of timberland by ownership and basal area class of live trees, east Oklahoma, 1986 and 1993*

Ownership 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993

Public 28.0 50.3 64.1 52.2 97.6 89.3 79.4 132.1 142.8 101.1 91.9 61.2 24.2 52.9 55.5 43.1

Forest industry 17.2 28.3 34.8 77.4 93.5 98.8 161.9 313.1 196.3 207.8 168.4 190.5 80.6 68.2 293.3 63.2

Nonindustrial private 30.0 75.7 124.6 163.1 329.5 415.2 591.0 688.3 796.3 848.8 635.1 603.2 368.4 261.4 236.7 210.3

 All owners 75.2 154.3 223.6 292.7 520.7 603.3 832.2 1,133.5 1,135.5 1,157.7 895.4 854.8 473.1 382.5 585.5 316.6

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>140 121-140 101-120 81-100

Basal area class (Square feet per acre)

61-80 41-60 21-40 0-20

Table XI.—Area of timberland by forest survey unit and basal area class of live trees, east Oklahoma, 1986 and 1993*

Forest survey

unit 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993

Northeast 0.0 0.0 14.3 50.2 182.0 172.9 231.3 314.5 370.2 369.1 235.4 287.0 154.8 66.8 82.1 70.7

Southeast 75.2 154.3 209.3 242.4 338.7 430.4 600.9 819.1 765.3 788.6 660.0 567.8 318.3 315.7 503.4 245.9

 All units 75.2 154.3 223.6 292.7 520.7 603.3 832.2 1,133.5 1,135.5 1,157.7 895.4 854.8 473.1 382.5 585.5 316.6

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Basal area class (Square feet per acre)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

>140 121-140 101-120 81-100 61-80 41-60 21-40 0-20
25

In the 81- to 100-square-feet-per-acre class, 85 percent of

the increase in timberland was in poletimber stands (table

XIII). This increase was offset by the decrease in the 0- to

20-square-feet-per-acre class, of which 98 percent was in

sapling-seedling stands. Twenty-five percent of timberland

was in poletimber stands in the 61- to 100-square-feet-peracre basal-area range. In contrast, 16 percent of stands in

this basal-area range were in sawtimber.

The 301,300-acre increase in timberland area in the 81- to

100-square-feet-per-acre class was distributed fairly

evenly among forest-type groups (table XIV). The highest

increase was in the oak-hickory type (38 percent),

followed by loblolly-shortleaf, oak-pine, and oak-gumcypress forest-type groups, accounting for 27, 25, and 9

percent of the increase, respectively.

Table XIII.—Area of timberland by size class and basal area class of live trees, east Oklahoma, 1986 and 1993*

Size class 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993

Sapling and seedling 5.6 0.0 5.6 18.3 50.3 31.2 129.5 86.0 195.4 190.8 430.1 409.5 405.3 342.1 579.5 316.6

Poletimber 17.6 76.8 103.8 176.6 200.4 248.9 409.0 666.3 534.5 563.7 321.1 243.8 50.4 28.4 6.0 0.0

Sawtimber 52.0 77.5 114.2 97.8 269.9 323.3 293.7 381.3 405.6 403.2 144.2 201.5 17.4 12.1 0.0 0.0

Nonstocked 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 All classes 75.2 154.3 223.6 292.7 520.7 603.3 832.2 1,133.5 1,135.5 1,157.7 895.4 854.8 473.1 382.5 585.5 316.6

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>140 121-140 101-120 81-100

Basal area class (Square feet per acre )

61-80 41-60 21-40 0-20

Table XIV.—Area of timberland by forest-type group and basal area class of live trees, east Oklahoma, 1986 and 1993*

Forest-type

 group 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993

Loblolly-shortleaf 60.9 107.6 114.0 145.5 171.4 183.3 169.5 252.2 148.6 178.1 129.4 145.6 57.7 63.4 104.6 23.0

Oak-pine 9.2 29.4 42.9 23.5 70.2 83.2 123.9 198.3 206.6 172.5 118.7 71.9 24.1 70.0 151.2 53.4

Oak-hickory 0.0 5.8 31.7 79.7 235.5 298.7 475.4 591.2 663.1 651.8 547.9 569.4 338.4 185.5 307.5 208.8

Oak-gum-cypress† 5.1 11.4 34.9 44.0 43.5 38.2 63.4 91.9 117.2 155.3 99.4 67.9 53.0 63.7 22.1 31.5

 All classes 75.2 154.3 223.6 292.7 520.7 603.3 832.2 1,133.5 1,135.5 1,157.7 895.4 854.8 473.1 382.5 585.5 316.6

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

†

Includes elm-ash-cottonwood forest-type group.

Basal area class (Square feet per acre)

61-80 41-60 21-40 0-20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

>140 121-140 101-120 81-100
26

Paralleling the increase in timberland area in the 81- to

100-square-feet-per-acre basal-area class was a 310.4-

million-cubic-feet increase in volume (table XV). As with

the area trend, 72 percent of the increase was in the

Southeast unit. There were also notable increases in the

101- to 120- and the greater than 140-square-feet-per-acre

classes, 146.0 and 158.5 million cubic feet, respectively.

These increases were also in the Southeast unit. The

largest increase in sawtimber volume was in stands with

more than 140 square feet per acre (table XVI). There,

volume increased by 343.4 million board feet. A similar

increase occurred in the 81- to 100-square-feet-per-acre

class, along with a more moderate increase in the 101- to

120-square-feet-per-acre basal-area classes, 337.1 and

216.4 million board feet, respectively. Most of the

sawtimber volume was in the basal-area range of 81- to

120-square-feet-per-acre, 3,797.4 million board feet (47

percent of total sawtimber volume). Twenty-five percent

of sawtimber volume was in stands that had more than 121

square feet of basal area per acre.

Table XV.—Volume of all live trees by forest survey unit and basal area class of live trees, east Oklahoma, 1986 and 1993*

Forest survey

unit 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993

Northeast 0.0 0.0 15.1 66.4 226.7 227.8 219.2 305.7 234.2 272.7 94.8 138.0 42.2 16.4 4.3 4.8

Southeast 162.5 321.0 333.6 373.1 403.4 548.4 497.9 721.9 503.0 579.6 274.2 253.5 59.4 74.2 13.4 9.9

 All units 162.5 321.0 348.7 439.6 630.1 776.1 717.1 1,027.5 737.2 852.3 369.0 391.5 101.6 90.6 17.7 14.7

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

>140 121-140 101-120 81-100

Basal area class (Square feet per acre )

61-80 41-60 21-40 0-20

Table XVI.—Volume of all sawtimber by forest survey unit and basal area class of live trees, east Oklahoma, 1986 and 1993*

Forest survey

unit 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993 1986 1993

Northeast 0.0 0.0 12.7 130.2 512.7 547.2 392.3 571.5 374.8 389.4 114.5 205.5 44.3 18.3 2.1 1.1

Southeast 637.0 980.4 1,007.0 901.9 1,175.4 1,357.4 1,163.5 1,321.5 1,118.4 1,086.3 441.5 407.1 76.2 87.4 16.0 6.5

 All units 637.0 980.4 1,019.7 1,032.0 1,688.1 1,904.5 1,555.8 1,892.9 1,493.2 1,475.7 556.1 612.6 120.5 105.7 18.1 7.6

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

†

International 1/4-inch rule.

Basal area class (Square feet per acre )

0-20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet † - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>140 121-140 101-120 81-100 61-80 41-60 21-40
27

Species Distribution

Figure 20 shows the distribution of three important

softwoods in east Oklahoma. Loblolly pine was most

common in the Southeast unit and mostly restricted to

LeFlore, McCurtain, and Pushmataha Counties. The maps

show a spatial distribution of each species represented by a

minimum threshold of volume, i.e., there must be at least 5

million cubic feet of volume in a county before a representative dot is placed in that particular county location.

Therefore, it does not mean loblolly pine was not present

in other areas of east Oklahoma. In fact, loblolly pine is

widely planted throughout eastern Oklahoma. The maps

give a good indication of the relative location of the higher

concentrations of volume. Shortleaf pine had a wider

distribution than loblolly, extending further west and north.

Eastern redcedar had a wide distribution, similar to

shortleaf pine, but not as high a concentration of volume.

It was noticeably less common in the mountains of the

southeast region of the State.

Loblolly pine

Shortleaf pine Eastern redcedar

Figure 20—Distribution of three important softwoods, east Oklahoma, 1993. Each dot represents 5,000,000 cubic feet, except

for eastern redcedar where each dot represents 500,000 cubic feet.

 

  









































































 













 



  



 

















  









 

  

















 



 

 





 



























 















 







  















 

  





























 











































 



























































 





















 









  





























































































 











  











 





























 





































 


















28

The distribution of five important hardwoods is shown in

figure 21. The most common hardwood in southeast

Oklahoma was post oak. This species showed widespread

amplitude for practically all locations in east Oklahoma.

Only in Ottawa County did its presence noticeably

diminish. Black oak was the most common species in the

Northeast unit. It had particularly high concentrations in

Adair, Cherokee, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties.

This species also had widespread occurrence across the

remainder of east Oklahoma. White oak was concentrated

toward the eastern area of east Oklahoma with the highest

concentration in Adair County. Black hickory, usually

occasional in occurrence in other parts of its range, had a

widespread distribution in east Oklahoma. Black hickory’s

Figure 21—Distribution of five important oaks and hickories, east Oklahoma, 1993. Each dot represents 500,000 cubic feet.

White oak Black hickory

Post oak Mockernut hickory

Black oak



 

  





























 











































 











































 













 











 





 

























 













































 



 







 







   

























































  











 





























 











































 















 

























































 

  













 





 











 





















 









   































































































 













 



  



 















  











 















 





































 

  





























 



































 





 









 







   





























































 













 



  



 

























































































 













  











 





























  



































 





 



 







 









 





























































  





 























 































 







































 

























 









 





  









 









  











 











 





 





 











 

  





























 











































 



















































































 



 







































































 

 











































 



















 











































 































 

 





 













































 



































 





























 



















 











 





 





 







































 























 











 









 

 





 











































 











 









 

 

















 









  

 







 















 





































 











 









 





 















  







  









































 



















 

  

  





 

























 



   





 

























 



 







 



















 



 

 





 

































  











































 

 









 



















 

















 











 



 











 









  

















 











 































































 













 



  



 

























































































  











 





























 



















 

















 





 



 







 































































 













































 





































 



































 



 











































































 









































 



  

 





















 













 

















































 

















 















 



 

























































  





































































 







































 

 











 















 









 





 











 











 

  





























 









































 





 





 





 

 















 













 





 















  







  











































 



















 



 









   























































  











 





























 

















  

 





















 













 

















































 





 







 





 

















 













 















 











































 

 

























 





 

 

  























 















































































































  































 































 











 















































 









 





 



















 

 



























 













 























 

 











 







































 












29

competitive edge in dry soils with low fertility allows it to

reach numbers where, although not dominant, it is very

competitive with other dry-habitat species.

Species Importance

By volume, shortleaf pine was the most dominant tree

species in east Oklahoma (1,210.1 million cubic feet)

(table XVIIa). Post oak followed, along with loblolly pine,

black oak, blackjack oak, black hickory, and white oak

with 831.1, 424.1, 361.4, 225.2, 214.6, and 210.5 million

cubic feet, respectively. Together these seven species made

up 67 percent of the live-tree volume in the 1993 survey.

Note that the live-tree volume in the species ranking

includes all trees greater than or equal to 1.0 inch in d.b.h.;

this total volume was 5,179.3 million cubic feet.

Table XVIIa.—Ranking of tree species* (by volume) for each forest survey unit and the State, east 

 Oklahoma, 1993

State

Species Volume† Species Volume†

 Shortleaf pine 1,210.1 Red mulberry 13.6

 Post oak 831.1 Pignut hickory 13.0

 Loblolly pine 424.1 Sassafras 11.3

 Black oak 361.4 Willow oak 10.9

 Blackjack oak 225.2 Slippery elm 10.3

 Black hickory 214.6 Black cherry 10.0

 White oak 210.5 Chittamwood 8.4

 Winged elm 191.6 Overcup oak 7.1

 Northern red oak 128.4 Bur oak 6.9

 Mockernut hickory 121.9 Water hickory 6.2

 Southern red oak 107.5 Sugar maple 5.7

 Green ash 87.6 American hornbeam 5.7

 Sugarberry 64.7 Hackberry 4.7

 Water oak 62.4 Sparkleberry 3.7

 Sweetgum 57.8 Baldcypress 3.5

 Eastern redcedar 57.8 Black locust 3.4

 White ash 50.2 Florida maple 3.3

 Cottonwood 49.7 Eastern redbud 3.1

 Shumard oak 49.5 Nuttall oak 2.8

 Red maple 44.6 Cherrybark oak 2.6

 American sycamore 43.7 Plums, cherries‡ 2.5

 Blackgum 39.9 Hawthorn 2.4

 American elm 39.4 American holly 2.3

 Flowering dogwood 34.9 Kentucky coffeetree 1.8

 Hickory 31.4 September elm 1.7

 Silver maple 26.8 Water locust 1.7

 Pin oak 24.8 White basswood 1.4

 Pecan 24.1 Serviceberry 0.8

 Osage-orange 22.8 White mulberry 0.7

 Chinkapin oak 20.2 Chinaberry 0.6

 Boxelder 20.2 Nutmeg hickory 0.6

 Bitternut hickory 20.1 Water-elm 0.6

 Honey locust 17.2 Swamp chestnut oak 0.5

 Cedar elm 16.8 Other species§ 0.5

 Shagbark hickory 16.8 Siberian elm 0.4

 Black walnut 16.1 Bluejack oak 0.2

 Common persimmon 15.0 Chinkapin ¶

 Willow 14.5 American basswood ¶

 Eastern hophornbeam 14.5 Allegheny chinkapin ¶

 River birch 14.4

*Scientific names can be cross referenced in species list in appendix. 

†

Values are net cubic-foot volume in million cubic feet for all live trees 1.0 inch in diameter at breast height. 

‡

Other than black cherry. 

§

Other species includes noncommercial and unidentified species. 

¶

Volume >0.0 but <0.1 million cubic feet.
30

There were substantive differences in species ranking

between the Northeast and Southeast survey units. In the

Northeast unit, seven hardwoods were dominant in

ranking before a softwood (shortleaf pine) occurred on the

list (table XVIIb). Black oak, post oak, and blackjack oak

were the top three species with 265.2, 220.6, and 105.3

million cubic feet, respectively. These three species

accounted for 45 percent of the live-tree volume in the unit

(total volume was 1,327.7 million cubic feet).

Table XVIIb.—Ranking of tree species* (by volume) for each forest survey unit and the State, east Oklahoma, 

 1993

Northeast unit

Species Volume† Species Volume†

 Black oak 265.2 Honey locust 6.9

 Post oak 220.6 Eastern redcedar 6.6

 Blackjack oak 105.3 Sugar maple 5.6

 White oak 70.3 Pin oak 5.4

 Northern red oak 63.5 Boxelder 5.3

 Black hickory 59.0 Water oak 4.8

 Winged elm 56.4 Hackberry 4.2

 Shortleaf pine 54.1 Red maple 4.1

 Sugarberry 31.4 Eastern hophornbeam 3.8

 Mockernut hickory 27.8 Red mulberry 3.6

 Shumard oak 27.7 Black locust 3.4

 Southern red oak 27.1 Black cherry 3.4

 American sycamore 21.1 Cedar elm 3.2

 Green ash 20.1 Osage-orange 3.1

 Flowering dogwood 17.2 Eastern redbud 2.0

 Hickory 16.0 Kentucky coffeetree 1.8

 Black walnut 14.4 Chittamwood 1.8

 Silver maple 14.1 Bur oak 1.7

 Bitternut hickory 13.8 American hornbeam 1.7

 Blackgum 13.5 River birch 1.3

 Pignut hickory 13.0 White mulberry 0.7

 American elm 13.0 Overcup oak 0.7

 White ash 11.7 Plums, cherries‡ 0.6

 Chinkapin oak 11.5 Nuttall oak 0.5

 Sassafras 10.9 Swamp chestnut oak 0.5

 Shagbark hickory 9.3 Hawthorn 0.4

 Pecan 9.0 Loblolly pine 0.4

 Cottonwood 8.8 Water hickory 0.3

 Willow 8.5 Bluejack oak 0.2

 Slippery elm 7.0 Sparkleberry ¶

 Common persimmon 7.0 Chinkapin ¶

 September elm 0.9 American basswood ¶

 Serviceberry 0.8 *Scientific names can be cross referenced in species list in appendix. 

†

Values are net cubic-foot volume in million cubic feet for all live trees 1.0 inch in diameter at breast height. 

‡

Other than black cherry. 

§

Other species includes noncommercial and unidentified species. 

¶

Volume >0.0 but <0.1 million cubic feet.
31

In the Southeast unit, shortleaf pine was a strong dominant, with 1,156.0 million cubic feet, followed by post oak

and loblolly pine with 610.5 and 423.7 million cubic feet,

respectively (table XVIIc). Together these three species

accounted for 57 percent of the live-tree volume in the unit

(total volume for the unit was 3,851.6 million cubic feet).

Table XVIIc.—Ranking of tree species* (by volume) for each forest survey unit and the State, east Oklahoma, 

 1993

Southeast unit

 Species Volume† Species Volume†

 Shortleaf pine 1,156.0 Shagbark hickory 7.6 

 Post oak 610.5 Chittamwood 6.7 

 Loblolly pine 423.7 Black cherry 6.6 

 Black hickory 155.6 Overcup oak 6.4 

 White oak 140.3 Bitternut hickory 6.2 

 Winged elm 135.2 Willow 6.0 

 Blackjack oak 120.0 Water hickory 6.0 

 Black oak 96.3 Bur oak 5.2 

 Mockernut hickory 94.2 American hornbeam 4.0 

 Southern red oak 80.5 Sparkleberry 3.7 

 Green ash 67.6 Baldcypress 3.5 

 Northern red oak 64.9 Florida maple 3.3 

 Sweetgum 57.8 Slippery elm 3.3 

 Water oak 57.6 Cherrybark oak 2.6 

 Eastern redcedar 51.2 Nuttall oak 2.3 

 Cottonwood 41.0 American holly 2.3 

 Red maple 40.5 Hawthorn 2.0 

 White ash 38.5 Plums, cherries‡

 1.9 

 Sugarberry 33.3 Water locust 1.7 

 American elm 26.4 Black walnut 1.7 

 Blackgum 26.4 White basswood 1.4 

 American sycamore 22.6 Eastern redbud 1.1 

 Shumard oak 21.8 September elm 0.8 

 Osage-orange 19.8 Chinaberry 0.6 

 Pin oak 19.4 Nutmeg hickory 0.6 

 Flowering dogwood 17.7 Water-elm 0.6 

 Hickory 15.4 Hackberry 0.5 

 Pecan 15.2 Other species§

 0.5 

 Boxelder 14.9 Sassafras 0.4 

 Cedar elm 13.6 Siberian elm 0.4 

 River birch 13.1 Swamp chestnut oak 0.1 

 Silver maple 12.6 Sugar maple ¶

 Willow oak 10.9 Serviceberry ¶

 Eastern hophornbeam 10.7 Allegheny chinkapin ¶

 Honey locust 10.3 Black locust ¶

 Red mulberry 10.0 White mulberry ¶

 Chinkapin oak 8.7 Kentucky coffeetree ¶

 Common persimmon 7.9 

*Scientific names can be cross referenced in species list in appendix. 

†

Values are net cubic-foot volume in million cubic feet for all live trees 1.0 inch in diameter at breast height. 

‡

Other than black cherry. 

§

Other species includes noncommercial and unidentified species. 

¶

Volume >0.0 but <0.1 million cubic feet.
32

Change in Number of Trees

The number of softwood trees decreased substantially in

the 2- and 4-inch diameter classes between the 1986 and

1993 surveys (fig. 22). This could mean that harvesting

slowed, resulting in less need for new stand establishment

and, thus, a reduction of trees in the small-diameter

classes. It also might mean that harvesting remained stable

or was even increasing, but new softwood stand establishment was not keeping pace. The large increase in 6-, 8-,

and 10-inch-diameter-class softwoods was a result of the

growth of smaller trees established prior to the time of the

1986 survey.

Hardwoods exhibited no large or abrupt changes in

numbers of trees except in the 12 inches and higher

diameter classes. This is characteristic of stands that are

increasing in maturity with relatively little disturbance. The

increase in the number of hardwoods is good in that the

potential for hardwood quality to increase is linked to

larger sized trees.

Recently concerns have been raised in Southern States

about the replacement of hardwood stands with softwoods, especially by means of management opportunities

that favor pines, or by the direct result of plantation

establishment. Figures 23 and 24 illustrate changes, if any,

2-inch diameter class

Percent change

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Softwoods

Hardwoods

2

4

6

8

10

12 14

16 18

20

22

24

26

28

30

Figure 22—Percentage change in number of live trees between 1986 and 1993, east Oklahoma.
33

of timberland area in terms of proportions of softwoods to

hardwoods. Figure 23 includes both bottomland and

upland stands; figure 24 shows only upland stands. In

figure 23, the overall change in proportion of softwood

and hardwood stands is shown for all site types in the

State. However to illustrate the impact on proportions

where only pines are most likely to be planted, the

bottomland hardwoods are not included in figure 24.

Figure 23—Area of timberland by proportion of stand in softwoods and hardwoods, east Oklahoma, 1993. The

percentage values are the midpoints of the deciles. Thus, 85 percent includes values 80 percent or greater but less

than 90 percent. Area is in thousand acres; the acreage enclosed in parentheses is from the 1986 survey.

Proportions are based on basal area, and only stands with trees 1.0 inch or larger in diameter at breast height are

included. Proportion of stand in softwoods (percent)

95 85 75 65 55 45 35 25 15 5

Proportion of stand in hardwoods (percent)

95

85

75

65

55

45

35

25

15

5 2,591.8

(2,503.2)

274.6

(312.2)

248.2

(192.6)

250.2

(228.0)

270.4

(280.2)

261.9

(227.2)

165.6

(161.5)

234.7

(207.6)

193.8

(167.7)

363.0

(296.8)
34

Since 1986, the area of timberland with more than 55

percent of the stand in softwoods increased in every decile

class (figs. 23, 24). The largest increase was in stands with

95 percent of basal area in softwoods. There, timberland

area increased from 296,800 acres to 363,000 acres. In

contrast, stands made up of more than 50 percent hardwoods decreased in the 55 and 85 percent classes (fig. 24).

This points to a slight decrease in hardwood stands and an

increase in the area of stands made up mostly of softwood.

Proportion of stand in softwoods (percent)

95 85 75 65 55 45 35 25 15 5

Proportion of stand in hardwoods (percent)

95

85

75

65

55

45

35

25

15

5 2,125.1

(2,074.0)

260.7

(309.0)

237.1

(192.6)

250.2

(228.0)

270.4

(280.2)

261.9

(227.2)

165.6

(161.5)

234.7

(207.6)

193.8

(167.7)

363.0

(296.8)

Figure 24—Area of upland timberland by proportion of stand in softwoods and hardwoods, east Oklahoma, 1993. The

percentage values are the midpoints of the deciles. Thus, 85 percent includes values 80 percent or greater but less than

90 percent. Area is in thousand acres; the acreage enclosed in parentheses is from the 1986 survey. Proportions are

based on basal area, and only upland stands with trees 1.0 inch and larger in diameter at breast height are included.
35

Growth, Removals, and Mortality

In the east Oklahoma survey, three components of change

in timber volume were analyzed: growth, removals, and

mortality. Complex interactions among these components

resulted in an increase, decrease, or no change in the

inventory volume. Because of the dynamic nature of these

components, estimates were given as the periodic annual

average, i.e., the average between 1986 and 1993 and not

the average of the entire lifespan of the trees being

sampled (see Inventory Methods in the appendix for

methodology).

One problem with successive large-scale forest surveys is

in getting the volume of the initial survey (survey at time

1), plus growth (the growth between the initial survey and

the second survey), to equal the volume of the second

survey. A portion of this problem was corrected by using a

plot-growth method described by Van Deusen and others

(1986). However, this resolved only the problem inherent

with variable-radius plot sampling (see Inventory Methods

in the appendix).

The second portion of the growth balance problem

concerns the assignment of the area weighting factor

(commonly called the expansion factor). The expansion

factor is the amount of timberland area that each 3- by 3-

mile sample plot represents. Multiplying the per-acre

estimate of volume (or growth, removals, mortality) by the

expansion factor expands the estimate to the number of

timberland acres the plot represents. However, a problem

occurs when the plot population (number of sample plots)

of the initial survey differs substantially from the plot

population of the second survey. This is usually a result of

plots diverting (from forest to nonforest) or reverting

(from nonforest to forest) since the initial survey. If this

happens, the magnitude of the difference between expansion factors for the initial and second surveys becomes

very large. Therefore, because these expansion factors

(labeled resurveyed expansion factor for time-1 growth

and expansion factor for time-2 volume) differ widely

(depending on how different the plot populations are), it is

not possible to balance the growth of the initial survey

inventory with the inventory of the second survey.

Currently there is not a solution for this type of imbalance

problem. Manipulating expansion factors to solve the

growth imbalance problem would create imbalance

problems when plot populations do not change substantially between surveys. The expansion factor problem

occurs regardless of the sample plot design, be it variable

radius or fixed area.

Fortunately the growth imbalance for east Oklahoma was

negligible. Even so, the following documentation is

offered. The time-2 volume derived by growing the initial

survey volume was computed using the following formula:

time-2 volume = volume at time 1

+ (annual volume of net growth

x elapsed time)

- (annual volume of removals

x elapsed time) .

This derived time-2 volume was compared with the new

volume from the time-2 inventory. Any difference was

considered an imbalance. The average elapsed time for the

survey was 6.63 years (for plots that were forested at time

1 and time 2). For example, total live-tree volume for time

2 (computed by growth) was:

time-2 volume = 3,083.8

+ (203.9 x 6.63)

- (88.3 x 6.63)

= 3,850.2 million cubic feet .

Comparing this with the new inventory (3,913.3 million

cubic feet) resulted in a difference of 63.1 million cubic

feet, a minus 1.64-percent imbalance. This would be

considered a close balance. The growth imbalance for

softwoods and hardwoods was plus 1.60 and minus 3.57

percent, respectively.

Growth-to-removal ratios and removal-to-growth ratios

were used to illustrate the relationship between growth

and removals. If growth was larger than removals, the

ratio was shown as growth-to-removal. If removals

exceeded growth, the ratio was shown in a removal-togrowth format. The reason the ratios are reversed is

because if the ratio is always expressed in a growth-toremoval form, the ratio would be compressed between 0.0

and 1.0 when removals exceeded growth. This could be

misleading because, for example, a removal-to-growth

ratio of 3.50 to 1.0 would be 0.29 to 1.0 when expressed

in a growth-to-removal format. If removals are doubled,

the ratio becomes 7.0 to 1.0 in a removal-to-growth

format or 0.14 to 1.0 in a growth-to-removal format. The

latter does not clearly illustrate the relative magnitude of

the ratio. A scan of the net change column in tables XVIII

through XXII reveals whether growth exceeds removals or

removals exceed growth. A positive number indicates the

former and a negative number the latter.
36

Softwoods

Gross growth for live-tree softwoods was 118.3 million

cubic feet per year, and net growth was 115.0 million

cubic feet per year (table XVIII). This was a substantial

increase over that reported for the 1986 survey, 52.9 and

49.4 million cubic feet per year, respectively. Mortality

stayed the same, as did removals, 3.3 and 55.5 million

cubic feet per year, respectively. This resulted in a net

change to the softwood inventory of plus 59.4 million

cubic feet per year, a large improvement over the minus

7.9 million cubic feet per year reported in 1986. These net

Table XVIII.—Components of annual change in the volume of live trees by forest survey unit and species group, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 

 1993*

 Growth component

Forest survey 

unit

Species 

group

Survivor 

growth† Ingrowth‡

Growth on 

removals

Growth on 

mortality Mortality

Timberland 

removals

Land-clearing 

removals

Net 

change§

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northeast

Softwood 2.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.5 0.6 0.6

Hardwood 34.1 5.8 0.6 0.8 9.6 5.3 5.9 20.5

 Total 36.1 6.5 0.8 0.9 9.8 6.8 6.5 21.1

 

Southeast 

Softwood 61.8 40.8 12.2 0.4 3.0 46.3 7.1 58.8

Hardwood 55.9 11.6 2.2 1.5 13.7 17.3 4.3 35.7

 Total 117.6 52.5 14.3 1.9 16.7 63.6 11.4 94.5

 

All units 

Softwood 63.8 41.6 12.4 0.5 3.3 47.8 7.7 59.4

Hardwood 89.9 17.4 2.8 2.3 23.3 22.6 10.2 56.2

 Total 153.7 58.9 15.1 2.8 26.6 70.4 17.9 115.6

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

†

Includes nongrowth trees. 

‡

Includes ongrowth trees. 

§

Net change = (survivor growth + ingrowth + growth on removals + growth on mortality) - (mortality + timberland removals + landclearing removals). 
37

changes translated into a growth-to-removal ratio of 2.07

to 1.0 for the 1993 survey and a removal-to-growth ratio

of 1.16 to 1.0 for the 1986 survey.

Most of the softwood net growth was in the Southeast

unit (98 percent). Additionally the majority of this growth

was on forest industry land (57 percent) followed by

growth on NIPF land (30 percent). Forest industry land

also accounted for 53 percent of the 55.5 million cubic feet

per year of removals, while NIPF land accounted for 36

percent of softwood removals (table XIX). Softwood

growth exceeded removals on all ownership classes.

Table XIX.—Components of annual change in the volume of live trees by ownership and species group, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

 Growth component

Ownership

Species 

group

Survivor 

growth† Ingrowth‡

Growth on 

removals

Growth on 

mortality Mortality

Timberland 

removals

Land-clearing 

removals

Net 

change§

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

National forest

Softwood 11.1 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.3 2.4 3.7 6.3

Hardwood 3.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.8 1.5

 Total 14.4 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.7 2.7 5.5 7.8

 

Other public 

Softwood 2.9 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 2.9

Hardwood 8.4 2.2 0.1 0.3 3.3 0.5 1.4 5.7

 Total 11.3 2.8 0.1 0.4 3.9 0.7 1.4 8.7

 

Forest industry 

Softwood 24.4 32.3 9.9 0.1 1.3 29.2 0.0 36.2

Hardwood 6.6 2.4 0.6 0.2 1.5 2.8 0.0 5.5

 Total 31.0 34.6 10.5 0.4 2.8 32.0 0.0 41.8

 

Nonindustrial private 

Softwood 25.4 7.6 2.0 0.2 1.1 16.0 4.0 14.0

Hardwood 71.6 12.3 2.0 1.7 18.1 19.0 7.1 43.4

 Total 96.9 19.9 4.0 1.9 19.3 35.0 11.0 57.4

 

All owners 

Softwood 63.8 41.6 12.4 0.5 3.3 47.8 7.7 59.4

Hardwood 89.9 17.4 2.8 2.3 23.3 22.6 10.2 56.2

 Total 153.7 58.9 15.1 2.8 26.6 70.4 17.9 115.6

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

†

Includes nongrowth trees. 

‡

Includes ongrowth trees. 

§

Net change = (survivor growth + ingrowth + growth on removals + growth on mortality) - (mortality + timberland removals + landclearing removals). 
38

Plantations began to play a more important role in softwood net growth; they accounted for 48 percent of

softwood growth, or 54.9 million cubic feet per year (table

XX). This was a substantial change since the 1986 survey.

In that survey, plantations only contributed 11.3 million

cubic feet per year of softwood growth, 23 percent of total

growth. Additionally 36.2 million cubic feet per year of

removals came from plantations (63 percent of total

removals in 1986). This low amount of growth coupled

with a high amount of removals resulted in a net change in

the softwood inventory on plantations of minus 24.9

million cubic feet per year. Currently with removals on

plantations having fallen to 13.7 million cubic feet per year

and growth increasing, the net change was plus 41.1

million cubic feet per year. This was a growth-to-removal

ratio of 4.00 to 1.0.

Table XX.—Components of annual change in the volume of live trees in plantations by ownership and species group, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

 Growth component

Ownership

Species 

group

Survivor 

growth† Ingrowth‡

Growth on 

removals

Growth on 

mortality Mortality

Timberland 

removals

Land-clearing 

removals

Net 

change§

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

National forest

Softwood 1.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.1

Hardwood 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 -0.1

 Total 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.0

 

Other public 

Softwood 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hardwood 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 

Forest industry 

Softwood 12.8 29.6 7.4 0.1 0.2 11.5 0.0 38.1

Hardwood 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.0

 Total 13.4 30.0 7.6 0.1 0.4 12.5 0.0 38.2

 

Nonindustrial private 

Softwood 1.8 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.9

Hardwood 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 -3.0

 Total 2.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 5.3 0.0 -2.1

 

All owners 

Softwood 16.4 31.2 7.5 0.1 0.3 13.7 0.0 41.1

Hardwood 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.2 4.6 0.0 -3.0

 Total 17.3 31.6 7.9 0.1 0.5 18.3 0.0 38.1

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

†

Includes nongrowth trees. 

‡

Includes ongrowth trees. 

§

Net change = (survivor growth + ingrowth + growth on removals + growth on mortality) - (mortality + timberland removals + landclearing removals). 
39

Softwood Sawtimber

Gross growth for softwood sawtimber was 292.0 million

board feet per year while net growth was 281.5 million

board feet per year (table XXI), a 39 and 40 percent

increase, respectively, over that reported for 1986. As

with live growth, 96 percent of sawtimber growth

occurred in the Southeast unit. With little change in

removals and mortality since 1986 and the increase in net

growth, the net change to the inventory went from minus

14.4 million board feet per year in 1986 to plus 68.1

million board feet per year in 1993, a growth-to-removal

ratio of 1.32 to 1.0.

Table XXI.—Components of annual change in the volume of sawtimber by forest survey unit and species group, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

 Growth component

Forest survey 

unit

Species 

group

Survivor 

growth† Ingrowth‡

Growth on 

removals

Growth on 

mortality

Cull 

increment Mortality

Timberland 

removals

Land-clearing 

removals

Net 

change§

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet¶

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northeast

Softwood 4.7 3.9 1.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 7.1 2.5 0.5

Hardwood 34.7 35.8 2.1 0.9 11.2 10.3 17.0 8.3 49.0

 Total 39.4 39.6 3.4 1.0 11.6 10.7 24.1 10.8 49.6

 

Southeast 

Softwood 135.8 112.5 31.2 1.1 0.8 10.1 174.2 29.6 67.6

Hardwood 53.5 42.5 6.2 2.0 2.0 23.2 46.3 5.5 31.1

 Total 189.4 155.0 37.4 3.1 2.8 33.3 220.5 35.2 98.7

 

All units 

Softwood 140.5 116.4 32.6 1.2 1.3 10.5 181.3 32.1 68.1

Hardwood 88.3 78.2 8.2 2.9 13.2 33.5 63.4 13.8 80.2

 Total 228.8 194.6 40.9 4.1 14.5 44.0 244.6 46.0 148.3

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

†

Includes nongrowth trees. 

‡

Includes ongrowth trees. 

§

Net change = (survivor growth + ingrowth + growth on removals + growth on mortality + cull increment) - (mortality + timberland

removals + land-clearing removals). 

¶

International 1/4-inch rule. 
40

The net growth for softwood sawtimber volume was fairly

evenly divided between forest industry and NIPF owners.

NIPF showed slightly more net growth, with 111.8 million

board feet per year, but forest industry was close behind

with 105.8 million board feet per year (table XXII). One of

the largest differences between these two ownership

classes was that removals were higher on forest industry

land, 101.5 million board feet per year versus 85.4 million

board feet per year on NIPF lands. However, removals on

forest industry lands decreased substantially from 1986

levels, dropping from 167.1 million board feet per year.

This decline was countered by an increase in removals on

Table XXII.—Components of annual change in the volume of sawtimber by ownership and species group, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

 Growth component

Ownership

Species 

group

Survivor 

growth† Ingrowth‡

Growth on 

removals

Growth on 

mortality

Cull 

increment Mortality

Timberland 

removals

Land-clearing 

removals

Net 

change§

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet¶

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

National forest

Softwood 41.8 11.1 2.1 -0.1 -1.6 0.6 8.1 18.0 26.5

Hardwood 5.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 -0.6 0.5 0.3 2.6 2.8

 Total 47.1 12.6 2.1 -0.1 -2.2 1.1 8.4 20.6 29.3

 

Other public 

Softwood 6.9 6.0 0.0 0.1 -0.8 1.1 0.3 0.0 10.9

Hardwood 11.1 4.0 0.0 0.7 1.2 10.7 0.0 1.5 4.8

 Total 17.9 10.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 11.7 0.3 1.5 15.7

 

Forest industry 

Softwood 33.4 55.3 20.0 0.9 1.9 5.7 101.5 0.0 4.3

Hardwood 4.2 5.4 0.5 0.1 -1.3 2.6 3.3 0.0 2.9

 Total 37.6 60.6 20.5 1.1 0.6 8.4 104.8 0.0 7.2

 

Nonindustrial 

 private 

Softwood 58.4 44.0 10.4 0.3 1.8 3.1 71.3 14.1 26.4

Hardwood 67.7 67.4 7.7 2.1 13.9 19.7 59.8 9.7 69.6

 Total 126.2 111.4 18.1 2.4 15.7 22.8 131.1 23.8 96.1

 

All owners 

Softwood 140.5 116.4 32.6 1.2 1.3 10.5 181.3 32.1 68.1

Hardwood 88.3 78.2 8.2 2.9 13.2 33.5 63.4 13.8 80.2 

 Total 228.8 194.6 40.9 4.1 14.5 44.0 244.6 46.0 148.3

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

†

Includes nongrowth trees. 

‡

Includes ongrowth trees. 

§

Net change = (survivor growth + ingrowth + growth on removals + growth on mortality + cull increment) – (mortality + timberland removals + 

land-clearing removals). 

¶

International 1/4-inch rule. 
41

NIPF lands from 36.1 million board feet per year to 85.4

million board feet per year. The net change to the inventory on forest industry lands has improved since 1986,

from minus 85.6 million board feet per year to plus 4.3

million board feet per year. The net change decreased

slightly on NIPF land, from plus 47.3 million board feet

per year to plus 26.4 million board feet per year.

The contribution to the growth of softwood sawtimber by

plantations continued to increase. Since 1986 net growth

on plantations rose from 36.0 million board feet per year

to 60.2 million board feet per year (table XXIII). This is

21 percent of total softwood sawtimber net growth, a

slight increase over the 18 percent proportion reported for

1986. An obvious distinction about the sawtimber growth

Table XXIII.—Components of annual change in the volume of sawtimber in plantations by ownership and species group, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

 Growth component

Ownership

Species 

group

Survivor 

growth† Ingrowth‡

Growth on 

removals

Growth on 

mortality

Cull 

increment Mortality

Timberland 

removals

Land-clearing 

removals

Net 

change§

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet¶

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

National forest

Softwood 4.4 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 5.3

Hardwood 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1

 Total 4.4 2.0 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 5.3

 

Other public 

Softwood 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hardwood 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 

Forest industry 

Softwood 8.9 30.0 8.1 0.4 0.4 1.0 18.8 0.0 28.0

Hardwood 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 -0.3

 Total 9.1 30.2 8.1 0.4 0.5 1.0 19.6 0.0 27.7

 

Nonindustrial 

 private 

Softwood 3.2 3.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.5 10.5 0.0 -3.6

Hardwood 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 12.6 0.0 -11.8

 Total 3.2 3.9 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.5 23.1 0.0 -15.4

 

All owners 

Softwood 16.5 35.6 8.7 0.5 0.4 1.5 30.5 0.0 29.8

Hardwood 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 13.4 0.0 -12.1

 Total 16.7 36.1 9.1 0.5 0.7 1.5 43.9 0.0 17.6

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

†

Includes nongrowth trees. 

‡

Includes ongrowth trees. 

§

Net change = (survivor growth + ingrowth + growth on removals + growth on mortality + cull increment) - (mortality + timberland removals + 

land-clearing removals). 

¶

International 1/4-inch rule. 
42

on plantations was that 78 percent was from forest

industry lands.

In 1986 low net growth (36.0 million board feet per year),

combined with a high rate of removals (141.7 million

board feet per year), resulted in a minus 105.7-millionboard-feet-per-year drain on the softwood sawtimber

inventory in plantations. The 1993 survey showed

dramatic improvement. The 1993 growth (60.2 million

board feet per year), combined with a large decrease in

removals (down to 30.5 million board feet per year),

resulted in a net change in the softwood sawtimber

inventory of plus 29.8 million board feet per year (table

XXIII). This translated into a growth-to-removal ratio of

1.98 to 1.0.

Hardwoods

Gross growth for hardwood live trees was 112.4 million

cubic feet per year, while net growth was 89.1 million

cubic feet per year (table XVIII). The difference between

gross growth and net growth is usually much larger in

hardwoods than softwoods because of the substantially

higher mortality rate. In this case for east Oklahoma,

hardwood mortality was 23.3 million cubic feet per year,

21 percent of gross growth. Approximately 65 percent of

hardwood net growth was in the Southeast unit. Net

hardwood growth increased from 49.5 million cubic feet

per year in 1986 to 89.1 million cubic feet per year in

1993, an 80-percent increase for the survey period.

Removals have decreased slightly, dropping from 43.8 to

32.8 million cubic feet per year. The Southeast unit

accounted for 66 percent of all hardwood removals. With

the increase in growth and the decrease in removals, the

net change in the hardwood inventory improved over that

of 1986. The previous net change was plus 5.7 million

cubic feet per year. In 1993 the hardwood net change in

this survey was plus 56.2 million cubic feet per year, a

growth-to-removal ratio of 2.71 to 1.0.

Most of the hardwood net growth was on NIPF lands, 78

percent (table XIX), a slight increase from the 72 percent

reported for 1986. As with growth, most removals were

from NIPF land, also (80 percent). With the increase in

growth on NIPF land and removals unchanged, the net

change to the NIPF hardwood inventory improved, from

plus 11.2 million cubic feet per year to plus 43.4 million

cubic feet per year.

Hardwood Sawtimber

Hardwood sawtimber gross growth and net growth

increased slightly from 1986 levels, from 177.3 to 190.8

million board feet per year and 142.8 to 157.3 million

board feet per year, respectively (table XXI). Removals

and mortality have changed very little also. With a growth

increase over that reported for 1986 and removals and

mortality unchanged, the net change to the hardwood

sawtimber inventory increased from plus 63.7 million

board feet per year to plus 80.2 million board feet per year.

The growth-to-removal ratio for 1993 was 2.04 to 1.0.

As with hardwood live growth, most of sawtimber net

growth was on NIPF lands, 88 percent. Additionally 90

percent of the hardwood sawtimber removals came from

these lands (table XXII). Net growth on NIPF lands

increased substantially, from 94.9 million board feet per

year to 139.1 million board feet per year. This large

increase in growth, in combination with a moderate rise in

removals, resulted in an increase in the net change in the

hardwood sawtimber inventory, from plus 48.8 million

board feet per year in 1986 to plus 69.6 million board feet

per year in 1993. The growth-to-removal ratio was 2.00 to

1.0.
43

Plantations

Plantations continued to play an important role in east

Oklahoma forestry. Plantation area increased from

548,100 acres to 621,300 acres (table XXIV) between

1986 and 1993. The overwhelming majority of this

acreage was on forest industry lands, 526,600 acres (85

percent of plantation area).

Although plantation establishment slowed, it is important

to note the maturation of existing plantations that occurred over the last three decades. Between 1986 and

1993, the amount of acreage of plantation stands 11 to 20

years old increased by 206,300 acres. There were 307,100

acres in that age class, a 49-percent increase (table XXV).

Few plantation stands were greater than 20 years old

(only 48,800 acres). Some plantations were recorded as

mixed age because the stands were so broken up that a

single-age profile was no longer evident.

Table XXIV.—Area of timberland on plantations by ownership and forest-type group, east 

 Oklahoma, 1993*

 Forest-type group

Ownership

All 

types

LoblollyshortleafOakpineOakhickory

Bottomland 

hardwoods†

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Public 50.3 32.9 17.5 0.0 0.0

Forest industry 526.6 413.8 79.5 33.4 0.0

Nonindustrial private 44.3 33.2 0.0 11.1 0.0

 All owners 621.3 479.9 97.0 44.5 0.0

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

†

Includes oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood forest-type groups. 

Table XXV.—Area of timberland on plantations by ownership and age class, east Oklahoma, 1993*

 Age class (Years)†

Ownership

All 

classes 5 15 25 35 45

46- 

92

Mixed 

age‡

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Public 50.3 31.0 9.7 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 5.8

Forest industry 526.6 109.6 291.9 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.2

Nonindustrial private 44.3 27.7 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0

 All owners 621.3 168.4 307.1 46.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 97.0

*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 >10 years difference 

in age. 
44

There were 186,000 acres of plantations that could be

considered inadequately stocked (table XXVI) (less than

60 percent stocking, see Definitions in appendix). Most

were on forest industry lands, but this should not be

construed as unusual, because most of the plantation area

was on forest industry lands. This was an improvement

over the 1986 survey when 303,600 acres were inadequately stocked. However, it should be noted that much

of this acreage had just been put into plantations and many

times the plantation seedling sample may show inadequate

stocking until trees become older, i.e., the stocking of

newly planted seedlings may be low relative to the

stocking standard. As these stands become older and,

assuming there is no mortality, they will eventually move

into a size class to which their stocking, relative to the

stocking standard, is adequate.

Softwood live-tree volume on plantations was 360.7

million cubic feet (table XXVII). This was a very large

increase from the 74.1 million cubic feet reported in 1986,

Table XXVI.—Softwood stocking on plantations by ownership, east Oklahoma, 1993*

 Stocking class (Percent)

Ownership

All 

classes <30

30- 

59

60- 

89

90- 

119 120

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Public 50.3 5.8 11.6 19.4 11.6 1.9

Forest industry 526.6 38.9 112.9 185.9 131.6 57.4

Nonindustrial private 44.3 11.1 5.6 5.5 16.6 5.6

 All owners 621.3 55.9 130.1 210.7 159.7 64.9

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

Table XXVII.—Softwood live-tree volume on plantations by ownership and diameter class, 

 east Oklahoma, 1993*

 Diameter class (Inches at breast height)

Ownership

All 

classes

5.0- 

9.9

10.0- 

14.9

15.0- 

19.9 20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Public 24.6 12.7 7.1 4.6 0.3

Forest industry 308.3 262.8 36.2 8.1 1.1

Nonindustrial private 27.9 12.1 11.3 3.8 0.6

 All owners 360.7 287.6 54.6 16.6 2.0

*Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding. 
45

but occurred primarily because trees less than 5.0 inches in

d.b.h. in 1986 were not included in that survey’s volume

calculations. Much of the 1993 survey volume (80

percent) was in trees greater than 5.0 but less than 10.0

inches in d.b.h. As previously noted about plantation area,

forest industry also held most of the softwood live-tree

volume on plantations (85 percent).

In 1986 only 112,300 acres of plantations had had some

form of commercial harvesting or thinning activity. By

1993 this type of activity had increased to 199,000 acres

(table XXVIII). Most of the activity was in thinning

operations (153,900 acres), followed by harvesting

operations (45,100 acres). These numbers indicate that

approximately 25 percent of east Oklahoma plantations

underwent an intermediate thinning operation.

Table XXVIII.—Area of timberland on plantations by ownership and treatment 

 class, east Oklahoma, 1993*

Treatment opportunity

Ownership

All 

treatments

Commercial 

harvest†

Thinning/stand 

improvement‡

 - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Public 7.7 0.0 7.7

Forest industry 174.7 39.6 135.1

Nonindustrial private 16.6 5.6 11.0

 All owners 199.0 45.1 153.9

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

†

Includes all types of commercial harvests. 

‡

Includes all types of stand treatment except natural disturbance. 
46

Disturbance

Harvesting

A total of 626,300 acres had some form of commercial

harvest between 1986 and 1993 (table XXIX). Partial

harvesting was the leading harvest activity, accounting for

83 percent of all harvesting. Most of the partial harvesting

was done on NIPF lands, 380,600 acres versus 115,400

and 25,300 acres on forest industry and publicly owned

lands, respectively. Further, most of the partial harvests

were done in the loblolly-shortleaf pine and oak-hickory

forest-type groups, 34 and 40 percent, respectively. Partial

harvesting decreased from 619,600 acres in 1986 to

521,300 acres in 1993.

Table XXIX.—Area of timberland by forest-type group prior to harvesting, ownership, and harvesting activity, east Oklahoma, 1993*

 Commercial harvesting activity

Forest-type group 

and ownership All classes None Partial

Seed tree/ 

shelterwood Clearcut Salvage cut

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Loblolly-shortleaf pine 

 Public 140.9 129.4 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Forest industry 481.7 342.0 80.9 6.1 52.7 0.0

 Nonindustrial private 310.5 224.9 85.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

 All owners 933.1 696.4 178.0 6.1 52.7 0.0

 

Oak-pine 

 Public 101.9 88.1 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Forest industry 307.0 290.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Nonindustrial private 331.7 261.9 52.4 0.0 17.3 0.0

 All owners 740.5 640.3 82.9 0.0 17.3 0.0

 

Oak-hickory 

 Public 239.1 227.5 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0

 Forest industry 241.5 217.6 17.8 0.0 6.1 0.0

 Nonindustrial private 1,978.4 1,783.5 189.3 0.0 5.6 0.0

 All owners 2,459.0 2,228.5 207.2 0.0 23.3 0.0

 

Bottomland hardwoods† 

 Public 82.8 82.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Forest industry 11.6 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Nonindustrial private 344.4 285.6 53.2 0.0 5.6 0.0

 All owners 438.8 380.0 53.2 0.0 5.6 0.0

 

All forest types 

 Public 564.7 527.8 25.3 0.0 11.6 0.0

 Forest industry 1,041.7 861.5 115.4 6.1 58.8 0.0

 Nonindustrial private 2,965.0 2,555.9 380.6 0.0 28.5 0.0

 All owners 4,571.4 3,945.2 521.3 6.1 98.9 0.0

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

†

Includes oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood forest-type groups. 
47

For this survey, clearcutting was reported on only 98,900

acres, a large decrease from the 458,600 acres clearcut in

1986. Eighty-three percent of the clearcutting in 1986 was

on forest industry lands.

The harvesting in east Oklahoma was dispersed fairly

evenly over the survey period (table XXX). Peak years

were 1989 and 1991. Although the year of harvest was

based on field crew estimates, there are several key

indicators by which to approximate how long ago harvest

occurred. Obviously, the longer the period since harvest

the less accurate these estimates become (Rosson 1994a).

Clearcutting in upland timberland peaked in 1989, 1991,

and 1992 (table XXXI). Most clearcuts occurred in the

loblolly-shortleaf pine forest-type group (56 percent). The

oak-hickory forest-type group was second at 25 percent.

Table XXXI*.—Area of clearcut upland timberland by year of harvest and forest- 

 type group, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993†

 Forest-type group‡

Year of 

harvest

All 

types

Loblollyshortleaf pineOakpineOakhickory

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

1986 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1987 5.6 5.6 0.0 0.0

1988 5.8 0.0 0.0 5.8

1989 17.4 0.0 5.6 11.9

1990 6.2 6.2 0.0 0.0

1991 34.9 23.7 5.6 5.6

1992§ 23.4 17.2 6.2 0.0

 All years 93.3 52.7 17.3 23.3

*Modified from Current Stand Characteristics of East Oklahoma Timberland Harvested 

Between 1977 and 1992 (Rosson, in preparation). An additional 5,600 acres was not 

included in this table because of overlap in dates with the 1986 survey. 

†

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

‡

Forest-type group prior to harvest. 

§

No plots were measured in the 1993 growing season. 

Table XXX*.—Area of timberland commercially harvested by year of harvest and 

 ownership, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993†

 Ownership

Year of 

harvest

All 

classes

National 

forest

Other 

public

Forest 

industry

Nonindustrial 

private

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

1986 5.8 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

1987 36.6 0.0 0.0 5.6 31.1

1988 11.4 5.8 0.0 0.0 5.6

1989 130.2 13.6 6.1 23.9 86.6

1990 93.9 1.9 0.0 17.3 74.7

1991 245.9 5.7 0.0 104.6 135.6

1992‡ 108.2 3.8 0.0 28.8 75.5

 All years 632.0 36.7 6.1 180.2 409.1

*Modified from Current Stand Characteristics of East Oklahoma Timberland Harvested Between

1977 and 1992 (Rosson, in preparation). An additional 5,700 acres was included in this table 

because of overlap in dates with the 1986 survey. 

†

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

‡

No plots were measured in the 1993 growing season. 
48

Management

All sample plots that were forested in the 1986 inventory

and were still forested in the 1993 inventory were monitored for any type of management activity occurring

between survey measurements (table XXXII). Most

timberland showed no evidence of management activity,

4.2 million acres (92 percent). The most common management practice involved stand improvement operations.

There were 182,900 acres in this class of activity, most of

which was on NIPF lands (46 percent). Practically all of

the thinning activity occurred on forest industry lands.

Table XXXII.—Area of timberland by forest-type group prior to activity, ownership, and management activity, east 

 Oklahoma, 1993*

 Management activity

Forest-type group 

and ownership All classes None

Thinning 

operation

Stand 

improvement

Site 

preparation

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Loblolly-shortleaf pine 

 Public 140.9 133.3 0.0 7.7 0.0

 Forest industry 481.7 339.5 79.4 39.6 23.2

 Nonindustrial private 310.5 286.8 0.0 23.7 0.0

 All owners 933.1 759.6 79.4 70.9 23.2

 

Oak-pine 

 Public 101.9 92.2 0.0 9.7 0.0

 Forest industry 307.0 279.2 5.6 22.2 0.0

 Nonindustrial private 331.7 303.6 0.0 16.9 11.1

 All owners 740.5 675.0 5.6 48.8 11.1

 

Oak-hickory 

 Public 239.1 214.1 0.0 13.4 11.6

 Forest industry 241.5 207.6 5.6 6.1 22.2

 Nonindustrial private 1,978.4 1,924.7 5.6 38.2 10.0

 All owners 2,459.0 2,346.4 11.1 57.6 43.9

 

Bottomland hardwoods† 

 Public 82.8 82.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Forest industry 11.6 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Nonindustrial private 344.4 338.8 0.0 5.6 0.0

 All owners 438.8 433.3 0.0 5.6 0.0

 

All forest types 

 Public 564.7 522.4 0.0 30.7 11.6

 Forest industry 1,041.7 837.9 90.5 67.9 45.5

 Nonindustrial private 2,965.0 2,854.0 5.6 84.4 21.1

 All owners 4,571.4 4,214.2 96.0 182.9 78.2

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

†

Includes oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood forest-type groups. 
49

Only 78,200 acres had evidence of site preparation

activity, and most of that was on forest industry land (58

percent). The amount of site preparation acreage seems

low, but when combined with the fact that only 98,900

acres were clearcut during the survey interval, it seems a

reasonable estimate.

Treatment Opportunities

Possible alternative stand-treatment opportunities for east

Oklahoma’s timberland are given in table XXXIII. These

Table XXXIII.—Area of timberland by forest-type group, ownership, and treatment opportunity, east Oklahoma, 1993*

 Type of treatment

 Stand establishment Intermediate treatment Final harvest

Forest-type group 

and ownership All classes

No 

treatment Regenerate

Stand 

conversion

Thin seedling 

and sapling

Thin 

poletimber

Other 

stocking control

Regeneration 

cut

Salvage 

cut

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Loblolly-shortleaf pine 

 Public 190.1 121.1 12.3 0.0 0.0 9.7 29.7 17.4 0.0

 Forest industry 595.8 393.7 40.4 0.0 0.0 93.3 68.4 0.0 0.0

 Nonindustrial private 312.7 203.8 36.2 0.0 0.0 11.3 37.8 23.6 0.0

 All owners 1,098.6 718.6 88.9 0.0 0.0 114.2 136.0 40.9 0.0

 

Oak-pine 

 Public 106.2 38.6 54.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 1.9 0.0

 Forest industry 232.7 104.0 64.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.7 0.0 0.0

 Nonindustrial private 363.2 125.0 141.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.0 0.0 0.0

 All owners 702.2 267.7 259.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 173.4 1.9 0.0

 

Oak-hickory 

 Public 209.8 42.8 142.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.6 0.0 0.0

 Forest industry 201.6 58.6 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.3 0.0 0.0

 Nonindustrial private 2,179.5 310.2 1,544.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 257.2 0.0 61.1

 All owners 2,590.8 411.5 1,772.4 6.7 0.0 0.0 339.1 0.0 61.1

 

Bottomland hardwoods† 

 Public 76.0 19.9 36.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 13.4

 Forest industry 17.2 5.6 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Nonindustrial private 410.6 66.6 255.2 0.0 0.0 5.6 18.5 0.0 64.7

 All owners 503.8 92.1 303.7 0.0 0.0 5.6 18.5 5.8 78.1

 

All forest types 

 Public 582.1 222.4 245.6 0.0 0.0 9.7 65.9 25.1 13.4

 Forest industry 1,047.3 561.9 201.8 0.0 0.0 93.3 190.4 0.0 0.0

 Nonindustrial private 3,266.1 705.7 1,976.7 6.7 0.0 16.8 410.6 23.6 125.9

 All owners 4,895.5 1,489.9 2,424.1 6.7 0.0 119.8 667.0 48.7 139.3

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

†

Includes oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood forest-type groups. 
50

estimates were derived by modeling and are not assessments made directly by field crews while visiting sample

plots. Therefore, it is important that users are aware of the

plot-level parameters used in the model and what some of

the important stand-level thresholds are that were used in

defining the classes of opportunities. Important plot-level

parameters included: stocking level of growing-stock

trees, amount of cull, species groups, stand-size class,

amount of volume, and amount of damage. Threshold

levels for the various treatment classes are subjective but

do help to give an indication of possible alternatives that

could be used to improve east Oklahoma’s timberland

resource.

The largest area with an opportunity for stand treatment

was in stand establishment. There were 2.4 million acres of

timberland in this category of which 73 percent was in the

oak-hickory forest-type group. Additionally 82 percent of

these types of stands were on NIPF land. The model

classifies all stands that meet the following criteria into this

category: any stand less than 50-percent stocked with

growing-stock trees, or any stand with more than 50 but

less than 60 percent stocking in growing-stock trees and in

which the stocking of rough-and-rotten trees was more

than 30 percent. The stocking conditions were based on all

growing-stock trees.

Three categories of intermediate stand treatments were

considered for analysis: precommercial thinnings,

poletimber thinnings, and other miscellaneous stocking

controls. Precommercial thinnings (sapling-seedling

stands) were stands where stocking of growing-stock trees

exceeded 150 percent. No surveyed stands were in this

category. Poletimber stands needing thinning were those

with stocking greater than 110 percent. East Oklahoma

had 119,800 acres in this condition. Seventy-eight percent

of those stands were on forest industry lands. The miscellaneous stocking control category included all saplingseedling or poletimber stands with more than 110 percent

stocking, more than 30 percent of which was in roughand-rotten trees. There were 667,000 acres in this category. Most of these stands (62 percent) were on NIPF

lands.

Final harvest treatments included both regeneration cuts

and salvage cuts. Timberland that qualified for a regeneration cut had to be in a sawtimber stand-size class with

more than 110 percent stocking in growing-stock trees. In

addition, there had to be more than 5,000 board feet per

acre. East Oklahoma had only 48,700 acres in this class.

Salvage cuts were in poletimber and sawtimber stands

where more than 80 percent of the stocking was made up

of trees with a cull deduction due to disease, insect, or

other naturally occurring injury. There were 139,300 acres

of timberland in east Oklahoma in this category.

A note of caution is needed in the interpretation of

treatment opportunities for east Oklahoma. The model was

developed for natural stands across the range of conditions

in the Midsouth States. The stocking parameters may not

apply equally well to all conditions, especially those which

depart markedly from the Midsouth average. In east

Oklahoma, natural stand and growth conditions are such

that average stocking conditions for the Midsouth States

may distort realistic applications. For example, it may not

be likely that many stands in east Oklahoma reach 5,000

board feet per acre (to qualify for harvesting in the model).

Therefore, many stands that might normally be harvested

under real conditions (a lower volume threshold) would

not be included in the regeneration cut category in table

XXXIII.

Central and West Oklahoma

A survey of central and west Oklahoma was done in 1989

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service in

cooperation with the Oklahoma Division of Forestry and

the Natural Resource and Conservation Service (Rosson

1995b). This was the first forest survey of this region done

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. For

details of methods and results, see Rosson (1995b).

The survey revealed 1,338,100 acres of timberland in

central Oklahoma. The predominant forest types were post

oak-blackjack oak and oak-hickory with 375,400 and

348,400 acres, respectively. These timberland stands were

fairly evenly divided between the poletimber-size class

(539,600 acres), sawtimber-size class (424,300 acres), and

sapling-seedling-size class (374,100 acres). The basal area

for these stands averaged 74.8 square feet per acre, almost

the same average as the 18 counties of east Oklahoma.

The total live-tree volume was 963.4 million cubic feet,

and practically all volume was in the hardwood component. Net growth for total growing stock averaged 18.7

million cubic feet per year compared to 181.9 million cubic

feet per year in total growing stock for the eastern 18

counties. These numbers are compared here to contrast

differences in the regions. Nonetheless, methods and

definitions used were different and should not be used for

rigorous comparisons between central and east Oklahoma.

The 1989 survey also revealed 908,700 acres of woodland

(forest land not capable of growing more than 20 cubic

feet per acre per year). The post oak-blackjack oak forest

type made up 96 percent of this area. There was 513.4
51

million cubic feet of live-tree volume in these stands. Total

net growth was much lower than in the timberland area

and was reported as 7.6 million cubic feet per year.

Another study based on the sample plots measured in

central and west Oklahoma revealed these slow growth

rates in the Cross Timbers region of central Oklahoma

(Rosson 1994b). In that study, post oak averaged 0.127

inch of diameter growth per year.

It will be important to have an accurate forest survey of

central and west Oklahoma in the future. Only then will it

be possible to manage and protect this valuable component of Oklahoma’s forest resources. Many of these

forests may be classified, technically, as savanna systems.

Worldwide, savannas represent an important source of

natural resources. This includes nonconsumptive (recreation, wildlife, and soil protection) and consumptive

(firewood, wood products, and forage) uses. Concern for

and interest in savanna systems over the last 10 years has

increased and culminated in two important books that

have attempted to synthesize the literature of recent

research on temperate North American savanna systems

(Anderson and others 1999, McPherson 1997).

Conclusions

Forest area has continued to rise in east Oklahoma since

1976. However, the amounts of acreage diverting from

forest land (218,600 acres) or reverting to forest land

(372,800 acres) are sizable. The amount of acreage

diverting from forest land increased substantially between

1986 and 1993 (from 94,300 acres to 218,600 acres). Had

this not been offset by 372,800 reverted acres, a decline in

timberland area would have resulted. East Oklahoma’s

timberland base will probably continue to be under

increasing pressure and primarily susceptible to conversion to farmland uses (pasture land) and urban expansion.

In the 1986 survey, approximately 39 percent of the

timberland acreage that had reverted was lost to housing,

highways, and other rights-of-way.

East Oklahoma’s timberland continued to mature, as

evidenced in several ways: softwood volume increased by

371.3 million cubic feet (35 percent); hardwood volume

increased by 458.2 million cubic feet (19 percent); basal

area in the State increased by 8.7 square feet per acre, to

75.1 square feet per acre; basal area increased in virtually

every 2-inch diameter class; and volume increased across

the range of diameter classes. However, there is still room

for improvement by getting more volume into larger

diameter trees.

Mindful of the above gains, the stocking condition in east

Oklahoma’s forests could be improved. A total of 2.6

million acres of timberland, or 54 percent of the area’s

timberland, were less than 60-percent stocked with

growing-stock trees. By comparison with neighboring

States, Louisiana (Rosson 1995a), east Texas (Rosson

2000), and Arkansas1

 had 19, 23, and 21 percent of their

timberland base in this stocking condition, respectively.

Clearly east Oklahoma could take the opportunity to

secure more optimum stocking of its stands from the

regeneration stage into maturity. This would appreciably

enhance the standing inventory of east Oklahoma’s

forests.

The net change in inventory improved considerably during

the survey period. Softwood live-tree volume increased by

59.4 million cubic feet per year, and hardwoods increased

by 56.2 million cubic feet per year. Both of these estimates are considerably higher than 1986 estimates, which

were minus 7.9 and plus 5.7 million cubic feet per year,

respectively. However in the future, removal rates are

likely to rise, increasing the likelihood that positive net

changes will be substantially reduced. The best means to

counter the negative impact of increased harvesting

pressure is to strive for fully stocked stands on as many

acres of timberland as possible. Too many stands are

stocked with less than 500 cubic feet per acre of softwoods and less than 500 cubic feet per acre of hardwoods, 3.8 and 2.9 million acres, respectively.

The survey of Oklahoma’s forests needs to be expanded

beyond the eastern 18 counties. Along with this expansion, studies will be needed to refine the definition of

timberland versus woodland areas as pointed out by

Rosson (1995b). Woodland is forest land not capable of

producing more than 20 cubic feet per acre of volume

growth per year. This is a U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service definition, arbitrarily established, but it

attempts to define a threshold of sustainability under stand

management regimes and feasible harvest cycles. What is

least understood and difficult to apply is how to make the

assessment in the field of whether land is woodland or

timberland using methods that are accurate and repeatable. Only when these methods are in place will the full

extent of Oklahoma’s forest resources be known, especially as it pertains to being a sustainable resource.

1Rosson, James F., Jr. Forest resources of Arkansas, 1995. Manuscript

in preparation.
52

Literature Cited

Anderson, Roger C.; Fralish, James S.; Baskin, Jerry M., eds. 1999.

Savannas, barrens, and rock outcrop plant communities of North

America. New York: Cambridge University Press. 470 p.

Birdsey, Richard A.; May, Dennis M. 1988. Timber resources of east

Oklahoma. Resour. Bull. SO–135. New Orleans: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 29 p.

Eldredge, I.F. 1938. Forest resources of southeast Oklahoma. For. Surv.

Release 37. New Orleans: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 25 p.

Franco, Peter A.; Miller, Patrick E.; Hartsell, Andrew J. 1992. Forest

statistics for northeast Oklahoma counties–1993. Resour. Bull. SO–

174. New Orleans: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Forest Experiment Station. 30 p.

Franco, Peter A.; Miller, Patrick E.; Hartsell, Andrew, J. 1993.

Forest statistics for southeast Oklahoma counties–1993. Resour. Bull.

SO–176. New Orleans: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 31 p.

Hansen, Mark H.; Frieswyk, Thomas; Glover, Joseph F.; Kelly, John

F. 1992. The eastwide forest inventory database: users manual. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NC–151. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 48 p.

Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and

naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture. 375 p.

McPherson, Guy R. 1997. Ecology and management of North American

savannas. Tucson, AZ. The University of Arizona Press. 209 p.

Miller, Patrick E.; Hartsell, Andrew J.; London, Jack D. 1993. Forest

statistics for east Oklahoma counties. Resour. Bull. SO–177. New

Orleans: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station. 57 p.

Murphy, Paul A. 1977. East Oklahoma forests: trends and outlook.

Resour. Bull. SO–63. New Orleans: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 20 p.

Rosson, James F., Jr. 1993. The woody biomass resource of east

Oklahoma, 1993. Resour. Bull. SO–184. New Orleans: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 76 p.

Rosson, James F., Jr. 1994a. Current stand characteristics of Louisiana

timberland harvested between 1975 and 1991. Res. Pap. SO–279. New

Orleans: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station. 22 p.

Rosson, James F., Jr. 1994b. Quercus stellata growth and stand

characteristics in the Quercus stellata-Quercus marilandica forest

type in the Cross Timbers region of central Oklahoma. In: Fralish,

James S.; Anderson, Roger, eds. Proceedings from the North American

savannas and barrens conference; 1994 October 15; Normal, IL.

Chicago: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 329–333.

Rosson, James F., Jr. 1995a. Forest resources of Louisiana, 1991.

Resour. Bull. SO–192. New Orleans: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 71 p.

Rosson, James F., Jr. 1995b. The timberland and woodland resources of

central and west Oklahoma, 1989. Resour. Bull. SO–193. New

Orleans: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station. 35 p.

Rosson, James F., Jr. 2000. Forest resources of east Texas, 1992.

Resour. Bull. SRS–53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 70 p.

Sternitzke, Herbert S.; Van Sickle, Charles C. 1968. East Oklahoma

forests. Resour. Bull. SO–14. New Orleans: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 32 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1957. Forests of east

Oklahoma, 1955–56. For. Surv. Release 79. New Orleans: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 34 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Forest Service

resource inventories: an overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Inventory, Economics, and

Recreation Research. 39 p.

Van Deusen, Paul C.; Dell, Tom R.; Thomas, Charles E. 1986.

Volume growth estimation from permanent horizontal points. Forest

Science. 32(2): 415–422.
53

Appendix

Inventory Methods

Forest resource statistics were obtained by a two-phase

sampling method employing a forest or nonforest classification system using aerial photographs (to determine

forest area) and on-the-ground measurements of trees at

permanent sample locations (to determine tree and stand

parameters). Inventory volume and area statistics are

required to give precise estimates at the State level to one

standard error of the total, equal to 1 percent per million

acres of forest land and to 5 percent per billion cubic feet

of volume.

The estimate of timberland area was based on interpreting

dot grid counts, overlaid on recent aerial photographs

with each dot classified as forest or nonforest. Each dot

represented approximately 230 acres. The forest or

nonforest estimate was then adjusted by ground-truth

checks at all permanent sample locations. Permanent

sample locations consisted of two types of plots: intensification plots (used only as ground truths for forest and

nonforest classifications), and 3- by 3-mile plots (plots on

a 3- by 3-mile square grid) where tree measurements and

plot characteristics were recorded. The proportion of dots

classified as forest was applied to U.S. Census land area

data to develop an estimate of forest area in individual

counties. Appropriate expansion factors (the timberland

area each plot represents) for each forested 3- by 3-mile

plot were assigned. The expansion factor was dependent

on the number of forested plots in a county, but averaged

5,760 acres per plot for the State.

Each forested 3- by 3-mile sample plot consisted of 10

satellite points spread over an area of approximately 1 acre

(fig. 25). This design improved portrayal of stand conditions by eliminating the effect that vegetation clumping

and open gaps would cause if only one point or a fixed

plot were used at each location.

At each forested sample plot, trees 5.0 inches in d.b.h. and

larger were selected with a 37.5-basal-area-factor prism at

each of the 10 satellite points. Therefore, each tree

selected with the prism represented 3.75 square feet of

basal area per acre at each satellite point. Trees less than

5.0 but greater than or equal to 1.0 inch in d.b.h. were

tallied on a 1/275-acre circular fixed plot centered at the

first three satellite points (fig. 26).

Volumes in east Oklahoma were derived from measurements of trees on forested sample locations. These

measurements included d.b.h., bark thickness, total height,

bole length, log length, and four upper stem diameters.

Smalian’s formula was used to compute volume. In

addition, volume equations were developed to estimate

the volume for trees not surviving the measurement period

or for past volumes of new sample trees.

Data collection at each forested location also included

estimates of site productivity, stand origin, slope, aspect,

disturbance, management, and nontimber resources.

Ownership information was obtained for each plot from

county tax assessors’ records and contact with landowners. Personnel from public agencies and other knowledge1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Point number 1 coincides 

with plot location on aerial

photograph

66 feet between points

3- by 3-mile

sample plot layout N

Figure 25—Configuration of the 10 satellite points at a sample

location, east Oklahoma, 1993.

Satellite point layout

7.1-foot fixed plot For saplings or seedlings

less than 5.0 inches in 

diameter at breast height

Point center

(point number 1)

Azimuth and distance to 

each tree for tracking

between surveys

37.5 basal-area-factor prism

(for trees greater than 5.0 inches

in diameter at breast height)

N

Figure 26—Configuration of a satellite point, east Oklahoma,

1993.
54

able people were consulted when classifying absentee

farmers, individuals, corporations, or lessors.

Components of inventory volume change (growth,

removals, and mortality) were estimated from tally tree data

on remeasured sample plots. The remeasurement of sample

plots allowed tracking of the history and volume change

of each tally tree over time. This information was then

used in assigning tally tree volumes and changes in

volume to one of nine components of change: survivor

growth, nongrowth, ingrowth, ongrowth, growth on

removals, growth on mortality, mortality, timberland

removals, and land-clearing removals (see Definitions).

Estimates of timberland area, volume, growth, removals,

and mortality were based on the application of essentially

the same inventory techniques to each survey measurement. However, there were important differences between

the methods used in the 1986 and 1993 inventories. In

many cases, improvements in methodology for deriving

current estimates can raise concerns about reported trends

between survey periods. Because such differences might

discourage comparisons between 1986 and 1993 results,

the major differences in procedures are documented in the

following paragraph.

Classification of trees into growing-stock, rough, or rotten

classes was modified in two ways to ensure compatibility

among the eastern FIA work units: (1) in the 1993 survey,

any tree that contained or was capable of producing one

12-foot or two 8-foot logs anywhere in the saw-log portion

of the tree was classified as growing stock. The 1986

survey classified growing-stock trees as those that had or

were capable of producing a 12-foot log only in the butt

16-foot section; and (2) the 1986 survey required that over

one-half of the saw-log volume had to be utilizable for the

tree to be classified as growing stock. The 1993 standard

was that one-third of the saw-log volume in the saw-log

portion of the tree had to be utilizable.

The change in the growing-stock definition (concerning

log position) did affect direct comparisons between 1986

and 1993 estimates. To compensate for this definition

change, the 1986 inventory data were reprocessed to make

them compatible with the 1993 growing-stock standard.

The total number of trees affected was small, and most

were hardwoods because of their natural form. It was not

possible to consistently reclassify all trees selected in the

1986 survey to the new growing-stock definition. Some

died or had been cut. Because those trees were gone, the

survey staff had no way of determining how they would

have been classified under the new standard. Therefore,

trend information for growing-stock trees in such cases

was uncertain.

Expanding the definition of growing stock to include trees

with saw-log portions that are one-third sound had

virtually no impact; only a very few trees were affected by

the definition change. A small number of sawtimber

sample trees had between 33 and 50 percent of their sawlog portions sound, but most were reprocessed to resolve

log position differences. Thus, the subsequent effect on

estimation of growing-stock trends was small.

Users interested in trend analysis of growing-stock

volume, growth, removals, and mortality should be aware

of the impact of the growing-stock definition change;

incompatibility arises from trees that were cut or died,

affecting growth, removals, and mortality estimates. The

magnitude was probably small but not possible to define

with certainty.

Growing-stock comparisons between the 1986 and 1993

data sets were probably valid for most broad applications.

In a more rigorous analysis, or where postdefined strata

are selected (resulting in smaller data sets) and analyzed,

one should determine that the changes are real and not

due to definition or procedural changes. In such instances, the comparisons between surveys should be

done using all live trees. This procedure eliminates any

uncertainties caused by the growing-stock definition

changes. Finally, to further enhance trend analysis, a

slight improvement in precision was made in the 1986

volume estimates by using all the tree bole measurements

from the 1993 survey to develop new volume coefficients

for use where needed. Because of the change in the

growing-stock standard and the improved volume

coefficients, estimates for the reprocessed 1986 data may

differ slightly from those previously published.

Some area and volume estimates in this bulletin may not

match those published in Forest Statistics for East

Oklahoma Counties–1993 (Miller and others 1993). This is

because some minor corrections have been made to the

data since release of that publication.

Statistical Reliability

A relative standard of accuracy has been incorporated

into the forest survey. This standard satisfies user

demands, minimizes human and instrumental sources of

error, and keeps costs within prescribed limits. The two

primary types of error are measurement error and sampling

error.
55

There are three elements of measurement error: (1) biased

error, caused by instruments not properly calibrated;

(2) compensating error, caused by instruments of moderate precision; and (3) accidental error, caused by human

error in measuring and compiling. All of these are held to a

minimum by a system that incorporates training, check

plots, and editing and checking for consistency. Each new

field person is trained for 3 to 4 months under the guidance of an experienced field person. Field work is checked

by supervisors. Editing checks in the office screen out

logical and keypunching errors for all plots. It is not

possible to determine measurement error statistically, but

FIA holds it to a minimum through training, experienced

supervision, and emphasis on careful work.

Sampling error is associated with the natural and expected

deviation of the sample from the true population mean.

This deviation is susceptible to a mathematical evaluation

of the probability of error. Sampling errors for State totals

in table XXXIV are based on one standard error. That is,

Table XXXIV.—Sampling errors, at one standard error, for estimates of total timberland area* (1993)

 volume†

, average net annual growth† (1986 to 1993), and average annual removals† 

 (1986 to 1993), and average annual mortality (1986 to 1993), east Oklahoma.

 Item

Component 

total Units

Percent 

sampling error

Timberland area 4,895.5 Thousand acres 0.6

Total live trees 

 Volume 3,913.3 Million cubic feet 2.8

 Average net annual growth 203.9 Million cubic feet 4.2

 Average annual removals 88.3 Million cubic feet 12.1

 Average annual mortality 26.6 Million cubic feet 9.0

Total sawtimber 

 Volume 8,011.6 Million board feet‡ 6.3

 Average net annual growth 438.9 Million board feet‡ 7.4

 Average annual removals 290.6 Million board feet‡ 14.6

 Average annual mortality 44.0 Million board feet‡ 24.8

Softwood live trees 

 Volume 1,431.1 Million cubic feet 6.5

 Average net annual growth 115.0 Million cubic feet 7.1

 Average annual removals 55.5 Million cubic feet 14.8

 Average annual mortality 3.3 Million cubic feet 20.9

Softwood sawtimber 

 Volume 4,161.2 Million board feet‡ 10.1

 Average net annual growth 281.5 Million board feet‡ 9.6

 Average annual removals 213.4 Million board feet‡ 17.2

 Average annual mortality 10.5 Million board feet‡ 30.3

Hardwood live trees 

 Volume 2,482.2 Million cubic feet 3.5

 Average net annual growth 89.1 Million cubic feet 5.0

 Average annual removals 32.8 Million cubic feet 17.9

 Average annual mortality 26.6 Million cubic feet 9.9

Hardwood sawtimber 

 Volume 3,850.3 Million board feet‡ 7.7

 Average net annual growth 157.3 Million board feet‡ 11.9

 Average annual removals 77.2 Million board feet‡ 8.3

 Average annual mortality 33.5 Million board feet‡ 31.6

*By binomial formula. 

†

By random sampling formula. 

‡

International 1/4-inch rule. 
56

the chances are two out of three that, if the results of a

100-percent census were known, the sample results would

be within the limits indicated.

Estimates smaller than State totals will have proportionally

larger sampling errors. The smaller the area examined, the

larger the sampling error. In addition, as area or volume

totals are stratified by forest type, species, diameter class,

ownership, or other subunits, the sampling error increases

and is greatest for the smallest divisions. The magnitude

of this increase is depicted in table XXXV, which shows

the sampling error to which the estimates are liable, two

chances out of three.

Table XXXV.—Sampling error approximations to which estimates are liable at one standard error, east Oklahoma, 1993*

 Live trees Sawtimber

Sampling 

error

Timberland 

area Volume

Average 

net annual 

growth

Average 

annual 

removals

Average 

annual 

mortality Volume

Average 

net annual 

growth

Average 

annual 

removals

Average 

annual 

mortality

Percent Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet†

 - - - - - - - - - - - 

 1.0 1,762.4 

 2.0 440.6 

 3.0 195.8 3,408.9 

 4.0 110.1 1,917.5 

 5.0 70.5 1,227.2 136.5 

 10.0 17.6 306.8 34.1 19.8 3,179.8 227.5 

 15.0 7.8 136.4 15.2 50.0 8.8 1,413.2 101.1 243.9 

 20.0 4.4 76.7 8.5 28.1 5.0 795.0 56.9 137.2 

 25.0 2.8 49.1 5.5 18.0 3.2 508.8 36.4 87.8 40.0

*Components for given sampling error derived by ratio approximation. 

†

International 1/4-inch rule. 
57

Definitions

Average annual mortality. Average annual sound-wood

volume of growing-stock or live trees that died from

natural causes during the intersurvey period.

Average annual removals. Average net annual volume of

growing-stock or live trees removed from the inventory by

harvesting, cultural operations (such as timber stand

improvement), land clearing, or changes in land use during

the intersurvey period.

Average net annual growth. Average net annual volume

increase of growing-stock or live trees during the

intersurvey period.

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.

Classes of trees used in growth computations

Ingrowth trees. Submerchantable-and-in at time 1

(previous inventory) and merchantable-and-in at time 2

(current inventory).

Mortality trees. Merchantable-and-in at time 1 and dead

prior to time 2.

Nongrowth trees. Merchantable-and-out at time 1 and

merchantable-and-in at time 2; included with survivor

growth for growth computation.

Ongrowth trees. Submerchantable-and-out at time 1 and

merchantable-and-in at time 2; included with ingrowth

component for growth computation.

Removal trees. Merchantable-and-in at time 1 and

removed prior to time 2.

Survivor trees. Merchantable-and-in at time 1 and time 2.

Commercial species. Tree species currently or potentially

suitable for industrial wood products.

Cull increment. The change in growing-stock volume due

to growing-stock, rough, or rotten trees changing tree

class between surveys.

Cull trees. Rough or rotten trees.

D.b.h. (diameter at breast height). Tree diameter in inches,

outside bark, at 4.5 feet above the ground (breast height).

Diameter class. A classification of trees based on tree

d.b.h. Two-inch diameter classes are commonly used by

Forest Inventory and Analysis, with the even inch as the

approximate midpoint for a class. For example, the 6-inch

class includes trees 5.0-6.9 inches in d.b.h.

D.o.b. (diameter outside bark). Stem diameter including

bark.

Forest industry land. Land owned by companies or

individuals operating wood-using plants (either primary or

secondary).

Forest land. Land at least 10 percent stocked (10 percent

canopy stocking is equivalent to 16.7 percent sample plot

stocking) 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 timberland,

and woodland.

Forest-type group. A grouping of several detailed forest

types. The grouping is based upon forest types with

similar physiographic and physiognomic characteristics.

Elm-ash-cottonwood. Forests in which elms, ashes, or

cottonwoods, singly or in combination, comprise a

plurality of the stocking. Common associates include

willow, 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.

Oak-gum-cypress. Bottomland forests in which tupelo,

blackgum, sweetgum, oaks, or baldcypress, singly or in

combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking,

except where pines comprise 25 percent or more but

less than 50 percent, in which case the stand would be

classified oak-pine. Common associates include

cottonwoods, willow, ashes, elms, hackberries, and

maples.

Oak-hickory. Forests in which upland oaks or hickories, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of

the stocking, except where pines comprise 25 percent

or greater but less than 50 percent, in which case the

stand would be classified oak-pine. Common associates include yellow-poplar, elms, maples, and black

walnut.
58

Oak-pine. Forests in which hardwoods (usually upland

oaks) comprise a plurality of the stocking, but in which

softwoods, except baldcypress, comprise 25 percent or

greater but less than 50 percent of the stocking.

Common associates include gums, hickories, and

yellow-poplar.

Gross growth. Total annual increase in stand volume

computed on growing-stock trees or live trees 5.0 inches

or greater in d.b.h. Gross growth equals survivor growth,

plus ingrowth, plus nongrowth, plus ongrowth, plus

growth on removals, plus growth on mortality, plus cull

increment (cull increment only used for growing-stock

computations).

Growing-stock trees. Living trees of commercial species

classified as sawtimber, poletimber, saplings, and seedlings. Trees must contain at least one 12-foot or two 8-foot

logs in the saw-log portion, currently or potentially (if too

small to qualify), to be classed as growing 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 noncommercial

species.

Log grades. A classification of logs based on external

characteristics as indicators of quality or value.

Mortality. Number or sound-wood volume of growingstock or live trees that died from natural causes during a

specified period.

National forest land. Federal land that has been legally

designated as national forest or purchase units and other

land under the administration of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, including experimental areas.

Natural stands. Stands with no evidence of artificial

regeneration, including those stands established by seedtree regeneration methods.

Net change. Increase or decrease in stand volume computed on growing-stock trees or live trees 5.0 or more

inches in d.b.h. Net change is equal to net growth minus

removals.

Net growth. Increase in stand volume computed on

growing-stock trees or live trees 5.0 inches or more

in d.b.h. Net growth is equal to gross growth minus

mortality.

NIPF. Abbreviation for nonindustrial private forest land,

including corporate and individual ownerships.

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.

Nonindustrial private forest land (corporate).Land

privately owned by corporations other than forest

industries and incorporated farms.

Nonindustrial private forest land (individual).Land

privately owned by individuals other than forest industries or farmers.

Nonstocked stands. Stands less than 10 percent (canopy)

or 16.7 percent (sample plot) stocked with live trees (see

Stocking definition).

Nontyped. Timberland currently with no trees or occupied

by live trees or seedlings where plot stocking is less than

16.7 percent.

Other Federal land. Federal land other than national

forests.

Other public land. All Federal land, other than national

forest land, and all State, county, and municipal lands.

Plantations. Forest stands that currently show evidence

of being planted or artificially seeded. In this bulletin,

stands that were classified as plantations in the previous

survey and which had no commercial harvesting activity

between survey periods were left classified as plantations. This definition is slightly different from that used

in the usual representation of Forest Inventory and

Analysis data. In that situation, the field person decides

if a plantation is still present (based upon visible evidence).

Poletimber-size trees. Softwoods 5.0 inches or larger but

less than 9.0 inches in d.b.h. and hardwoods 5.0 inches or

larger but less than 11.0 inches in d.b.h.

Poletimber stands. Stands at least 10 percent (canopy)

stocked with live trees, with half or more of this stocking

in sawtimber or poletimber trees, with poletimber stocking

exceeding that of sawtimber stocking (see Stocking

definition).

Productive-reserved forest land. (see: Reserved timberland).
59

Removals. The net volume of growing-stock or live trees

removed from the inventory by harvesting, cultural

operations (such as timber stand improvement), land

clearing or changes in land use.

Reserved timberland. Public timberland withdrawn from

timber utilization through statute or administrative

designation.

Rotten trees. Live trees of commercial species that do not

contain at least one 12-foot saw log, or two noncontiguous saw logs, each 8 feet or longer, now or prospectively,

primarily because less than one-third of the gross boardfoot tree volume is in sound material (see Growing-stock

trees).

Rough trees. Live trees of commercial species that are

unmerchantable for saw logs, currently or potentially,

because of roughness or poor form in the saw-log section.

Also included are all live trees of noncommercial species

(see Growing-stock trees).

Salvable dead trees. Standing or downed dead trees that

were formerly growing stock and are considered merchantable. Trees must be 5.0 inches in d.b.h. or larger to

qualify. If sawtimber size, a tree must have one 12-foot or

two 8-foot logs meeting minimum log-grade standards and

one-third of gross board-foot volume sound for softwoods and at least one-half sound for hardwoods. If

poletimber size, a tree must have at least one-half of its

volume sound.

Sapling-seedling stands. Stands at least 10 percent

(canopy) stocked with live trees, with more than half of

this stocking in saplings or seedlings (see Stocking

definition).

Sapling-size trees. Trees 1.0 inch or larger but less than

5.0 inches in d.b.h.

Saw-log portion. That portion of the bole of a sawtimber

tree between a 1-foot stump and the saw-log top.

Saw-log top. The point on the bole of a sawtimber tree

above which a saw log cannot be produced. The minimum

saw-log top is 7.0 inches d.o.b. for softwoods and 9.0

inches d.o.b. for hardwoods.

Sawtimber-size trees. Softwoods 9.0 inches or larger in

d.b.h. and hardwoods 11.0 inches or larger in d.b.h.

Sawtimber stands. Stands at least 10 percent (canopy)

stocked with live trees, with half or more of this stocking

in sawtimber or poletimber trees, and with sawtimber

stocking at least equal to poletimber stocking.

Seedling-size trees. Trees less than 1.0 inch in d.b.h. and

taller than 1 foot for hardwoods, taller than 6 inches for

softwoods, and less than 0.5 inch in diameter at ground

level for longleaf pine.

Select red oaks. A group of several red oak species that

includes cherrybark, Shumard, and northern red oaks.

Other red oak species are included in the “other red oaks”

group.

Select white oaks. A group of several white oak species

that includes white, swamp chestnut, swamp white,

chinkapin, Durand, and bur oaks. Other white oak species

are included in the “other white oaks” group.

Site class. A classification of forest land in terms of

potential capacity to grow crops of industrial wood.

Softwoods. Coniferous trees, usually evergreen, having

leaves that are needles or scalelike.

State, county, and municipal land. Land owned by States,

counties, and local public agencies or municipalities, or

land leased to these governmental units for 50 years or

more.

Stocking. Stocking is a measure of the extent to which

growth potential of the site is used by trees or preempted

by vegetative cover. Stocking is determined by comparing the stand density in terms of number of trees or basal

area with a specified standard. Therefore, full stocking is

100 percent of the stocking standard. Note that 10 percent

canopy stocking is approximately equal to 16.7 percent

sample-plot stocking.

The following tabulation shows the stocking density

standard in terms of trees per acre by size class required

for full stocking.

D.b.h. class Trees per acre 

Inches 

Seedlings 600 

2 560 

4 460 

6 340 

8 240 

10 155 

12 115 

14 90 

16 72 

18 60 

20 51 

22 42 

24 36 

26 31 

28 27 

30 24 
60

Stocking categories are arbitrarily defined as follows:

Optimally stocked. Stands 61 to 100 percent stocked

with growing-stock trees. Such stands are growing

toward a fully stocked condition (the 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 become

stagnant and mortality of individuals increases as

stocking levels rise above 100 percent.

Understocked. Stands 0 to 60 percent stocked with

growing-stock trees. Such stands will take a very long

time to reach full stocking. Meanwhile, poor bole form

will result, and much of the productive growth will occur

on heavy limbs instead of on the bole.

Timberland. Forest land that is producing, or is capable of

producing 20 cubic feet of industrial wood per acre per

year and is not withdrawn from timber utilization. Timberland is synonymous with “commercial forest land” in prior

reports.

Tree grade. A classification of the saw-log portion of

sawtimber trees based on: (1) the grade of the butt log or

(2) the ability to produce at least one 12-foot or two 8-foot

logs in the upper section of the saw-log portion.

Upper-stem portion.That part of the main stem of a

sawtimber tree above the saw-log top to a d.o.b. of 4.0

inches or to the point where the main stem breaks into

limbs.

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-foot 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 growing stock. The cubic-foot volume of

sound wood in growing-stock trees 5.0 inches or greater in

d.b.h., from a 1-foot 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 5.0 inches

or greater in d.b.h. from a 1-foot 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 saw-log portion.The cubic-foot volume of

sound wood in the saw-log 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 (International 1/4-inch rule) of sound wood in the saw-log 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

5.0 inches or greater in d.b.h. from a 1-foot 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.

Woodland. Forest land incapable of producing 20 cubic

feet of industrial wood per acre per year.
61

Conversion Factors

Metric equivalents of units used in this report 

1 acre = 4,046.86 square meters or 0.404686 hectare 

1 cubic foot = 0.028317 cubic meter 

1 inch = 2.54 centimeters or 0.0254 meter 

Breast height = 1.4 meters above the ground 

1 square foot = 929.03 square centimeters or 0.0929 square meter 

1 square foot per acre basal area = 0.229568 square meter per hectare 

1 pound = 0.454 kilogram 

1 ton = 0.907 metric ton 
62

Species Lista

Commercial Species

Scientific nameb Common name

Softwoods

Juniperus virginiana Eastern redcedar

Pinus echinata Shortleaf pine

P. taeda Loblolly pine

Taxodium distichum Baldcypress

Hardwoods

Acer barbatum Florida maple

A. negundo Boxelder

A. rubrum Red maple

A. saccharinum Silver maple

A. saccharum Sugar maple

Betula nigra River birch

Carya spp. Hickories

C. aquatica Water hickory

C. cordiformis Bitternut hickory

C. glabra Pignut hickory

C. illinoensis Pecan

C. myristiciformis Nutmeg hickory

C. ovata Shagbark hickory

C. texana Black hickory

C. tomentosa Mockernut hickory

Castanea pumila Allegheny chinkapin

Celtis laevigata Sugarberry

C. occidentalis Hackberry

Cornus florida Flowering dogwood

Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon

Fraxinus americana White ash

F. pennsylvanica Green ash

Gleditsia aquatica Water locust

G. triacanthos Honey locust

Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky coffeetree

Ilex opaca American holly

Juglans nigra Black walnut

Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum

Maclura pomifera Osage-orange

Morus rubra Red mulberry

Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum

Platanus occidentalis American sycamore

Populus deltoides Eastern cottonwood

Prunus serotina Black cherry

Quercus alba White oak

Q. falcata Southern red oak

Q. falcata var. pagodifolia Cherrybark oak

Commercial Species

Scientific nameb Common name

Hardwoods (continued)

Q. lyrata Overcup oak

Q. macrocarpa Bur oak

Q. michauxii Swamp chestnut oak

Q. muehlenbergii Chinkapin oak

Q. nigra Water oak

Q. nuttallii Nuttall oak

Q. palustris Pin oak

Q. phellos Willow oak

Q. rubra Northern red oak

Q. shumardii Shumard oak

Q. stellata Post oak

Q. velutina Black oak

Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust

Salix spp. Willow

Sassafras albidum Sassafras

Tilia americana American basswood

T. heterophylla White basswood

Ulmus alata Winged elm

U. americana American elm

U. crassifolia Cedar elm

U. pumila Siberian elm

U. rubra Slippery elm

U. serotina September elm

Noncommercial Species

Amelanchier spp. Serviceberry

Bumelia spp. Chittamwood

Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam

Castanea spp. Chinkapin

Cercis canadensis Eastern redbud

Crataegus spp. Hawthorn

Melia azedarach Chinaberry

Morus alba White mulberry

Ostrya virginiana Ironwood

Planera aquatica Water-elm

Prunus spp. Plums, cherries

 (other than black cherry)

Quercus incana Bluejack oak

Q. marilandica Blackjack oak

Vaccinium arboreum Sparkleberry a Scientific and common names of tree species ≥1.0 inch in d.b.h. occurring in the

FIA sample, east Oklahoma, 1993.

b Nomenclature (Little 1979).
63

Index of Detailed Tables

 1. Area by land class

 2. Area of timberland by ownership class

 3. Area of timberland by stand size and ownership

class

 4. Area of timberland by stand volume and ownership

class

 5. Area of timberland by percent growing-stock trees

and cull trees

 6. Average basal area of live trees on timberland by

ownership, tree class, species, and tree size class

 7. Area of timberland by site and ownership class

 8. Area of timberland by forest-type group and

ownership class

 9. Area of noncommercial forest land by forest-type

group

10. Number of growing-stock trees on timberland by

species and diameter class

11. Volume of timber on timberland by class of timber and

by softwoods and hardwoods

12. Volume of growing stock and sawtimber on

timberland by ownership class and by softwoods and

hardwoods

13. Volume of growing stock on timberland by species

and diameter class

14. Volume of sawtimber on timberland by species and

diameter class

15. Volume of sawtimber on timberland by species and

tree grade

16. Average net annual growth and average annual

removals of growing stock on timberland by species

17. Average net annual growth and average annual

removals of growing stock on timberland by

ownership class and by softwoods and hardwoods

18. Average net annual growth and average annual

removals of sawtimber on timberland by species

19. Average net annual growth and average annual

removals of sawtimber on timberland by ownership

class and by softwoods and hardwoods

20. Average annual mortality of growing stock and

sawtimber on timberland by species

21. Average annual mortality of growing stock and

sawtimber on timberland by ownership class and by

softwoods and hardwoods

22. Average annual mortality of growing stock and

sawtimber on timberland by cause of death and by

softwoods and hardwoods
64

Table 2.—Area of timberland by ownership class,

 east Oklahoma, 1993*

Ownership class Area

Thousand acres

Public

 National forest 222.7

 Other Federal 220.3

 State 118.2

 County 21.0

 Total public 582.1

Private

 Forest industry 1,047.3

 Miscellaneous private

 Individual 1,097.1

 Corporate 264.3

 Total private 4,134.4

 All ownerships 4,895.5

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to 

rounding.

Table 3.—Area of timberland by stand size and ownership class, east Oklahoma, 1993*

 All National Other Forest Nonindustrial

Stand size class ownerships forest public industry private

Sawtimber 1,496.6 102.4 127.3 203.1 1,063.8

Poletimber stands 2,004.3 60.1 132.1 569.0 1,243.2

Sapling and seedling 1,394.5 60.2 100.0 275.2 959.1

Nonstocked areas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 All classes 4,895.5 222.7 359.5 1,047.3 3,266.1

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Table 1.—Area by land class, east Oklahoma, 1993

Land class Area

Forest

 Timberland 4,895.2

 Reserved timberland 477.8

 Woodland 45.0

 Total forest 5,418.3

Nonforest

 Cropland* 1,992.7

 Other 2,692.8

 Total nonforest 4,685.5

 All land† 10,103.8

Thousand acres

*U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1987 

Census of Agriculture: State and county data, issued 1989. 

Vol. 1, part 36. 

†

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 

(issued October 1981). See figure 1 for counties included in the 

east Oklahoma survey.
65

Table 5.—Area of timberland by percent growing-stock trees and cull trees, east Oklahoma, 1993*

Growing-stock

trees Total 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60+

Percent stocking

 0-10 110.6 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 19.2 5.9 79.5

 10-20 241.1 0.0 0.0 17.2 22.9 25.8 13.0 162.2

 20-30 384.4 0.0 0.0 18.1 35.7 61.0 75.2 194.4

 30-40 565.1 0.0 6.1 34.8 35.2 72.8 120.3 295.8

 40-50 569.9 12.3 0.0 29.0 137.6 84.6 133.5 172.9

 50-60 765.6 10.9 25.4 99.2 166.7 172.9 151.2 139.2

 60-70 485.0 31.5 44.8 70.6 133.0 126.5 73.0 5.6

 70-80 486.6 11.7 48.5 136.3 171.2 88.4 30.5 0.0

 80-90 401.8 17.6 89.0 93.9 119.2 71.0 5.6 5.6

 90-100 456.6 66.6 192.6 119.7 54.0 18.0 5.6 0.0

100-110 233.6 61.5 90.1 64.8 11.3 5.8 0.0 0.0

110-120 108.5 37.1 47.4 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

120-130 33.1 21.0 6.2 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

130-140 45.6 34.5 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

140-150 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

150-160 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

>160 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total 4,895.5 312.7 561.4 719.6 886.8 746.0 613.8 1,055.2

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cull trees

(Percent stocking)

Table 4.—Area of timberland by stand volume and ownership class, east Oklahoma, 1993*

Stand volume All National Other Forest Nonindustrial

per acre ownerships forest public industry private

Board feet †

Less than 1,500 3,190.0 69.8 214.7 692.1 2,213.4

1,500 to 5,000 1,340.5 93.1 115.4 274.8 857.2

More than 5,000 365.0 59.7 29.4 80.4 195.5

 All classes 4,895.50 222.7 359.5 1,047.3 3,266.1

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

†

International 1/4-inch rule.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
66

Table 6.—Average basal area of live trees on timberland by ownership, tree class, species, and tree size class, east Oklahoma, 1993*

Ownership and All Sapling and Sapling and

tree class species seedling Poletimber Sawtimber seedling Poletimber Sawtimber

National forest

 Growing stock 68.5 6.0 14.6 29.7 3.0 7.5 7.7

 Rough and rotten 29.7 2.1 0.7 0.9 11.8 7.7 6.5

 Total 98.0 8.1 15.3 30.6 14.8 15.2 14.2

Other public

 Growing stock 42.9 1.4 3.8 8.0 5.1 13.1 11.5

 Rough and rotten 31.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 9.9 9.0 10.9

 Total 74.2 1.8 4.3 8.6 15.1 22.1 22.4

Forest industry 

 Growing stock 59.7 5.9 26.2 12.1 4.8 7.7 3.1

 Rough and rotten 17.2 1.4 1.2 0.6 7.1 3.7 3.2

 Total 76.9 7.3 27.4 12.6 12.0 11.3 6.3

Nonindustrial private

 Growing stock 40.0 1.7 4.7 5.0 4.0 13.4 11.2

 Rough and rotten 33.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 6.4 14.4 11.5

 Total 73.1 1.8 5.1 5.3 10.4 27.8 22.7

All owners

 Growing stock 45.7 2.9 9.0 8.3 4.7 12.0 8.8

 Rough and rotten 29.4 0.8 0.4 0.3 9.1 8.7 10.1

 Total 75.1 3.7 9.5 8.6 13.8 20.6 18.8

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

Softwood Hardwood

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Square feet per acre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table 7.—Area of timberland by site and ownership class, east Oklahoma, 1993*

 All National Other Forest Nonindustrial

Site class ownerships forest public industry private

≥165 ft3 26.7 3.8 5.8 5.6 11.5

120 to 165 ft3 119.4 23.0 5.6 11.1 79.7

85 to 120 ft3 375.0 13.5 28.9 147.6 185.0

50 to 85 ft3 2,212.3 118.3 122.3 675.8 1,295.8

<50 ft3 2,162.0 64.1 196.8 207.2 1,693.9

 All classes 4,895.5 222.7 359.5 1,047.3 3,265.9

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
67

Table 9.—Area of noncommercial forest land by forest-type group,

 east Oklahoma, 1993*

 Productive

 All reserved Unproductive

Forest-type group areas areas areas

Loblolly-shortleaf pine 20.4 20.4 0.0

Oak-pine 18.5 10.2 8.3

Oak-hickory 471.7 14.4 457.3

Bottomland hardwood 12.2 0.0 12.2

 All types 522.8 45.0 477.8

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

- - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres - - - - - - - - -

Table 8.—Area of timberland by forest-type group and ownership class, east Oklahoma, 1993*

 All National Other Forest Nonindustrial

Forest-type group ownerships forest public industry private

Loblolly-shortleaf pine 1,098.6 135.5 54.6 595.8 312.7

Oak-pine 702.2 58.2 48.1 232.7 363.2

Oak-hickory 2,590.8 21.3 188.5 201.6 2,179.5

Oak-gum-cypress 409.9 7.7 56.6 17.2 328.4

Elm-ash-cottonwood 94.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 82.2

 All types 4,895.5 222.7 359.5 1,047.3 3,266.0

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Thousand acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
68

Table 10.—Number of growing-stock trees on timberland by species and diameter class, east Oklahoma, 1993*

All 5.0- 7.0- 9.0- 11.0- 13.0- 15.0- 17.0- 19.0- 21.0-

 Species classes 6.9 8.9 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 18.9 20.9 28.9

Shortleaf pine 127,077 50,422 33,341 20,032 12,379 6,638 2,668 1,149 358 90 0

Loblolly pine 96,755 54,862 33,107 6,241 1,302 664 281 116 76 98 9

Redcedar 7,596 5,433 1,373 343 233 120 67 12 9 8 0

Cypress 103 0 0 38 0 39 0 12 9 0 4

 Total softwoods 231,531 110,716 67,821 26,654 13,913 7,461 3,016 1,289 452 196 13

Select white oaks† 17,906 7,732 5,702 2,390 1,014 399 305 135 123 102 4

Select red oaks‡ 11,890 3,979 3,500 1,527 1,017 776 329 317 147 197 99

Other white oaks 79,754 39,555 22,313 9,752 3,865 2,382 1,108 413 188 178 0

Other red oaks 41,126 15,663 9,728 6,008 3,847 2,333 1,737 812 516 451 31

Sweet pecan 1,069 478 127 94 151 120 24 0 11 41 23

Water hickory 563 375 63 46 28 25 17 0 3 5 0

Other hickories 34,864 17,901 8,583 4,393 1,703 1,313 591 291 59 29 3

Persimmon 798 577 137 44 27 0 0 0 12 0 0

Hard maples 244 100 0 35 42 51 18 0 0 0 0

Soft maples 2,232 1,070 549 45 121 160 66 58 57 92 13

Boxelder 568 206 142 39 0 20 75 71 9 7 0

Sweetgum 4,641 2,324 1,068 350 447 206 155 56 10 21 3

Blackgum 2,427 1,051 645 234 120 158 133 42 41 2 0

White ash 3,511 1,329 913 520 340 134 176 17 56 26 0

Other ashes 6,374 2,168 1,937 1,258 484 197 139 119 45 27 0

Sycamore 2,213 494 541 380 256 231 111 68 54 70 9

Cottonwood 2,262 845 257 366 172 323 65 15 20 189 10

Basswood 83 0 57 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0

Willow 1,751 461 492 519 156 25 0 66 12 19 0

Black walnut 700 286 0 170 38 103 37 16 24 26 0

Black cherry 374 119 57 76 65 43 15 0 0 0 0

American elm 2,134 966 586 232 136 148 0 44 0 22 0

Other elms 13,457 7,248 3,305 1,697 677 370 90 39 21 8 0

River birch 891 552 74 154 0 22 34 26 0 29 0

Hackberry 4,085 1,495 821 1,064 332 124 167 59 21 0 0

Black locust 423 340 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other locusts 1,248 637 338 114 91 43 14 10 0 0 0

Sassafras 234 112 81 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dogwood 185 185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other commercial 740 538 60 83 34 24 0 0 0 0 0

 Total hardwoods 238,745 108,785 62,159 31,632 15,188 9,731 5,408 2,673 1,430 1,542 196

 All species 470,276 219,502 129,979 58,286 29,102 17,192 8,424 3,962 1,883 1,737 209

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

†

Includes white, swamp chestnut, chinkapin, and bur oaks. 

‡

Includes cherrybark, northern red, and Shumard oaks.

Diameter class (Inches at breast height)

≥29.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand trees - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
69

Table 11.—Volume of timber on timberland by class of timber and by softwoods and hardwoods,

 east Oklahoma, 1993*

Class of timber

Sawtimber trees

 Saw-log portion 1,360.6 714.9 645.6

 Upper-stem portion 288.1 130.6 157.5

 Total 1,648.6 845.5 803.1

Poletimber trees 1,352.8 549.3 803.6

 All growing stock 3,001.5 1,394.8 1,606.7

Rough trees 783.5 34.7 748.8

Rotten trees 128.3 1.6 126.7

Salvable dead trees 12.9 4.2 8.7

 All timber 3,926.2 1,435.3 2,490.9

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

All species Softwood Hardwood

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table 12.—Volume of growing stock and sawtimber on timberland by ownership class and by softwoods and hardwoods, east

 Oklahoma, 1993*

Ownership class

National forest 294.2 228.4 65.8 1,123.7 929.9 193.8

Other public 224.9 72.5 152.4 732.3 262.0 470.3

Forest industry 747.5 574.1 173.4 1,534.8 1,256.0 278.7

Nonindustrial private 1,734.9 519.8 1,215.1 4,620.7 1,713.3 2,907.4

 All ownerships 3,001.5 1,394.8 1,606.7 8,011.6 4,161.2 3,850.4

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

†

International 1/4-inch rule.

Growing stock Sawtimber

All species Softwood Hardwood All species Softwood Hardwood

- - - - - - - - - - - Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet †

 - - - - - - - - - -
70

Table 13.—Volume of growing stock on timberland by species and diameter class, east Oklahoma, 1993*

All 5.0- 7.0- 9.0- 11.0- 13.0- 15.0- 17.0- 19.0- 21.0- 29.0 and

 Species classes 6.9 8.9 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 18.9 20.9 28.9 larger

Shortleaf pine 1,014.5 117.5 186.5 210.7 204.5 146.3 80.8 44.6 17.2 6.4 0.0

Loblolly pine 350.1 102.5 127.3 47.6 18.5 19.4 11.9 6.7 4.9 10.4 1.0

Redcedar 27.1 10.2 5.3 3.1 3.4 2.6 1.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0

Cypress 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 1.2

 Total softwoods 1,394.8 230.2 319.1 261.6 226.5 169.2 94.1 52.1 22.9 17.0 2.2

Select white oaks† 126.5 20.3 31.5 24.3 16.6 8.4 8.6 4.7 5.4 6.1 0.4

Select red oaks‡ 123.3 10.9 18.2 14.4 15.4 15.8 8.9 11.3 5.9 11.8 10.8

Other white oaks 394.1 85.7 99.5 73.5 45.8 39.8 25.1 10.9 6.1 7.6 0.0

Other red oaks 355.3 34.3 47.8 51.6 52.8 46.0 44.7 27.7 20.6 27.1 2.7

Sweet pecan 11.8 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.7 2.0 0.8 0.0 0.4 2.3 1.6

Water hickory 3.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0

Other hickories 183.4 33.3 36.7 36.4 21.9 24.8 15.0 10.0 2.7 2.2 0.4

Persimmon 3.5 1.5 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0

Hard maples 2.6 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Soft maples 27.4 2.7 3.6 0.6 2.1 4.2 1.6 2.4 2.7 5.9 1.6

Boxelder 7.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.9 2.2 0.5 0.4 0.0

Sweetgum 36.6 5.6 5.7 3.5 7.9 4.8 4.9 2.1 0.5 1.5 0.1

Blackgum 19.2 2.3 2.9 2.1 1.7 3.4 3.8 1.3 1.7 0.2 0.0

White ash 29.4 3.2 5.0 4.6 4.5 3.1 5.2 0.4 1.8 1.5 0.0

Other ashes 52.6 5.4 11.0 13.5 7.4 4.1 3.6 4.4 1.7 1.4 0.0

Sycamore 35.4 1.6 4.6 3.7 3.8 6.6 3.6 2.7 2.6 5.3 0.9

Cottonwood 42.5 1.2 1.2 3.1 3.0 7.4 2.6 0.5 1.3 20.4 1.8

Basswood 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Willow 12.1 1.1 2.2 3.8 1.9 0.3 0.0 1.8 0.3 0.7 0.0

Black walnut 8.5 0.6 0.0 1.4 0.3 2.4 1.1 0.7 0.5 1.5 0.0

Black cherry 3.5 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

American elm 14.0 1.9 2.3 2.8 2.1 2.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.0

Other elms 64.3 14.7 14.8 14.5 9.6 6.3 1.9 1.1 0.9 0.4 0.0

River birch 7.2 1.4 0.3 1.6 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.0 1.6 0.0

Hackberry 29.7 2.7 3.6 8.5 4.6 3.1 4.6 1.9 0.7 0.0 0.0

Black locust 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other locusts 6.2 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sassafras 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dogwood 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other commercial 3.1 1.0 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total hardwoods 1,606.7 237.1 296.7 269.7 207.7 189.1 140.4 88.6 57.4 99.7 20.3

 All species 3,001.5 467.3 615.8 531.4 434.2 358.3 234.5 140.7 80.3 116.6 22.4

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

†

Includes white, swamp chestnut, chinkapin, and bur oaks. 

‡

Includes cherrybark, northern red, and Shumard oaks.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Diameter class (Inches at breast height)
71

Table 14.—Volume of sawtimber on timberland by species and diameter class, east Oklahoma, 1993*

 All 9.0- 11.0- 13.0- 15.0- 17.0- 19.0- 21.0- 29.0 and

Species classes 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 18.9 20.9 28.9 larger

Shortleaf pine 3,518.6 922.2 1,018.8 750.3 441.6 252.8 96.1 36.9 0.0

Loblolly pine 578.9 175.2 86.3 107.6 69.0 40.0 30.4 65.7 4.7

Redcedar 52.2 11.9 14.9 13.0 7.3 2.2 2.3 0.8 0.0

Cypress 11.5 0.8 0.0 4.1 0.0 1.4 1.0 0.0 4.2

 Total softwoods 4,161.2 1,110.0 1,120.0 875.0 517.9 296.4 129.8 103.3 8.9

Select white oaks‡ 241.0 0.0 68.5 39.4 43.3 24.4 29.6 33.8 2.0

Select red oaks§ 407.5 0.0 64.0 72.4 41.2 62.0 32.3 70.7 65.0

Other white oaks 636.3 0.0 197.7 186.4 125.5 54.8 30.8 41.0 0.0

Other red oaks 1,057.7 0.0 214.8 213.7 221.4 137.4 106.8 149.7 13.8

Sweet pecan 41.4 0.0 6.1 8.7 3.6 0.0 2.4 12.2 8.5

Water hickory 11.8 0.0 2.3 3.3 1.8 0.0 1.0 3.4 0.0

Other hickories 367.6 0.0 93.6 121.1 73.4 49.3 16.0 11.7 2.5

Persimmon 3.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0

Hard maples 8.2 0.0 1.9 3.5 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Soft maples 90.2 0.0 7.0 18.1 6.3 10.4 12.9 29.4 6.0

Boxelder 23.7 0.0 0.0 1.6 8.5 10.1 2.1 1.4 0.0

Sweetgum 100.4 0.0 32.1 21.7 25.1 10.3 3.0 7.8 0.6

Blackgum 60.4 0.0 8.0 16.9 18.6 7.2 8.7 1.0 0.0

White ash 73.1 0.0 17.2 14.2 23.6 1.7 8.4 7.9 0.0

Other ashes 102.4 0.0 29.7 18.5 16.4 22.3 8.9 6.7 0.0

Sycamore 128.9 0.0 16.1 31.5 18.6 14.4 14.0 29.2 5.0

Cottonwood 206.6 0.0 10.8 32.7 14.1 2.4 7.3 129.2 10.1

Basswood 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Willow 24.9 0.0 7.2 1.3 0.0 10.5 1.9 4.0 0.0

Black walnut 30.0 0.0 1.4 10.5 4.6 2.2 3.3 7.8 0.0

Black cherry 10.1 0.0 4.9 3.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

American elm 33.7 0.0 9.1 13.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 5.7 0.0

Other elms 91.6 0.0 41.3 28.7 8.2 5.4 5.5 2.5 0.0

River birch 21.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 4.7 5.3 0.0 8.5 0.0

Hackberry 63.8 0.0 16.6 12.8 22.2 8.5 3.6 0.0 0.0

Other locusts 10.2 0.0 4.9 2.8 1.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other commercial 2.8 0.0 1.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total hardwoods 3,850.4 0.0 859.9 880.7 686.8 445.7 300.2 563.6 113.5

 All species 8,011.6 1,110.0 1,979.8 1,755.7 1,204.7 742.1 430.0 666.9 122.4

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

†

International 1/4-inch rule. 

‡

Includes white, swamp chestnut, chinkapin, and bur oaks. 

§

Includes cherrybark, northern red, and Shumard oaks.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet †

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Diameter class (Inches at breast height)
72

Table 15.—Volume of sawtimber on timberland by species and tree grade, east Oklahoma, 1993*

Species All grades Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Yellow pines 4,097.5 663.6 804.5 2,593.9 0.0 35.5

Cypress 11.5 0.0 3.2 5.0 0.0 3.3

Redcedar 52.2 47.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8

 Total softwoods 4,161.2 711.1 807.8 2,598.8 0.0 43.6

Select white and red oaks‡ 648.4 124.4 117.3 263.9 109.9 32.9

Other white and red oaks 1,694.0 100.2 236.2 697.0 558.0 102.6

Hickories 420.8 21.5 77.4 139.8 137.7 44.4

Hard maples 8.2 0.0 0.0 3.5 4.7 0.0

Sweetgum 100.4 2.6 21.2 54.0 11.7 10.9

Tupelo and blackgum 60.4 0.0 27.2 19.7 12.6 1.0

Ash, walnut, and black cherry 215.6 51.3 72.3 56.8 4.6 30.6

Other hardwoods 702.5 217.6 148.6 205.9 65.0 65.3

 Total hardwoods 3,850.4 517.6 700.2 1,440.6 904.2 287.7

 All species 8,011.6 1,228.7 1,507.9 4,039.4 904.2 331.3

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

†

International 1/4-inch rule. 

‡

Includes white, swamp chestnut, chinkapin, bur, cherrybark, northern red, and Shumard oaks.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Million board feet †

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Table 16.—Average net annual growth and average annual removals of growing stock 

 on timberland, by species, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

 Species

Yellow pines 109.9 54.8

Other softwoods 2.4 0.1

 Total softwoods 112.3 54.9

Select white and red oaks† 9.0 4.4

Other white and red oaks 35.2 14.7

Hickories 8.2 3.5

Hard maples 0.1 0.0

Sweetgum 1.8 0.7

Ash, walnut, and black cherry 5.1 1.0

Other hardwoods 10.1 2.5

 Total hardwoods 69.5 26.9

 All species 181.9 81.8

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

†

Includes white, swamp chestnut, chinkapin, bur, cherrybark, northern red, and Shumard oaks. 

- - - - - - - - - Million cubic feet - - - - - - - -

annual growth removals

Average net Average annual 
73

Table 17.—Average net annual growth and average annual removals of growing stock on timberland by ownership class and by 

 softwoods and hardwoods, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

Ownership class

National forest 14.0 12.0 1.9 7.3 6.1 1.1

Other public 8.7 2.8 5.9 1.3 0.1 1.2

Forest industry 70.2 63.4 6.8 30.8 28.8 2.0

Nonindustrial private 88.9 34.1 55.0 42.4 19.8 22.6

 All ownerships 181.9 112.3 69.5 81.8 54.9 26.9

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Average net annual growth Average annual removals

All species Softwood Hardwood Hardwood All species Softwood

Table 18.—Average net annual growth and average annual removals of sawtimber on 

 timberland by species, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

 Species

Yellow pines 276.5 213.3

Other softwood 5.0 0.1

 Total softwoods 281.5 213.4

Select white and red oaks‡ 28.6 13.1

Other white and red oaks 78.2 42.9

Hickories 19.0 9.3

Hard maples 0.2 0.2

Sweetgum 4.2 2.0

Ash, walnut, and black cherry 8.9 3.2

Other hardwoods 18.3 6.3

 Total hardwoods 157.3 77.2

 All species 438.9 290.6

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

†

International 1/4-inch rule. 

‡

Includes white, swamp chestnut, chinkapin, bur, cherrybark, northern red, and Shumard oaks.

- - - - - - - - Million board feet † - - - - - - -

Average annual 

removals

Average net 

annual growth
74

Table 19.—Average net annual growth and average annual removals of sawtimber on timberland by ownership class 

 and by softwoods and hardwoods, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

Ownership class

National forest 58.4 52.7 5.7 29.0 26.1 2.9

Other public 17.5 11.1 6.3 1.8 0.3 1.5

Forest industry 112.0 105.8 6.2 104.8 101.5 3.3

Nonindustrial private 251.0 111.9 139.1 154.9 85.4 69.5

 All ownerships 438.9 281.5 157.3 290.6 213.4 77.2

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

†

International 1/4-inch rule. 

Average net annual growth Average annual removals

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet †

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All species Hardwood Softwood All species Hardwood Softwood

Table 20.—Average annual mortality of growing stock and sawtimber on timberland by 

 species, east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

Species

Yellow pines 2.9 10.5

Cypress 0.0 0.0

 Total softwoods 2.9 10.5

Select white and red oaks‡ 0.7 1.7

Other white and red oaks 4.0 9.9

Hickories 0.8 1.7

Hard maples 0.0 0.0

Sweetgum 0.2 0.6

Ash, walnut, and black cherry 0.8 3.4

Other hardwoods 4.0 16.3

 Total hardwoods 10.5 33.5

 All species 13.4 44.0

*Numbers in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

†

International 1/4-inch rule. 

‡

Includes white, swamp chestnut, chinkapin, bur, cherrybark, northern red, and Shumard oaks.

cubic feet board feet †

Average annual mortality

Growing stock

Million

Sawtimber

Million
75

Table 21.—Average annual mortality of growing stock and sawtimber on timberland by ownership class and by softwoods and hardwoods,

 east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

Ownership class

National forest 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.1 0.6 0.5

Other public 2.5 0.5 2.0 11.7 1.1 10.7

Forest industry 2.3 1.2 1.0 8.4 5.7 2.6

Nonindustrial private 8.2 0.9 7.3 22.8 3.0 19.7

 All ownerships 13.4 2.9 10.5 44.0 10.5 33.5

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

†

International 1/4-inch rule. 

- - - - - - - - - - - Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet †

 - - - - - - - - - -

All species Softwood Hardwood All species

Average annual mortality

Growing stock Sawtimber

Softwood Hardwood

Cause of death

Bark beetles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other insects 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Disease 8.9 2.0 7.0 25.8 7.7 18.1

Fire 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2

Beaver 1.3 0.2 1.0 5.6 0.8 4.8

Other animals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Weather 2.7 0.6 2.1 12.3 1.9 10.4

Suppression 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

 All causes 13.4 2.9 10.5 44.0 10.5 33.5

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

†

International 1/4-inch rule. 

Average annual mortality

All species All species

Table 22.—Average annual mortality of growing stock and sawtimber on timberland by cause of death and by softwoods and hardwoods,

 east Oklahoma, 1986 to 1993*

Growing stock Sawtimber

- - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet † - - - - - - - - - - - Million cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Softwood Hardwood Softwood Hardwood
Rosson, James F., Jr. 2001. Forest resources of east Oklahoma, 1993. Resour.

Bull. SRS–58, Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Research Station. 75 p.

The principal findings of the sixth forest survey of east Oklahoma (1993) and

changes that have occurred since the previous survey are presented. Topics

examined include forest area, ownership, forest-type groups, stand structure,

basal area, timber volume, growth, removals, mortality, harvesting, and

management activity.

Keywords: Forest dynamics, forest inventory, forest plantations, forest

productivity, forest survey, forest trends, large-scale sample, species

distribution.
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is

dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of

the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood,

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the

National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by

Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination

in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,

sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital

or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact

USDA's TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of

Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice or TDD).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.