- United States gi Department of 

h2 Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Southern Forest 

Experiment Station 

New Or! eans, 

Louisiana 

Ge~eral Technical Report 

SO-40 

November, 1982 

Low-Qua ty Hardwood S 

Opportunities for Management in the 

Interior Up 
Law-quality hardavood stands present opportunity and challenge in the 

Interior Uplands. This guidebook discusses the primary causes of low-quality 

hardwood stands and offers management options for regenerating or improving these stands. &ledhods for evaluating stand and site potential are provided, A technique for comparing stands and prescril~ing treatmerrd is ahso 

suggested. 
Contents 

Page 

OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGE ............................ 1 

WHAT IS A LOW-QUALITY HARDWOOD STAND? .............. 1 

CAUSES OF LOTV-QUALITY HARDWOOD STANDS ............. 1 

Past treatment ............................................... 2 

Fire ......................................................... 2 

Site quality .................................................. 2 

Other causes ................................................. 2 

WHY THE PROBLEM CONTINUES ............................ 3 

SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM ............................... 3 

Utilization ................................................. 3 

Silviculture .................................................. 4 

Incentiveprograms ............................................ 5 

MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR LOW-QUALITY STANDS . . 5 

Converting to pine ............................................ 5 

Natural regeneration to hardwoods .............................. 6 

Planting hardwoods ........................................... 7 

Intemediate management ..................................... 8 

Opportunistic cutting (high-grade) .............................. 9 

No management .............................................. 9 

Multiple use management ...................................... 9 

EVALUATING AND RATING LOW-QUALITY STANDS ........... 10 

Factors for rating low-quality stands ............................. 10 

Rating low-quality stands ...................................... 11 

EVALUATING SITE PRODUCTIVITY IN 

LOW-QUALITY STANDS ...................................... 13 

Height-age curves ............................................. 13 

County soil surveys and maps .................................. 14 

Productivity based on landforms ................................ 14 

A CHECKLIST FOR MANAGING LOW QUALITY STANDS ....... 20 

LITERATURE CITED ......................................... 21 
ity Hardwood Stands 

Opportunities for Management in the Interior Uplands 

Charles E. McGee 

OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGE The primary purpose of these guidelines is to 

encourage a positive management outlook for the I 

stands. The guidelines provide landowners with the I 

The Interior Uplands of Alabama, Kentucky, and 

Tennessee include the Cumberland Plateau and the of low quality and them gain a better 1 

Highland Rim or the Pennyroyal, as the Rim is called understanding of ways to regenin ~~~~~~k~, ~b~~~ 13 million acres of region are erate, or convert these stands. The guidelines also 

forested, much of it in low-quality hardwood stands. provide field foresters with simple techniques for 

The actual percentage depends on how low-quality evaluating, rating, and prescribing stand treatments. 

stands are defined. The 1980 Tennessee orei it Survey showed that 20 percent of all commercial forest 

land had over 40 percent stocking of rough and rotten 

trees (Birdsey 1982). Sixty percent of all Tennessee 

commercial forest land contained over 20 percent 

stocking of rough or rotten trees. Thirty percent of 

all commercial forest land was less than 50 percent 

stocked with acceptable growing stock. Less than 10 

percent of comercial forests were 50 percent stocked 

with desirable growing stock. 

Low-quality hardwood stands in the Interior 

Uplands present great opportunities and tough challenges. The opportunity for improving yields from 

upland hardwoods is immense as millions of acres 

produce but a fraction of their capability. Many sites 

capable of producing 200 board feet per acre or more 

annually, now produce little or nothing. Sites capable 

of providing great diversity and substantial wildlife 

habitat now support low-quality stands that are 

monotonous in appearance and provide limited food 

and cover for wildlife populations. Since these stands 

are functioning at such a low level of productivity, 

better management can increase yields many times. 

Why then, with opportunities for improvement so 

plentiful, have so many owners been reluctant to take 

advarltage of them? The best explanation seems to be 

that economics and technology have not provided 

adequate incentives to foster a more positive attitude 

toward upland hardwood management. In fact, many 

current woodland practices produce even more lowquality stands. 

WHAT IS A LOW-QUALITY 

HARDWOOD STAND? 

Any stand that contains a substantial number of 

low-quality trees, or that does not contain a substamtial number of acceptable growing stock trees, can be 

classified as low-quality. Most landowners will classify a stand as low-quality if it does not contain n 

recognizable and manageable portion of "good" trees. 

For the purposes of this guide, emphasis will be on 

low-quality hardwood stands that contain mature 

trees and that have been cut over one or more times. 

A general rule is that any stand with more than 50 

square feet per acre of basal area of manageable trees 

should not be included in the low-quality category 

(fig. 1 j. 

CAUSES OF LOW-QUALITY 

HARDWOOD STANDS 

Eastern hardtvood stands have generally developed 

without the benefit of silviculture or any deliberate 

management, These stands have been subjected to 

fires, insects, diseases, and repeated cutting. Many 

are composed of leftovers frorn past cuttings, some 

second growth, and a variable population of shadetolerant trees. These cull-burdened stands present 

serious management problems (Trimble 1963) and 

Charles E. LMcGee is Principal Silviculturist, Sewantae Silviculture Laboratory, maintained at Sewanee, Tenn. by the Southern 

Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service-USDA, in cooperation with the University of the South. 
Site Quality 

Figure 1.-A recently high-graded low-quality hardwood 

stand. Long range productivity for this stand is 

low without cultural treatment. 

whatever stand quality exists is directly related to 

site quality (Carmean and Boyce 1973). This combination of past treatment, wildfire, and site quality 

has produced the low-quality stands of the Interior 

Uplands. 

Past Treatment 

For the past 150 years most timber cutting in the 

Interior Uplands has been high-grading. Some areas 

have been cut over many times. The continued 

removal of only the largest and highest-value trees 

with, in most cases, no stand improvement has produced low-quality stands. Unfortunately, many landowners feel that their only alternative is to cut 

whatever they can market and leave the rest. In view 

of the condition of many of the stands and the 

current economic situation, there remain powerful 

incentives to continue the practice. 

Some areas in the Interior Uplands are characterized by low or very low site quality (table I). 

These include the Barrens of the Eastern Rim and 

Pennyroyal, limestone rockland on lower slopes of the 

escarpment, shallow soils on the C erland Plateau 

and narrow cherty ridges and south slopes of the 

Western Rim and Pennyroyal. All have been subjected to fire and occasional cutting, further diminishing stand quality. 

More than half of the Interior Uplands are medium 

sites. Areas with site indices for pine of 70-75 and 

6&70 for upland oaks are capable of producing good 

pine and hardwood. However, once they are cut over 

or burned, recovery is slow. 

Substantial acreages of low-quality stands are also 

groeng on good sites, such as the north and east 

slopes in the highly dissected portion of the Western 

Rim and Pennyroyal and hollows on top of the 

Plateau. Significant acreages of very good sites now 

support law-quality stands that could produce excellent hardwoods. These include the coves and northerly portions of the escarpment that often escape 

wildfire, These also have poor access, which limits 

logging; sr it is here that the best stands are found. 

While many of these fine stands could be improved 

even further, this paper will deal exclusively with 

low-quality hardwood stands. For clarity, site quality 

(table 1) is divided into five categories: 

Table 1.-Relative site quality terms in relation to species 

and site index 

Species Site quality 

Loblolly pine Oak Yellow-poplar 

Very poor .... 4049 . . 

Poor 60-69 50-59 70-79 

Medium 70-79 60-69 80-89 

Good 80-89 70-79 90-99 

Very good go+ go+ 100 + 

Other Causes 

Fire 

Until relatively recent times wildfire was a regular 

occurrence throughout the region. Vast unbroken 

stands of timberland on the gently rolling plateau 

tops and rim flats provided excellent fuel as well as 

ideal conditions for burning. These conditionscoupled with a burning ethic-made wildfire the 

norm. It is not unusual for mature trees to show 

evidznce of six or more hot fires (fig. 2). If high 

grading initially resulted in low quality, wildfires 

helped keep the stands that way. 

In certain areas insects, diseases, ice, wind, and 

grapevines have reduced hardwood stands into the 

low quality category. Infestations of defoliators such 

as the elm spanworm and fall cankerworm have 

weakened and sometimes killed oaks and other hardwoods. White oak and red oak borers annually cause 

serious damage to oak stands and are a serious threat 

to low-quality stands because the trees lack vigor. 

Cankers, wilts, and rots also cause substantial damage throughout the region. Butt rot is troublesome 

in areas that have been periodically cut or burned. 
Stump sprouts of the oaks, especially scarlet oak, are 

susceptible to butt rot. Many diseased trees were 

passed over in cuttings; consequently, they largely 

populate low-quality stands. 

Mature hardwood stands growing on exposed 

ridges are especially vulnerable to ice storms and 

high winds following a partial cutting, Ice degrades 

some stands each year, particularly those containing 

grapevines, Yellow-poplar is especially susceptible to 

ice damage and young pole-sized stands containing 

grapevines can be severely damaged, 

WHY THE PROBLEM CONTINUES 

At worst, low-quality stands represent a liability; 

at best, an economic challenge. Some causes of low 

quality are controllable; yet improvement has been 

slow, Why? The answer is simple-the average owner 

has no economic incentive to improve the stand. 

Figure 2.-Wildfire has eo~ltrtbufed substantially do origin 

and con tinued occurrence of taw-quality hardwood stands. 

Some fully-stocked hardwood stands are virtually 

worthless for traditional timber products. Improvement of such stands may require a cash outlay, the 

amount depending on management objectives and 

harvesting methods, Many owners are reluctant to 

spend hard-do-get funds on these stands, feeling they 

can get higher and more certain yields in other 

endeavors, bforeover, they often view stumpage as 

a windfall and are not aware that they could increase 

future yields by reinvesting in the forest. Mwt 

owners have a good understanding of the economics 

involved but lack knowledge of stand and site potential. They are also aware of the long-tern nature and 

uncertainty of forest investments, as well as the outrageous cost of money. So they are conditioned to 

expect little return from their low-quality stands. 

SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM 

Utilization 

Improved utilization and expanded markets for 

low-quality wood products are essential to realistic 

management of low-quality stands. While traditional 

markets for sawtimber, crossties, and roundwood will 

continue to be important, three relatively new utilization concepts have special appeal for low-quality 

stands : 

Shearing and Chipping 

On suitable terrain, shearing and on-site chipping 

make good use of poor quality trees (Koch 1980). 

Removal of most of the woody vegetation by shearing 

enhances the opportunity for natural regeneration or 

for planting trees at reduced costs (fig. 3). Many lowquality stands are characterized by large culls and 

small trees under 4 inches that present special problems for shearing and chipping (McGee 1980). 

Short Log Eiti2iz;ation 

Some low-quality stands contain sound trees that 

do not contain enough clear length to make traditional logs. As markets for short logs are developed, 

management of low-quality stands will become more 

practical (Reynolds and S~hroeder f 977). Short log 

production would be especially useful on poor sites 

where it is almost impossible to grow full-length togs 

in a reasonable span. 

Increasing demand for fuelt.vood offers attractive 

opportunities for some low-quality stands. Stands 

close to good roads and urban centers are the best 
candidates. However, if the demand continues, operators who will travel further and operate under adverse 

con&t;ions are likely to become active in the market. 

In an active firewood market most trees in a lowquality hardwood stand can be used but mast firewood cutters avoid large culls or trees less than 

6 inches dbh, 

Costs of cultural activities are a serious obstacle 

to management of low-quality stands but costs can 

be reduced, 

More Efficient Methodology 

Twning low-quality sknds generally is not practical because the basal area of marketable trees plus 

acceptable growing stock is low, and the cost of control for the large number of culls is high. In many 

cases the best solution is to eliminate the entire stand 

and regenerate. However, stand elimination and regeneration may not be practical or needed over an 

entire ownership. Intermediate treatment, including 

thinning or timber stand improvement, should definitely be considered for stands that can benefit 

from it. 

Benefits must outweigh the costs when intermediate cultural treatments are applied. Paradoxically, 

treatment of low-quality stands may require more 

care than good stands. Variations in site quality, 

quality and quantity of growing stock, and opportunities for utilization should be appraised carefully, 

and treatment should be restricted to those stands 

and sites where a positive cost benefit can be 

achieved. For example, removal of scattered culls 

overtopping a much younger stand of poles may be 

very worthwhile. Conversely, if the overtopped poles 

are old and in poor form, the operation may be a 

waste of effort (Mills 1976, McGee 1981b). 

If the stand is to be regenerated, site preparation 

should be incorporated as much as possible into the 

harvest operation. Ileadening undesirable trees can 

be efficiently accomplished prior to harvest (Loftis 

1978). But it is much better to utilize a tree than 

to spend money to deaden it. 

Modification of Standards 

Many landowners would prefer not to spend large 

sums of money for regeneration and rehabilitation. 

However, reduced costs resulting from carefully modified standards can encourage these owners to initiate 

management. Goals for success and certain treatment 

objectives should be cautiously reordered or lowered 

if the savings result in improved productivity. 

Figure 3.-A low-quality stand that has been sheared and 

chipped. Whole trees as small as 1 inch dbh were 

harvested. The site is now ready for artificial or 

natural regeneration without additional site preparation. 

The cost of eliminating a low-quality hardwood 

stand, preparing the site, and converting it to a pure 

stand of pine is about $200 per acre. The results are 

usually successful with a well-stocked stand in neat 

rows with 400 or more free-do-grow trees per acre. 

However, site preparation and planting costs could 

be cut dramatically if 50 free-to-grow pines per acre 

were acceptable. If costs for the lovv-standard planting could be held at $50 per acre, then 4 acres could 

be treated at the cost of one intensively treated acre. 

Yields from the 4 acres of mixed plantations would 

probably surpass yields from one intensively treated 

acre, meaning a better net profit. 

Site preparation for natural regeneration following 

conventional logging can cost $100 per acre or more 

to control unmerchantable hardwoods. If most unused trees are lopped or injected, good hardwoods 

will usually follow. The best procedure is to utilize 

as many trees as possible, stratify the area by site 

potential and first attend to the better sites (not 

necessarily the better stands). In a typical Plateau 

region regeneration area, site index for oak may vary 

substantially and there usually is more undesirable 

vegetation on the better sites. 

If funds are severely limited, attention should be 

focused on the most damaging competition, usually 

the large cull trees. For example, if only $1,000 is 

available for site preparation follovving commercial 

clearcutting on. a 30-acre area, a complete vegetation 

control job cannot be done. If half of the area is site 

55 and half is 65, the effort could be split with about 

$45 per acre for the 15 acres of site 65 and $21 per 

acre for site 55. The $45 per acre would provide control for most of the large culls and some undesirable 

pole-sized trees, such as red maple. Twenty-one dol- 
lars per acre would allow control of only the larger 

culls on the poorer site. There will be some disadvantage in splitting the funds but overall producti~ty 

wig foe greater. 

Incentive Programs 

Since rnost low-quality stands require cultural 

activity in addition to harvest, a forestry incentive 

program designed specif ieally for hprovemen t of 

low-quality sbnds would be ideal. Incentive programs should require identification of the cause of 

low quality, as well as allosving flexibility in intensities of treatment and emphasizing long-range 

improvement of stands. 

MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR 

LOW-QUALITY STANDS 

Management alternatives for low-quality hardwood 

stands include many of the same options available 

for good-quality stands. However, selection of options 

for poor stands should follow a different pattern. 

Selection of options for good-quality stands usually 

can be based on the appearance and condition of the 

stand itself. Additional information is needed for 

low-quality stands. It is important to determine why 

the stand is fow quality and to determine the basic 

quality of the site. The difficulty involved in making 

these determinations often leads to grouping of lowquality stands into one management category which 

can ofteq lead to serious silvicultural mistakes. 

Traditionall y, owners of low-quali ty hardwood 

stands have either converted to pine, continued 

periodic logging of salable trees, or ignored the stands 

altogether. Intermediate stand management or improvement has seldom been applied. In many cases, 

stand conditions preclude intermediate management, 

but some opportunities are being overlooked. The 

following section considers options for regeneration, 

intermediate management, exclusion from management, eon"iinued opportunistic high grading, and 

multiple use : 

Converting to Pine 

LsbEskly Pine 

Converting low-quality harlXLvriaci stands to liablolly 

pine has been widely pracliced in the region and 

reasonable strccess has been achieved on rnost of the 

medium and good-quality sites, Best results are 

where site preparation was intensive and hardwood 

corntml was complete (fig, 4), There are problems 

both on poor sites and very good sites. 011 the poor 

sites pine yields may not justify the costs, 6411 the 

Figure 4.-This plantation of toblolly pine replaces a Zowquality hardwood stand following intensive site 

preparation that included windrowing and disking. Almost 100 percent of the loblolly saplings 

are free to grow. 

very good sites only the most intensive site preparation inhibits development of hardwood sprouts that 

can seriously retard loblolly growth. On medium sites, 

less intensive preparation can be prescribed if the 

owner will accept a mixed loblolly pine-hardwood 

stand and some loss in pine growth. byhere utilization 

of hardwoods is almost complieke, as in a shearing and 

chipping operation, pines can be introduced into the 

stand with greatly reduced site preparation costs, 

but pine distribution and growth will improve with 

increased intel~sity of site preparation (McGee 1980) 

(figs. 5-6), 

Eas~ern White Pine 

Eastern white pine has not been planted as widely 

as loblolly. However, enough plantings have been 

successful on the higher elevations of the Cumberland 

Plateau to indicate considerable potential (Smith and 

Baird 19'79). High potential sawtimber yields from 

mediocre sites in 50-60 years make conversion to 

white pine an attractive option. 

White pine is tolerant to early shade and can be 

established in cutover stands several ways. One technique has been to plant tho pine where pulpwood 

and larger sawtimber trees have been harvested, The 

pines are then released from the residual hardwoods 

at age 3-5 by a herbicide applied in July or August 

(h%oyer 19"i). 

Intensive site preparation prior to planting can 

also he used. However, the white pine are very sIow 

starters and unless the control sf hardwoods is cornpIete, later release may be needed, JVhitet pine can 

also suffer from heat scorch during hot, dry summers 

following intensive site preparation, Partial early 

shade may "rj. en important benefit, particularly in 

the southern end of the region, 
Figure 5.-A loblolly pine plantation established following Figure 6.-A lobtolly pine plantation established following 

haruest by shearing to 4 inches dbh with no ad&- shearing to 4 inches d5h plus injection of residtional site preparation. About 50 percent of the uals. About 75 perCenE of the four-year-old 

four-year-old lob loll^^ saplings are free to grow. loblally sapiings are free to grow. 

Shortleaf pine can be planted throughout the Interior Uplands but is best suited to the northern 

Cumberland Plateau, the northern part of the Western Highland Rim in Tennessee and the entire Pennyroyal of Kentucky (Smalley 1 979~)~ Shortleaf pine 

should be considered where diversification is important, where the long-term goal is production of sawtimber, and where ice and snow may damage loblolly 

pine (Russell 1979). 

Shortleaf pine grows slowly in its early years, so 

site preparation in cutover stands will have to be 

relatively intense to ensure that seedlings survive. 

Natural Regeneration for Hardwoods 

34ajor unexploited opportunities exist to regenerate 

low-quality hardwood stands by natural regeneration 

(fig, 7). These stands will regenerate to some extent 

following any kind of harvest or disturbance, but 

quality, quantity, and distribution will depend 011 

species, age and distribution of the existing stand, site 

quality, harvesting methods, and cultural activities. 

Poor and very poor sites.---Natural regeneration 

of low-quality hardwood stands on poor and very 

poor sites presents some special problems but atso 

some opportunities. Potential] y siow growth and poor 

tree quality argue against spending much money on 

these sites. Horvever, much can be accomplished at 

little or no cost by appropriate harvesting. If the 

stand is do be regenerated, the more material harvested the better, %any thousands of acres of lowquality stands on poor sites are well suited for 

shearing or other broadscale operations, The resultant 

regeneration will be primarily of sprout origin and 

will contain a variety of desirable and undesirable 

species (McGee 1980). There will also be a few barren spots. Overall, the regeneration resulting from a 

heavy or complete harvest cut will usually produce 

a stand that will be better than the harvested lowquality stand. Landowners should not expect high 

quality hardwoods on these poor sites, even under 

the best of circumstances. Most of the regrowth 

will be suitable for pulpwood, fuelwoad, chips, or 

short logs. 

If traditional logging methods are employed, the 

logger should use as much of the residual stand as 

practicable. But when culls, poles, and many small 

tolerant stems remain, the landowner must decide 

bow much can be spent on natural regeneration, Such 

stands may contain numerous culls or relicts and the 

felling or deadening of these trees should be the 

highest priority. Of second priority will be the felling 

of nonmerchantable trees that would interfere with 

regeneration. These trees may be numerous and the 

cost sf total control may be prohibitive. 

Despite the problems with regenerating low-quality 

stands on poor sites, landowers should view hardwoods as the best potential crop. Unsuitable for 

agriculture or even conr~er~iort to pine, these stands 

should be targets for controlIerl and opportunistic 

regenera tian and improvement. 

A"tledium sites.-locv-quality hardwood stands 

growing on medium sites can be regenerated readily 

by elearcutting. 53:anly stands are on terrain that can 

be sheared, However, some regeneration can be expected after partial cuts or even high grading, Regeneration tvifl develop from stump sprouts, advance 

regeneration and new seedlings, The expected regen- 
eration mix will be highly variable, depending on the 

size of openings: the available seed source, the size, 

distribution, and species of the overstory removed, 

the condition of advance regeneration, and the ctimate during the harvest and for several Srears thereafter, Medium sites can produce hardwood sawfiog~, 

tie logs, pulprvood, fuelwood, and other products, 

However, production of veneer and better quality 

sawlogs will be limited, 

Control of competing vegetation will be more important than on poorer sites. Without effective control or utilization of culls and less desirable trees, 

medium sites will remain in the low-quality category. 

While potential for volume and quality growth is fair 

to good, the economics of site preparation should be 

carefully monitored. Injection or utilization of large 

culls and relicts is a high priority activity on sites 

scheduled for regeneration. Control or utilization of 

intermediate trees should also be achieved at a somewhat higher level than on poorer sites. If trees in the 

2- to 12-inch diameter class cannot be used, then 

expenditures from $30 to $60 per acre should be 

anticipated for their control. Control can be achieved 

by injecting undesirable species with herbicide prior 

to logging and following the logging with felling 

unmerchantable stems that will produce desirable 

sprouts. 

Good and very good sites.-Regenerating lowquality hardwood stands on good and very good sites 

requires specific action if the site's potential is to be 

realized. Even though existing stands may be classed 

as low quality, stumpage revenues can be substantial. 

Portions of this revenue should be used to prepare 

the site for improved future yields. 

Recognizing good sites among areas that may have 

been cutover several times and possibly burned can 

Figure 7.-iliatural upland hardwood regeneration consisting 

oj seedlings, sec'dlirzg sprouts, and stump sprouts 

jollowirzg shearing on a mediecm site. 

be difficult, Quite often good cutover sites that need 

to be regenerated will contain, in addition to culls, 

large numbers of less desirable species (e.g. red maple, 

dogwood, sourwood, some saks, blackgum). If these 

trees are not killed or cut, they can dominate the site 

and the stand will continue to be Icrw quality. Grapevine, honeysuckle, and kudzu can also inhibit regeneration on good sites. Vegetation control may cost 

$40-3100 per acre but can be greatly reduced by 

intensive utilization. Pre-harvest control of grapevines and injection. of red maple should receive high 

priority. Culls and relicts should also be cut or 

deadened if nod utilized. 

Good sites now supporting low-quality hardwoods 

can grow high quality sawlogs and veneer. Yellowpoplar, white oak, northern red oak, white ash, blaclr 

walnut, and black cherry should do well but past 

cutting practices will probably determine how well 

these species regenerate. While clearcutting will usually result in good regeneration, reliable inexpensive 

techniques are not available for controlling the species mix or for favoring one species over another in 

the preferred group. A frequent trend following clearcutting on good sites is for yellow-poplar, white ash, 

and other light-seeded species to predominate where 

mixed oaks may have previously dominated. This 

trend is a problem for owners with strong commitments to wildlife habitat or fine oak production. The 

usefulness of shelterwood cutting in stimulating oak 

regeneration is uncertain at this time (Sander 1977). 

Cleaning or crop tree refease may be advisable on 

some good sites but should be considered only after 

the stands have been regenerated 8 to 12 years. It is 

also very expensive. 

Planting Hardwoods 

It is possible to plant yellow-poplar on medium, 

good, and very good sites where a natural seed 

source is not available (fig. 8), Acceptable growth 

and fair quality can be obtained from yellow-poplar 

planted on medium sites with moderate site preparation, Site preparation should inelude injection of all. 

trees 2 inches dbh and larger, Excellent growth can 

be achieved on goad and very good sites but more 

intensive preparation will be needed as the site quality increases. In every case site selectionl quality of 

plantii~g stock, and care of the yellow-poplar seedlings 

prior to planting is critical (Russell 1977). 

Impmvemen t of low-quatit y hardwood stands Ry 

plantil-rg saks cannot be generally recommended at 
this time, Numerous studies have shorn early su~- 

val of planted oaks to be relatively high, but growth, 

even with cleanings, is very slow (MeGee f981a). 

Black Cherry and Black WaEnrtc 

Black cherry and black walnut can be planted on 

some sites i"n the region with reasonable chance of 

success. However, extreme care must be taken on site 

selection, site preparation, care of planting stock, and 

the seed source. A planter should be committed to 

the necessary silvicultural follow-up and should familiarize himself with available guidelines before 

entering into large scale planting of these species 

(Schlesinger and Funk 1977, FVilliams 1974, Auchmoody 1973). 

Intermediate Management 

Thinning 

Thinning from below often has little practical 

application in low-quality hardwoods because the 

best stems usually are removed in thinning. Moreover, 

most low-quality stands are already understocked 

with acceptable growing stock and a conventional 

thinning lvould only compound the problem. However, there are cases where stands on very poor, poor, 

or even medium sites have become overstocked at 50 

to 70 years of age. A commercial pulpwood thinning 

that reduces basal area to 50 to 60 square feet will 

increase the growth of the residuals. 

Timber Stand Prnpro~emen~ 

An improvement cut plus cull tree control is often 

prescribed for timber stand improvement. Many lowquality hardwood stands can be immediately improved by harvesting overmature or less desirable 

trees and by killing culls and undesirable trees, However, there is a hazard that the residual stand may 

not Justify the effort. Typical low-qualit y stands eonLain many pole-sized trees that appear vigorous and 

have good form. Usually, these poles-particularly 

oaks-are older than they appear. When released, 

these trees usually accelerate in dianleter growth but 

height increases are uncertain, and increased epicormic sprouting will occur) espec1al.t.y 0131 white oak 

t'bfcGee 198 Pb) , 

Since most low-quality stands are candidates for 

clearcutting and regeneration, id is important that 

stands that can benefit from improvement be identified and treated appropmately, In some awerships, 

where large acreages of low-quality stands are being 

brought under management, clearcutting of the total 

Figure 8.-A successful yellow-poplar plantation on a me-. 

dium site. This stand has been cleaned, but 

cleaning is not essential for establishing yellowpoplar on these sites. 

area may be impractical and improvement cuts advis- Figure 9.-A sparse stand oj managcable trees developed 

able even if the outlook for imprssiemerat is not great, from, a fully stocked low-quality stand. 
Sparse S~arrd kfanagemena: tion, As previously discussed, the development of 

markets for low-quality hardwoods is essential before 

For some low-quality hardwood stands there is an "stand improvement" will be attractive to some. 

opportunity to avoid immediate complete harvesting 

and to provide a source of logs and revenue in 10 to 

20 years (fig. 9). No Management 

Some low-quality stands contain 20 to 40 dominant 

or co-dominant trees per acre in the 10- to 14-inch 

diameter class that are of desirable species and have 

good form and vigor. If these trees are harvested, the 

returns will be minimal. If the rest of the stand is cut, 

these trees will increase rapidly in diameter and can 

move into higher quality and value classes. Such a 

residual stand with perhaps 30 to 40 square feet of 

basal area could, counting in-growth, produce 150 to 

200 board feet per acre per year for the next 10 years 

on medium or better sites (Dale 1972). 

There are a number of problems in managing 

sparse stands. First, the residual trees must have the 

potential to move quickly into higher size and value 

categories. Epicormic sprouting may reduce the value 

increment for some trees. Second, there must be a 

means to log the mature and overmature trees and 

control culls without damaging the residual sparse 

stand. Third, smaller trees 2 to 10 inches dbh should 

be harvested, lopped, or injected. If these smaller 

trees are utilized or cut, regeneration can be expected 

to begin with moderate impact from the sparse residual overstory. Finally, there must be a means to log 

the sparse residual stand in 10 to 20 years. 

Sparse stand management should not be viewed as 

an overall replacement system for regenerating stands 

but as an option to be used only when the residual 

stand meets the necessary criteria. The practice, if 

used judiciously in conjunction with regeneration 

cutting on adjacent areas, can provide diversity and 

a deferred source of income. 

Opportunistic Cutting 

Removal of the best trees with no attention given 

to the potential of the residual stand is a major cause 

of low-quality hardwood stands. Due to current economic conditions many landowners are likely to 

continue diameter-limit cutting, high-grading, and 

commercial clearcuts even when they know it significantly reduces long-range productivity. These practices provide the maximum cash per unit harvested 

and require minimum supervision, planning and cash 

outlay. So it is difficult to justify reducing current 

revenues or spending for cultural work when alternative investments may approach 15 to 20 percent. It is 

even more difficult to justify out-of-pocket expenditures that may exceed stumpage revenues. 

The only realistic solution for an owner who won't 

spend money on forest improvement is total utilizaFor a variety of reasons many thousands of acres 

of low-quality hardwood stands will receive no attention. Leaving moderately stocked, good-quality 

hardwood stands alone for a while may be a good 

prescription for improvement. But most low-quality 

stands left alone are not likely to improve much. 

Individual trees may increase in value but culls and 

undesirable trees will also continue to grow so that 

a stand that is low quality today will, without treatment, remain a low-quality stand. 

Many owners of low-quality hardwoods acquired 

their lands for recreation, wildlife enjoyment or investment and have no primary interest in timber 

production. The relatively small stumpage revenues 

that could be generated from these stands do not 

encourage cutting. Omers let the forest sit idle in 

the belief that land values will increase, wildlife populations will remain stable and the woods continue to 

be nice for hiking and camping. The use of some 

low-quality hardwood lands for these purposes may 

be good land use and prolonged cultural inactivity 

justified. Yet many low-quality stands support low 

populations of birds and wildlife: are really not very 

nice to view and would have a greater investment 

value if the trees were more diverse and vigorous. 

Some landowners who have viable and progressive 

forest management programs ignore their low-quality 

hardwoods. To some extent, such an establishment 

of priorities may be justified in the short run. But to 

continue to lump all low-quality stands into one 

category, regardless of site and potential, and to 

ignore them is not good business. 

Mu1 tiple Use Management 

Low-quality hardwood stands have considerable 

current value for wildlife, aesthetics, and watershed 

protection, Even with great current value, the potential for improvement of multiple use values may be 

even greater than the potential improvement for timber produztion. This section will cover some of the 

problems and opportunities of multiple use. 

fifast.-Low-quality hardwood stands are currently 

a major source fcr mast in the Interior Uplands, but 

the yield in hard mast from many stands is low. I'be 

low yields are due to the advanced age of some 

oaks and bicliories and the overtopped condition of 
younger trees, Mast yields could be hproved by 

removal of culls that retard the development of good 

mast producers, RTLzen a hardwood stand is converted 

to pure pine, the area will lose most of its mastproducing capability, However, planted pine-natural 

hardwood mixtures offer substantial wildlife 

advantages. 

Browse,-Browse production in low-quality stands 

is generally low but increase with almost any 

cutting or cultural treatment. Of course, huge sections of land treated in the sarne way at the sme 

time will not benefit wildlife in the long mn, 

Den trees.-If all defective trees in low-quality 

hardwood stands were actively used by animals and 

birds as dens, nests, and hides, the forest would be 

overrtm, However, many defective trees are not desirable den trees, Squirrels prefer den trees that provide 

protection from rain, so trees with large defective 

crowns are not desirable, Similarly, trees with holes 

running from the base of the tree into the crow are 

not desirable. In most low-quality stands there are a 

few highly desirable den trees. When these trees are 

not used, it is an indication that lack of food and not 

lack of den trees limits the squirrel population. Comasiderable timber stand improvement can be imposed 

on most stands without adversely affecting the squirrel population. In fact, if the improvement enhanced 

the vigor of the stand, food supplies would likely be 

increased, 

Diversity .-While there is considerable variation in 

species, tree size, and tree quality within small tracts 

of low-quality stands, there is often a monotonous 

repetition of the same stand conditions over wide 

areas. For those who place a high priority on wildlife 

habitat and habitat diversity, carefully established 

stand treatment priorities offer outstanding opportunities for improvement. 

Low-quality hardwood stands are often found on 

csg-itical watershed areas. These watersheds need 

healthy vigorous stands with predictable longevity, 

Realistic treatment can improve the health, longevity, and predictability of these criticail stands, 

Many owners of low-quality stands hsve strorng 

emotional concerns for the appearance of their forests. With some justification, these owners fear that 

logging in any form will mar its appearance. It is true 

that the typical high-grading leaves the forest with 

broken trees, piles of slash, and a few somy residraal 

trees. Many stands need do be clearcut but some 

owners are reluctant do accept this treatmend, Ira 

most eases, better utilization will improve the appear- - 

ante of any logged-over stand. The adverse visual 

impact of a heavy forest cut can also be reduced by 

~vintertirne lagging, when the tree tops are barren. 

The development of sparse stands as described earlier 

in conjunction with intensive harvesting can provide 

an attractive forest that will have good potential for 

producing sawlogs, 

Injection is a very effective means of controlling 

undesirable trees, but standing dead trees mar the 

landscape, Where aesthetics are important, these 

trees should be felled, 

Overall, the appearance of low-quality hardwood 

stands characterized by defective and deformed trees 

is not very pleasing. Long range aesthetic values can 

be enhanced by improving stand health, vigor, and 

diversity. 

EVALUATING AND RATING LOW 

QUALITY STANDS 

Low-quality. stands are easy to recopize because 

of the presence of cull, overmature and undesirable 

trees. However, the key to management lies not so 

much in the array of low-quality trees but in trees 

that are manageable. Several factors should be considered when identifying and rating stands that reediate regeneration, those that don't have 

to be treated hmediately, and those that justify 

intermediate management. Rating these stands would 

involve collecting much of the sarne data needed for 

an inventory of good-quality stands. However, the 

way the data are grouped and emphasized may be 

different. Also, it is important to remember that the 

timber stands being evaluated are of low value and 

that every opportunity for economy in planning and 

treatment should be examined. 

Factors for Ratling Low-Qualit y Stands 

Site Quality 

To evaluate a low-quality stand, an adequate appraisal of site quality is essential, However, a site 

appraisal from the existing stand is usually difficult 

because of past cutting practices. Unless care is taken 

in the selection of sample trees, the site index value 

vvil 1 underestimate true site quality. Other methods 

of site evaluation that do not depend on direct tree 

measurements are suggested in the next chapter. 

A general mle is that as site quality increases, the 

priority for action should also increase. Low-quality 

stands should be partitioned by site quality, 
,Wanagea ble Trees 

An important step in evaluating a low-quality 

stand is to inspect the inventory of manageable trees. 

These include aff. sound trees of acceptable species, 

making up a composite of desirable and acceptable 

growing stock, 

The ntmnber, species, and distribution of manageable trees is the key to prescribing regeneration, 

cultural treatment, or postponement of action in 

low-quality stands, 

The inventory of manageable trees should be partitioned into species and size categories and identified 

as desirable or acceptable growing stock, The partitioning should show basal area and numbers of trees. 

The definitions of desirable and acceptable growing 

stock will vary substantialfy by ownership and site 

quality, Acceptable growing stock includes those 

trees that can be expected to increase in value; for 

exmple, a 12-inch oak that will produce one or two 

tie logs by the end of the rotation, Most low-quality 

stands will contain a number of acceptable trees. 

While aecept;lble trees present an opportunity for 

management, they also provide an element of uncertainty that leads to indecision, A tree should nod be 

classed as acceptable if it is likely to become undesirable within the time frame being considered. 

If the basal area of manageable trees is less than 

50 square feet per acre, the stand can be treated as 

a low-quality stand. Stands with more than 50 square 

feet of manageable trees per acre usually will be 

classified differently. 

@uEE Trees 

Cull trees are often the most predominant component of a low-quality stand. These trees are important and should be inventoried, but they should not 

be allowed to mask other redeeming features of the 

stand, The inventory should include the number and 

basal area per acre of culls. Culls that might be useful 

as den trees should also be identified. 

kindesirn ble Trees 

Undesirable trees may include poorly-formed trees 

of desirable species (usually too young or small to 

be classed as culls) as we11 as undesirable species, 

Individually, undesirable trees may not have much 

impact on decision-making for a Isw-quality stand, 

but, collectively, they are important, Some stands 

may contain 400 or more undesirable trees per acre 

but most will have 150 to 250. 

Advanee Regeneration 

Some Bow-quality stands have large numbers of 

desirable small saplings and seedlings. These trees 

are likely to be found in stands that have been cut 

over recently. Often they are losing vigor and stem 

quality as the canopy doses, The number and distribution of these seedlings and saplings should be 

recorded, Due to a tendency to occur in efumps, 

numbers per acre can be misleading, 

Age 

Tree ages can be impcrtant in stand management 

decisions, However, overall age determination in lowquality stands has little value, so age estimates 

should be made only for the manageable trees. By 

restricting age determination to these trees, an accurate determination for individual trees can be made 

using ringcounting of cores. The variety of ages and 

sizes of trees that occurs in low-quality stands makes 

even this procedure impractical on a large scale, A 

solution is do become proficient at estimating ages 

from appearance, Age appraisers can become reasonably accurate through training and experience. 

A word of caution. Even an experienced forester 

cannot estimate tree age in low-quality stands without specific training. The average forester will almost 

always underestimate ages of intermediate trees, 

sometimes by as much as 100 percent, and will tend 

to overestimate the age of many larger or mature 

trees. Age estimates within 20 percent are accurate 

enough for most decisions. However, the age of trees 

to be used for site-indexing should be established 

by ring count. 

Rating Low-Quality Stands 

Treatment for a single low-quality stand can be 

prescribed by evaluating relevant stand and site factors and managerial goals. However, more than one 

stand is usually involved in forest planning, and 

treatment priorities among stands must be established. The following stand rating system will aid 

evaluation of individual stands and provide ;a means 

for ranking several stands: 

I. Identify, delineate, and inspect the stand. 

Gather inventory data. Determine causes for 

the poor; condition of stand, (&fast tallying systems for point or plot sampling can be readily 

adapted do provide the foflowing information,) 

2, Develop a per-acre profile of relevant factorsSpecies of manageable trees - $ -9 - 

Xumber of manageable trees 2 14" dbh - 

est. age 

Number of manageable trees => bi'qbh but less 

than 14'L-- est. age _____ 

Number of manageable trees > 2"? ddbh but less 

than 6" - -- est, age - - - 

Number of desirable stems less than 

2'"bh - 
Basal area of manageable trees - 

Site index - 

Number of culls - 

Basal area of culls - 

Number of undesirable trees - 

Basal area of undesirable trees - 

Total number of trees - 

Total basal area - 

3. Consider treatment options. There are essentially three broad options available fur treatment 

of low-quality stands, e.g. regeneration, intemediate management, or postponement of action. 

A. Regeneration. The need for complete harvest 

and natural regeneration will increase as 

(I) number and basal area of manageable 

trees decrease, (2) number and basal area of 

culls and undesirable trees increase, (3) site 

index increases, (4) age of manageable trees 

increases, and (5) desirable advance regeneration increases. 

If conversion to pine is a management option, the weighting in favor of complete harvest and conversion will increase when (1) 

site index for pine ranges between 70 and 85, 

(2) sources of desirable natural hardwood 

regeneration decrease, and (3) number of intermediate and smaller hardwoods decreases. 

B. Intermediate management. Opportunities for 

intermediate management including the removal of a portion of the stand and the 

retention of a residual stand will increase as 

(1 ) basal area of immature manageable trees 

increases, (2) age of manageable trees in 

relation to size decreases, (3) number of undesirable plus cull trees decreases, and (4) 

site index increases. 

C. Postponement of action. Postponement will 

be favored as (1) site index decreases, (2) 

number of large manageable trees increases, 

(3) number of small undesirable trees increases, (4) out-of-pocket costs for treatment increase, and (5) desirable advance 

regeneration decreases. 

4. Develop stand recommendations. 

A. Based on the stand profile and the preceding 

treatment options, list the three major treatment options in order as they seem to apply 

to the stand. If only one stand is involved, 

the major recommendation has been made, 

B. JVhen more than one stand is involved, a 

stand ranking by treatment is needed so that 

priorities for treatment can be established 

and compared. 

A simple but highly subjective ranking system can 

be used where each treatment for each stand can be 

assigned a numerical value from I to 10. 

For example, consider a stand with the follovving 

per-acre profile : 

Stand number - I 

Size 15 acres 

Species of manageable trees white oak, black oak, 

yellow-poplar 

Number of manageahle trees > 14" dbh - 

18; est. 

age 110 

Number of manageable trees > 6" dbh but less 

than 14"dbh P 

36; est. age 70 

Number of manageable trees 2" dbh but less 

than 6" dbh 46; est. age 50 

Basal area of manageable trees 40 sq. ft. 

Number of desirable stems under 2" dbh 100 

Site index: 65 for white oak, 75 for yellow-poplar 

Number of culls 14 

Basal area of culla2 sq. ft. 

Number of undesirable trees 130 

Basal area of undesirable trees 26 

Total number of trees over 2" 'h 242 

Total basal area 78 - 

- 

The treatment ranking for such a stand could be: 

Treatment Priority 

Regenera tion 7 

Intermediate management 5 

Postponement 4 

The priority assignment for each treatment will 

differ for each forest property depending on the range 

of conditions, goals, etc. In this case, a '7 was assigned 

to regeneration because of the advanced age of the 

few manageable trees, medium site quality, and a 

sizeable number of undesirable trees and culls. 

A medium priority 5 was assigned to intermediate 

management primarily because of the 82 manageable 

trees 2 to 14 inches dbh. The rating is no higher 

because of the advanced age of these trees, the medium site and the number of undesirable trees. 

The rating for postponement is no higher than 4 

because of the age of the larger trees, It is not lower 

because of the relative sparseness of desirable trees 

less than 2 inches dbh that would contribute to regenerating the area and because of the small number 

of trees (36) under 14 inches dbh that could grow 

into sawtimber-size in the near future, 

C. Stand evaluations and treatment ranking 

must, where appr~priate~ take into account 

multiple use needs and values. Rankings can 

be adapted to consider needs for mast, 

browse, diversity, etc. 

5. Compare stand priorities. After the stands in a 

forest property have been evaluated and rated, 

using the above procedure or a similar method, 

they can be ranked fur treatment priority. An 
array of stands such as the following and their 

treatment ratings can be used to establisli 

priorities for treatment. 

Stand I Stand 2 Stand 3 

(15 Acres) (1 2 Acres) (21 Acres) 

Rank Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating 

Regeneration. 1 7 2 6 2 5 

Intermediate 

Management 2 5 17 3 3 

Postponement 3 4 3 2 16 

In the above case, assume that the imaginary ratings and rankings apply to real stands in a forest 

property. Assme further that management can regenerate only one stand in the time frame and might 

consider intermediate action in one stand. In this 

case, regeneration would be recommended for stand I, 

intermediate management for stand 2, and postponement of treatment in stand 3. 

The treatments for stands 1 and 3 are clear. Stand 

1 will be completely harvested and regenerated in an 

appropriate manner. Stand 3 will be evaluated at a 

later date. However, the intermediate action in stand 

2 should be implemented only after careful evaluation 

of the stand profile and the cost-benefits of my 

intermediate activity clearly established. 

If the priority ratings do not establish clear differences between stands, then stand profiles can be 

reviewed and rankings revised. Althought many lowquality stands may appear to be similar, stand profiles will often show substantial differences. As stand 

raters become proficient in developing stand profiles, 

these differences become more apparent. If after 

careful evaluation the differences in stand ratings 

are not great, the sequence of operation may not 

be important. 

A word of caution. A simplistic rating system 

should not be substituted for common sense and experience. Factors such as accessibility, markets, need 

for regulation, and multiple use values should always 

be considered. 

EVALUATING SITE PRODUCTI[TIlETU 

IN LOW-QUALITY STANDS 

Height-Age Curves 

Management of low-quality hardwood stands requires an assessment of site productivity. A commonly used measure is site index, described as the 

average height of dominant and co-dominant trees 

in a stand at an arbitrarily chosen age, usually 50 

years. Trees suitable for site index determinations 

must be dominant or co-dominant (never overtopped) 

and undamaged. For the most part, few if any trees 

in low-quality stands of the Interior Uplands meet 

these criteria because of past land use. 

Use of site index also requires appropriate curves 

for the desired species and geographic location. 

Schnurk (1937) curves were developed for the entire 

upland oak region, including the Interior Uplands 

f fig. f 0). If sites are encountered with indices greater 

than 85, use Olson's (1959) curves for upland oaks 

developed for the Virginia-Carolina Piedmont and the 

Southern Appalachian Mountains. 

0 20 40 60 8 0 100 

TOTAL AGE (YEARS) 

AGE (YEARS) 

Figure 10.-Top: Site inde.x curues for upland oak iFrorn 

Schnur 19.37). Bottom: Site index curues for 

yelloul-poplar in fhe Piedmont of Carolina and 

Virginia (From Beck 19621"). 
Like the oaks, site eurves for yellow-poplar have 

been constructed for the entire species range 

(&leGarthy 1933). These curves may not reflect the 

height-age relationships of poplar growing in the Interior Uplands, Beck (1962) prepared site index 

cumes for the Southern Appalachian %fountains and 

the Piedmmt Plateau (fig, 101, Compared with 

AMeCartby% curves, the mountain curves were significantly differeak but the Piedmont's svere similar, 

In general, RIcCarthyk curves underestimate site 

index at young ages and overestimate at older ages 

when applied do mountain stands. Piedmont eurves 

are probably best for the Interior Uplands. 

No site curves for other upland hardwoods have 

been developed for the Interior Uplands. Curves prepared for other regions should be used cautiously 

(Hampf 1965). 

County Soil Surveys 

County soil surveys with woodland interpretations 

can be used to determine site productivity. However, 

many counties do not have soil surveys so managers 

may have to look elsewhere, 

Produetiviky Based on Landforms 

For stands lacking trees suitable for the direct 

estimation of site index and/or those in counties 

lacking a soil survey with woodland interpretations, 

use a site classification and evaluation system based 

on landforms developed by Smalley (1978, 1979a). 

Smalley divided the Interior Uplands into six regions 

(fig. 11). Currently, guides for four regions are available (Smalley 1979b, 1980, 1982a, 1982b). Detailed 

instructions for using the system appear in each 

guide. 

To apply the system, users are required to identify 

the geographic region and sub-region of a specific 

stand ( fig, 11) , Finally, users must identify specific 

landtypes where the stands in question are found by 

matching landtype descfiptions witkt existing land- - 

forms, Estimates of site index and mean annual 

growth in cubic feet are listed for selected tree species 

for each landtype. Site index and yield information 

in these guides is the best available but in some cases 

is based on limited data. 

Users may find that their direct measurements of 

site index on a specific landtype differ from the pubfished regional. values. In this situation, users should 

rely on the direct measurements, Users may also 

encounter considerable variation in direct measurement of site index within a landtype, especially if 

it contains inclusions of other landtypes too small 

to recomize, 

Users may be surprised to find that adjacent landtypes have the same estimated site index for a given 

species. Productivity was only one of several criteria 

for defining landtypes. Differences in the severity of 

one or more management problems-plant competition, seedling mortality, equipment limitations, erosion hazard, and windthrow hazard--necessitated the 

recognition of a separate landtype. 

Productivity values for selected tree species on 

those landtypes most likely to support low-quality 

hardwood stands have been exerpted from the four 

published site evaluation guides (tables 2-5). The 

category of upland oaks represents an undiff erentiated group consisting of one or more of the following 

oak species-black, scarlet, chestnut, southern red, 

northern red, and chinkapin, White oak can also be 

included if a site index value is not shown separately. 

Site index values in parenthesis are estimated, i.e., 

they were not derived from published data. 
E'imre 11.-Regions of the Cumbertand Plateau and Highknd Rim physiographic provinces covered by the site eifassificalion 

and eualuation system based on landform (From Snzalley 1982)- 
Table 2.-Side index of selected pines and hardwoods growing on Landtypes likely to support low-quality stands on the 

Southern Cumberland Plateau 1 

Site index (base age 50) 

Landtype number and name Lobloll y Shortleaf Virginia White Red Yellowpine pine pine oak oaks poplar 

Subregions 1, 2, and %Sandstone Plateaus 

1 Narrow ridges and convex 

upper slopes 70 

2 Broad undulating uplands 75 

3 Broad ridges-Xorth aspect 75 

4 Broad ridges-South aspect 70 

5 North slopes 70 

6 South slopes 60 

7 Sandstone glades, rock outcrops, 

and plateau edges 

11 Sandstone escarpments, talus slopes, 

and benches-South aspect 

12 Lower slopes, benches and spur 

ridges-North aspect 

13 Lower slopes, benches and spur 

ridges-South aspect 

Subregion &Shale Hills 

14 Narrow ridges and convex 

upper slopes 60 60 65 55 55 

15 Broad ridges-North aspect 80 65 70 65 65 (80) 

16 Broad ridges-South aspect 70 55 60 55 55 

17 North slopes 70 60 60 60 60 (90) 

18 South slopes 65 55 55 50 50 

19 Shale rockland and shallow soils 60 50 50 

1 From Smalley, 1979b. 
Table 3.-Site index of selected pines and hardwoods growing on landtypes likely to support loa-qualit3~ stands on the 

Mid-Cumberland Plateau 1 

Site index (base age 50) 

Loblolly Shortleaf Virginia Nrhite \Vhite Upland Yellowpine pine pine pine oak oaks poplar Landtype number and nam 

Subregions I and 2-True Plateau and Walden Ridge 

1 Broad undulating sandstone uplands 75 

2 Broad sandstone ridge-north aspect 70 

3 Broad sandstone ridges-south aspect 65 

4 Narrow sandstone ridges and convex 

upper slopes 70 

5 North standstone slopes 70 

6 South sandstone slopes 60 

7 Sandstone outcrops and shallow soils 

8 Broad shale ridges-north aspect 80 

9 Broad shale ridges-south aspect (70) 

10 Upper shale slopes-north aspect 75 

11 Upper shale slopes-south aspect (65) 

12 Lower shale slopes-north aspect 85 

13 Lower shale slopes-south aspect 80 

17 Plateau escarpment and upper sandstone 

slopes and benches-south aspect (75) 

18 Lower limestone slopes, benches, and 

spur ridges-north aspect 

19 Lower limestone slop~es, benches, and 

spur ridges-south aspect (65) 

20 Limestone outcrops and shallow soils 

Subregion 3-Strongly Dissected Southern Portion 

I Broad undulating sandstone uplands 

2 Broad sandstone ridges-north aspect 

3 Broad sandstone ridges-south aspect 

4 Narrow sandstone ridges and convex 

upper slopes 

5 North sandstone slopes 

6 South sandstone slopes 

7 Sandstone outcrops and shallow soils 

17 Plateau escarpment and upper salidstone 

slopes and benehes-south aspect 

18 Lower limestone slopes, benches, and 

spur ridges-north aspect 

19 Lower limestone slopes, benches, and 

spur ridges-south aspect 

20 Limestone outcrops and shallow soils 
Table $.---Side index of selected pines and hardwoods groxing opt landtypes likely to support low-quality stands orz the 

IYesterrt Highlad Rim and Pennyroyal 1 

Site index (base age 50) 

Lobloll y Shortleaf in B%itcg: Upland YellowLandtype pine pine pine oak oaks poplar number and name 

Subreg.iop I--Highland Rirn Plateau 

1 x";arrow ridges and convex upper slopes 

2 Broad undulating Coastal Plain uplands 

3 Broad ridges---north aspect 

4 Broad ridges-south aspect 

5 Cherty north slopes 

6 Cherty south slopes 

7 Shaly north slopes 

8 Shaly south slopes 

11 Lifestone rockiiand and shallow soils 

12 Broad silty uplands 

13 Broad undulating uplands 

14 Broad ridges-north aspect 

15 Broad ridges-south aspect 

Subregion 2-Highland Rim-Nashville Basin Transition 

1 Narrow ridges and convex upper slopes 65 

11 Limestone rockland and shallow soils 

12 Broad silty uplands 80 

16 North slopes 75 

17 South slopes 65 

20 Low broad ridges 90 

21 North slopes and narrow ridges 80 

22 South slopes and narrow ridges 70 

Subregion 3-Karst Plain 

11 Limestone rockland and shallow soils 

12 Broad silty uplands 80 

23 Broad undulating uplands 80 

24 Broad ridges-north aspect 80 

25 Broad ridges-south aspect 70 

26 Narrow limestone ridges and 

knoblike hills 

29 North slopes 80 

30 South slopes 70 

33 Broad ridges-north aspect 

34 Broad ridges-south aspect 

35 North slopes 

36 South slopes 

37 Broad undulating uplands 

38 Broad ridges-north aspeet 

39 Broads ridges-south aspect 

40 hyorth slopes 

41 South slopes 

- -- 

I From SmaIley, 1980. 
Table 5.-Site index of selected pines and hardwoods growing on landtypes likely to support low-quality stands on the 

hstern Highkand Rim and Pennyroyal 1 

Site index (base age 50) 

Loblolly Sbrtleaf Virginia White Upland Yetlowpine pine pine oak oaks poplar Landtype number and nanle 

Subregion I-Highland Rim Plateau 

1 Narrow ridges and convex upper slope3 

2 Broad ridgeenorth aspect 

3 Broad ridge+south aspect 

4 CherL~i north slopes 

5 Cherty south slopes 

6 Shaly north slopes 

7 Shaly south slopes 

10 Limestone rockland and sballfiw soils 

11 Shale rockland and shallow soils 

12 Broad silty uplands 

13 Broad undulating redlands 

14 Hilly redlands-north aspect 

15 Hilly redlands-south aspect 

16 Redland slopes-north aspect 

17 Redland slopes-south aspect 

20 Narrow limestone ridges and 

knoblike hills 

Subregion 2-Transition to the Nashville Basin 

1 Narrow ridges and convex upper slopes 

10 Limestone roekland and shallow soils 

11 Shale rockland and shallow soils 

12 Broad silty uplands 

22 North slopes 

23 South slopes 

26 Broad undulating ridges 

27 Broad ridges-north aspect 

28 Broad ridges-south aspeet 

29 North slopes 

30 South slopes 

Subregion 3-Transition to the Bluegrass 

10 Limestone rockland and shallow soils 

11 Shale rockland and shallow soils 

31 Crests of knobs and narrow ridges 

32 Broad ridges-north aspect 

33 Broad ridges-south aspect 

34 Upper north slopes 

35 Upper south slopes 

36 Lower north slopes 

37 Lower south slopes and crests of 

Zow knobs and narrow ridges 

Subregion 4-Moulton Valley 

1 Narrow ridges and eonvex upper slopes 

2 Broad ridges-north aspect 

3 Broad ridges-south aspect 

4 Cherty north slopes 

5 Cherty south slopes 

10 Limestone rockland and shallow soils 

13 Broad undulating uplands 

14 Hilly redlaads-north aspect 

I5 Hilly redlands-south aspeet 

16 Redland slopt-s-north aspect 

17 Redland slopes-south aspect 

29 Narrow ilimestonre ridges and 

knoblike hills 

40 Undulating Coastal Plain ilipl;mds 

41 Broad undulating valleys 

I From Smatley, 198233. 
A CHECKLIST FOR MANAGING LOW 

QUALITY STANDS 

I. Identify or delineate the stand. 

2, Obtain from personal visitation and inventory 

data a general feel for the area. 

a. Observe variations in stem distribution, 

b. Obselrve va~ation in landtypes andlor apparent site quality. 

c. Study how the stand or area relates to adjacent or nearby stands or areas. 

d. Try to determine why the stand is low-quality. 

3. Collect data necessary to develop a profile of the 

stand. 

a. Basal area of manageable trees (include acceptable plus desirable growing stock). 

b. Basal area and numbers per-acre of culls and 

undesirable trees. 

c. Determine age of manageable trees. 'Take increment cores andlor make estimates as 

needed to determine age of trees on the area. 

d. Observe occurrence and distribution of advance regneration. 

4. Collect data needed to describe the site. 

a, Establish site index from height-age curves if 

possible. Use only those trees that have always been dominant or co-dominant. Do not 

use trees that have been adversely impacted 

by fire, insects, disease or logging or that have 

been overtopped. 

b. Identify and delineate the landtypes included 

in tlkc area and refer to fig. 11 and tables 2, 3, 

4, or 5 for site index estimates. 

5. Rate the stand (as outlined in the chapter on 

Evaluating and Rating Low-Quality Stands or 

use some similar system) for ( 1 ) regeneration, 

(2) i~termediate management, or (3) postponement of action. Each of tho above options should 

be rated for each stand for the setting of priorities 

between stands. 

6. Using the rating system, establish treatment 

priorities between stands or areas, In many eases, 

large acreages of low-quality stands may need the 

same treatment? but owner constraints may limit 

the acreage that can be treated at one time, henee 

-the acreage must be partitioned and priorities 

established. 

7, After stands are rated and priorities established, 

consider the options or actions as appropriate, 

keeping in mind that costs are a major constraint 

and economy should he the watchword, 

8. For stands do he regenerated: 

a, Harvest and utilization should be as complete 

and thorough as practical, Each unwanted tree 

that is utilized is one less stem to be caank.ro%led, 

Ba. Recommendatim for conversion to 9ob1011y, 

shortleaf or white pine or for natural hardv~~ooCQ regeneration should be based on the 

owner" objective, site capability and stand 

condition. Do not discount the possible advantages of a mixed planted pine-natural hardwood stand, 

e, Site preparation should be geared to owner's 

expectation from the new stand and his ability 

to pay for it. In general, the more intensive 

the preparation, the better the new stand will 

be, site preparation funds are li~ted, 

expend them where they will pay the greatest 

return. Highest priority should be given to the 

control of vegetation that will interfere most 

with the new stand. The order of treatment 

might be (1) control large culls, (2) control 

intermediate trees of undesirable species, (3) 

lop unmerchantable intermediate stems of desirable species, and (4) control smaller poles 

and saplings, Remember-try to get as much 

site preparation as possible accomplished as 

part of the harvest. 

9, For stands that are to receive intermediate treatment : 

a. Identify the residual stand. Identify management goals for the residual stand. 

b. Harvest as much of the non-residua1 stand as 

practical. Avoid logging damage to residuals. 

c. Control undesirable stems that cannot be harvested, Large culls should definitely be controlled at this dime. fidesirable intermediate 

trees may or may not need to be controlled, 

depending upon the size and distribution of 

the desirable residual trees. 

d, &fake definite plans for future treatment. If 

the residual stand is very sparse and made up 

mostly of small sawtimber and larger intermediate trees, a final harvest may be projected 

in 10-20 years. If the residual stand is made 

up of numerous poles and intermediate trees, 

the next harvest is likely to be 20-40 years in 

the future. 

10. For stands where action is to be postponed: 

a. Make plans for future treatment. 

b. Reconfirm priorities between the stand and 

the other stands where action is to be proposed. 

11, Don% forget multiple use values. Adapt prescriptions to fit owner" objectives, 

12, Final thoughts, 

a, You are dealing with an asssrdmen"cf poor 

stands that have resulted from aceumuIaded 

neglect and mistreatment, Be confident Ghat 

atmost any sehof treatments that you rationally prescribe will result in an. improved eondition and increased produetividy~ 

b. The costs of ceritarran act7t71ty may be a serious 

management deterrent, Use imagination and 

innovation to reduce out-0s"-pocket costs, 

c, This guide provides simplistic SO~U~~OMS to 

complex problems, You cannot wait for the 

"final"' answerp., Proceed -with confidenee, 
LITERATURE CITED 

Auchmoody, L, IR. Intensive culture of black cherry, 

South. Lumberman 227 (2824) : 113-115; 1973. 

Beck, L). E, Yellow-poplar site index curves. Res. 

Note SE-180. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest 

Experiment Station; 1962. 2 p, 

Birdsey, Richard A. Tennessee forest resources. Resource Bull, New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1982, (In press). 

Carmean, Willard H.; Boyce, Stephen 6. Hardwood 

log quality in relation Lo site quality. Res. Pap. 

NC-103. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agiculture, Forest Sewice, North Central Forest Experiment Station; 1973. 7 p. 

Dale, &'fartin E. Growth and yield predictions for upland oak stands 10 years after initial thinning. Res. 

Pap. NE-241. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station; 1972. 21 p. 

Hampf, Frederick E. Site index curves for some forest 

species in the eastern United States. Upper Darby, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Region; 1965. 43 p. 

Ksch, Peter. Harvesting energy chips from forest 

residues-some concepts for the southern pine region. Gen, Tech. Rep. SO-33. New Orleans, LA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1980. 24 p. 

Loftis, David L. Preharvest herbicide control of undesirable vegetation in Southern Appalachian hardwoods. South. J. Appl. For. 2(2) : 51-54; 1978. 

McCarthy, E. F. Yellow-poplar characteristics, 

growth, and management. Tech. Bull. No. 356. 

Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1933. 58 p. 

McGee, Charles E. Expanding options for reforestation of the Cumberland Plateau. South. J. Appl. 

For. 4 (4) : 168-162; 1980. 

McGee, Charles E. Planting results on the Cumberland Plateau. In: Seedling physiology and 

growth problems in oak planting: Proceedings of 

the workshop; 1979 November 6-7; Columbia, MO 

(abstracts). Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-62. St. Paul, MN: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

North Central Forest Experiment Station; 1981a. 

24 p. 

McGee, Charles E. Response of overtopped white oak 

to release. Res. Note SO-273. New Orleans, LA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1981b. 4 p. 

Mills, Thomas J. Cost effectiveness of the 1974 Forestry Incentives Program. Res. Pap. RM-175. Fort 

Collins, CO: U. S, Department of Agr?'culdure, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station; 1976, 23 p. 

Moyers, George B, Management of Eastern white 

pine in the South. In: ilufanagement of pines of the 

f nterior South : Proceedings of the symposium; 

1978 November 7-43; Knoxville, TN. Tech. Pub. 

SA-TP-2. Atlanta, GA: U.S. DeparLment of Agriculture, Forest Sewice, Southeastern Area, State 

and Private Forestley.; 1979: 58-62, 

Olson, David J,, Jr, Site index curves for upland oaks 

in the Southeast. Res. Note 125. Asheville, 966: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Sewice, 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station; 1959, 

2 P= 

Reynolds, James W.; Schroeder, James G. System 

6-a way to use small logs to make grade lumber, 

South. Lumberman 234(2897) : 9-10; 19'77. 

Russell, T. E. Planting and seeding shortleaf pine. 

In: Management of pines of the Interior South: 

Proceedings of the symposium; 1978 November 

7-8; Knoxville, TN. Tech. Pub. SA-TP-2. Atlanta, 

GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry; 1979: 7-13. 

Russell, Thomas E. Planting yellow-poplar-where 

we stand today. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-17. New Orleans, LA: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 

1977. 8 p. 

Sander, Ivan L. Manager's handbook for oaks in the 

north central states. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-37. St. 

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station; 

1977. 35 p. 

Schlesinger, R. C.; Funk, D. T. Manager's handbook 

for black walnut. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-38. St* Paul, 

RfN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station; 

1977. 22 p. 

Schnur, G. Luther. Yield, stand, and volume tables 

for even-aged upland oak forests. Tech. Bull. 560. 

Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1937. 88 p. 

Smith, Henry W., Jr.; Baird, Charles 0. Results of 

thinning in a 27-year-old eastern white pine plantation on the southern Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee, In: Management of pines of the Interior 

South: Proceedings of the symposium; 1978 November 7-8; Knoxville, TN. Tech. Pub. SA-TP-2. 

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry; 1979: 143-150. 

Smalley, G. W. Classification and evaluation of forest 

sites in the Interior Uplands. In : Pope, P. E. (ed. ) : 

Proceedings second central hardwood forest con- 
ference; 1978 November 14-16; West Lafayette, 

IN: Purdue University; 1978 : Addendum p. 1-20. 

Smalley, G. W. Classification and evaluation of forest 

sites for timber production: Introduction of a new 

system for classifying forest sites based on the physical features of the landscape. In: Forest soils and 

site quality: Proceedings of a workshop; 1979 May 

8-9; ~ubbm, AL: Auburn University; 1979a: 

28-47. 

Smalley, Glendon W. Classification and evaluation 

of forest sites on the southern Cumberland Plateau. 

Gen. Tech, Rep. SO-23. New Orleans, LA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 197933, 59 p. 

Smalley, Glendon W. Growth and yield of shortleaf 

pine plantations. In: Management of pine of the 

Interior South: Proceedings of the symposium; 

1978 November 7-8; Knoxville, TN. Tech. Pub. 

SA-TP-2. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Area, State 

and Private Forestry; 1979c: 28-47. 

Smalley, Glendon W. Classification and evaluation of 

forest sites on the western Highland Rim and 

Pennyroyal, Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-30. New Orleans, 

LA: 1i.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1980. 

120 p. 

Smalley, Glendon w. Classification and evaluation of 

forest sites on the %{id-Cumberland Plateau. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SO-38. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1982a. 58 p. 

Smalley, Glendon W, Classification and evaluation of 

forest sites on the eastern Highland Rim and 

Pennyroyal. Gen. Tech. Rep. New Orleans, LA: 

US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1982b. (In 

press). 

Trimble, George It., Jr, Cull development under allaged management of hardwood stands. Res. Pap. 

NE-10. Broornall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; 1963. 10 p. 

Vlilliams, Robert D. Planting methods and treatments for black walnut seedlings. Res. Pap. 

NC-107. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station; 1974. 6 p. 

aU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1=-669-085/L.i 0 
McGee, Charles E. Low quality hardwood stands. Opportunities for management in the interior uplands. Gen. Tech Rep. 

SO-40. New Orleans, LA : U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1982. 

22 p. 

Discusses primary causes of low-quality hardwood stands 

and offers management options for regenerating or improving these stands. 

Keywords: Upland hardwoods, conversion, natural regemeration, high-grading, clearcutting, sparse stands.