U.S. Department of Agricdture

Forest Service

Research Paper SO-165

Fine Regeneration in Sowthwest Arkansas

Richard A. Birdsey,

Willem W. S. van Hees,

and

Roy C. Beltz
Southwest forest
Pine Regeneration in Southwest Arkansas

_

INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES

Periodic forest surveys in the Midsouth indicate

substantial declines in pine acreage and numbers of

trees less than 5 in. dbh. Resource analysts are concerned that pine stands are being harvested and not

adequately regenerated with pine (U.S. Dep. Agrie. For.

Serv. 1978a). Cropland reversions to pine have greatly

diminished and no longer compensate for this loss (Boyce

and McClure 1975). The situation warrants attention

since the South is expected to supply an increasing

percentage of the nation’s wood in years to come.

The private non-industrial landowners have the

greatest potential for increasing the quantity of wood

supplied in the future. These landowners hold 75

million acres or 72 percent of the commercial forest

land in the Midsouth (U.S. Dep. Agrie. For. Serv.

1978b). Since natural succession favors the replacement of pines with hardwoods, lack of management for

pines on these lands is considered a major cause of

the decline in pine acreage. The lowest rates of pine

regeneration are also generally found on non-industrial

private lands (Boyce and Knight 1980).

Arkansas has been cited (U.S. Dep. Agrie. For. Serv.

1978a) as the state with the largest loss in pine acreage,

losing 2.8 million acres of pine forest type between. 1959

and 1969 (Sternitzke 1960, Van Sickle 1970). Half of

this loss occurred in the Southwest unit (Sternitzke

1960, U.S. Dep. Agrie. 1970), which is the most productive commercial forest region in the state.

Since the pine regeneration issue surfaced prior to

the most recent Forest Service survey in Arkansas in

1978, special observations were added to each forest

plot to analyze the problem in detail. Analysis of

this data will help clarify the issues involving pine

reforestation and loss of pine acreage.

Richard A. Birdsey,

Willem W. S. van Hees,

and

Roy C. Beltz

Assessing the outlook for pines in the South is

difficult since specific data concerning pine regeneration have not generally been collected in periodic forest

surveys, and the available data on forest type and

stand-size class are not always comparable between

surveys. This study is a detailed analysis of a region

using standard survey data and additional observations, combined with recomputing certain past data

to current standards. The study will add to an

understanding of changes in the nature of the pine

resource, and will help develop techniques for monitoring these changes.

Specific objectives of this study include the following:

1. Analyze forest type changes.

2. Examine the decline in small diameter softwoods.

3. Determine whether pine stands are being regenerated to pine or hardwoods after harvest.

4. Determine the extent of activity to improve

existing stands.

The study is limited to Southwest Arkansas (Forest

Survey Unit 3). This region is heavily oriented to forest

products, and survey data have indicated that the area

typifies the Midsouth pine regeneration problem. The

problem is especially acute on non-industrial private

forest land. Evidente that a problem exists includes loss

of pine type acreage, a reduction in numbers of small

diameter softwoods, and a reduced rate of cropland

reversion to forest. Southern pines are subject to intense

competition from hardwoods, and southern forest land

generally will not produce softwood products efficiently

without proper management. This study will, therefore, show how forest survey data can be used to gain

insight into management activities which have been

applied to encourage pine regeneration.

The authors are research foresters, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service-USDA, New Orleans, Louisiana.

1
METHODS

Data were collected during the periodic survey of

Arkansas’ forest resources in 1978. Forest acreage

and timber volume data were gathered by a sampling

method involving a forest-nonforest classification on

aerial photographs and on-the-ground measurements

of trees at sample locations. The sample locations

were at the intersections of a grid of lines spaced

3 miles apart.

A cluster of 10 variable-radius plots were installed

at each ground sample location. Each sample tree on

the variable-radius plots represented 3.75 square feet

of basal area per acre. ‘Irees less than 5.0 inches in

diameter were tallied on fixed-radius plots around the

plot centers. The plots established by the prior survey

were remeasured to determine the elements of change.

These plots were the basis for estimating growth,

mortality, removals, and changes in land use.

Observations of site and stand characteristics were

made at each sample location. Supplemental observations included harvesting, pine stocking, seedling

stocking, cultural activity, management level, and

treatment opportunity. Details of the supplemental

observations can be found in the appendix.

Regular survey data was processed to determine

forest type, growing stock volume, stand structure,

and other important parameters. These data were

summarized by various regional categories, location

classifications, and ownership classes. Data analysis

for this study combined these regular procedures with

an analysis of the supplemental observations. To make

data from the previous (1969) survey compatible with

the recent (1978) survey, stocking and forest type

have been re-computed to current standards.

For the purposes of this study most analyses will

include only data from the 895 sample plots classed

as pine physiographic sitesl in Southwest Arkansas.

This represents 79 percent of the 6,388,OOO acres of

commercial forest land. Forest industry is the largest

owner class with about 2+$ million acres. Farmers and

miscellaneous private owners hold about this same

amount. Land in public ownership is negligible and will

not be specifically discussed.

FOREST TYPE CHANGES

Currently, forest type iscomputed from tally trees with

discounting of smaller stems. Each tree is assigned a

percentage based on stocking standards (see appendix),

and forest type is determined by species plurality.

The forest types occurring on pine sites in Southwest

Arkansas include oak-hickory, oak-pine, and loblolly-

‘Upland sites on which pine is present or was present formerly,

except areas with mixed hardwood type.

2

shortleaf. Pines constitute less than 25 percent of

the stocking in oak-hickory types, between 25 percent

and 50 percent of the stocking in oak-pine types, and

a plurality of the stocking in loblolly-shortleaf types.

Since the forest type classifications are discrete

rather than continuous, changes over time must be

assessed with caution. The loss of a single tree at a

location, tree growth in the understory, or a clearcut

harvest could have the same effect on forest type.

A stocking change of as little as 1 percent could change

the type classification.

Forest type changes also become more difficult to

interpret due to changes in computational procedure

between surveys. Results from the 1959 and 1969

surveys in Southwest Arkansas indicated a loss of 1.2

million acres of loblolly-shortleaf forest type. In the

earlier survey, forest type was based on an estimate of

the cubic volume of good trees for sawtimber and

poletimber stands, on the number of good trees for

seedling and sapling stands, and on past composition

for nonstocked areas. In the 1969 survey forest type

was based on species plurality of all live trees tallied

with the BA 37.5 prism. This method gave small

trees a disproportionate weight, resulting in typing of

the understory. Consequently, the current procedures

were implemented.

Since each method results in different distributions

of forest types, estimates of area by type are not

comparable between surveys, and the 1.2, million acre

loss in pine type between the 1959 and 1969 surveys

may be misleading. To avoid this uncertainty, data

from the 1969 survey was re-processed using current

computation procedures. The effect of the computation

change was to increase the 1969 estimate of pine type

in Southwest Arkansas by 293,000 acres. Since the

1959 data was not re-computed, the previous estimate

of change cannot be revised.

A comparison between the 1969 and 1978 surveys

indicates an acreage increase in loblolly-shortleaf type.

The only loss of pine acreage was in land owned by

farmers 1 table 1).

The shift toward pine types on pine sites (fig. 1)

is a positive indication of active management for pine

production. However, a detailed analysis of the actual

type changes recorded shows nearly as many shifts

Table l.-Area of loblolly-shortleaf forest type on pine sites

by ownership

Owner 1969 1978 Change

Forest industry

Farmer

Misc. private

Other public

Al1 owners

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -Tbusandacre+ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1321.2 1423.3 + 102.1

407.8 290.7 -117.1

721.0 807.4 + 86.4

24.2 25.4 + 1.2

2474.2 2546.8 + 72.6
Table P.-Detailed forest type changes, ownership, and haruesting on pine sites

Owner

Forest industry

Farmer

Misc. private

Al1 owners

( except public )

Harvested areas Areas not harvested

Hardwoods Pine to No Hardwoods * Pine to No

to pinel hardwoodss change to pine hardwoods change

-----------------------------------ThoasandacFes-----------------------------------

236 315 922 202 78 749

39 41 247 28 23 240

174 191 601 119 6 2 718

449 547 1770 349 163 1707

‘Oak-hickory type changes to Oak-pine or to Loblolly-shortleaf type, and Oak-pine changes to Loblollyshortleaf type.

sLoblolly-shortleaf type changes to Oak-pine or to Oak-hickory, and Oak-pine changes to Oak-hickory.

toward hardwoods (table 2). An overa11 loss of loblollyshortleaf and oak-pine type acreage is apparent on

harvested sites. About 45 percent of the plots shifting

to hardwoods on harvested sites had adequate pine

regeneration, and with hardwood control will eventually develop into pine type stands. Part of the

loss is therefore temporary, assuming that forest

managers continue to exercise some control measures

on hardwoods.

The loss in pine type acreage on harvested sites

was offset by this kind of stand development. Stands

not harvested and typed oak-hickory or oak-pine

increased pine stocking as they grew. The shift toward

pines on stands not harvested is encouraging since, in

the past, losses in pine type due to harvesting have

been offset primarily by reversion of farmland to

forest (Knight 1978). In this survey reversion of nonstocked areas to loblolly-shortleaf type balanced the

clearing of pine for other uses. Additions to commercial

forest land by reversion decreased from 197,000 acres

in the 1969 survey to 61,000 acres currently.

Delayed or unsuccessful pine regeneration after

harvest on forest industry lands resulted in a large

acreage shift toward hardwoods. Much of this acreage

will shift back to pine with proper management. This

delay occurred in about a quarter of the industry

lands harvested; the remaining three quarters were

successfully re-stocked. Despite the loss on harvested

stands, industry gained loblolly-shortleaf type acreage

on its pine sites overall.

STAND STRUCTURE

An alarming 21 percent drop in the number of

softwood trees in the 2 in. and 4 in. diameter classes

has been reported in Southwest Arkansas (Meyers and

van Hees 1980). This suggests that future pine volume

will decrease, even though softwood growing stock

volume has been increasing. Proposed reasons for this

decline include fewer acres of cropland reversions than

1969

LOBLOLLY - OAK -

SHORTLEAF PINE

OAK -

HICKORY

Figure l.-Forest type onpine sites, 1969 and 1978.

in the past, and the harvesting of pine types without

adequate regeneration. This situation is very similar

to the pattern of change reported for the entire South

(Boyce and Knight 1980).

An examination of the softwood stand tables for 1969

and 1978 (table 3) shows that the decline in smaller

diameter classes occurred on farmer and miscellaneous

private forest lands, while forest industry lands showed

a small increase. An unusual increase in planting on

non-industrial private land occurred from 1957-1962

because of removal of farmland from crep production

(fig. 2). The trees planted during the “Soil Bank”

period appear in the 1969 stand table in the 2 in. and

4 in. diameter classes. Nearly 172,000 acres of pine

were planted in Arkansas on non-industrial private

forest land in this period, compared with 26,000 acres

in the period 1967-1972, Much of the planting took

place in Southwest Arkansas.

3
Table 3. - Number of live softwood trees on pine sites Table 4.-Area by stand origin-pine sites

Dbh class

Forest industry Farmer Misc. private

1969 1978 1969 1978 1969 1978

Stand origin

Natural regeneration

Under 40% artificial

Over 40% artificial

Al1 stands

1969 1978

------Thousandacres------

4944.9 4469.4

73.0 118.5

166.1 446.0

5184.0 5033.9

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

2 0

2 2

2 4

2 6

__________

146.0

51.3

32.4

17.0

11.0

8.4

5.3

3.1

1.6

.8

.4

.2

.l

150.1

53.9

25.9

16.7

ll.5

7.7

5.2

3.3

1.7

.8

.3

.2

.

.I

-7kees per acre- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -

134.2 89.7 173.3 103.0

61.5 46.4 67.8 63.9

35.5 28.4 34.9 30.1

16.6 18.6 19.2 19.7

10.4 12.3 ll.2 12.5

5.5 8.2 6.8 7.7

2.8 4.3 3.4 4.6

1.5 2.4 2.0 2.8

.6 1.4 1.0 1.4

.4 .5 .7 .8

.l .2 .4 .3

.l .l .2 .l

The exact effect of the Soil Bank planting program on

the softwood stand table for 1969 can only be surmised,

but a reduction in small diameter stems in the 1978

table, especially on farmer-owned land, is a logical

result. This is tantamount to saying there has been a

reduction between surveys in the acreage of reversion

of non-stocked areas, chiefly farmland, to forest.

Another factor contributing to the decline in small

diameter softwoods has been a shift in methods of

regeneration. Artificial regeneration (mainly planting)

is increasing while natural regeneration is decreasing

(tables 4, 5). Natural regeneration, although more

variable than planting, is likely to result in far more

seedlings per acre. After 3 years, pine stocking on

planted areas is generally about 400-500 trees per acre.

Naturally seeded stands, on the other hand, typically

carry 1000-3000 pine seedlings per acre and occasionally

reach 20,000 pine seedlings per acre with a good

seedfall and site preparation (Campbell and Mann

1973, Derr and Mann 1971). Again, the effects of

these changes on the stand table cannot be quantified

without a special study.

Finally, decreasing rates of pine regeneration after

harvest could cause a decline in small diameter classes.

Changes in forest type on harvested sites indicated

that not all harvested pine stands are returning to pine.

Harvested areas overa11 shifted toward hardwoods,

although the shift may be temporary. If small diameter

pines were decreasing because harvested stands were

regenerating to hardwoods, then the hardwood stand

table (table 6) should show an increase in smaller

diameter hardwoods. However, these trees also decreased between surveys. Efforts to control hardwoods

on young pine stands are becoming noticeable according

to the stand table. As management intensifies on

southern pine land, reductions in small diameter stems

of al1 species is to be expected.

Thus at least two situations seen to be contributing

to declining numbers of small diameter softwoods:

reductions in cropland reversions and increased emphasis

on planting VS. natural regeneration. Whether or

not rates of pine regeneration after harvesting are

increasing or decreasing cannot be determined from

available data. The impact of these changes on future

Table 5.-Area by stand age and stand origin-al1 sites

Age

1969 1978

Natural regeneration All stands Natural regeneration Al1 stands

Years Thousand acres Percent Thousand acres Thousand acres Percent Thousand acres

01-10 384.0 7 7 496.8 415.9 5 9 705.9

10-20 268.4 8 3 322.9 448.1 8 0 560.7

20-30 486.5 9 3 524.8 531.5 8 6 621.0

30-40 320.4 9 7 331.5 896.6 9 5 943.0

40-50 275.1 9 6 287.9 644.3 9 9 649.9

50-60 296.3 9 8 301.7 499.9 100 499.9

60-70 125.0 100 125.0 324.8 100 324.8

70-80 54.5 100 54.5 108.5 100 108.5

80-90 21.4 100 21.4 43.5 100 43.5

90 or more 5.1 100 5.1 22.8 100 22.8

Mixed ages 4151.5 9 9 4173.4 1853.9 9 7 1908.3

Al1 ages 6338.2 9 6 6645.1 5789.8 9 1 6388.3

4
growing stock volumes cannot be predicted by looking

at numbers of trees alone since other relationships

are changing as well. Cropland reversions to pine

have declined significantly and now balance clearings

for other uses. Changes in planting practices are

allied with changes in silvicultura1 systems and could

potentially increase future growing stock volumes

while decreasing numbers of young trees. The situation

warrants close scrutiny in coming decades.

Table 6.-Number of live hardwood trees on pine sites

Dbh class

Forest industry Farmer Misc. private

1969 1978 1969 1978 1969 1978

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

2 0

2 2

______----------

290.5 201.2

67.6 44.7

26.1 18.7

ll.4 9.9

6.4 5.0

2.9 2.5

1.6 1.4

1.0 .8

.4 .4

.2 .2

.l .l

-l).eesperacre_----------------

302.0 209.9 275.9 230.0

77.4 66.8 72.8 72.4

32.9 24.6 29.1 29.2

16.0 14.0 16.2 17.8

8.8 7.8 8.6 9.7

4.6 4.2 4.0 4.6

2.6 2.0 2.6 2.7

.9 1.0 1.2 1.5

.4 .4 .4 .5

.3 .2 .3 \ .2

.l .2 .l .l

HARVESTING

Harvesting occurred on 55 percent of the pine sites

between surveys (table 7). Sixty-four percent of the

harvested plots were adequately stocked or regenerated

with pine in 1978; 36 percent or about one million

acres were less than 60 percent stocked with pine. Forest

type distributions on harvested plots (fig. 3) illustrate

the conversion of pine types to hardwoods. Detailed

changes previously presented in table 2 confirm that,

in the balance, harvested areas lost about 98,000 acres

to hardwoods.

Some plots with adequate pine regeneration and

presently typed oak-pine or hardwood will eventually

be typed pine as the stand develops. Most of the

adequately regenerated plots needed no treatment at

all, and showed a higher management leve1 and nearly

twice the presente of cultural activity than plots not

regenerated to pine (table 8).

Conversely, some plots with inadequate pine regeneration and typed loblolly-shortleaf or oak-pine will likely

develop into hardwood or mixed pine-hardwood stands

unless cultural activities to encourage pines are applied.

‘IIeatment opportunities varied considerably on these

young stands, many requiring no treatment at all.

About 500,000 acres fa11 in this mixed category.

100

A

1 \

fk

s

80 FOREST f

\

INDUSTRY I

\

2

Q 60 NON-INDUSTRIAL

2

8

p 40

2

%

2z 2c

0

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

Figure 2.-Acres of forest planting in Arkansas by ownership classes, 1955-1980. Source:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Seruice, Forest planting, seeding, and

siluical treatments in the United States, Annual reports.
Some 495,000 acres typed hardwood and without pine

regeneration would require complete stand conversion

to be brought into pine production. The treatment

opportunity for most of these plots was stand conversion or site preparation and regeneration.

Forest industry owned nearly 62 percent of the plots

with adequate pine, and non-industrial private owners

held about the same percentage of the plots poorly

stocked with pine. Harvesting was observed on 59

percent of forest industry pine land between surveys,

and 75 percent of the cutover area was re-stocked

with adequate pine. Planting was crucial to restocking

cutover areas (fig. 2). Management leve1 and cultural

activity (table 9) also indicate harvesting, regeneration,

and timber stand improvement on most pine lands.

A comparison of the hardwood and softwood stand

tables on industry lands (fig. 4) shows active management for pines throughout the rotation. The stand

table comparison also implies that forest type changes

as stands develop., Hardwoods are greater in number

earlier in the rotation; subsequent stand management

favors pines.

In contrast to forest industry, about 52 percent of

the land in the non-industrial private category was

harvested, and only about 52 percent of the cutover

area was regenerated to pine. Management activity

indicated less effort to encourage pines, a fact confirmed by a comparison of the hardwood and softwood

stand tables (fig. 4).

Failure to regenerate with pine after harvest contributes to low numbers of 2 in. and 4 in. softwoods on

non-industrial private lands. The contribution cannot

be quantified since no comparable data on harvesting

and regeneration was collected in the previous survey.

Regeneration efforts merit attention across al1 ownerships. Nearly a million acres of harvested pine land in

Southwest Arkansas are overstocked with young hardwoods, 616,000 of which are in the non-industrial

private category. Good management could increase

pine stocking considerably on about half a million

acres of these young stands. The other half million acres

require stand conversion, a task which becomes more

difficult as the stand develops.

Table 7.-Area of commercial forest land on pine sites by ownership, harvesting, and pine stocking

Harvesting and pine stocking

Harvesting present

Adequate pine regeneration

Inadequate pine regeneration

Total harvested area

No harvesting

Adequate pine stocking

Inadequate pine stocking

Total area not harvested

Al1 owners Forest industry Farmer Misc. private Public

-~-------------------------T~ousan~acres~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.---

1784.3 1100.2 150.0 527.4 6.7

995.0 372.3 177.1 439.0 6.6

2179.3 1472.5 327.1 966.4 13.3

1321.2 698.4 152.9 451.3 18.6

933.4 330.6 138.5 447.4 16.9

2254.6 1029.0 291.4 898.7 35.5

Total commercial forest land

on pine sites 5033.9

Table 8.-Regeneration, management level, and cultural activity

on harvested plots

Management

leve1

Pine regeneration

Adequate Not adequate

Intensive

Moderate

Low

Poor

___-_ _ _ _ _ -percent- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

36.2 16.4

28.1 21.5

27.8 53.1

7.9 9.0

Cultural activity Cultural activity

Present

Absent

66.2 37.9 Present 47.3 27.8 23.6

33.8 62.1 Absent 52.7 72.2 76.4

2501.5 618.5 1865.1 48.8

Table 9.-Ownership, management level, and cultural activity

on pine sites

Management

leve1

Ownership

Forest Farmer Misc.

industry private

Intensive

Moderate

Low

Poor

-----------Percent-------------

27.9 6.5 12.0

27.9 19.4 12.6

25.6 42.6 35.6

18.6 31.5 39.8

6
STANDS NOT HARVESTED !kble 10. - Regeneration, management level, and cultural activity

on plots not harvested

Tb complete the analysis, the acreage which was

not harvested must be examined for pine stocking

and evidente of stand improvement. According to the

survey, 59 percent of the non-harvested pine sites is

adequately stocked with pine. Hardwoods dominate

most of the remaining pine land. Current ownership

(table 7) again indicated that forest industries own

more of the pine sites with good pine stocking. About

586,000 acres of understocked pine land are owned by

non-industrial private owners.

Management and cultural activity were notas evident

on poorly stocked plots (table 10). The difference

between adequate and inadequate pine stocking is not

as striking as that observed on harvested plots (table 8).

Management for pines early in the rotation is critical

to eventual stand composition and is apparently applied

more intensely.

Despite the lack of evidente of management and

cultural activity, the development of these stands

helped offset losses in pine type due to harvesting

(table 2). Since natural stand development should

tend to favor hardwoods, timber stand improvement is

one probable cause. The cultural activity noted on 16

percent of the adequately stocked stands would have

been sufficient to account for much of the hardwood

100

ADEQUATE PINE REGENERATION

80

60

40

20

P

lu 0 ci

INADEQUATE PINE REGENERATION

80

1969 1978

60

LOBLOLLY - OAKSHORTLEAF PINE

OAU -

HICKORY

Figure 3.-Forest type and pine regeneration on harvested

plots, 1978.

Management

leve1

Pine stocking

Adequate Not adequate

Intensive

Moderate

Low

Poor

-__--__ _ _ -pepe&-_ _ _ . _ _ _ - _

10.6 1.8

19.1 10.9

26.8 21.8

43.4 65.5

Cultural activity .

Present 15.7 6.1

Absent 84.3 93.9

acreage which shifted to pine type. Stands which were

very young at the time of the previous survey, and

contained adequate pine regeneration, may have shifted

type with minimal assistance from man, or may have

shifted as a result of previous management activities

which are no longer observable in the field.

The management prescription for 45 percent of

the existing stands which lacked pine was conversion

or regeneration. The others were well-stocked with

manageable hardwoods. For those stands containing

adequate pine, the most frequent prescriptions were no

treatment at all, harvest, or some form of timber

stand improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Southwest Arkansas typifies the loblolly-shortleaf

pine region along the Gulf coastal plain. Much of the

land is intensively managed for pine production, in

contrast to less productive forest land which is found

in the Ozark or Ouachita regions, or land primarily

used for agriculture which is found in the Delta.

Cropland reversions to forest are declining. This

decline is eliminating a previously important source of

new pìne stands. Improved management of existing

mixed pine-hardwood stands is now the major factor

counteracting the failure to ensure adequate pine

regeneration after an area is harvested.

Overall the pine resource is stable in terms of

growing stock volume and forest type acreage, despite

frequent harvesting and a changing stand structure.

Future pine stocking could best be improved by ensuring that pines are regenerated shortly after harvest,

and by favoring pines through hardwood controj as

the forest matures.

About 3,106,OOO acres of pine land in Southwest

Arkansas are stocked with adequate pine, while

1,928,OOO acres, or about 38 percent, were either understocked with pine or lacked sufficient pine regeneration.

On pine land lacking pine, there were 513,000 acres

7
L-f”

t

FOREST

220

180

lu 160

6 0

INDUSTRY

HARDWOODS

SOFTWOODS

2 4 6 8 10 1 2 14

DBH

FARMER & MISC. PRIVATE

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

CLASS

Figure 4.-Number of live trees onpine sites by ownership classes and by softwoods and hardwoods, 1978.

of manageable hardwood or mixed pine-hardwood The best prospect for increased pine output in

stands. This leaves 1,415,OOO acres, or 28 percent of Southwest Arkansas, however, lies in increased efforts

the pine land, in a condition far below optimum for to regenerate cutover lands to pine on all. ownerproducing timber. About 60 percent of this land is held ships and more intensive management of mixed pineby non-industrial private owners. hardwood stands to favor pines.

Management opportunities on these timberlands

indicate that increased attention to pine regeneration

after harvest would have the most beneficial effect

on future pine stocking in the region. Conversion to

pine could increase potential production on 495,000

acres of young hardwoods on recently harvested land.

Another 500,000 acres of recently harvested land

need various stand improvements to increase pine

production potential. The most common treatments

prescribed for these stands were cleaning, release, and

other intermediate cutting, or artificial regeneration

after site preparation. Finally, 420,000 acres of low

grade older hardwoods would require expensive treatments to convert to productive pine acreage: removal

of the current overstory without profitable returns,

followed by site preparation and regeneration.

LITERATURE CITED

Pine timber production and supplies have increased

during the intersurvey period despite regeneration

problems and concomitant declines in the number of

2 in. and 4 in. dbh pines. As stands are more closely

regulated through forest management, the number of

small trees may continue to decline while future

potential timber output per acre increases.

Boyce, Stephen G., and Herbert A. Knight.

1980. Prospective ingrowth of southern pine beyond

1980. U.S. Dep. Agrie. For. Ser-v. Res. Pap. SE-200,

48~. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Boyce, Stephen G., and Joe P. McClure.

1975. How to keep one-third of Georgia in pine.

U.S. Dep. Agrie. For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-144,23p.

Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Campbell, Thomas E., and William F. Mann, Jr.

1973. Regenerating loblolly pine by direct seeding,

natural seeding, and planting. U.S. Dep. Agrie.

For. Serv. Res. Pap. SO-84, 9p. South. For. Exp.

Stn., New Orleans, La.

Derr, Harold J., and William F. Mann, Jr.

1971. Direct seeding pines in the South. U.S. Dep.

Agrie. For. Serv. Agr. Handbook No. 391, 68~.

Knight, Herbert A.

1978. The South is losing its pines. For. Farmer

38(2):10-11, 30.

8
Myers, Charles, and Willem W. S. van Hees. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1980. Pine volume still increasing in Southwest 1970. Southwest Arkansas. Supplement to South.

Arkansas. Forest Farmer. [ In press.] For. Exp. Stn. Resour. Bull. SO-24, 19p.

Sternitzke, H. S.

1960. Arkansas forests. U.S. Dep. Agrie, For. Serv.

Forest Sm-v. Release 84, 58~. South. For. Exp.

Stn., New Orleans, La.

Van Sickle, Charles C.

1970. Arkansas forest resource patterns. U.S. Dep.

Agrie. For. Serv. Resour. Bull. SO-24,34 p. Southern

For. Exp. Sta., New Orleans, La.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1978a. Pine reforestation task forte report for southern forests. 40~.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1978b. Forest statistics of the U.S., 1977. Review

draft. U.S. Dep. Agrie. For. Serv., 133p., Washington, D. C.

APPENDIX

Special observations made for this study are listed in

detail below. Definitions of other terms can be found

in any of the Resource Bulletins published by the

Southern Forest Experiment Station.

1. Harvesting since the previous survey was indicated if crep trees had been removed (clear cut,

group selection, seed tree, etc.).

2. Pine stocking was considered adequate if the

plot area was at least 60 percent stocked with

pine, according to stocking standards used in

the South.

Density Standard Required for Ful1 Stocking

Percent stocking

Dbh class Number of assigned each

(inches ) trees tally treel

Seedlings 600

2 560

4 460

6 340 5.6

8 240 4.5

1 0 155 4.4

1 2 115 4.2

1 4 9 0 3.9

1 6 7 2 3.8

1 8 6 0 3.5

2 0 5 1 3.4

2 2 4 2 3.4

2 4 3 6 3.3

2 6 3 1 3.3

2 8 2 7 3.3

3 0 2 4 3.2

Vrees less than 5 in. are assigned a stocking percent based on

regression equations developed at the Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station, Asheville, N.C.

3. If pine stocking was inadequate, seedling stocking was recorded by observing the number of

points on the regular lo-point cluster having at

least one well-established, free-to-grow pine

seedling within a mil-acre plot.

4. The presente or absence of stand treatments

designed to encourage pine regeneration or

development of the existing stand was recorded

as cultural activity.

5. Activity in the plot area during recent years

was estimated using four management leve1

categories :

Intensive-Attempts to maximize growth on

potential crep trees evidenced by silvicultural activities.

Moderate-Some specific silvicultura1 activities have been carried out but the stand

needs immediate further attention to maximize production.

Low - Evidente of harvest or stem removal but

the stand is in need of specific silvicultural activities.

Peor-No evidente of any activity in the area.

6. lhatmentopportunity2 was assessed at each

location to identify the current management

practice which would improve existing conditions. Categories include:

2Assessment technique developed at the Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station, Asheville, N.C.

9
No treatment needed - stand is adequately stocked

and in reasonably good condition. Nature

will correct any minor deficiencies.

Salvage cut-stand contains substantial volume of merchantable timber which has been

seriously damaged.

Harvest-stand is composed mainly of mature

sawtimber, and the future growth potential

could be better achieved if the current stand

were harvested and regenerated.

Commercial thinning-stand has a dense stocking of mature but merchantable timber. Some

of the future growth potential is likely to

be lost to suppression mortality.

Precommercial thinning-stand is comprised

primarily of a dense stocking of seedlings

and/or saplings, and stagnation or potential

growth loss appears likely.

Cleaning, release, or other intermediate cutting

-stand has sufficient stocking but these

trees are receiving serious competition from

rough trees or other inhibiting vegetation.

Stand conversion-stand occurs on a dry, upland site and is poorly stocked with low

quality hardwood, or the stand occurs on a

low bottomland site that is stocked with slowgrowing cypress or low quality hardwood.

Artificial regeneration without site preparation

-There is an absence of a manageable stand

and prospects for natural regeneration are not

good. Artificial regeneration would require

little or no site preparation.

Artificial regeneration after site preparationThere is an absence of a manageable stand

and prospects for natural regeneration are not

good. Site preparation is necessary before

artificial regeneration.

10
BIRDSEY, RICHARD A., WILLEM W. S. VAN HEES, and

ROY C. BELTZ.

1981. Pine regeneration in Southwest Arkansas. U.S. Dep.

Agrie. For. Serv. Res. Pap. SO-165, 10 p. South. For. Exp.

Stn., New Orleans, La.

Analyzes data involving pine reforestation and loss of pine

acreage in this sector of Arkansas.

Additional Keywords: Area, volume, forest type, ownership.