United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Incidence and Impact of

Damage to Tennessee’s

Southern Forest

Experiment Station Timber, 1982

New Orleans,

Louisiana

Resource Bulletin

so-1 10

September 1986

Paul A. Mistretta, Carl V. Bylin, and Roger Baker
SUMMARY

The Southern Forest Experiment Station in Starkville, MS, periodically

inventories and evaluates forest resources in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana,

Mississippi, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, and Texas. Survey data were

collected in 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982 by the Forest Inventory and Analysis

work unit of the Southern Forest Experiment Station as part of the fifth

inventory of Tennessee’s forests. Considerably more information was gathered

for this inventory than in previous data collections, making possible the publication of this specialized report summarizing information on agents that damage timber in Tennessee’s forests.
Incidence and Impact of Damage to Tennessee’s

Timber, 1982

Paul A. Mistretta, Carl V. Bylin, and Roger Baker

INTRODUCTION

During the periodic inventory of Tennessee’s forests

conducted from 1979 to 1982 by the Southern Forest

Experiment Station, Starkville, MS, damage to live

trees on sample plots was noted, and, where possible,

a cause or damaging agent was specified. Since a plot

is visited only once during the survey, and that visit

can be at any time of the year, only agents that produce durable symptoms or signs of damage were reported.

Since the data reported here were gathered by people trained and experienced in forest inventory, not

entomology or pathology, qualified people from Region 8, State and Private Forestry, Forest Pest Management, trained the field crews to use a damageidentification handbook (Anderson et al. 1980) before

going out on the field survey. Specimen kits and forms

were provided to crew members for submission of

damage samples they might be unable to identify in

the field. During the survey, field checks were made

to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the recording and collection of the data.

Agents selected to be included in the survey were

required to be (1) easily identifiable, (2) present yearround, and (3) present on trees at least 1 inch in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). Therefore, small

trees with problems such as brown spot and trees of all

sizes with damage such as defoliation (which is not

apparent in winter) are not included in this report.

There are several reasons why this report does not

completely assess the incidence and impact of all damage observed in Tennessee’s forests. First, damage is

caused by a wide variety of agents; some are easily

recognized, others are more difficult to identify. The

data presented here for damaging agents that are easily identified and persistent, such as stem and branch

rust, are reliable. The data for damaging agents that

are more difficult to recognize, such as root rot, are

underestimated.

Second, certain types of damage can only be observed during part of the year; these have not been

included in this survey in a dedicated category. For

example, defoliation caused by insects is only evident

at the time of year during which trees normally have

leaves, and insects are active. Since survey crews

work year-round, defoliation data could not be consistently collected and is recorded only as “other insect”

when observed during the summer.

Third, some damaging agents cause trees to die

rapidly; these trees were recorded in a mortality (not

a damage) category. For instance, trees attacked by

bark beetles in summer tend to die rapidly. If the

survey crew found a tree with evidence of bark beetle

activity, there was a good chance that it was already

dead and was tallied as such. Thus, many bark beetle

damaged trees would not be recorded in the “Bark

Beetle” damage category.

And finally, this was the first survey by the Southern Station crews where these detailed damage codes

were recorded. Some inconsistency was seen in the

early application of the codes.

Data presented in this Bulletin were compiled for

this report in a separate computer run. Similarity will

be seen between acres of forest types, timber removals, and mortality by species when compared to

numbers presented in “Forest Statistics for Tennessee

Counties” (USDA For. Serv. 1982). Differences in accumulation, definition changes, and rounding will account for the differences in numbers presented.

In spite of these problems the survey gives a good

picture of the relative incidence of the preselected,

easily recognized damage types (or agents) that persist year round.

SAMPLING PROCEDURE

The sampling procedure used for this inventory was

designed to provide reliable statistics on a statewide

basis or for large groups of counties. It also accurately

summarizes species having a relatively large total

volume in the State. However, errors associated with

relatively minor species, like cottonwood or pondcypress, exceed those for such major species as loblolly

pine.

Paul Mistretta is a Supervisory Plant Pathologist with Southern Begion, Forest Pest Management, Pineville, LA. Carl V. Bylin is a Forester

with Southern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Starkville, MS. Roger Baker was formerly a Range Scientist, Southern

Forest Experiment Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis, Starkville, MS. (Currently, Soil Scientist, Southern Forest Experiment Station,

Forest Hydrology Laboratory, Oxford, MS.)

1
The data on forest acreage and timber volume in

this report were obtained by a sampling method involving a forest-nonforest classification on aerial photographs linked to ground measurements of trees at

sample locations. The sample locations were at the

intersections of a grid of lines spaced 3 miles apart. In

Tennessee, 123,516 photographic classifications were

made and 6,941 ground locations were visited. The

initial estimates of forest area obtained from aerial

photographs were adjusted on the basis of the ground

check.

A cluster of 10 variable-radius plots was installed

at each ground sample location. Each sample tree on

the variable-radius plots represented 3.75 square feet

of basal area per acre. Trees less than 5.0 inches in

diameter were tallied on fixed-radius plots around the

plot centers. Trees on a subsample of plots were measured in detail to obtain data for calculating timber

volumes.

Plots established during the fourth survey of Tennessee (Murphy 1972) were remeasured during this

(the fifth) survey to determine the elements of change,

and these remeasured plots are the basis for estimating growth, mortality, removals, and changes in land

use.

COMPUTATION METHODS

Limits on size classes of trees were: saplings, 1.0 to

4.9 inches d.b.h.; softwood poles, 5.0 to 8.9 inches

d.b.h.; hardwood poles, 5.0 to 10.9 inches d.b.h.; softwood sawtimber 29.0 inches d.b.h.; and hardwood

sawtimber ~11.0 inches d.b.h. Volume equations

based on measurements of standing trees in Tennessee were used to compute merchantable and total

cubic volume.

Percentage of loss in an individual tree was estimated in the field. Volume loss by pest/tree combination and total volume loss attributable to all agents

damaging a species were subsequently computed.

Data on percent incidence of damage do not imply

total economic loss; only a part of the volume in cull

would fail to qualify for some commercial use, such as

firewood. Cull includes loss due to crooks, limbs,

decay, missing wood, sweep, large forks, and sections

of the bole too rough to be used as pulpwood or sawtimber. The volume loss was determined by totaling

the volume of cull by species.

Mortality could not be attributed to specific damaging agents because it was often impossible to determine the cause of death. In many cases, a tree which

had been tallied in the fourth survey 10 years earlier

(Murphy 1972) was simply missing. It was possible,

however, to determine volume loss due to mortality

for each tree species on each plot. Accumulating total

volume per dead tree by tree species resulted in the

total volume loss for poles and sawtimber by tree species. Economic impact was determined by multiplying

the total wood fiber and quality loss for each tree

species by the stumpage value per unit. These dollar

estimates were taken from an average of a sample of

timber sales in Tennessee in 1982.

INCIDENCE OF DAMAGING AGENTS

Tennessee has 12,863,200 acres of commercial

forest, and most of the acreage is in the oak-hickory,

mixed hardwood, oak, Virginia pine, and Virginia

pine/hardwood forest types. Table 1 shows the acreage

in the various stand-size classes and forest types. The

remaining tables in this report show how much of the

timber resource was damaged and the agents responsible for the damage. Remember, the term “damage”

refers to an injury the tree has suffered. A damaged

tree is still living. The term “cull” as used in this

report includes damage due to crooks, limbs, decay,

missing wood, sweep, large forks, and volume in sections of the bole that are too rough to be utilized as

pulpwood or as sawtimber.

Tables 2 and 3 show percentage of trees damaged,

by size class and tree species. Overall, hardwoods had

more damage than softwoods, and more sawtimber

was damaged than poletimber or saplings. Eastern

red cedar, Virginia pine, and shortleaf pine were the

most abundant softwood species in Tennessee, and 25

percent or more of both poletimber- and sawtimbersize trees of all three species were damaged.

The percentage of saplings damaged was generally

much higher for hardwoods than softwoods. In most

hardwood species, 40 to 70 percent of the saplings

were damaged. The most frequently damaged saplings were basswood and black walnut. Hardwood

poletimber was damaged more often than saplings

but less often than sawtimber. All of the cottonwood

poletimber seen showed damage.The most frequently

damaged hardwood sawtimber trees were beech, soft

and hard maples, and blackgum. More than 70 percent of the trees in these species were damaged.

Table 4 shows the incidence of damage to various

softwood hosts. The most common causes of softwood

damage were suppression and stagnation, weather,

and logging. These types of damage were reported for

almost all of the softwoods. Fusiform (caused by

Cronurtium quercuum (Berk.) Miy. ex Shirai f. sp.

fusiforme), comandra (caused by Cronartium comandrue Pk.), and eastern gall rust (caused by Cronurtium quercuum (Berk.) Miy. ex Shirai f. sp. quercuum) are lumped into the category gall rusts. These

rusts were recorded only if the gall was on or within

12 inches of the main stem. If galls farther out on

limbs had been recorded, the reported incidence of

rust would have been much greater. Incidence of these

three diseases was significantly lower than expected,

affecting less than 1 percent of the loblolly, shortleaf,

2
and Virginia pines. Basal defect, branch stubs, and

dieback were also commonly reported on softwoods.

Bark beetles are considered to be the most serious

insect pest of the pine in the Southeast; however, no

bark beetle damage on live softwood trees was reported. The main reason for this is that this survey

only reports damage to living trees, and most often

bark beetles kill their host trees and dead trees were

recorded as mortality.

Reported incidence of damage due to insects on both

hardwoods and softwoods was very low. However, it is

believed that insect damage is significantly underestimated due to the difficulty in diagnosing and evaluating incidence and severity of many types of insectcaused damage.

Table 5 shows the incidence of damage to hardwoods. All of the reportable problems were recorded

during the survey. The most common problems observed in hardwoods were branch stubs, dieback, root

rots, weather, and suppression and stagnation.

Saplings of all hardwoods had some degree of branch

stubs; basswood was the worst, with 5.5 percent of the

saplings damaged. Damage from branch stubs increased with increased age. Incidence averaged 7.1

percent in poletimber and 8.2 percent in sawtimber.

Saplings also had a high incidence of damage due to

suppression and stagnation; this damage was reported for 13 of the 16 hardwoods. Mean (unweighted)

incidence of damage to the 13 hardwoods was 12.1

percent for saplings; but, as expected, by the sawtimber stage this problem was reported for only 3 of the

16 hardwoods (unweighted mean incidence of .2 percent for the three species). Other diseases were reported at a very high level. With only one exception

(cottonwood, a minor forest component), damage in

this heterogeneous class ranged from 10 to 65 percent

incidence. Other diseases is the primary complex

which affects major forest species in the merchantable

classes. Generally other diseases ranged from 5 to 15

percent for softwood and 10 to 25 percent for hardwood.

Among the minor forest species, an extremely high

percentage (74.9 percent) of the cottonwood poletimber was damaged by weather. Basswood saplings were

damaged by other diseases in 65.9 percent of the sample. There are, however, only three other hardwoods

where incidence of a specific damaging agent exceeds

30 percent.

MORTALITY, LOSSES TO CULL, QUALITY

LOSS, AND ECONOMIC IMP+CT

Annual mortality of softwood timber is shown in

table 6. Softwood poletimber mortality was more than

65 percent of the annual volume of poletimber removals while sawtimber mortality represented approximately 25 percent of the annual sawtimber removal volume. For hardwoods the figures are

approximately 50 percent for poletimber and 15 percent for sawtimber. The mortality figures shown in

table 6 are the total for the resource and do not reflect

any discounting for trees whose death represented no

economic loss. Table 6 also shows the estimated volumes of cull for the major species groups in Tennessee. Annual timber removal figures are given to place

the volume losses in perspective.

There are approximately 7.3 hardwoods for each

softwood in the state. When volume loss is compared

(softwood:hardwoods), however, both the sawtimber

(4.3:1) and poletimber (4.4:1) ratios suggest a much

more severe volume loss per unit in softwoods. Analysis of this loss showed that hardwood poletimber cull

was significantly greater per unit than softwood cull

(20.3:1.0), but softwood mortality per unit is greater

in both sawtimber (2.9:l.O) and poletimber (2.81.0)

classes. Cull in the sawtimber category approximates

the population ratio (8.1:l.O vs 7.3:l.O).

The economic impact of damaging agents is greatest in hardwood sawtimber, which showed an annual

loss of about $16.5 million (table 7). Poletimber value

loss is similar for both hardwood ($789 million) and

for softwoods ($658 million) despite a major discrepancy in volume lost (64 MMft3). This is a reflection of the skew of pole value in favor of softwood

poletimber. Overall, 80 percent of all economic impact

was in hardwoods, and about 93.5 percent of the total

economic impact was in sawtimber-size trees.

DAMAGING AGENTS, GROWTH DEFECTS,

AND SYMPTOMS

The definitions presented under the subheadings

Diseases, Growth Defects, Natural Phenomena, Animals and Birds, Insects, and Human Activities are

those used in the field manual prepared by Anderson,

et al. (1980). They describe the problems reported by

the field crews.

Diseases

Fusiform Rust.-Common host species: Slash,

loblolly, and shortleaf pines. Symptoms and signs:

Spindle-shaped galls formed on the stem or on

branches within 12 inches (30.5 cm> of the bole. Older

galls appear as cankers with sunken, rotten centers

encircled by a callus ridge. Witches’ brooms are common at galls. Bright orange spores are produced on

the galls in the spring.

Hardwood Cankers. -Common host species: All

hardwoods. Symptoms and signs: Dead, sunken area

formed on the stem, frequently with annual callus

ridges around the dead area.

Littleleaf Disease. -Common host species: Shortleaf and loblolly pines, but shortleaf is more suscepti3
ble. Symptoms and signs: Affected trees occur in

groups. Short, yellow needles; reduced shoot growth

and large crops of under-sized cones are typical symptoms. Littleleaf disease usually occurs in trees growing on heavy clay soils with poor internal drainage.

Pitch Canker.-Common host species: Most southern pines, but primarily slash, loblolly, and shortleaf.

Symptoms and signs: Flagging at branch ends, pitch

flow from affected area, slight swelling on affected

stems and twigs, crooks in main stem, and wilting of

current candles are all symptoms of this disease.

Root Rots. -Common host species: All tree species.

Symptoms and signs: Diseased trees, often with thin,

tufted crowns, frequently occur in groups that usually

contain dead or windthrown trees. Conks (fruiting

bodies) of various fungi may be present on or near the

bases of diseased trees. Boot rots are more frequent in

trees of reduced vigor, thinned stands, and in trees

with butt or root injury. Trees with root rots are often

subsequently attacked by bark beetles.

Other Diseases.-Common host species: All tree

species. Symptoms and signs: All damage caused by

diseases not identified in separate categories (e.g., red

heart of pine, brown spot, and leaf diseases). Trees

showing degrade caused by diseases are included in

this category.

Growth Defects

Brunch Stubs. -Common host species: All tree species. Symptoms and signs: Branch holes or stubs

greater than 4.0 inches in diameter on stems of trees

5.0 inches d.b.h. and larger or greater than 1.0 inch in

diameter on stems of trees 1.0 to 4.9 inches d.b.h.

Basal Defect.-Common host species: All tree species. Symptoms and signs: Butt swelling, curls,

V-shaped stump sprouts, frost seams, and low stubs

below 4.5 feet are symptoms of basal defect.

Dieback. -Common host species: All hardwoods.

Symptoms and signs: Tips of the branches die back.

Initially, only a few branches are affected, but in advanced stages, entire branches die with the possibility

of tree mortality. Dieback is frequently associated

with stress caused by an unfavorable environment.

Suppression and Stagnation.-Common host species: All tree species. Symptoms and signs: Suppressed and stagnated trees are characterized by poor

form and small crowns. Suppressed trees are overtopped and receive indirect sunlight. Stagnated trees

have thin foliage despite receiving some direct sunlight. Stagnation is usually associated with poor

growing sites or overstocking.

Form (damaging) .-Common host species: All tree

species. Symptoms and signs: All trees 5.0 inches

d.b.h. and larger that are deformed due to unknown

causes.

Natural Phenomena

Fire.-Common host species: All tree species.

Symptoms and signs: Fire scars are usually at the

base of the stem and are widespread in the stand. The

scars are usually on the uphill side of the tree, and

signs of charring are generally present on the stem.

FZooding.-Common host species: All tree species.

Symptoms and signs: Yellowing and curling downward of leaves, premature leaf fall, branch and top

dieback, tree mortality, and high water and silt

marks on tree boles are the most common effects of

flooding.

Lightning. -Common host species: All tree species.

Symptoms and signs: Lightning causes bark stripping

or cracking, with damage running from the strike

point to the ground in a straight or spiral line. Often,

the foliage will fade due to root damage or top breakage. Bark beetles often invade struck trees.

Weather.-Common host species: All tree species.

Symptoms and signs: Windthrow, ice, frost cracks,

broken tops, broken branches, marginal leaf burn,

and winter burn are the common symptoms.

Animals and Birds

Beaver.-Common host species: All tree species.

Symptoms and signs: Beavers leave toothmarks and

remove the bark from the bole of the tree. Trees are

often flooded by water impoundment, which can lead

to flooding damage and death.

Other Animals.-Common host species: All tree

species. Symptoms and signs: Branches clipped off or

broken, bark removed, holes in the stem, and tears

and toothmarks in the wood are all common signs of

animal activity.

Sapsucker. -Common host species: All tree species.

Symptoms and signs: Horizontal rows of small holes

that may encircle the tree’s bole are seen. Bark below

the holes is usually streaked or stained by oozing sap.

Insects

Bark Beetles.-Common host species: All pines.

Symptoms and signs: Symptoms include pitch tubes,

bark beetle galleries on the inner bark surface and

the surface of the sapwood, exit holes, and loose bark.

Streaks caused by blue stain fungi are often evident

in the sapwood. Foliage of infested trees gradually

yellows and then turns red.

Hardwood Borers. -Common host species: All

hardwoods. Symptoms and signs: The initial symptom

is a dark sap spot on the bark surface, often mixed

with frass. Eventually, coarse boring particles appear

in bark cracks and crevices beneath the point of attack. Old damage appears as knobby overgrowths or

scars on the bark surface.

4
Terminal Shoot and Stem Borers.-Common host

species: All tree species. Symptoms and signs: Fresh

attacks show boring dust and frass at the entrance

holes, which are most often located at the base of leaf

petioles and buds. Resin globs may be present at

points of attack. Dieback results from larval tunneling within terminal shoots and branches. Foliage on

the shoots turns yellow, red, and finally brown.

Other Insects. -Common host species: All tree species. Symptoms and signs: All damage caused by insects not identified in separate categories. Includes

hardwood defoliators (e.g., orangestriped oakworm

and fall cankerworm), pine defoliators (e.g., redheaded pine sawfly), and pine weevils.

Human Activities

People.-Common host species: All tree species.

Symptoms and signs: Initials in bark, nails in tree,

burns from lanterns, stripped bark, wire around stem,

and ax marks are signs of damage by people.

Logging and Related.-Common host species: All

tree species. Symptoms and signs: Logging scars on

the stem will form callus ridges within 1 to 2 years

after wounding. Trees with logging damage are scattered in stands and show no charring. Broken limbs

and scars on the stem near the crown will occur from

the felling of other trees. Skid trails, stumps, or other

evide_nce of logging will be present.

FOREST SURVEY TERMS

The following terms, used by the Forest Inventory

Analysis group are presented to clarify some of the

constraints placed on the data collected, and on subsequent data analysis.

Acceptable Trees. -Growing-stock trees of commercial species that meet specified standards of size and

quality, but do not qualify as desirable trees.

Annual Accumulated Cull.-Total cull divided by

the intrasurvey 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.

Commercial Forest Land. -Forest land producing

or capable of producing crops of industrial wood and

not withdrawn from timber utilization.

Cull Volume.-Total volume loss due to crooks,

limbs, decay, missing wood, sweep, large forks, and

volume in sections of the bole too rough to be used as

sawtimber or pulp.

Desirable Trees. -Growing-stock trees of commercial species having no serious quality defects that

limit present or prospective use for timber products, of

relatively high vigor, and containing no pathogens

that may result in death or serious deterioration before rotation age.

D.b.h. (Diameter at breast height).-Tree diameter

in inches, outside bark, measured at 4.5 feet above

ground.

Diameter Class. -A classification of trees based on

diameter outside bark, at d.b.h. Two-inch diameter

classes are commonly used in forest surveys, with the

even numbered inch as the approximate midpoint for

a class. For example, the 6-inch class includes trees

5.0 through 6.9 inches d.b.h.

Growing-Stock Trees. -Live trees of commercial

species excluding rough and rotten trees.

Hard woods . -Dicotyledonous trees, usually broadleaved and deciduous.

Incidence. -Percentage of susceptible trees affected by a damaging agent.

Intrasuruey Period. -The number of years between

the current survey and the past survey.

Mortality. -Number or sound-wood volume of live

trees that died from natural causes during the intrasurvey period.

Poletimber Trees. -Live trees of commercial species at least 5.0 inches d.b.h. but smaller than sawtimher size, of good form and vigor.

Rough and Rotten Trees.-Live trees that are unmerchantable for saw logs currently or potentially

because of defect, rot, or species.

Saplings. -Live trees 1.0 to 4.9 inches d.b.h. and of

good form and vigor.

Saw Log.-A log meeting minimum standards of

diameter, length, and defect, including logs at least 8

feet long, sound and straight, with a minimum diameter inside bark of 6.0 inches for softwoods and 8.0

inches for hardwoods.

Sawtimber Trees.-Live trees of commercial species containing at least one 12-foot saw log, or two

noncontiguous saw logs, each 8 feet or longer, with at

least one-third of the gross board-foot volume between

the l-foot stump and minimum saw log top being

sound. Softwoods must be at least 9.0 inches d.b.h.

and hardwoods at least 11.0 inches d.b.h.

Sawtimber Volume.-Net volume of the saw log

portion of live sawtimber in board feet of the International rule, l/Cinch kerf.

Softwoods. -Coniferous trees, usually evergreen,

having needles or scalelike leaves.

Species Groups.-Sets of tree species pooled together for standard reporting.

. Hard maples: Florida, black, and sugar maples.

. Soft maples: Boxelder, red, and silver maples.

. Select red oaks: Cherrybark, northern red, and

shumard oaks.

. Other red oaks: Scarlet, southern red, laurel,

water, willow, black, and others not in select red

oaks.

. Select white oaks: White, swamp white, bur, and

swamp chestnut oaks.

. Other white oaks: Overcup, chestnut, post, live,

and others not in select white oaks.

5
. Other eastern hardwoods: Buckeye, birch, hackberry, dogwood, persimmon, honeylocust, silverbell, holly, butternut, cucumbertree, mulberry,

scrub oaks, willow, and other commercial species.

Stand-size Class.-A classification of forest land

based on the size class of growing-stock trees on the

area.

Sawtimber stands: Stands at least 16.7 percent

stocked with growing-stock trees, with half or

more of the total stocking in sawtimber or poletimber trees and sawtimber stocking at least

equal to poletimber stocking.

Poletimber stands: Stands at least 16.7 percent

stocked with growing-stock trees, with half or

more of this stocking in poletimber and sawtimber trees, and poletimber stocking exceeding that

of sawtimber.

Sapling-seedling stands: Stands at least 16.7 percent stocked with growing-stock trees, of which

more than half of the stocking is saplings and

seedlings.

Susceptible Trees. -All living trees. Includes desirable and acceptable trees, as well as rough and rotten

trees.

Timber Removals.-The net volume of growingstock trees removed from the inventory by harvesting

or cultural operations such as timber-stand improvement, land clearing, or changes in land use.

TSI. -Timber stand improvement.

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, R. L.; Mistretta, P. A.; Earle, E.; Fisher, V.;

Ghent, J.; Hoffard, W.; Johnson, K.; Lee, M.; Miller,

R.; Stein, K,; Warlick, L. Forest insect and disease

handbook: Renewable resource evaluation. Gen.

Rep. SA-GR14. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private

Forestry, Southeastern Area, Forest Insect and Disease Management; 1980. 58 p.

Birdsey, Richard A. Tennessee Forest Resources. Resour. Bull. SO-90. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station; 1983. 35 p.

Murphy, P. A. Forest Resources of Tennessee. Res.

Bull. SO-35. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1972. 33 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Forest Statistics for Tennessee Counties. Res. Bull.

SO-89. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1982. 64 p.
Appendix I-Tables

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Area of commercial forest land in Tennessee, by stand-size class

and forest type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percentage of susceptible softwood trees damaged, by species and

tree SizeinTennessee.......................................

Percentage of susceptible hardwood trees damaged, by species and

tree size in Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Approximate number of trees and percentage of damage/defect by

softwood species and damaging agent or defect in Tennessee . . .

Approximate number of trees and percentage of damage incidence

by hardwood species or group and damaging agent or growth

defect in Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Poletimber and sawtimber removals and wood losses in

Tennessee..................................................

Annual economic impact of damage on the timber resource in

Tennessee..................................................

8

. .

9

9

10

12

16

17
Table L-Area of commercial forest land in Tennessee, by standsize class and forest type

Thousands

Forest classification of acres1

Stand-size class:

Sawtimber 4,962.7

Poletimber 5,287.4

Sapling-seedling 2,545.l

Understocked areas 68.0

All stand sizes 12,863.2

Forest type:

White oak-red oak-hickory 7,016.6

Mixed hardwoods 959.9

Virginia pine-southern red oak 523.2

Yellow poplar-white oak-N. red oak 488.1

Virginia pine 485.8

Eastern redced&hardwood ~- ~~~ 364.2

Shortleaf pine-oak 299.8

Sweetgum-Nuttal 1 oak-willow oak 296.4

Loblolly pine 282.0

Shortleaf pine 259.5

White oak 241.3

Sugarberry-American elm-green ash 237.9

Chestnut oak 229.6

Eastern redcedar 229.3

Sweetgum-yellow poplar 197.8

Post oak-black oak-bear oak 112.8

White pine-N. red oak-white ash 97.0

Loblolly pine-hardwood 86.6

Sycamore-pecan-American elm 62.2

Sweetbay-swamp tupelo-red maple 59.6

Maple-beech-birch 59.6

Cypress-tupelo 42.3

Other oak-pine 39.8

Sand pine 38.4

Pitch pine 23.2

Overcup oak-water hickory 21.5

Swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak 20.9

Willow 20.3

Cottonwood 16.2

Southern scrub oak 14.0

Hemlock 10.7

Table-mountain pine 5.8

All types 12663.2

‘Totals may not add due to rounding.

8
Table Z.-Percentage of susceptible softwood trees danaged, by species and tree size in Tennessee

Trees damaged Volume of cull1

Host Total population Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Poletimber Sawtimber

Thousands _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Percent _ _ _ - - - - - - Mft3 Mfbm

Eastern redcedar

Virginia pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Eastern hemlock

Eastern white pine

Pitch pine

XEtain pine

Balsam tir

Red spruce

385,692.4 34.1 38.8 44.4 6,997.0 5,050.2

302,329.g 30.8 29.6 39.7 7,581.g 67,154.7 . .

x3,729.3 32.2 27.4 25.0 1,797.g 24,992.7

118,874.7 15.3 21.4 29.6 1,219.0 16,336.5

48.175.0 13.9 17.0 31.6 0.0 6,415.6

46,104.B 18.1 20.0 21.3 128.5 6,343.g

16,067.7 54.7 27.4 35.7 597.2 9,640.9

4,603.g 25.1 59.7 44.7 324.2 2,139.B

2,326.6 0.0 41.7 70.7 159.6 9,285.l

588.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

228.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.3 0.0

Totals2

1,078,721.1 29.57 29.43 33.55 18,896.5 147,359.4

‘Cull due to crooks, limbs, decay, missing wood, sweep, large forks, and volume in sections of bole that are too

rough to be utilized as pulpwood or as sawtimber.

2Totals may not add due to rounding.

Table 3.-Percentage of susceptible hardwood trees damaged, by species and tree size in Tennessee

Host

Total Trees damaged Volume of cull’

population Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber Poletimber Sawtimber

Thousands __ ________ __ percent ---____ ----- M@ Mfam

Other eastern

hardwoods 2,871,071.7

Hickories 770,086.7

Soft maple 703,010.5

Select white

oaks2 624,015.g

Other red

oaks 577,024.B

Blackgum/

tupelo 506,981.7

Other white

oaks 388,241.6

Hard maple 270,561.2

Ash 266,390.4

Yellow-poplar 260,684.l

Sweetgum 216,773.B

Select red

oaks3 128,408.O

Noncommercial 110,480.4

Beech 90,392.7

Black walnut 29J98.2

’ Basswood 13,628.0

Cottonwood 982.3

32.8 52.1 72.3 98,180.7 123,756.6

39.5 39.8 51.9 44,529.4 109.160.9

42.3 55.2 74.7 31,340.B 65,189.0

32.5 37.1 47.2 23,247.1 121,596.g

29.5 36.5 53.0 37,513.7 228,069.3

54.1 62.7 71.7 13.935.8 33,549.7

34.7 41.0 60.1 41,296.5 142,506.3

39.5 60.6 75.0 11,250.O 23,164.B

59.9 58.9 62.6 18,808.l 61,318.2

26.3 39.4 48.9 10,638.4 91,065.B

38.1 41.1 59.4 11,087.2 57,468.5

43.5 37.3 53.7 20,833.7 62,872.4

10.0 8.5 6.9 1,436.5 345.4

47.9 59.3 77.2 5,318.7 43,856.7

62.1 57.2 69.0 3,678.l 11,245.4

71.5 63.3 59.2 1,576.6 9,522.B

0.0 100.0 65.5 0.0 2,999.4

Totals47,827,932.3 36.9 45.1 57.6 374,671.l 1,187.688.0

‘Damage due to crooks, limbs, decay, missing wood, sweep, large forks, and volume in sections

of bole that are too rough to be utilized as pulpwood or as sawtimber.

2White, swamp white, swamp chestnut, and bur oaks.

3Cherrybark, N. red, and shumard oaks.

4Totals may not add due to rounding.
Table I.-Approximate number of trees and percentnge of dumugeldefect by sofhood species and

damaging agent or defect in Tennessee

Agent Saplings

Incidence of damage

Poletimber Sawtimber

Eastern redcedar 328,358,OOO

Diseases-other 1.9

Boot rots 0.0

Cankers 0.0

Branch stubs 1.4

Dieback 0.2

Fire 0.0

Sapsucker 0.0

Weather-other 5.8

Suppression, stagnation 13.9

Unknown 0.4

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 9.3

Peoule

Logging-damage

0.2

0.8

Offsite tree 0.2

Virginia pine

Insects-other

Diseases-other

Gall rusts

Branch stubs

Basal defects

Dieback

Pitch canker

Fire

Sapsucker

Weather-other

Flooding

Suppression, stagnation

Unknown

Other-misc. (old age, etc.)

Peoule

Logging-damage

Offsite tree

Shortleaf pine 79,648,OOO 46,259,OOO 27,822,OOO

Insects-other 0.7 1.4 2.6

Diseases-other 1.5 2.5 0.9

Gall rusts 0.8 0.9 0.6

Branch stubs 0.9 3.1 6.1

Basal defects 0.0 0.5 0.5

Dieback 0.0 0.0 0.1

Fire 0.7 0.2 0.6

Sapsucker 0.0 0.0 0.3

Weather-other 3.5 5.2 2.9

Suppression, stagnation 12.0 1.4 0.4

Unknown 2.2 0.6 0.2

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 7.9 10.6 9.1

Logging-damage 2.1 1.2 0.7

Offsite trees 0.0 0.2 0.0

Loblolly pine 69,458,OOO 39,941,ooo 9,475,ooo

Insects-other 0.0 0.2 0.0

Diseases-other 1.1 0.2 0.0

Gall rusts 0.0 0.4 0.4

Branch stubs 0.0 1.0 8.7

Basal defects 0.0 0.0 0.2

Dieback 0.0 0.2 0.0

Sapsucker 0.0 0.0 0.7

Weather-other 0.9 6.4 7.8

Suppression, stagnation 6.9 0.9 0.0

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 6.4 11.6 10.7

Logging-damage 0.0 0.2 0.0

Offsite tree 0.0 0.4 1.0

49,423,ooo 7,911,ooo

7.0 14.2

0.4 0.0

0.0 0.5

5.6 5.7

0.7 0.4

0.7 0.0

0.3 0.0

6.6 6.3

1.3 0.0

0.2 1.6

14.8 14.7

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.6

1.3 0.5

185,556,OOO 64,390,ooo 32,384,000

0.0 1.1 2.0

4.9 1.4 4.6

0.0 0.5 0.0

3.8 14.0 12.9

1.3 0.4 1.4

0.0 0.0 0.5

0.0 0.1 0.0

0.9 0.7 1.6

0.0 0.0 0.2

0.3 1.4 3.1

0.0 0.0 0.1

8.4 0.8 0.2

0.0 0.3 0.3

9.5 8.7 11.5

0.0 0.0 0.5

1.3 0.2 0.6

0.6 0.0 0.2

10
Table 4.-Approximate number of trees and percentuge of damage/defect by softwood species and

dumuging agent or defect in Tennessee-Continued

Incidence of damage

Agent Saplings Poletimber Saw-timber

Eastern hemlock

Diseases-other

Branch stubs

Fire

Flooding

Suppression, stagnation

Unknown

Other-misc. (old etc.) age,

41,558,OOO 3442,000 3,175,ooo

0.0 0.0 6.1

1.5 11.8 12.3 . .

2.5 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.8

3.1 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.4

6.9 5.2 12.0

Eastern white pine 34,220,OOO 5,846,OOO 6,039,OOO

Diseases-other 1.6 0.0 1.6

Branch stubs 0.0 0.0 3.6

Dieback 0.0 0.0 0.6

Sapsucker 0.0 3.1 0.7

Weather-other 0.0 3.9 4.4

Suppression, stagnation 8.4 0.0 0.4

Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.5

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 4.9 12.4 7.7

People 0.0 1.4 0.5

Logging-damage 3.2 0.0 1.5

Pitch pine 6,321,OOO 6,131,OOO 3,615,OOO

Insects-other 0.0 12.6 3.9

Diseases-other 0.0 1.6 5.2

Branch stubs 9.4 0.0 12.9

Fire 0.0 0.0 2.6

Suppression, stagnation 37.3 4.0 1.5

Unknown 0.0 5.0 2.3

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 8.1 4.3 7.3

Table-mountain pine 2,295,ooo 1,524,OOO 785,000

Diseases-other 0.0 9.5 0.0

Branch stubs 0.0 23.2 0.0

Fire 25.1 7.9 26.2

Suppression, stagnation 0.0 7.2 10.4

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 0.0 11.9 8.1

Baldcypress 667,000 212,000 1,448,OOO

Diseases-other 0.0 0.0 15.6

Branch stubs 0.0 0.0 9.8

Dieback 0.0 0.0 15.2

Weather-other 0.0 0.0 3.2

Suppression, stagnation 0.0 41.7 2.1

Unknown 0.0 0.0 1.5

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 0.0 0.0 23.3

11
Table 5.-Approximate number of trees and percentage of damage incio!ence by hardwood species

group and damaging agent OF defect in Tennessee

Agent Saplings

Incidence of damage

Poletimber Sawtimber

Other eastern hardwoods 2,606,951,000 236,561,OOO 27,559,ooo

Insects-other 0.7 1.7 0.6

Diseases-other 2.7 13.6 24.1

Root rots 0.0 0.2 0.5

Hardwood cankers 0.0 0.4 0.6

Branch stubs 0.7 5.1 5.9

Basal defects 0.0 0.1 0.0

Dieback 0.1 1.2 1.1

Fire 0.3 0.2 0.4

Animals 0.1 0.1 0.2

Beaver 0.0 0.1 0.2

Sapsucker 0.0 0.0 0.3

Weather-other 1.6 4.3 6.6

Flooding 0.1 0.3 1.0

Suppression, stagnation 8.1 1.7 0.2

Unknown 0.2 0.7 0.4

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 16.4 21.5 29.4

People 0.0 0.2 0.1

Logging-damage 1.6 0.8 0.8

Offsite tree 0.3 0.2 0.3

Hickories 596,333,OOO 138,884,OOO 34,870,OOO

Insects-other 2.8 1.1 0.9

Diseases-other 2.2 5.5 12.3

Root rots 0.1 0.3 0.3

Hardwood cankers 0.0 0.0 0.2

Branch stubs 1.7 5.8 9.3

Dieback 0.8 1.3 1.6

Fire 0.6 1.1 2.3

Sapsucker 0.0 0.3 0.8

Weather-other 2.7 3.7 3.2

Flooding 0.0 0.0 0.1

Suppression, stagnation 12.2 0.3 0.1

Unknown 0.2 0.8 0.2

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 14.1 18.0 19.6

People 0.0 0.1 0.3

Logging-damage 1.8 1.0 0.5

Offsite tree 0.4 0.6 0.2

Soft maple 624,695,OOO 65765,000 12,550,OOO

Insects-other 0.9 0.0 0.0

Diseases-other 3.6 13.5 29.4

Root rota 0.1 0.0 0.0

Hardwood cankers 0.1 0.3 0.1

Branch stubs 1.7 6.7 9.8

Dieback 0.2 2.2 1.3

Fire 0.6 1.0 1.9

Sapsucker 0.0 0.0 0.5

Weather-other 1.5 2.6 2.7

Flooding 0.5 0.9 0.9

Suppression, stagnation 8.0 0.3 0.0

Unknown 0.3 0.4 0.4

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 22.4 24.2 26.3

People 0.1 0.5 0.4

Logging-damage 2.2 2.5 0.4

Offsite tree 0.2 0.0 0.5

Select white oaks’ 445,983,OOO 133,057,000 44,976,OOO

Insects-other 0.7 0.3 0.3

Diseases-other 1.2 4.6 7.8

Root rots 0.0 0.3 0.4

Hardwood caukers 0.0 0.0 0.2

Branch stubs 1.8 6.4 10.6

12
Table 5.-Approximate number of trees and percentage of damage incidence by hardwood species

group and damaging agent or defect in Tennessee-Continued

Agent Saplings

Incidence of damage

Poletimber Sawtimber

Select white oaks’-Continued

Dieback

Fire

Animals

Sapsucker

Weather-other

Suppression, stagnation

Unknown

Other-misc. (old age, etc.)

People

Logging-damage

Offsite tree

0.6 1.7 1.9

0.1 0.6 0.7 . .

0.1 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.2

1.6 3.6 3.6

11.4 0.8 0.0

0.0 0.3 0.3

12.4 17.1 20.2

0.0 0.1 0.2

2.4 0.9 0.7

0.1 0.3 0.2

Other red oaks 376,563,OOO 142,843,OOO 57,619,OOO

Insects-other 0.8 0.1 0.4

Diseases-other 2.9 7.9 15.6

Root rots 0.0 0.4 0.4

Hardwood cankers 0.2 0.2 0.1

Branch stubs 2.9 10.0 13.4

Dieback 0.9 1.2 1.6

Fire 0.6 1.4 1.0

Weather-other 2.1 1.8 3.0

Suppression, stagnation 6.5 0.9 0.2

Unknown 0.1 0.4 0.6

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 10.2 11.5 16.4

Logging-damage _ 1.8 0.5 0.3

Offsite tree 0.6 0.1 0.2

Blackgum’tupelo 462,052,OOO 36,862,OOO 8,067,OOO

Insects-other 0.4 0.0 0.0

Diseases-other 1.9 11.1 29.3

Root rots 0.1 0.3 1.8

Hardwood cankers 0.0 0.0 0.2

Branch stubs 0.6 * 3.6 4.5

Dieback 0.7 1.4 2.6

Fire 0.2 0.9 0.6

Beaver 0.0 0.0 0.3

Weather-other 4.5 7.1 5.6

Flooding 0.0 0.0 0.4

Suppression, stagnation 21.3 4.8 0.0

Unknown 0.1 0.2 1.5

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 21.2 29.6 24.3

People 0.1 0.6 0.0

Logging-damage 2.8 2.8 0.0

Offsite tree 0.1 0.3 0.6

Other white oaks

Insects-other

Diseases-other

Root rots

Hardwood cankers

Branch stubs

Dieback

Fire

Animals

Sapsucker

Weather-other

Suppression, stagnation

Unknown

Other-misc. (old age, etc.)

People

Logging-damage

Offsite tree

231,640,OOO 115,713,ooo 40,888,OOO

0.0 0.5 0.4

2.2 7.6 15.0

0.0 0.0 0.3

0.0 0.3 0.2

1.6 8.2 12.7

0.0 0.5 1.2

1.1 1.3 1.7

0.3 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.1

2.6 2.6 2.9

8.8 0.2 0.0

0.0 0.9 1.2

15.3 18.1 24.0

0.3 0.0 0.0

2.1 0.7 0.3

0.5 0.0 0.2

13
Table 5.-Approximate number of trees and percentage of damage incidence by hardwood species

group and dtrmuging agent or defect in Tennessee-Continued

Agent Saplings

Incidence of damage

Poletimber Sawtimber

Hard maple 228,928,OOO 32,227,OOO 9,406,OOO

Insecta4ther 0.3 0.6 0.2

Diseases-other 2.8 9.9 25.4

Root rots 0.0 0.2 1.5

Hardwood cankers 0.3 0.4 0.4

Branch stubs 1.7 15.8 12.8

Dieback 0.5 2.2 1.7

Fire 0.2 1.2 2.0

Animals 0.0 0.0 0.1

Sapsucker 0.2 0.1 2.4

Weather-other 0.7 2.7 1.8

Suppression, stagnation 9.2 1.0 0.0

Unknown 0.2 0.0 0.1

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 21.0 23.2 26.1

People 0.3 0.0 0.0

Logging-damage 1.6 1.0 0.5

Offsite tree 0.5 2.3 0.2

Ash 217,030,OOO 39,981,OOO 9,379,ooo

Insects-other 2.2 0.2 1.3

Diseases-other 3.1 5.9 13.1

Root rota 0.0 0.2 0.9

Hardwood cankers 0.7 0.0 0.0

Branch stubs 1.5 4.4 3.3

Dieback 0.3 0.4 0.6

Fire 0.0 0.6 0.8

Beaver 0.0 0.1 0.0

Sapsucker 0.3 0.0 0.1

Weather-other 7.7 4.8 3.7

Flooding 1.9 1.7 2.7

Suppression, stagnation 12.3 0.7 0.0

Unknown 0.2 0.3 1.5

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) - 28.0 37.4 30.6

People 0.2 0.2 0.3

Logging-damage 1.2 0.7 1.9

Offsite tree 0.5 1.2 1.4

Yellow-poplar

Diseases-other

Root mts

Hardwood cankers

Branch stubs

Dieback

Fire

Sapsucker

Weather-other

Suppression, stagnation

Unknown

Other-misc. (old age, etc.)

People

173,052,OOO 59,518,OOO 28,114,OOO

2.7 4.8 9.2

0.0 0.1 0.4

0.0 0.2 0.1

0.6 6.9 11.6

0.0 0.4 1.4

0.0 0.1 0.7

0.0 0.0 0.7

1.3 5.8 4.3

7.8 0.3 0.0

0.3 0.0 0.6

12.2 19.5 18.9

0.0 0.2 0.0

1.3 0.9 0.4

0.0 0.2 0.7

Logging-damage

Offsite tree

Sweetgum 169,605,OOO 36,438,OOO 10,731,000

Diseases-other 1.5 7.5 21.1

Root rota 0.0 0.1 0.5

Hardwood cankers 0.0 0.0 0.4

Branch stubs 0.3 3.5 6.9

Dieback 0.0 2.9 4.9

Beaver 0.0 0.3 1.4

Weather-other 2.8 6.7 7.3

Flooding 0.0 0.0 0.4

Suppression, stagnation 16.0 1.1 0.0

14
Table 5.-Approximate number of trees and percentage of damage inci&nce by hardwood species

group and damaging agent or defect in Tennessee-Continued

Incidence of damage

Agent Saplings Poletimber Sawtimber

Sweetgum-Continued

Unknown

Other-misc. (old age, etc.)

People

Logging-damage

Offsite tree

0.3

15.9

0.0

1.3

0.0

0.5

16.6

0.0

1.4

0.4

0.0

. .

15.0

0.2

0.9

0.5

Select red oaks2 74,762,OOO 33,337,ooo 20,309,000

Insects-other 3.1 0.6 0.4

Diseases-other 1.5 8.3 15.8

Root rots 0.0 0.1 0.4

Branch stubs 3.2 9.7 10.5

Dieback 0.0 2.0 2.6

Fire 0.0 0.0 0.7

Animals 0.0 0.0 0.1

Weather-other 3.9 4.1 5.9

Flooding 0.0 0.0 0.2

Suppression, stagnation 9.6 0.6 0.0

Unknown 0.0 0.3 0.4

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 22.2 11.1 15.9

Peonle 0.0 0.1 0.0

Log-&rig-damage 0.0 0.4 0.7

Offsite tree 0.0 0.0 0.3

Noncommercial 596,333,OOO 138,884,OOO 34,870,OOO

Diseases-other 1.0 2.9 0.0

Fire 1.0 0.0 0.0

Suppression, stagnation 4.6 3.8 0.0

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 3.4 0.6 6.9

Logging-damage 0.0 1.1 0.0

Beech 64,605,OOO 17,006,OOO 8,782,OOO

Insects-other 0.8 0.0 0.0

Diseases-other 2.1 14.6 37.4

Root rots 0.0 0.0 0.8

Hardwood cankers 0.0 0.0 0.3

Branch stubs 0.0 10.0 8.8

Dieback 0.0 1.1 3.3

Fire 0.0 1.3 2.5

Weather-other 2.7 0.9 1.9

Suppression, stagnation 11.0 2.9 0.2

Unknown 0.0 0.7 0.8

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 29.4 20.2 18.6

People 0.0 0.7 0.0

Log-&g-damage 2.0 6.3 2.1

Offsite tree 0.0 0.7 0.4

Black walnut 16,284,OOO 10,169,OOO 2,745,OOO

Insects-other 3.4 0.0 0.9

Diseases-other 6.8 16.1 21.1

Root rots 0.0 0.8 1.4

Branch stubs 0.0 6.1 6.5

Dieback 0.0 3.1 0.0

Fire 0.0 0.0 1.8

Sapsucker 0.0 0.0 0.3

Weather-other 3.7 1.0 6.1

Suppression, stagnation 10.6 0.6 0.0

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 37.6 28.8 29.0

People 0.0 0.0 1.9

Logging-damage 0.0 0.7 0.0

Basswood 9,337,ooo 2,300,OOO 1,990,000

Diseases-other 0.0 16.9 25.7

Root rots 0.0 0.0 0.6

Branch stubs 5.5 11.3 2.6

15
Table 5.-Approximate number of trees and percentage of damage incidence by hardwood species

group and damaging agent or okfect in Tennessee-Continued

Incidence of damage

Agent Saplings

Basswood-Continued

Dieback 0.0

Sapsucker 0.0

Weather-other 0.0

Suppression, stagnation 0.0

Unknown 0.0

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 65.9

Offsite tree 0.0

Cottonwood .O

Diseases-other 0.0

Branch stubs 0.0

Weather-other 0.0

Flooding 0.0

Other-misc. (old age, etc.) 0.0

‘White, swamp white, swamp chestnut, and bur oaks.

2Cherrybark, N. red, and shumard oaks.

Poletimber Sawtimber

2.1 0.0

3.6 3.1

0.0 7.9

11.1 0.0

0.0 3.0

14.8 16.4

3.5 0.0

372,000 610,000

0.0 31.3

0.0 2.5

74.9 19.8

25.1 9.1

0.0 2.7

Table 6.-Poletimber and sawtimber removals and wood losses in Tennessee

Volume loss

Annual

Annual timber removals Annual mortality accumulated cull’

Species Poletimber Sawtimber Poletimber Sawtimber Poletimber Sawtimber

Softwoods

_ Eastern redcedar

Virginia pine

Shortleaf pine

Loblolly pine

Eastern hemlock

Eastern white pine

Pitch pine

Table-mountain pine

Baldcypress

Bed spruce

Mft3 MPm Mb3 MPm Mft3 MPm

1,975.3 6508.4 2,089.O 2,161.0 743.8 536.1

2,847.8 56J84.8 2,093.8 14,458.7 785.8 7,241.l

5631.9 67,411.4 5,744.2 12,858.0 194.6 2,674.3

7,732.l 24,630.l 1,998.8 6,064.3 131.2 l771.6

58.8 3,968.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 680.6

108.1 14,442.0 229.4 2,450.3 14.0 696.5

218.9 3583.8 336.5 3,428.l 61.5 995.1

0.0 0.0 122.1 782.9 32.0 214.0

0.0 336.4 0.0 1,253.6 15.9 998.9

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0

Totals 18,572.g 177,065.5 12,603.7 43,456.g 1,989.3 15,808.l

Hardwoods

Other eastern hardwoods

Hickories

Soft maple

Select white oaks2

Other red oaks

Blackgum/tupelo

Other white oaks

Hard maple

Ash

Yellow-poplar

Sweetgum

Select red oaks3

Noncommercial hardwoods

Beech

Black walnut

Basswood

Cottonwood

5,539.5 50,540.8 7,372.0 35,805.4 10,634.2 13,465.7

6J44.9 88,075.g 3,599.l 21,006.5 4,786.3 11,864.3

1,074.6 15,393.3 574.5 2,772.8 3,391.0 6,967.0

7,244.6 154,5x.5 1,461.8 9J76.2 2,517.7 13,260.l

9,574.g 201,138.3 2,986.3 20,327.O 4,055.7 24,736.4

1,859.l 12,875.7 856.1 3,450.8 1,520.4 3,602.6

6,615.g 81,254.0 1,669.g 6,580.3 4,420.3 15,164.6

616.4 16,612.7 571.1 1,907.l 1,243.g 2,561.4

914.7 26,510.2 1,297.0 1,851.7 1,958.2 6,470.g

2,957.8 64,072.5 461.0 4,563.6 1,153.l 9,762.0

2,673.2 50,120.7 1,273.8 4,234.4 1,216.0 6,243.2

l977.4 73,834.g 477.7 10,072.3 2,263.l 6,700.3

0.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 154.4 34.5

285.1 14,036.6 229.4 1,157.0 561.0 4,714.8

471.0 3,839.8 465.8 2,017.O 397.0 lJ81.4

0.0 3,343.6 318.8 345.2 169.2 1,030.g

0.0 4,364.0 84.6 704.5 0.0 307.3

Totals 47,949.0 860,528.l 23,699.0 125,971.7 40,441.7 128,067.3

‘Cull due to crooks, limbs, decay, missing wood, sweep, large forks, and volume in sections of bole that are too

rough to be utilized as pulpwood or sawtimber.

2White, swamp white, swamp chestnut, and bur oaks.

3Cherrybark, Northern red, and shumard oaks.

16
Table 7.-Annual economic impact of damage on the timber resource in Tennessee

Species

Annual volume

wood fiber loss

Stumpage value

per unit Annual loss

_______________Dollors-______________

Softwoods

Poletimber (Mft3)

Sawtimber (M&m)

Hardwoods

Poletimber (Mft3)

Sawtimber (Mfbm)

All species

Poletimber (Mft3)

Sawtimber (Mfbm)

Total

14,593.0 45.10 658,143.20

59,265.0 62.00 3,674,432.23 .+

64,140.7 12.30 788,930.43

254,039.l 65.00 16,512,540.72

78,733.7 1,447,073.62

313,304.l 20,186,972.95

-

21,634,046.57

Appendix II-Scientific Names of Tree

Species Mentioned

Common Name Scientific Name

American elm

Ash

Baldcypress

Balsam fir

Basswood

Bear oak

Beech

Black maple

Black oak

Black walnut

Blackgum

Birch

Boxelder

Buckeye

Bur oak

Butternut

Cherrybark oak

Chestnut oak

Cottonwood

Cucumbertree

Cypress

Dogwood

Eastern hemlock

Eastern red cedar

Eastern white pine

Florida maple

Green ash

Hackberry

Hickories

Holly

Honeylocust

Ulmus americana L.

Fraxinus spp.

Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich.

Abies balsamea CL.) Mill.

Tilia americana L.

Quercus ilicifolia Wangenh.

Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.

Acer nigrum Michx.

Quercus velutina Lam.

Juglans nigra L.

Nyssa sylvatica Marsh.

Betula spp.

Acer negundo L.

Aesculus spp.

Quercus macrocarpa Michx.

Juglans cinerea L.

Quercus falcata var. pagodifolia Ell.

Quercus prinus L.

Populus deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh.

Magnolia acuminata L.

Cupressus spp.

Cornus florida L.

Tsuga canadensis (L.) Car-r.

Juniperus virginiana L.

Pinus strobus L.

Acer barbatum Michx.

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.

Celtis occidentalis L.

Carya spp.

Ilex opaca Art.

Gleditsia tricanthos L.

17
Appendix II-Scientific Names of Tree

Species Mentioned-Contin’ued

Common Name

Laurel oak

Live oak

Loblolly pine

Maples (soft or hard)

Mulberry

Northern red oak

Nuttall oak

Oaks (red or white)

Overcup oak

Pecan

Persimmon

Pines

Pitch pine

Post oak

Bed maple

Bed spruce

Sand pine

Scarlet oak

Scrub oak

Shortleaf pine

Shumard oak

Silver maple

Southern red oak

Sugar maple

Sugarberry

Swamp chestnut oak

Swamp tupelo

Swamp white oak

Sweetbay

Sweetgum

Sycamore

Table-mountain pine

Tupelo

Virginia pine

Water hickory

Water oak

White ash

White oak

Willow

Willow oak

Yellow poplar

Scientific Name

Quercus laurifolia Michx.

Quercus virginiana Mill.

Pinus taeda L.

Acer spp.

Morus spp.

Quercus rubra L.

Quercus nuttallii Palmer

Quercus spp.

Quercus lyrata Walt.

Carya illinoiensis (Wangerm. K. Koch.

Diospyros virginiana L.

Pinus spp.

Pinus rigida Mill.

Quercus stellata Wangenh.

Acer rubrum L.

Picea rubens Sarg.

Pinus clausa (Chapm. ex Engelm.) Vasey ex Sarg.

Quercus coccinea Muench.

Quercus spp.

Pinus echinata Mill.

Quercus shumardii Buckl.

Acer saccharinurn L.SilverbellHalesia spp.

Quercus falcata Michx.

Acer saccharum Marsh.

Celtis laevigata Willd.

Quercus michauxii Nutt.

Nyssa aquatica L.

Quercus bicolor Willd.

Magnolia virginiana L.

Liquidambar styraciflua L.

Platanus occidentalis L.

Pinus pungens Lamb.

Nyssa spp.

Pinus virginiana Mill.

Carya aquatica (Michx. f.) Nutt.

Quercus nigra L.

Fraxinus americana L.

Quercus alba L.

Salix spp.

Quercus phellos L.

Liriodendron tulipifera L.

18
Mistretta, Paul A.; Bylin, Carl V.; Baker, Roger. Incidence and

impact of damage to Tennessee’s timber, 1982. Resour. Bull.

SO-110. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1986.

18 p.

Data collected during a 1979-80 survey of Tennessee’s forests

are tabulated and discussed.

Additional keywords: forest resources, injury, insect, disease, survey.

IJ.S.COVERNMENTPRINTlNGOFFICE:l986 -659-08(Y 40043