Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands Assessment

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife

REPORT

5

OF 5

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern

Research Station

General Technical

Report SRS-35
Cover photo: Kings Bluff in the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas.

Photo by A.C. Haralson, Arkansas Department of Parks and Recreation, Little Rock, AR.

Natural resource specialists and research scientists worked together to produce the five General

Technical Reports that comprise the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment:

• Summary Report

• Air Quality

• Aquatic Conditions

• Social and Economic Conditions

• Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife

For information regarding how to obtain these Assessment documents, please contact: USDA Forest

Service, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902 or telephone 501-321-5202.

To limit publication costs, few color maps and figures were used in the Assessment reports. For color

versions of some of the Assessment figures and supplemental material, please see the Assessment’s home

page on the Internet at <http://www.fs.fed.us/oonf/ooha/welcome.htm>. The Assessment reports will

be online for about 2 years after the date on this publication; then they will be archived.

Please note: When “authors” are agency or business names, most are abbreviated to save space in the

citations of the body of the report. The “References” at the end of the report contain both the full name

and abbreviations. Because abbreviations sometimes are not in the same alphabetical order as the references, for clarifications of abbreviations, consult the “Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms.”

The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of

the readers. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement of any product or service by the USDA

Forest Service.

December 1999

Southern Research Station

P.O. Box 2680

Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment:

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife

Eastern Region

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Milwaukee, WI

North Central Research Station

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

St. Paul, MN

Southern Region

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Atlanta, GA

Southern Research Station

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Asheville, NC

iii

Contents

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Contributors to This Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Chapter 1: Ecological Units

of the Highlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Assessment Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Ecological Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Ozark Highlands Section (222A) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Boston Mountains Section (M222A) . . . . . . . . . 4

Arkansas Valley Section (231G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Ouachita Mountains Section (M231A) . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter 2: Prehistoric and Historic

Ecological Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Major Changes in Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Changes in Wildlife and Plant Populations . . . . . 9

Historic Changes by Ecological Section . . . . . . 10

Effects of Disturbance on

Highlands Ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Climatic Disturbance Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Biotic Disturbance Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter 3: Status and Trends of Vegetation . . 21

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Vegetation Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

A Comparison of the Highlands to

 Surrounding Ecoregions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Page

Forest Cover in the Highlands Based on

FIA Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Vegetation Patterns based on AVHRR Data . . 49

Trends in Vegetation Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis . . . . . . 55

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Old Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Rare Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Chapter 4: Silvicultural Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Silvicultural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Ecological Basis Silvicultural Practices . . . . . . 74

Silvicultural Systems and Reproduction

Cutting Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Site Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Intermediate Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Silvicultural Practices for Oak-Hickory

Stands in the Assessment Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

 Even-aged Reproduction Cutting Methods . . . 84

 Uneven-aged Reproduction Cutting

 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Silvicultural Practices for Shortleaf Pine

Stands in the Assessment Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

 Even-aged Reproduction Cutting Methods . 88

 Uneven-aged Reproduction Cutting

 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

 Thinning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Silvicultural Practices on the Highlands’

National Forests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Page

Chapter 5: Plant and Animal Populations . . . . . 103

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Species with Viability Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Global and State Ranks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Federally Listed Threatened and

Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Game Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Neotropical Migratory and Resident Birds . . . . . 118

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis . . . . . 118

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Cave Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Chapter 6: Biological Threats to

Forest Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Invasive Nonnative Pests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Page

Exotic Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Native Insect Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Native Tree Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Invasive Nonnative Flowering Plants . . . . . . . . . 161

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Invasive Nonnative Vertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms . . . 193

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

iv
Preface

Change is evident across the Ozark and Ouachita Highlands. Whether paying attention to State and

regional news, studying statistical patterns and trends, or driving through the Highlands, one cannot escape

signs that growth may be putting strains on the area’s natural resources and human communities. How

people regard these changes varies widely, however, as does access to reliable information that might help

them assess the significance of what is happening in the Highlands. The Assessment reports provide

windows to a wealth of such information.

This report (Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife) is one of five that document the results of the OzarkOuachita Highlands Assessment. Federal and State natural resource agency employees and university and

other cooperators worked together to produce the four technical reports that examine air quality; aquatic

conditions; social and economic conditions; and terrestrial conditions (the topic of the present volume).

Dozens of experts in various fields provided technical reviews. Other citizens were involved in working

meetings and supplied valuable ideas and information during the process. The Summary Report provides

an overview of the key findings presented in the four technical reports. Data sources, methods of analysis,

findings, discussion of implications, and links to dozens of additional sources of information are discussed in

more detail in the other reports.

The USDA Forest Service initiated the Assessment and worked with other agencies to develop a

synthesis of the best information available on conditions and trends in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

Assessment reports emphasize those conditions and trends most likely to have some bearing on the future

management of the region’s three national forests—the Mark Twain, Ouachita, and Ozark-St. Francis.

People who are interested in the future of the region’s other public lands and waters or of this remarkable

region as a whole should also find the reports valuable.

No specific statutory requirement led to the Assessment. However, data and findings assembled in the

reports will provide some of the information relevant for an evaluation of possible changes in the land and

resource management plans of the Highland’s three national forests. The National Forest Management

Act directs the Forest Service to revise such management plans every 10 to 15 years, which means that

the national forests of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma should have revised plans in the year 2001. Due

to restrictions in the appropriations bills that provide funding for the Forest Service, however, it is uncertain

when these revisions can begin.

The charter for the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment established a team structure and listed

tentative questions that the teams would address. Assembled in mid-1996, the Terrestrial, Aquatic and

Atmospheric, and Human Dimensions (Social-Economic) Teams soon refined and condensed these

questions and then gathered and evaluated vast quantities of information. They drafted their key findings in

late 1997 and refined them several times through mid-1999. In addition to offering relevant data and key

findings in the reports, the authors discuss some of the possible implications of their findings for future

public land management in the Highlands and for related research. The Assessment reports, however, stop

well short of making decisions concerning management of any lands in the Highlands or about future

research. In no way do the reports represent “plans” or make land management decisions. Instead, the

findings and conclusions offered in the Assessment reports are intended to stimulate discussion and further

study.

v
Contributors to this Report

Assessment Team Leader

William F. Pell, Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Hot Springs, AR

Terrestrial Team Leader

George A. Bukenhofer, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Heavener, OK

Authors

Chapter 1: Ecological Classification of the Highlands

Tom Foti, George Bukenhofer

Chapter 2: Prehistoric and Historic Changes

Tom Foti, Lynda L. Richards, John Andre, Jack E. Voeller

Chapter 3: Status and Trends of Vegetation

James M. Guldin, Frank R. Thompson, Lynda L. Richards, Kyra C. Harper

Chapter 4: Silvicultural Practices

James M. Guldin, Edward F. Loewenstein

Chapter 5: Plant and Animal Populations

Frank R. Thompson, Douglas Zollner, George Bukenhofer, Steve Hensley, Garry Houf

Chapter 6: Biological Threats to Forest Resources

Dale A. Starkey, Timothy J. Haley, Roberta A. Fitzgibbon, Lynda L. Richards

Author Information

John Andre, Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Hector, AR

George A. Bukenhofer, Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Heavener, OK

Roberta A. Fitzgibbon, Entomologist, USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health

Protection, Flagstaff, AZ

Tom Foti, Ecologist, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock, AR

vi
James M. Guldin, Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Hot Springs, AR.

Timothy J. Haley, Entomologist, USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health

Protection, Pineville, LA

Kyra C. Harper, Planning Forester, USDA Forest Service, Ozark-St. Francis National Forests,

Russellville, AR

Steve Hensley, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa,

OK

Garry Houf, Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO

Edward F. Loewenstein, Research Forester, North Central Research Station, Columbia, MO

Lynda L. Richards, Ecologist (retired), USDA Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO

Dale A. Starkey, Plant Pathologist, USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health

Protection, Pineville, AR

Frank R. Thompson, III, Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station,

Columbia, MO

Jack E. Voeller, Forester, USDA Forest Service, Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Clarksville, AR

Douglas C. Zollner, Conservation Director, The Nature Conservancy, Arkansas Field Office, Little Rock,

AR

Other Contributors

Julie Adams, Geographic Information System Specialist, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Oklahoma State Office, Stillwater, OK

Ian Butler, Data Coordinator, Oklahoma Biological Survey, Norman, OK

John Courtenay, Forester, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR

James G. Dickson, Supervisory Research Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research

Station, Nacogdoches, TX

William D. Dijak, Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, Columbia, MO

Laura A. Herbeck, Wildlife Technician, USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, Columbia,

MO

Nolan J. Hess, Plant Pathologist, USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Pineville, LA

Ken Frazier, Senior Staff Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa, OK

Robyn M. McMullen, Natural Resource Specialist, USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry,

Forest Health Protection, Pineville, LA

Randy Miller, Fire Management Officer, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs,

AR

Forrest L. Oliveria, Entomologist, USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health

Protection, Pineville, LA

Cindy Osborne, Data Manager, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock, AR

Valli Y. Peacher, Computer Specialist, USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health

Protection, Pineville, LA

Douglas N. Rubel, former Natural Resource Specialist, USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry,

Forest Health Protection, Pineville, LA

James B. Stover, Geographic Information System Specialist, USDA Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Oklahoma State Office, Stillwater, OK.

Edwin Yockey, USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Asheville, NC

vii
Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment Steering Team Members

G. Samuel Foster, Assistant Station Director of Research Programs–West, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.

Randy Moore, Forest Supervisor, USDA Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO.

Lynn C. Neff, Forest Supervisor, USDA Forest Service, Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Russellville,

AR.

Alan G. Newman, Forest Supervisor, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.

Editorial Team Members

Elizabeth F. Shores, Contract Writer-Editor, Little Rock, AR.

Donna M. Paananen, Technical Publications Writer-Editor, USDA Forest Service, North Central Research

Station, East Lansing, MI.

Louise A. Wilde, Production Editor, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.

viii
Acknowledgments

The Terrestrial Team would like to thank members of the public who attended meetings and/or provided

written or oral input during the Assessment process. The team also wishes to thank the aforementioned

organizations and individuals who contributed information used to write this report.

In addition, the Terrestrial Team appreciates the help of the individuals who reviewed various chapters

of this General Technical Report. Their comments and suggestions contributed to the preparation of this

document. Information about these reviewers follows.

Reviewers

Sandra Anagnostakis, Agricultural Scientist, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven,

CT—Chapter 6.

Jim Baker, Ecosystem Management Team Leader, (retired), USDA Forest Service, Southern Research

Station, Monticello, AR—Chapters 3 and 4.

George Buckner, Wildlife Research Supervisor, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO—

Chapter 5.

Dave Diamond, Director, Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership, Columbia, MO—Chapters 3 and 4.

Chris England, USDA Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO—Chapters 3 and 4.

Jane Fitzgerald, Partners in Flight Coordinator, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City,

MO—Chapter 5.

Larry D. Hedrick, Team Leader for Integrated Resources, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National

Forest, Hot Springs, AR—Chapters 3, 4, and 5.

Nolan Hess, Plant Pathologist, USDA Forest Service, S&PF, Forest Health Protection, Southern Region,

Pineville, LA—Chapter 6.

Chuck Hunter, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA—Chapter 5.

John Knighten, Supervisory Biological Technician, USDA Forest Service, S&PF, Forest Health Protection,

Southern Region, Asheville, NC—Chapter 6.

Doug Ladd, The Nature Conservancy, Missouri Field Office, St. Louis, MO—Chapter 2.

Ed Loewnstein, Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, Columbia,

MO—Chapters 3 and 4.

Ron Masters, Associate Professor of Forestry, Oklahoma State University, Cooperative Extension Service,

Stillwater, OK—Chapter 2.

Manfred Mielke, Plant Pathologist, USDA Forest Service, S&PF, Forest Health Protection, Northeastern

Area, St. Paul, MN—Chapter 6.

Jim Shaw, Professor of Zoology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK—Chapter 5.

Ken Slater, USDA Forest Service, Ozark National Forest, Russellville, AR—Chapters 3 and 4.

Fred Stephen, Professor of Entomology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR—Chapter 6.

Phil Tappe, Associate Professor, School of Forest Resources, University of Arkansas, Monticello, AR—

Chapter 5.

Ron Thill, Project Leader/Supervisory Research Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Southern

Research Station, Nacogdoches, TX—Chapter 5.

ix

Executive Summary

The Terrestrial Team examined the terrestrial resources of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands as a complete

unit, spanning 20 ecological units (subsections) and

encompassing 41,131,900 acres (64,269 square miles). A

unique feature of the North American landscape, the

Highlands are the only extended area of substantial local

relief (high hills and mountains) between the Appalachians and the Rockies.

This richly forested region has a long history of human

occupation and ecological change. The various tribes of

Native Americans who lived throughout the Highlands

until the 1840’s (when most Indians were re-settled in

what is now eastern Oklahoma); the European settlers

and loggers who cleared forests extensively in the latter

half of the 19th and early 20th centuries; the agencies who

successfully led the effort to suppress and control forest

fires in the Highlands in the 1930’s; and modern day

urban and suburban expansion all have exerted influence

on the vegetation and wildlife of the area in many ways.

The Terrestrial Team was comprised of foresters,

biologists, ecologists, pathologists, and entomologists

representing several State and Federal agencies and

other individuals who served as consultants. With input

from concerned citizens, six key questions were developed to guide assessment of terrestrial (land-based)

conditions in the Highlands. To answer these questions,

the Team reviewed scientific literature and assembled

data from unpublished sources, including State and

Federal databases. Finally, they relied upon the professional judgment of individual team members and other

experts whom they consulted. In some cases, the team

could not fully answer the questions because insufficient

information is available. Following are the questions and

key findings from each chapter.

Chapter 1: Ecological Units of the Highlands

What are the ecological boundaries and

subsections of the Highlands?

• The map of sections and subsections of the OzarkOuachita Highlands (Keys and others 1995) was

revised to better meet the needs of the Assessment.

Changes were largely limited to the Arkansas and

Oklahoma portions of the Assessment area.

• The modified map of sections and subsections of the

Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma is the first such

delineation in Oklahoma and provides significant

advancements over the earlier maps by Croneis (1930)

and Foti (1974) in Arkansas.

Chapter 2: Prehistoric and Historic

Ecological Changes

What were the historic and prehistoric ecological

conditions in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands?

• American Indians influenced vegetation patterns

through their use of fire.

• European settlers began making dramatic changes to

the land commencing in the 1830’s through land

clearing and the suppression of fire; settlers also had

an impact on animals by reducing certain habitats and

by overhunting.

• Because people have been a constant influence on

plant communities and ecosystems of the Highlands

for thousands of years, ideas of “natural” (i.e., not

human-influenced) conditions need to be reviewed

carefully, even challenged.

Chapter 3: Status and Trends of Vegetation

What trends in vegetation cover and land use have

occurred over the past 50 years?

Are changes in vegetation cover—including ageclass distribution, species composition (e.g. cover

types) and fragmentation—taking place?

How are old-growth forest stands distributed?

What is their management status? What is the

potential for retention or restoration of such

communities?

• As measured by Advanced Very High-Resolution

Radiometer data, oak-hickory forest is the most

extensive vegetation type of the Assessment area,

covering 15 million acres (ac) or 36 percent of the

area.

• Oak-pine forest is the second most extensive within the

region, with 4.4 million ac (11 percent of the

xi
Assessment area). The largest acreage of this type

(660,000 ac) occurs within the Fourche Mountains

subsection of the Ouachita Mountains.

• Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners hold 68

percent of the 22.89 million ac of timberland in the

Assessment area; forest industry owns 11 percent.

Thus, private and corporate landowners together hold

more than 79 percent of the timberland. The remaining

21 percent consists of public timberlands, three-fourths

of which are within one of the national forests.

• The abundance of oak in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands is matched by only two other regions in the

United States, the Central Appalachian and Eastern

Broadleaf Forest (Continental) Provinces.

• The annual net growth of hardwoods and softwoods is

more than double the annual removals.

• Since the 1970’s, forested area has increased in five of

the six Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) survey

regions in the Highlands and, in some instances,

dramatically.

Chapter 4: Silvicultural Practices

What trends are taking place in silvicultural

practices in the Assessment area?

What trends are taking place in silvicultural

practices on the Highlands’ national forests?

• Upland hardwood forests consist of relatively shade

intolerant species that typically are best suited to evenaged management. Except for one case in Missouri,

the few successful examples of uneven-aged management in upland oak forests required aggressive chemical control of competing hardwoods.

• Shortleaf pine forests can be managed with a variety

of even-aged or uneven-aged methods, but successful

regeneration under single-tree selection typically

requires chemical and/or mechanical control of

competing vegetation. Natural regeneration also

depends upon the co-occurrence of good seed crops,

suitable seedbeds, and sufficient light.

• Clearcutting declined on national forests from 27,729

ac in 1988 to 698 ac in 1996, a 97.5 percent decline.

This decline in clearcutting was the single most

significant silvicultural trend on national forests in the

Assessment area.

• Reproduction cutting on the national forests using the

seed tree method averaged 2,382 ac/year (8.6 percent

of the 1988 clearcutting level) from 1991 through

1996. During the same period, the area harvested

using the shelterwood method averaged 3,157 ac/year

(11.4 percent of the 1988 clearcutting level).

• The largest increase of a silvicultural method on the

national forests was in the use of the single-tree

selection. This increase was due more to single-tree

selection being the exact opposite of clearcutting

rather than to any particular advantages for either pine

or oak-hickory silviculture. Together, the Ozark and

Ouachita National Forests applied single-tree selection

on an average of 8,916 ac annually from 1991 through

1995.

• Herbicide application for site preparation declined on

the national forests from 12,705 ac in 1988 to 2,132 ac

in 1997, an 83 percent decline over the 10-year period.

Conversely, acres burned in site preparation on the

Ouachita National Forest increased from 536 ac in

1989 to 3,137 ac in 1997. Each year, more acres have

been burned than in the previous year. This trend

suggests that the limits to using prescribed fire for site

preparation have not yet been reached.

• The use of prescribed burning as a tool for managing

intermediate stands has increased nearly four-fold

over the past 5 years and exceeded 100,000 ac in 1997

(due primarily to actions on the Ouachita National

Forest). The Ouachita National Forest has increased

the use of prescribed burning to restore shortleaf pinebluestem grass communities over extensive areas of

the western Ouachitas, to sustain wildlife habitat

diversity, and to encourage natural regeneration.

Chapter 5:Plant and Animal Populations

What are the current and likely future trends for

populations and/or habitats for: (1) federally listed

threatened and endangered species; (2) other

terrestrial and amphibious species with viability

concerns; (3) species that are hunted; (4) neotropical migratory birds; and (5) animals that live

in caves?

• Of the 333 plants and animals with viability concerns

in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, 35 are imperiled

xii
(having 20 or fewer known populations) or critically

imperiled (5 or fewer known populations).

• More than half (53 percent) of the species with

viability concerns in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands are

known to occur there only on national forest lands;

about one-third of these species are known to occur

there only on private lands.

• Sixteen species in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands are

federally listed as threatened or endangered.

• Available data for game species in the Highlands show

that most populations have increased or remained

stable since 1970.

• North American Breeding Bird Survey data revealed

21 of 90 species in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

have declined significantly from 1966 to 1996. Six

species showed a significant increase during the same

period.

Chapter 6: Biological Threats to

Forest Resources

What are the current and predicted trends for

insect and disease infestations and outbreaks in

the Assessment area?

• The European gypsy moth, a defoliator of hardwood

trees, has been found in the Assessment area. The

outbreaks have been minor, and eradication has been

successful. Scientists expect that a general infestation

might reach the Assessment area between 2025 and

2050.

· Red imported fire ants are invading the Assessment

area from the south and are expected to continue a

gradual northward expansion. Eradication is probably

impossible. An integrated pest management program is

the best approach to this problem.

• The southern pine beetle is indigenous to the southern

part of the Assessment area. Serious outbreaks will

continue to occur in the Ouachita Mountains Section.

These outbreaks are cyclic and related to stand age

and density of pine trees in a stand.

• Knapweeds, invasive nonnative plants, have been

present for several decades on some roadsides in

southern Missouri. There are health concerns for

humans and livestock related to this plant. Precautions

should be taken to minimize direct contact with this

plant.

• Purple loosestrife, a serious pest in wetlands, is

present in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands and may

spread.

xiii
Figure 1.1—Ecological sections and subsections of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment area (sections and subsections modified from Keys

and others 1995).

Missouri

Arkansas

Oklahoma

1

3 2

4

5

6

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 19

19 20

Section name Map code Subsection name Subsection number

Ozark Highlands 1 St.Francois Knobs Basins 222Aa

Ozark Highlands 2 Central Plateau 222Ab

Ozark Highlands 3 Osage River Hills 222Ac

Ozark Highlands 4 Gasconade River Hills 222Ad

Ozark Highlands 5 Meramac River Hills 222Ae

Ozark Highlands 6 Current River Hills 222Af

Ozark Highlands 7 White River Hills 222Ag

Ozark Highlands 8 Elk River Hills 222Ah

Ozark Highlands 9 Black River Ozark Border 222Al

Ozark Highlands 10 Springfield Plain 222Am

Ozark Highlands 11 Springfield Plateau 222An

Boston Mountains 12 Upper Boston Mountains M222Aa

Boston Mountains 13 Lower Boston Mountains M222Ab

Arkansas Valley 14 Eastern Arkansas Valley 231Ga

Arkansas Valley 15 Western Arkansas Valley Mountains 231Gb

Arkansas Valley 16 Western Arkansas Valley 231Gc

Ouachita Mountains 17 Fourche Mountains M231Aa

Ouachita Mountains 18 Western Ouachita Mountains M231Ab

Ouachita Mountains 19 Central Ouachita Mountains M231Ac

Ouachita Mountains 20 Athens Piedmont Plateau M231Ad

Ozark Highlands

Boston Mountains

Arkansas Valley

Ouachita Mountains

and

2

11

xiv
Chapter 1: Ecological Units of the Highlands

This report is one of a five developed for the OzarkOuachita Highlands Assessment. The team that produced

this report was comprised of scientists from a variety of

disciplines—wildlife biologists, foresters, ecologists,

pathologists, and entomologists. They had in common an

interest in the terrestrial vegetation and animal species of

the Highlands and a willingness to examine the status of

these “terrestrial resources.”

Questions about the terrestrial animals, plants, and

biological communities of the Highlands were developed

at a series of Terrestrial Team meetings in the summer of

1997. No new information was collected in the field to

address these questions. Instead, existing data from

various agencies and individuals were gathered and

analyzed. Two concerns emerged powerfully as sources

of information were identified: while an overwhelming

amount of information exists for the Highlands, many

species have not been studied and the information that is

available from various sources is often in different

formats, covers different time periods, and/or covers

different geographic areas.

One early and continuing challenge was how best to

organize and present the information. The Terrestrial

Team decided to use the ecologically defined units

presented in this chapter to provide a consistent framework throughout the report. Chapter 2 presents an

overview of prehistoric and more recent change in the

Highlands. Current vegetation cover is examined in some

detail in Chapter 3, and silvicultural practices receive indepth treatment in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 examines many

plant and wildlife species of special concern, and Chapter

6 covers current and future biological threats to forest

resources.

Question 1.1: What are the ecological

boundaries and subsections of the Highlands?

 Key Findings

 1. The map of sections and subsections of the OzarkOuachita Highlands (Keys and others 1995) was

revised to better meet the needs of the Assessment.

Changes were largely limited to the Arkansas and

Oklahoma portions of the Assessment area.

 2. The modified map of sections and subsections of the

Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma is the first

such delineation for Oklahoma and provides significant advancements over earlier maps for Arkansas

by Croneis (1930) and Foti (1974).

The Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Assessment Area

This report contains data and key findings in the

context of an ecologically defined area—the OzarkOuachita Highlands (fig. 1.1). Although the term “Interior

Highlands” is familiar to geographers and biologists, it is

not commonly recognized in other circles. Most people

are more familiar with “the Ozarks” and “the Ouachita

Mountains” than they are with the older geographic name

for the two areas. Thus, the Assessment team leaders

chose to use a term likely to be more widely recognized—the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

The Ozark-Ouachita Highlands is an appropriate area

to assess because it has relatively consistent ecological

characteristics and is distinctively different from surrounding landscapes. Consisting mostly of hilly to mountainous topography over substrates of Paleozoic age, the

Highlands have long been recognized as a distinct

physiographic and natural region (Fenneman 1938, Braun

1950). Upland hardwood and upland pine-hardwood

forests characterize much of the area. Lower-lying plains

with more recent geological substrates also occur in

portions of the Highlands, including much of the Arkansas

Valley section. The vegetation of these plains ranges

from tallgrass prairie to lowland pine-hardwood and

bottomland hardwood forests.
Even though the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands have

some consistent general characteristics, there are also

striking differences within it. Therefore, most descriptions and studies divide the region into smaller, more

uniform areas. Authors have generally recognized at

least two provinces, the Ozark Mountains and the

Ouachita Mountains (Fenneman 1938, Thornbury 1965,

Braun 1950, Croneis 1930, Foti 1974). Sometimes, the

Arkansas Valley has been considered a separate

province or natural division (Foti 1976, Pell 1983,

Omernik 1987). While most authors treated the Boston

Mountains as a subdivision of the Ozark Mountains,

Omernik (1987) recognized it as a separate ecoregion

(natural division). These provinces, natural divisions, or

sections are often subdivided as well.

Data Sources

To facilitate agency ecosystem management efforts,

the USDA Forest Service developed a new

regionalization framework for the Eastern United States

(Keys and others 1995, henceforth referred to as “Keys

and others” or the “Keys map”) based on a national

map of ecoregions of the United States by Bailey and

others (1994). The new framework is hierarchical (like

older efforts) but is based on a more holistic consideration of landscape properties than some earlier maps,

with climate and soil playing prominent roles along with

physiography. The new framework is also designed to

rationally subdivide landscapes in ways meaningful to

ecosystem management. The older and newer maps

coincide most closely at the level of section (Keys and

others), province (Fenneman 1938), and natural division

(Foti 1974). Although differences occur at this level

they are usually in the form of one unit in one system

equating to two units in another system. The new

framework is often more detailed at lower levels in the

hierarchy than older maps.

The Terrestrial Team examined the Keys and others

(1995) framework to determine whether the ecological

units and their boundaries were adequate for Assessment purposes. Important considerations were that the

sections and subsections and their boundaries be

ecologically meaningful and consistent across State

lines. Examination of the Keys map and comparison

with other regional maps and geological and topographical base maps revealed that sections and subsections

and their boundaries were not consistently meaningful

and accurate across the Assessment area. The Missouri

units and their boundaries have been settled for years;

therefore, the Keys map simply adopted those boundaries, and changes needed for the Assessment were

very minor.

In contrast, the Arkansas units and boundaries

needed considerable revision because: (1) the Keys and

others (1995) approach departs substantially and without

convincing rationale from long-standing delineations

(Croneis 1930, Foti 1974) and (2) locally created maps

were not available. The Keys map is also problematic in

Oklahoma, because in that State only general regions

have been defined (OK BTF 1996), boundaries are not

detailed, and subdivisions are not mapped. Furthermore,

the Keys map appears to be derived from low-detail

base maps, and its boundaries were judged to be too

general for this Assessment. The Keys map and

supporting materials do not explicitly define the source

or rationale for boundaries; therefore, revision of the

map sometimes required a determination of the defining

physical feature and use of an appropriate base map.

Although production of the new map (fig. 1.1)

involved many changes to the Keys and others (1995)

map, few changes were made in the list of sections and

subsections. (A map illustrating the changes the team

made to subsection boundaries is available on the Web

site for the Assessment, <http://www.fs.fed.us.oonf>.)

The emphasis was on employing clearly-stated boundary definitions that in most cases were first articulated

by Croneis (1930), and then using appropriate digital

base maps to create an accurate final product. Many

changes were made to the Croneis (1930) and Foti

(1974) maps, however, primarily by adding detail to the

older maps. (See, for examples, the White River Hills

and Central Plateau subsections [which are nested

within the Salem Plateau of Croneis 1930], the Upper

and Lower Boston Mountains subsections [nested

within the Boston Mountain subdivision of Foti 1974], or

the three new subsections within the Arkansas Valley.)

Croneis (1930) and Foti (1974) presented rationales

for many regional boundaries in Arkansas and Oklahoma, most of which were adopted for this revision. All

boundaries are based on either geology or topography,

2
although soils maps were used for comparison in some

cases. The geologic base map was the 1:2,500,000-scale

geology of the conterminous United States (Schruben

and others 1994). The topographic base map was

created for this project from 30-meter (m) USGS digital

elevation model files by the Spatial Analysis Laboratory

of the School of Forest Resources, University of

Arkansas at Monticello.

Ecological Units

The following discussion describes the ecological

units used in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands area and

the factors on which the boundaries were based along

with changes from the Keys map. Alphanumeric codes

used here are the same as those used in the Keys map.

The modified map of sections and subsections of

the Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma (fig. 1.1) is

the first such delineation for Oklahoma and provides

four significant advancements over earlier maps for

Arkansas by Croneis (1930) and Foti (1974):

• Boundaries are defined and mapped consistently

across the three States sharing the Highlands;

• Boundaries based on topography are much more

accurate than previous maps due to the use of 30-m

digital elevation models;

• Changes in section and subsection definitions that

have occurred since production of the earlier maps

are incorporated; and

• The map produced by this team is in digital form and

freely available on the Assessment Web site.

Ozark Highlands Section (222A)

Six subsections in Missouri and Illinois were not

included in the Assessment area: 222Ai (Prairie Ozark

Border); 222Aj (Inner Ozark Border); 222Ak (Outer

Ozark Border); 222Ao (Mississippi River Alluvial

Plain); 222Ap (Missouri River Alluvial Plain); and

222Aq (Illinois Ozarks). These were excluded because

they are on the periphery of the region, are not included

in some data sets used for the Assessment, and would

have complicated the analysis by extending it to an

additional State. Following are the subsections that were

included in the Assessment area and brief descriptions

of each.

222Aa—The St. Francis Knobs and Basins, which

cover 1,108,009 acres (ac), occur only in Missouri.

They consist of steep hills (but not an eroded plateau

like the other Ozark subsections) that are 400 to 1,700

feet (ft) in elevation and underlain by Cambrian and

Precambrian igneous and sedimentary rocks. The

subsection is covered with acid glades, oak woodlands,

and dry-mesic oak forests. No changes were made in

the Keys map boundaries.

222Ab—The Central Plateau subsection occurs in

Missouri (5,006,390 ac) and Arkansas (1,335,220 ac)

and consists of irregular plains 300 to 1,600 ft in elevation with karst features on Ordovician cherty dolomite,

sandstone, and cherty clay residuum covered with

prairies, oak woodlands, and dry-mesic oak forests. The

Keys map boundary with the White River Hills subsection was altered to follow the break in topography

between these subsections.

222Ac—The Osage River Hills (1,550,855 ac) occur

only in Missouri, where they consist of hills with entrenched valleys 600 to 1,100 ft in elevation that were

formed by streams downcutting to the Osage River.

Underlain by Ordovician cherty dolomite, sandstone, and

cherty clay residuum, this subsection is covered with

pine-oak and oak woodlands and forests. No changes

were made in the Keys map boundaries.

222Ad—The Gasconade River Hills subsection

(1,098,006 ac) occurs only in Missouri. Similar to the

Osage River Hills, this subsection consists of hills with

entrenched valleys and karst features and was formed

by streams downcutting to the Gasconade River. Underlain by Ordovician cherty dolomite, sandstone, and

cherty clay residuum, the Gasconade River Hills range

from 600 to 1,100 ft in elevation and are covered with

pine-oak and oak woodlands and forests. No changes

were made in the Keys map boundaries.

222Ae—The Meramac River Hills (1,136,219 ac)

occur only in Missouri. (The correct spelling of the river

for which this subsection is named is “Meramec,” but

the team left the Keys and others [1995] name unchanged.) This subsection consists of hills with entrenched valleys formed by streams downcutting to the

Meramec River. Underlain by Cambrian and Ordovician

cherty dolomite and cherty clay residuum and ranging

from 500 to 1,300 ft in elevation, this subsection is

covered with pine-oak and oak woodlands and forests.

No changes were made in the Keys map boundaries.

3
222Af—The Current River Hills (1,563,186 ac)

occur in Missouri and consist of entrenched valleys with

karst features formed by streams downcutting to the

Current River. Underlain by Cambrian and Ordovician

cherty dolomite and sandstone with cherty clay residuum and ranging from 400 to 1,300 ft in elevation, the

Current River Hills are covered with pine-oak and oak

woodlands and forests. No changes were made in the

Keys map boundaries.

222Ag—The White River Hills subsection occurs in

Missouri (2,155,950 ac) and Arkansas (1,577,221 ac)

and consists of hills with entrenched valleys and karst

features. It was formed by streams downcutting to the

White River. Underlain by Ordovician cherty dolomite

with cherty clay residuum and ranging from 600 to 1,600

ft in elevation, this subsection is covered with alkaline

glades and oak woodlands and forests. Changes were

made in the Arkansas portion of the Keys map boundaries to better follow the break in topography from the

surrounding plains.

222Ah—The Elk River Hills occur in Missouri

(356,326 ac), Arkansas (57,433 ac), and Oklahoma

(32,334 ac) and consist of hills with entrenched valleys

and karst features. Formed by streams downcutting to

the Neosho River, the subsection is underlain by Mississippian cherty limestone with cherty clay residuum,

ranges from 900 to 1,400 ft in elevation, and is covered

with oak woodlands and forests. Changes were made in

the Arkansas portion of the Keys map boundaries to

better follow the break in topography from the surrounding subsections.

222Al—The Black River Ozark Border (859,059 ac)

occurs only in Missouri. It consists of irregular plains

and low hills with karst features. Underlain by

Ordovician sandstone and cherty dolomite with cherty

clay residuum, this subsection ranges from 300 to 900 ft

in elevation and is covered with pine-oak and oak

woodlands and forests and oak-sweetgum forests. The

Keys map boundaries were modified to eliminate this

subsection from Arkansas.

222Am—The Springfield Plain lies in Missouri

(3,136,051 ac) and Oklahoma (161,881 ac) and is a

smooth plain with karst features underlain by

Mississippian limestone (sometimes very cherty) and

cherty clay residuum. Ranging from 800 to 1,700 ft in

elevation, this subsection is covered with prairie and oak

woodlands and forest. No changes were made in the

Keys map boundaries.

222An—The Springfield Plateau subsection occurs

in Oklahoma (1,486,718 ac), Arkansas (1,579,841 ac),

and Missouri (56,326 ac) and consists of smooth to

irregular plains 800 to 1,400 ft in elevation with karst

features. Underlain by Mississippian limestone (sometimes very cherty) and cherty clay residuum, this

subsection is covered with prairie and oak woodlands

and forest, alkaline, and acid glades. Detail changes

were made in the Keys map boundaries to better follow

the break in topography to the Elk River Hills and to

more closely follow the boundaries with older and

younger geological substrates throughout the rest of the

subsection perimeter.

Boston Mountains Section (M222A)

In earlier maps, with the exception of Omernik

(1987), this section was treated as a subsection or

equivalent.

M222Aa—The Upper Boston Mountains (1,106,642

ac) occur only in Arkansas. They consist of low mountains 1,000 to 2,700 ft in elevation underlain by

Pennsylvanian sandstone and shale with sandy residuum

and loamy colluvium. This subsection is covered with

oak woodlands and forests. Detail changes were made

in the Keys map boundaries to better follow the geologic

boundary with the Springfield Plateau and to better

follow the corresponding land type association boundaries developed by the Ozark-St. Francis National

Forests elsewhere along the perimeter of the subsection. This subsection was defined on the basis of

elevation (approximating the 1,800-ft elevation contour),

which corresponds to areas of lower temperature and

higher rainfall and consequent changes in plant community composition. The Keys map name for this subsection (Boston Mountains) and the following subsection

(Boston Hills) were changed to reflect that both are

parts of the vernacular and physiographic Boston

Mountains.

M222Ab—The Lower Boston Mountains subsection

occurs in Oklahoma (834,553 ac) and Arkansas

(2,471,699 ac) and consists of high hills 500 to 1,800 ft in

elevation underlain by Pennsylvanian sandstone and

shale with sandy residuum and loamy colluvium. The

4
Lower Boston Mountains are covered with pine-oak

and oak woodlands and forests. Detail changes were

made to the Keys map boundaries to better follow the

corresponding landtype association boundaries developed by the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests for the

Upper Boston Mountains and to better follow the

boundary with younger and older geologic substrates

elsewhere along the northern, eastern, and western

perimeter of the subsection and the topographically

defined southern boundary (the escarpment to the

Arkansas Valley section [Croneis 1930, Foti 1974]). The

Keys map name for this subsection (Boston Hills) was

changed as explained in the description of the Upper

Boston Mountains.

Arkansas Valley Section (231G)

231Ga—The Eastern Arkansas Valley (1,490,182 ac)

lies entirely in Arkansas, where it consists of plains with

hills 300 to 500 ft in elevation. Underlain by Pennsylvanian sandstone and shale with sandy residuum, this

subsection is covered with pine-oak and pine woodlands

and forests. Northern and eastern boundaries were

modified in detail to better match topographic and

geologic boundaries, respectively. The southern boundary was redefined to match the traditional physiographic

boundary, Cadron Ridge (Croneis 1930, Foti 1974). The

southwestern boundary was redefined to place all

Arkansas River bottomlands within the Western

Arkansas Valley subsection; topographic and geologic

boundaries also contributed to the modified subsection

boundary. The Keys map name was changed to eliminate “and Ridges” since the redefined southern boundary eliminated the most prominent structural ridges from

the subsection (one of the reasons for redefining that

boundary).

231Gb—The Western Arkansas Valley Mountains

occurs in Oklahoma (494,643 ac) and Arkansas

(433,498 ac). It consists of low mountains and ridges

and some wide valleys as well. Ranging from 750 to

2,800 ft in elevation, the Western Arkansas Valley

Mountains are underlain by Pennsylvanian sandstone

and shale with sandy residuum and covered with pineoak and oak woodlands and forests and prairies. The

eastern, northern, and western boundaries as delineated

on the Keys map were modified somewhat to better

include the mountains and exclude the plains that were

continuations of those in the Western Arkansas Valley.

The southern boundary was changed to follow the

northern boundary of the physiographic Ouachita

Mountains (Croneis 1930, Foti 1974). The Keys map

name (Mount Magazine) was changed to reflect the

importance of other mountains within this subsection.

231Gc—The Western Arkansas Valley subsection

includes portions of Oklahoma (829,099 ac) and

Arkansas (1,354,977 ac) and consists of plains, low hills,

and ridges 300 to 1,000 ft in elevation underlain by

Pennsylvanian sandstone and shale with sandy and

clayey residuum along with Holocene sandy alluvium.

This subsection is covered with pine-oak and oak

woodlands and forests, substantial bottomland forests,

and prairies. One major low mountain, Petit Jean

Mountain, was included within this section because it

was disjunct from the Western Arkansas Valley Mountains, in which it would otherwise have been included.

The northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the

Keys map were refined based on topography and

geology to place all of the Arkansas River alluvial plains,

the most extensive alluvial plains of its major tributaries,

and almost all of the Pennsylvanian eroded plains within

this subsection. A substantial area that extended up the

Canadian River at the western end of this subsection on

the Keys map was eliminated on the basis of geology,

topography, and the definition of the Arkansas Valley as

lying between the Ouachita Mountains and the uplifted

plateaus of the Ozark Mountains (Croneis 1930).

Ouachita Mountains Section (M231A)

M231Aa—The Fourche Mountains occur in

Oklahoma (743,093 ac) and Arkansas (2,148,080 ac)

where they form open, low to relatively high mountain

ridges, often with wide valleys. Elevations range from

750 to over 2,600 ft, among the highest in the Assessment area. Ridges are underlain by Pennsylvanian and

Mississippian sandstone and shale valleys by sandy

residuum. Slopes and ridges are covered with pine-oak

and oak woodlands and forests. The northern boundary

was modified from Keys to coincide with the physiographic boundary based on topography (Croneis 1930,

Foti 1974). The southern boundary was modified to

match the boundary with Mississippian Arkansas

5
Novaculite and toward the west to follow the long

narrow ridges and include the Pennsylvanian Jackfork

Sandstone.

M231Ab—The Western Ouachita Mountains subsection occurs in Oklahoma (1,623,109 ac) and

Arkansas (109,249 ac) and consists of open high hills

and low mountains, often with wide valleys, with

elevations ranging from 750 to 2,500 ft. The subsection

is underlain by Mississippian sandstone and shale with

clayey colluvium, covered with pine-oak and oak

woodlands and forests, along with prairies. The Keys

map boundaries were modified using geology (Arkansas

Novaculite) to eliminate portions of the Central

Ouachita Mountains from this subsection. The word

“Central” was eliminated from the Keys map name

(West Central Ouachita Mountains) because a substantial part of the subsection lies along the southern boundary of the Ouachita Mountains section.

M231Ac—The Central Ouachita Mountains occur in

Oklahoma (244,015 ac) and Arkansas (1,401,574 ac).

They consist of open high hills and low mountains, often

with wide valleys, and they range from 750 to 2,500 ft in

elevation. The Central Ouachita Mountains are underlain

by Mississippian sandstone and shale with clayey colluvium and covered with pine-oak and oak woodlands and

forests. The Keys map boundaries were modified using

geology (Arkansas Novaculite); a large disjunct area with

consistent characteristics is newly delineated in southeastern Oklahoma. The Keys map name was changed

by dropping “East” as it was no longer needed (because

of the name change to Western Ouachita Mountains).

M231Ad—The Athens Piedmont Plateau occurs in

Oklahoma (56,546 ac) and Arkansas (837,602 ac). It

consists of open high hills underlain by Mississippian

(with small amounts of Pennsylvanian) sandstone and

shale with sandy and clay-loam colluvium covered with

pine-oak and pine woodlands and forests. The Keys

map boundary was refined using geology (Arkansas

Novaculite) for north and west boundaries and Tertiary

and Cretaceous deposits on the south and east.

6
Chapter 2: Prehistoric and Historic Ecological Changes

Question 2.1: What were the historic and

prehistoric ecological conditions in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands?

Change occurs constantly in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands, as it does in all ecosystems. Since the last

glacial period, 20,000 years ago, when continental glaciers

approached the Highlands, climate, natural communities,

and species have been in constant flux. Even now, natural

occurrences such as droughts, floods, and tornadoes

cause dramatic changes in the landscape and in relationships among species. Such events are not only natural,

they are vital to the way ecosystems function.

Human activities also cause changes. Some activities

may only alter patterns of “natural change” including, for

example, prevention and suppression of fire, some forms

of timber management, and controlled hunting and fishing.

Such activities may affect biodiversity—the variety of

species interacting within an ecosystem. They may also

alter the structure or dynamic processes of an ecosystem. Where natural processes are significantly altered,

ecosystems can be stressed and vulnerable to further

damage.

Some activities, such as conversion of forest land for

agriculture, mineral extraction, plantation-based timber

production, or urban development, can cause large-scale

changes that reduce and/or fragment wildlife habitat for

some species, which, if sufficiently severe, can mean

their extinction. Such changes may completely supplant

long-standing ecological relationships and cause revolutionary, rather than evolutionary effects. Contamination of

groundwater, introduction of nonnative species, and

overhunting of game are other human actions that

fundamentally change ecosystems.

The interaction of different change factors, or what

ecologists often call “disturbance factors,” has consequences, as well. For example, floods in heavily managed

or developed watersheds may be more destructive than in

less altered watersheds. Even activities outside the local

ecosystem may cause effects within it, such as altered

climate or acid rain.

An understanding of earlier conditions helps research

scientists and managers evaluate the ecological potentials

of various landscapes or sites and identify opportunities

for appropriate management actions. If shortleaf pine

production or pine woodland restoration is an objective, it

is useful to know the prehistoric range of this species and

what kept it from dominating in other areas. In developing

landscape management plans, it is important to know

what percentage of the landscape was typically in a

regenerating condition at any point in time, how regeneration took place, how much was woodland or prairie, how

much was “old growth,” and the dynamic equilibrium that

existed among these various states which, together,

sustained the biota.

Knowledge of historic vegetation and patterns of

change aids in the identification of current old-growth

areas and selection of appropriate management techniques for them. It also provides a useful baseline for

evaluating the effects of management on natural systems.

Differences between structure and function of existing

and historic forests and between effects of management

techniques and natural disturbance processes may be

estimated using information about past vegetation.

 Key Findings

 1. American Indians influenced vegetation patterns

through their use of fire.

 2. European settlers began making dramatic changes to

the land commencing in the 1830’s through land

clearing and the suppression of fire; settlers also had

an impact on animals by reducing certain habitats

and by overhunting.

 3. Because people have been a constant influence on

plant communities and ecosystems of the Highlands

for thousands of years, ideas of “natural” (i.e., not

human-influenced) conditions need to be reviewed

carefully, even challenged.

7
Data Sources

Clues to the composition and structure of the Highlands in history and prehistory are provided by historical

descriptions, evidence in old-growth forests and natural

areas, tree rings and pollen evidence, and field notes of

General Land Office (GLO) surveyors of the 19th

century.

Travel accounts and other historic descriptions are

important sources of information on past conditions.

Dunbar and Hunter led an expedition, commissioned by

Thomas Jefferson, to the hot springs of the Ouachita

Mountains in 1804 and 1805 (Rowland 1930). Edwin

James (1823), botanist for the Stephen Long expedition

to the Rocky Mountains in 1819–1820, described the

Ouachita Mountains and Arkansas Valley. Thomas

Nuttall (1821) provided a very detailed description of the

Arkansas Valley and the western portions of the

Ouachita Mountains. Henry Rowe Schoolcraft’s (1821)

account of his 1818 and 1819 travels through the Ozarks

is the most widely cited description of that region.

Gerstäcker (1881) provided descriptions of the

Ouachitas and Ozarks of the late 1830’s, at approximately the time of the GLO surveys. Ladd (1991)

provided a comprehensive survey of historic references

to vegetation and fire in Missouri, including the Missouri

Ozarks.

GLO surveys of parts of the Assessment area are

important sources. Foti and Glenn (1991) used notes

from the original 1830’s Federal land survey to analyze

vegetation at three locations in the Assessment area: a

site east of Waldron, AR, at the southern edge of the

Arkansas Valley Mountains subsection, known as Bee

Mountain; a site south of Waldron, in the Fourche

Mountains, that currently supports a red-cockaded

woodpecker population; and a north-to-south transect

crossing the Fourche Mountains, Western Ouachita

Mountains, and Athens Piedmont Plateau subsections

near the Arkansas-Oklahoma State line, covering more

of the range of sites of the region.

In addition, Kreiter (1995) analyzed historic vegetation of the McCurtain County Wilderness Area, an oldgrowth forest that has not been subject to timber

harvest in the Central Ouachita Mountains subsection of

eastern Oklahoma. He used GLO Survey notes from

1896 and compared them to a new survey of vegetation

at the same points. Lockhart and others (1995) and

Harmon and others (1996) used GLO and modern data

to characterize the vegetation of the Lee Creek Unit of

the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. Nelson (1997)

analyzed witness trees and narrative notes along the 5th

Principal Meridian through Arkansas and Missouri,

comparing statistics of the Ozark Plateau (principally in

Missouri), the Mississippi Alluvial Plain (in Arkansas),

and the Dissected Till Plain (in Missouri). Schroeder

(1982) used GLO notes and maps to map the presettlement distribution of prairies in Missouri. Finally, Fletcher

and McDermott (1957) used historic sources to map the

presettlement range of shortleaf pine in the Ozark

Highlands.

All historic sources must be used with caution, since

many writers are not scientists and their descriptions are

not often subject to independent verification. However,

all of the travel writers listed above except Gerstäcker

were scientists. In several instances their travel routes

have been followed and key findings verified. Of these,

Schoolcraft may be the most controversial, since he was

cited by both sides in a rancorous dispute over vegetation of the Ozarks (Beilman and Brenner 1951,

Steyermark 1959), where Beilman and Brenner argued

for rapid change in vegetation in the Highlands whereas

Steyermark argued for stability. However, when read as

a whole, the Terrestrial Team considers his account a

reliable historic source. The GLO surveys have been

widely used and widely criticized, since they represent

the only comprehensive, quantitative data on vegetation

of the early to mid-1800’s, and yet were not collected

for scientific purposes by scientists. Their validity should

be assessed on a township-by-township basis before

placing reliance on them.

Grazing data reflects the Forest Service’s Grazing

Statistical Summary and the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s National Resource Inventory, as well as

published reports. Data concerning the volume of

grazing on national forest lands are reported in Animal

Unit Months while, for other lands, the data consist of

acreage devoted to grazing.

8
Patterns and Trends

Major Changes in Vegetation

As recently as 20,000 years ago, continental glaciers

advanced near the Highlands (to central Illinois).

Although glaciers have never encroached on the

Highlands proper, climatic effects during glacial periods

totally changed the region’s ecosystems. Cool, damp,

glacial-front climate led to dominance of boreal spruce,

fir, and jack pine forests throughout the region for about

6,000 years after the latest glacial maximum.

Oak, ash, elm, and other deciduous trees became

dominant around 14,000 years ago and prairies became

established in eastern Oklahoma about 2,000 years later

(Delcourt and Delcourt 1991). The oak-hickory woodlands and forests characteristic of the region today may

have persisted in sheltered coves throughout the glacial

interval and subsequently increased in abundance or

retreated elsewhere and returned. Presence of numerous endemic species in the Highlands flora and fauna

argues for at least some continuity of the biota even

during these periods of dramatic change (Hawker n.d.).

Some 10,000 years ago, at the same time that

humans arrived in the Highlands, the climate became

warmer and drier for a period of several thousand

years, allowing expansion of prairies, oak savannas, and

oak-hickory forests or woodlands (Delcourt and

Delcourt 1991). As prairies and savannas spread over

the region, mesic (moist soil) oak-hickory forest communities again retreated to sheltered coves and moister

sites or migrated away from the region.

Only in the past several thousand years has climate

in the region changed enough to support an upland

hardwood forest, and only during this latest interval (the

past 4,000 years) has pine forest become dominant in

parts of the region (Delcourt and Delcourt 1991). Over

this interval, a prairie-dominated landscape changed to a

forest-dominated landscape with inclusions of prairie

(Albert and Wyckoff 1981). Even during the last 550

years there have been at least three dry intervals severe

enough to reduce pine dominance in the Ouachitas

(Albert and Wyckoff 1981).

American Indians played a part in shaping these

changes in vegetation. At least in portions of the

Highlands, Indian populations may have peaked in the

16th century at the time of De Soto’s incursion, after

which smallpox and other factors reduced their numbers. Prior to that time, productive areas were settled

and agriculture was practiced. Even small populations

could have had major effects on the landscape through

their use of fire.

European settlers began making major changes in the

region’s landscapes by the 1830’s, both through clearing

of land and changes in natural processes such as fire

regimes. This trend reached a peak from the late 18th to

early 19th centuries, when railroads carried away much

of the standing timber and brought farmers and even

tourists, causing massive and irreversible changes in the

landscapes of the Highlands. Forests became shrubby

second growth or cotton fields that were abandoned and

only after decades became forests again. Fires often

increased in intensity and frequency as the slash dried

and burned and then decreased as areas became more

settled. Open woodlands, savannas, and prairies became

forests or shrubby thickets.

Changes in Wildlife and Plant Populations

Expanding settlements caused long-term changes in

the populations of game species. Deer populations in the

Highlands have fluctuated greatly, from abundance in the

early 1800’s to near extirpation in the early 1900’s. Deer

recovery began in the 1930’s (but only reached substantial proportions decades later) with closed seasons, strict

law enforcement, and restocking (Halls 1984). Refuges

on national forest lands also supported the recovery of

deer populations in the Assessment area.

Early reports of eastern wild turkeys in the Highlands

suggest densities of 5 to 10 birds per square mile. By

the early 1900’s, the bird’s population was drastically

lower over most of the region (Lewis 1992), due to

overharvesting. By the 1940’s, only isolated populations

remained. Habitat for wild turkeys began to improve on

public lands after initiation of fire and timber management programs and the closing of “open range”—areas

where anyone’s stock was allowed to graze.

The black bear was a common resident of the

Highlands during the 1800’s but was rare by 1850

because of overhunting (McKinley 1962). During the

period from 1890 to 1920, much of the Highlands’ forest

was systematically logged and cleared, eliminating the

black bear population from the region (Clark 1988). The

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission successfully

9
re-established black bears in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands of Arkansas between 1959 and 1967

(Rodgers 1973, Pharris 1981). Since then, populations

have grown and expanded, increasing the sightings of

bears in adjacent areas of Oklahoma and Missouri.

At times, the Highlands have had large populations of

gray and fox squirrels. During the 19th century, individual hunters could easily kill more than 100 squirrels a

day. The “big squirrel kills” were a thing of the past by

1934, due to habitat reductions.

Clearing of forests supported expanding populations

of bobwhite quail, with the bird’s numbers peaking

immediately after areas were cleared for agriculture,

then abandoned. But populations declined by the 1920’s

as land use became more intensive. Populations stabilized by the 1940’s, albeit at lower levels than historically, to provide consistent bird crops, but fluctuated

again in the 1960’s (Stanford 1970).

Similarly, clearing of forests led to expanding populations of eastern cottontail rabbits, which inhabit prairies,

glades, and open woods with grassy understories. The

rabbit reached a population peak during the pioneer

agricultural period (Anderson 1940). “Ozark” rabbits

were said to command a premium price because of their

size and grading. During the early 1900’s, Springfield,

MO, was the largest reshipping center in the region, with

an annual output of 2 million rabbits (Leopold 1931).

Raccoon populations have increased in the past 50

years. A population explosion began with the 1943

breeding season, and the species has remained at high

levels since (Sanderson 1987). It is estimated today

there are 15 to 20 times as many raccoons in North

America as there were during the 1930’s. (See Chapter

5 for recent trends for game species.)

At least 25 species of terrestrial plants, vertebrates,

and invertebrates existing historically in the OzarkOuachita Highlands are extirpated. (An extirpated

species, as used here, is one eliminated as a wild

species from all or part of its historical range.) Mammal

and bird species congregating in large numbers, including bison and Carolina parakeets, or which people

considered destructive predators, such as golden eagles

and mountain lions, are gone from the Highlands

landscape (although the occasional reintroduced bison

can be spotted in a few pastures).

Major factors contributing to the extirpation of these

species in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands included loss

of habitat and overhunting. Plant species at the edges of

their ranges and parts of rare communities also have

been vulnerable to loss of habitat and to extirpation (see

“Rare Communities” in Chapter 3). The following

species have been extirpated in the Assessment area

(and, in some cases, throughout their range):

Major factor in

Species extirpation

American swallow-tailed kite Loss of habitat

Bison Overhunting

Black-fruit mountain-ricegrass Loss of habitat

Black lordithon rove beetle Unknown

Carolina parakeet Overhunting

Clustered poppy-mallow Loss of habitat

Creamflower tick-trefoil Loss of habitat

Ditch-grass Loss of habitat

Eastern prairie white-fringed orchid Loss of habitat

Eaton’s lipfern Loss of habitat

Field sedge Loss of habitat

Golden eagle Predator control

Horsetail spikerush Loss of habitat

Ivory billed woodpecker Loss of habitat

Marsh blazing star Loss of habitat

Missouri blackberry Loss of habitat

Mountain lion Predator control

Northern raven Predator control

Osprey Predator control

Passenger pigeon Overhunting

Peregrine falcon Predator control

Red wolf Predator control

Torrey’s bulrush Loss of habitat

Yellowleaf tinker’s-weed Loss of habitat

Historic Changes by Ecological Section

Historic accounts and GLO data reveal more details

about the historic period in various ecological sections

and subsections of the Highlands. (Ecological units are

displayed in fig. 1.1.)

Ozark Highlands

Schoolcraft’s account of the White River country in

1818–1819 indicates rich biodiversity and varied ecological communities in the Ozark Highlands. His daily log,

with distances traveled and vegetation encountered each

day, is an invaluable record of the area he crossed (all

page references for this section are to Rafferty 1996).

10
He described the Meramec River Hills subsection as

“hills crowned with oaks” (p. 21), then “yellow pine

[and] the soil being sterile, and vegetation scanty” (p.

22) with rich forest lands along the Fourche a Courtois

(p. 23) followed by “a succession of sterile ridges, thinly

covered with oaks” (p. 24). The Osage Fork of the

Meramec had “extensive prairies all along its banks” (p.

24). He also found “barren prairie country” (p. 26). The

Current River Hills subsection had “lofty forests of

pine” and along the Current River the “soil [was] rich

and covered with a heavy growth of trees” (p. 26), as

well as ridges covered “thinly with yellow pine, and

shrubby oaks . . . .” (p. 35).

He described the Central Plateau subsection as

“highland prairie, with little timber, or underbrush and

covered with grass. It is a level woodless barren

covered with wild grass and resembling the natural

meadows or prairies of the western country in appearance, but lacks their fertility, their wood, and their

remarkable equality of surface” (p. 35–36).

In the White River Hills subsection, on the headwaters of the North Fork of White River, travel was

initially over “rich bottom lands, covered with elm,

beech, oak, maple, sycamore and ash” (p. 41). Turning

west from the stream “to completely disengage ourselves from the pine-forest . . . we found ourselves on

an open barren, with very little timber . . . we passed

over a sterile soil, destitute of wood” (p. 44). Following

a tributary to the west, Schoolcraft found the going

rough, owing to thickets along the stream. Attempting to

cross canebrakes and a swamp, his horse became

mired: “sunk in soft black mud so deep that the upper

part of his back and head were only visible” (p. 58). He

and his companion eventually extricated the horse from

what must have been a deep muck fen, an unusual

community type in the Ozarks.

In the White River Hills subsection Schoolcraft found

cane thickets and forests of oak, ash, maple, walnut,

mulberry, sycamore, hickory, and elm on alluvial soils.

He found prairies of coarse grass and “scanty” timber

on the limestone hills and “bald mountains.” He was

most taken with the Springfield Plain and a 2-mile-wide

strip of vigorous forest bordering the James River,

within extensive prairies covered with tall grasses.

Nelson’s (1997) study of tree densities in various

physiographic sections indicated that open woodlands

were more common in the Ozarks and the Till Plain,

whereas closed forests prevailed on the bottomlands of

the Mississippi Alluvial Plain. Soil conditions were often

described as harsh and no doubt played a role in forest

structure, but fire also probably played a part (Nelson

1997). “Thinly timbered” conditions were described in

8.8 percent of GLO mile notes for the Ozarks, and an

average of only eight trees per acre prevailed in these

places, indicating savanna communities (Nelson 1997).

Only one prairie and one glade were recorded.

Similarly, using all GLO notes in Missouri, Schroeder

(1982) mapped few prairies outside of the Springfield

Plain and Osage Plain. However, even some areas

described as “heavily timbered” were also described as

having grassy ground cover, indicating relatively open,

periodically burned conditions (Ladd 1991).

Pine was especially prominent where the topography

was rolling to steep and the sandstone component of the

residuum was high. Inadequate winter precipitation

limited pine to the southeastern part of this section.

Deeper loess deposits, the presence of soil fragipans,

and the Jefferson City geologic formation also were

barriers to pine. The Current River Hills subsection and

parts of surrounding subsections comprised the heart of

shortleaf pine country in Missouri (Fletcher and

McDermott 1957).

Much historic vegetation in the Ozark Highlands

section remains today: upland hardwood forests, pine

forests, open oak woodlands, bottomland forests, mesic

hardwood forests, prairies, and even fens. Primary

changes between 1819 and today are that fertile prairies

have been cultivated; many of the poor prairies, barrens,

and open woodlands have grown more woody and

dense due to fire suppression; and most large bottomland forest areas have been inundated as a result of

flood control.

Boston Mountains

Near the upper White River in the Upper Boston

Mountains subsection, Gerstäcker (1881) described the

vegetation:

There was no trace of fir [cedar]; the mountains

were covered with oak, beech, and hickory . . . . It

struck me as extraordinary that the best and most

fertile land was on the hill tops, where in other

11
places, it is generally the worst; here grew black

walnut, wild cherry, with stems sometimes twenty

inches in diameter, black locust, and sugar maple,

trees which generally grow only on the richest

soils. (p. 282)

The dominant trees in the Lower Boston Mountains

subsection in 1837 to 1843 were white oak, black oak,

and post oak, with appreciable numbers of hickory.

White oaks were most commonly on steep slopes and

higher elevations. Post oaks were most commonly on

high elevations, upper stream valley floodplains, and

intermediate flat uplands. Black oak and hickories were

distributed across all landform types (Lockhart and

others 1995, Harmon and others 1996).

A comparison of the available information on historic

vegetation with modern vegetation indicates fewer

major historic changes than in other sections of the

Highlands. However, literature on this section is skimpy,

and research on historic vegetation should be a priority.

Arkansas Valley

Historically, the Eastern Arkansas Valley section was

mostly forested. Further west, out of the bottomlands,

were open oak woods, the ground layer of which was

partly covered with grasses. Bottomlands were heavily

wooded.

Near Fort Smith, prairies became predominant,

with both oak- and pine-covered ridges. The Western

Arkansas Valley Mountains were forested, with pine

and oaks codominant. Pine was typically on southfacing and northwest-facing aspects, white oaks on

northwest to northeast aspects, black oaks on westfacing slopes, and post oaks most commonly on shallow

slopes. Although more open than forests of the area

today, these were not savannas, although the GLO

survey notes documented forests with a relatively

low density and basal area, consistent with frequent

burning. Savannas may have existed in smaller areas

than those that may be discerned by this approach.

Understory was typically described as “oak bushes,”

which is indicative of periodic fire (Foti and Glenn

1991).

Nuttall (1980, but describing conditions in 1819)

described the effects of intentional burning on prairies

near Forth Smith in the Arkansas Valley:

I took an agreeable walk into the adjoining prairie,

which is about two miles wide and seven long.

I . . . could perceive no reason for the absence of

trees, except the annual conflagration . . . . The

numerous rounded elevations which [checker] this

verdant plain, are so many partial attempts at

shrubby and arborescent vegetation, which nature

has repeatedly made, and which have only been

subdued by the reiterated operation of annual

burning, employed by the natives, for the purpose

of hunting with more facility and of affording a

tender pasturage for game. (p. 158)

On his return from the Red River, Nuttall found “pine

ridges” and “oak ridges” in the Western Arkansas

Valley subsection (p. 164).

A botanist with Stephen Long’s expedition (James

1823) described a similar scene. Traveling east from

Fort Smith, their path lay “through open woods of post

oak, black jack, and hickory, occasionally traversing a

narrow prairie. In these open plains, now covered with

rank grass and weeds, we discovered here and there

some traces, such as a skull or hoof of a bison”

(p. 264). There were “heavily wooded low grounds”

near present-day Paris (p. 266), while the summit of

Short Mountain in that vicinity was “covered with small

trees, among which the red cedar, or some other

evergreen tree predominates . . . . The upland forests

are almost exclusively of oak, with some . . . hickory,

dogwood, and black gum. They are open, and the

ground is in part covered with coarse grasses” (p. 267).

Further east, within the Central Arkansas Valley

subsection, Nuttall climbed Petit Jean Mountain in 1819

and saw “a vast wilderness . . . covered with trees . . . .

To the east a considerable plain stretches out, almost

uninterrupted by elevations . . . . Over the vast plain

immediately below me, appeared here and there belts of

cypress . . . they seemed to occupy lagoons and

swamps, at some remote period formed by the rivers”

(pp. 120–121).

Ouachita Mountains

In the eastern part of the Ouachita Mountains, oak

and pine forests of relatively small trees occurred, along

with dense forests of oak, ash, and sugar maple. The

historical literature and GLO surveys support the view

12
that the forest was more open at the time of European

settlement and that fires contributed to that low density

(Foti and Glenn 1991). In the western Ouachita

Mountains, oak savanna was documented. Only in the

valleys of the western Ouachita Mountains and

westernmost Fourche Mountains did prairies become

dominant in the landscape. In that area, ridges were

predominantly pine or oak-pine. Oaks dominated shaley

rolling uplands of the Athens Piedmont Plateau subsection, while pine and stunted hardwoods were more

common on the sandstone ridges.

In general, pine was virtually ubiquitous in the historic

forests of the Ouachitas, but it varied greatly in dominance. Hardwoods, primarily oaks, were also a major

component on most sites (Foti and Glenn 1991). On

very high ridges in the western Fourche Mountains,

stunted forests of white oak and post oak occurred

(Nuttall 1980), while mesic forests with beech occurred

in protected areas (Foti and Glenn 1991). In the more

easterly Fourche Mountains and Central Ouachita

Mountains, hardwoods—primarily oaks—were dominant on sandstone while pine became dominant on

novaculite. In the extreme eastern Fourche Mountains,

barrens dominated by stunted oaks occurred in the dry

valleys. Cane grew along bottomland streams.

During an expedition to the hot springs of Arkansas

in 1804 and 1805 (Rowland 1930), Dunbar and Hunter

found cane along the margin of the Ouachita River

within the Central Ouachita Mountains and noted that

some of the hills were barren. Oak species dominated

between Gulpha Creek and the hot springs, although the

travelers also recorded “pine woods.” From Hot Springs

Mountain in what is now Hot Springs National Park,

they wrote that “the timber here is not large[,] consisting

of oak, pine, cedar, holly, hawthorn, with many others

common to this climate, with a great variety of vines”

(p. 274).

James, the botanist with the Long expedition of

1819–1820, described the Ouachita Mountains between

present-day Dardanelle and Hot Springs (Fourche

Mountains subsection) as covered with small and

scattered trees or nearly treeless (James 1823). Oak

species and Ozark chinkapin occurred on sandstone and

pine forests on novaculite (p. 287). However, not all of

the area James described was barren. Dense forests of

oak, ash, and sugar maple occurred along the bases of

mountains east of present-day Hot Springs (p. 297).

Thomas Nuttall (1980) described prairie “full of

luxuriant grasses about knee high, in which we surprised

herds of fleeing deer” (p. 163) in the Ouachita Mountains landscape between Fort Smith and the Red River,

in what is now eastern Oklahoma (Western Ouachita

Mountains subsection). On his return, he found an area

of bushes and half-burnt trees along the lower Kiamichi

River, which he described as “horrid, labyrinthine

thickets and cane-brakes [with] very little prairie”

(p. 162); he also noted hills covered in pine. He found

an “extensive cove, covered with grass, and mostly a

prairie of undulated surface” with thickets of greenbriar

along streams at the junction of Jack Fork and Kiamichi

Rivers (pp. 162–163). In the Fourche Mountains, he

also described dwarf white oak forests like those

currently found on the crest of Rich Mountain (p. 164).

“The barrens that lie betwixt these ridges” in the

extreme eastern Fourche Mountains subsection north of

Little Rock were very dry and dominated by stunted

oaks (Featherstonhaugh 1844, p. 39). Similar vegetation

can be seen today on National Guard Camp Joe T.

Robinson in North Little Rock, along Featherstonhaugh’s

route. In the 1830’s, pines dominated the northern

Ouachita Mountains as well as the Arkansas Valley

(Foti and Glenn 1991). Mesic forests occurred on north

slopes. Undergrowth tended to be “oak bushes,” a

growth form that can result from frequent low-intensity

fires. Cane apparently grew only along major rivers, and

vines and briars were not common. Surveyors did not

mention grass but referred to sites with “no undergrowth,” perhaps indicating that there was no woody

undergrowth but there was grass undergrowth, as

surveyors once made this observation in the same mile

where they recorded a “prairie” (Foti and Glenn 1991).

In the Western Ouachita Mountains subsection, a

survey in 1896 found white oak, northern red oak, post

oak, shortleaf pine, black oak, and hickories, in that

order, dominant in the area. Density was low enough

that the area should be described as savanna. At the

same corners in 1994, dominants were shortleaf pine,

white oak, mockernut hickory, northern red oak, post

oak, and black oak, in that order (Kreiter 1995).

Red-cockaded woodpeckers are currently located in

an area of the Fourche Mountains that had an abundance of pines in the pre-settlement forest; this area

was superior habitat for the species in the past and has

remained so. In 1819 and 1820, the Ouachita Mountains

13
between present-day Dardanelle and Hot Springs

(Fourche Mountains subsection) were covered with

small and scattered trees or were nearly treeless

(James 1823). Oak species and Ozark chinquapin

occurred on sandstone with pine forests on novaculite

(p. 287). However, not all of the area James described

was barren. Dense forests of oak, ash, and sugar maple

occurred along the bases of mountains east of Hot

Springs (p. 297).

Effects of Disturbances on Highlands

Ecosystems

As the prehistory and history of the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands demonstrate, climate (both long-term changes

and short-term events), fire, and biotic factors, such as

outbreaks of insects, are important natural disturbance

factors in its ecosystems. Human-caused factors, such

as flood control, introduction of nonnative species, and

the prevention, suppression, or setting of fire, also can

disturb ecosystems either in fairly “naturalistic” ways or

in “catastrophic” ways. People have been a constant

influence on plant communities and ecosystems of the

Highlands, so the idea of a “natural” environment, free

from human influence, is false. Human and nonhuman

disturbance and vegetation in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands are inextricably intertwined. Ecosystems

change constantly as they respond to various disturbance events.

Climatic Disturbance Factors

Climate is the most important influence on vegetation

in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Although climate is

often thought of as relatively stable, “average” climatic

conditions seldom occur. (See Chapter 1 of the companion report Aquatic Conditions [USDA Forest Service

1999a] for a complete treatment of climatic patterns in

the Highlands). Extremes of temperature and precipitation function as disturbances in particular ecosystems

and may have more impact on the distribution of species

than long-term averages. Native species, particularly

those that are long-lived, must deal with many extreme

episodes. Animal species may adjust to climatic extremes by moving to cooler, warmer, or more protected

places or by becoming dormant. Plant species may

respond to short-term stresses by reducing transpiration,

shedding leaves, or otherwise becoming dormant, and

may respond to long-term or repeated stresses with

genetic changes or population shifts.

Ice and Snow

Ice and snow occasionally damage pole-sized

shortleaf pines in plantations, but most native trees of

the Assessment area are fairly well adapted to ice and

snow. Late frosts can damage spring buds, especially in

valleys subject to cold-air drainage, but rarely cause

mortality. However, periodic severe ice storms cause

extensive damage and are to be expected over the life

span of dominant trees. This is one of the standreplacing disturbances of the region.

Species such as loblolly pine, abundant in the Coastal

Plain forests south and east of the Assessment area but

only recorded in the Highlands historically in moist areas

of the southernmost Ouachitas, have been widely planted

in the southern half of the Highlands and are more

susceptible to winter damage (Burns and Honkala 1990).

A few mountains in the Assessment area, notably

Rich and Black Fork Mountains in the Ouachitas, are

high and exposed enough to experience montane

conditions—cold and windy, with considerable fog and

ice. As a result, oaks on the crests of these mountains

are stunted, only reaching heights of a few feet to about

30 feet.

Wind

The frequency, intensity, and scale of wind disturbances can cause significant variations in forest regeneration processes and resulting communities. In

relatively low-intensity events, wind is responsible for

“gap-phase” dynamics, the process by which a forest is

renewed by death and replacement of individual trees or

small groups of trees. Occasionally, severe windstorms

or tornadoes destroy all or most trees within a large

area, especially when preceded by soil-saturating rains.

A 19th-century traveler in Arkansas noted that

tornadoes “will sweep a district of a mile in width and

several miles in length, leveling everything in their path.”

After a time, the tornado-swept land became “impenetrable [thickets of] blackberries, thorns and creepers”

important for wildlife such as bear (Gerstäcker 1881:

p. 273).

14
Among the more notable recent blowdowns, a

tornado leveled a portion of Winona Research Natural

Area on the Ouachita National Forest in 1986. Its swath

is still visible in young stands along the track today. In

fact, high winds blow down trees in the Ouachitas

nearly every year. High winds or tornadoes hit the

Eleven Point District of the Mark Twain National Forest

in the spring of 1997, knocking down or breaking off

many oaks and pines.

Such intensive, large-scale damage is often likened to

the effects of clearcutting (see Chapter 4), but windstorms seldom remove all canopy trees uniformly, nor do

they cause the uniform soil disturbance often associated

with site preparation. Severe storms may, however,

remove virtually all canopy trees, and uprooted trees do

cause significant soil disturbance.

Drought and Fire

Droughts can limit the distribution of plant and animal

species. The Assessment area experiences more

frequent and severe droughts than areas to the east.

Droughts damaged vegetation in some areas of the

Ozarks and Ouachitas in 1980 and 1981, leading to a 10

to 15 percent tree mortality in some places in 1983 and

1984 (Nelson 1985).

Drought can interact with other disturbance factors

to cause greater change. For example, the phenomenon

of oak decline (see Chapter 6) has been attributed in

part to drought (Kessler 1992). In Missouri, overstocking of scarlet and black oaks on sites where post and

white oaks and shortleaf pine are better adapted

apparently contributes to drought-caused disturbance.

Both competition and site adaptation may play roles

here.

Wildfires, more common during drought years, can

lead to the natural regeneration of new forest stands.

Mattoon (1915) reported that almost all pure stands of

shortleaf pine in western Arkansas (Montgomery and

Pike Counties) dated from approximately 1740 or 1850.

Those years may have followed ones marked by

exceptionally dry periods during which stand-replacing

wildfires were common. These dates roughly coincide

with those of high charcoal deposition in a bog and

natural lake in the western Ouachitas: fire occurrence

there peaked during the Altithermal period of approximately 5,000 years before present (B.P.) and then again

about 1700 B.P. and 200 B.P., but occurred throughout

the record preserved in the sediments (Albert and

Wyckoff 1981).

Before fire prevention and suppression became

common, forests in the Assessment area typically had

fewer trees, spaced much further apart, than do today’s

stands (Batek 1994, Schroeder and others 1997). Fire is

probably the second-most important natural change

process in the Highlands, following climate. Fire is a

natural factor to which many species and ecosystems

have adapted (USDA Forest Service 1997). The importance of fire as a landscape process in the Highlands

has been emphasized by many ecologists, beginning with

the study of Beilman and Brenner (1951).

The Assessment area lies at the southern and

eastern edge of the Midwestern prairies, which owe

their existence to climate, fire, and grazing. The pine

and oak forests of the Assessment area were strongly

influenced by fires as well (Spurr and Barnes 1980,

Abrams 1992).

Likewise, the glades of the White River Hills—

openings of tallgrass prairie in the surrounding oak

woodlands—evolved with and depended upon fire as an

agent of primary decomposition and nutrient recycling.

Grassland plants produce fuel conditions that make fire

almost inevitable, and only plant species that are extremely fire-tolerant or fire-dependent persist there.

Data on present-day lightning-set fires show a high

peak in August, with high numbers also in July and

September (Foti and Glenn 1991). Fires were also

frequent in April, but not nearly as numerous as in

August. The same general pattern was shown in the

eastern Oklahoma Ouachitas, but with the highest peak

in July (Masters 1994).

Society in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands has long

attempted to control the effects of fire, first by setting

fires to extend its benefits and later by preventing and

suppressing fires. Before European settlement,

American Indians regularly set fires that burned across

huge areas and stopped only at large rivers or when rain

intervened (Williams 1994), apparently to thin woods,

promote grazing land, and drive game into confined

areas, making hunting easier.

Fire frequencies varied among the subsections of the

Missouri Ozarks (Guyette and McGinnes 1982, Ladd

1991, Ladd and Huemann 1994, Nelson 1993, Rebertus

1994); the Arkansas Ozarks (Jenkins and others 1997);

15
and the Ouachita Mountains (Foti and Glenn 1991,

Johnson and Schnell 1985, Masters and others 1994).

Fire frequencies ranged from 2 to 40 years. Longer

frequencies occurred during the settlement period; most

frequencies are longer than the measured fire-return

interval, since only fires intense enough to produce scars

would be seen in the record.

In the late 1720’s, Le Page du Pratz of Natchez

traveled through Louisiana Territory “from the Natchez

to the St. Francis” (du Pratz 1774), apparently reaching

northeastern Arkansas. Although he made no specific

references to fire in the Highlands, he made this general

comment that may be assumed to pertain at least to the

southern Highlands:

We set out in the month of September, which is

the best season of the year for beginning a journey

in this country: in the first place, because, during

the summer, the grass is too high for travelling;

whereas in the month of September, the meadows,

the grass of which is then dry, are set on fire, and

the ground becomes smooth, and easy to walk on:

and hence it is, that at this time, clouds of smoke

are seen for several days together to extend over

a long track [sic] of country; sometimes to the

extent of between twenty and thirty leagues in

length [a league is variously 1.6 to 3.2 miles,

usually estimated at about 3 miles], by two or

three leagues in breadth, more or less, according

as the wind sets, and is higher or lower. (p. 134)

An “immense conflagration” occurred in an area 12

miles wide between ridges of the Ouachita Mountains in

late November 1835 (Featherstonhaugh 1844, p. 36).

Similarly, in Lincoln County, MO, just north of the Ozark

Highlands, Joseph Mudd (1888, quoted in Ladd 1991)

noted:

Annually, after this rank growth of vegetation had

become frosted, dead, and dry, the Indians set fire

to it and burned it from the entire surface of the

country. When this annual burning ceased, the

germs of underbrush and young timber began to

grow . . . .

Ladd (1991) provides many other similar descriptions.

As burning declined with European settlement, the

forest’s understory redeveloped rapidly. Gerstäcker

(1881) described using fire to hunt deer at night: “The

fire being kept behind your head, the eyes of the game

will glow like balls of [fire]. [The] deer, accustomed to

the frequent fires in the forest, are not alarmed” (p.

217). Gerstäcker observed in another area that “the

forests not having been burnt for many years, were so

thickly overgrown with underwood, that it was impossible to find the deer, or to shoot game enough to live

upon” (p. 226). James (1823) noted that, “Since their

occupation by permanent inhabitants, the yearly ravages

of fire have been prevented, and a dense growth of

oaks and elms has sprung up.”

Since lightning-set fires and the fires referred to in

the historic record occurred at approximately the same

time (lightning-set fires concentrated in July–September

and human-caused fires occurring September–

November), it seems clear that American Indians did

not impose a new disturbance regime, but modified the

natural regime by increasing the frequency, reducing the

intensity, or shifting the timing of fires to later in the

autumn, when damage to vegetation was less (Foti and

Glenn 1991). In general, fires can only be set when fuel

is dry enough, and this is the time vegetation would burn,

either from lightning strikes or anthropogenic starts.

There is a smaller peak in lightning-set fires in March–

April that is seldom mentioned in the historic record.

Fires early in the growing season may have had much

more impact on vegetation composition structure and

composition than those in late summer.

Therefore, American Indians and early settlers did

not produce the overall vegetation patterns of the

Assessment area but rather apparently modified and

emphasized the effects of lightning-caused fire (Foti and

Glenn 1991). This conclusion is disputed by the studies

of Kreiter (1995), however, and questioned by others.

Fire suppression became a significant disturbance

factor in the Assessment area in the 1930’s, as ownership of depleted farm and forestland reverted to State or

Federal Governments. Reaction to damage from

careless burning nationwide led to virtual exclusion of

fire from all ecosystems and Smokey Bear became the

symbol of forest protection. Through direct action (fire

control) and indirect action (land development, grazing,

reservoir construction, and logging), natural fires were

for all practical purposes eliminated. As an example, fire

suppression increased the fire return interval at an

average site in Hot Springs National Park from 41.4

years to 1,200 years during the period 1700–1980

16
(Johnson and Schnell 1985). Similarly, the mean fire

return interval for McCurtain County (OK) Wilderness

Area increased from 29.9 years to 547 years (Masters

and others 1995). In each of these cases, it should be

understood that fire histories as reconstructed from fire

scars underestimate the return interval. Therefore, the

measured intervals are longer than the actual intervals.

In general, the forests of the Assessment area are

more closed and less biologically diverse than the open

oak and pine woodlands of the past. Extensive areas of

pine-dominated forest are now rare in Missouri (Nigh

and others 1992), and fire suppression has led to

overstocking of black and scarlet oaks on sites where

post and white oaks and shortleaf pine are better

adapted. After 60 years of effective fire suppression,

the shortleaf pine forests of the Ozarks and Ouachita

Mountains are no longer open and no longer support the

grass and forb understory described as characteristic of

these forests in earlier times (Martin and Kline 1985,

Bukenhofer and Hedrick 1997).

Oak forests also benefit from fire (even though

individual trees may be damaged from an economic

viewpoint). Fire helps maintain valuable timber- and

mast-producing oak forests by a number of mechanisms, but especially by giving oak reproduction the

competitive advantage over other species (Abrams

1992, Johnson 1993, Lorimer 1992, Van Lear and Watt

1992). (See Chapter 4 for discussion of oak silviculture.)

While perhaps not as serious a problem in the relatively

dry Ozarks as it is further to the north and east, oaks

are gradually giving way to maples, blackgum, tulippoplar, and other tree species on some sites (Packard

1991).

When fire is removed from a natural grassland

community, fire-sensitive species such as eastern red

cedar quickly invade, and fire-dependent species such

as the prairie legumes and tallgrass prairie species lose

vigor and dominance.

Today, under conditions greatly different than those

prevalent 200 years ago, most wildfires in the Assessment area result from human accidents or arson.

Between 1981 and 1996, for example, lightning caused

only 2, 6, and 15 percent of the wildfires on the Mark

Twain, Ozark-St. Francis, and Ouachita National

Forests, respectively (table 2.1). The rates of lightningcaused fires on non-Federal lands in the Assessment

area States were less than 2 percent (table 2.2).

Floods

Flash floods can have significant effects on riparian

ecosystems in the Assessment area. Comparison of

aerial photographs of 1935 with recent ones shows that

dynamic riverside forests continually change in reaction

to floods, with bands of sycamores and river birch trees

moving across bottomlands as sand and gravel bars

migrate. The Arkansas River submerges large bottomlands in the Arkansas Valley Section for long periods.

Although levees, dams, and flood-control reservoirs in

the watershed prevent or alter many of these natural

Table 2.1—Wildfires, including number of lightning-caused ignitions

and acres burned, on the Highlands’ national forests, 1981 through 1996

Average annual

number of fires

Total

National number of Lightning- Acres

forest wildfires Total caused burned

Mark Twain 3,231 202 4 94,456

Ozark-St. Francis 1,233 77 5 20,257

Ouachita 1,689 106 16 26,810

Total 6,153 385 25 141,523

17
changes, significant areas of bottomland forest still exist

along the Arkansas River and its tributaries. Floods in

developed watersheds are usually more severe and

destructive than those in naturally forested ones.

Studies are underway to determine how flash floods

affect the Little Piney and Jack’s Fork watersheds in

Missouri (Jacobson 1995). Such studies may provide

additional insight into an important change process.

Biotic Disturbance Factors

Biotic factors can be very significant in ecosystems,

particularly as they interact with other disturbance

factors. For example, southern pine beetles may not

have been a serious threat to forest health as long as

fire helped maintain relatively open forests and woodlands. But the insect can be a significant disturbance

factor in dense pine stands.

Human introductions of nonnative species can

significantly change ecosystems, as well. The gypsy

moth’s destruction of forests in the Eastern United

States is one of the best known examples. The looming

arrival of the gypsy moth “front” to the Assessment

area could be an unprecedented disturbance event, with

negative effects on many organisms and positive effects

on others. (See Chapter 6 for discussion of biological

threats to forest resources.)

In the meantime, one of the ongoing biotic disturbances of interest to public land managers and others is

livestock grazing. Use of open forests, savannas,

woodlands, and native grasslands for grazing occurred

in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands well before European

settlement and continues today, albeit at lower levels.

For early settlers on small farms in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands, livestock was a minor to very significant

source of income. Much of the livestock economy

(cattle, hogs, horses, and sheep) depended upon free

and unrestricted, year-round (“open-range”) grazing of

public lands and some private lands. Immigrants found a

wide variety of such grazing opportunities in the Highlands. By the mid-1900’s, enactment of laws limiting

“woods burning” and development of a strong fire

prevention program greatly reduced the occurrence of

fires and allowed tree canopies to expand and grasses

to decline in many prairies and woodlands.

Increasingly dense tree canopies and protection from

fire reduced available forage on many lands in the

Highlands, including the national forests. Improvement

of pastures on private land, as well as conflicts with

other resource uses, such as recreation, wildlife, and

intensified timber management on national forests, also

contributed to a decline in grazing on national forest

lands (Lee 1980). Other factors contributing to the

decline of range grazing in the Assessment area include

legal prohibition of open-range grazing on public and

private lands; increased grazing fees on national forest

lands in an effort to recover “fair market value”;

permittees on national forest lands reducing their

operations or retiring; and the movement of younger

people away from single-family farms. Still, range

grazing continues to be an important biotic disturbance

factor in the Highlands.

In 1992, about 13,595,600 acres of non-Federal lands

within the Assessment area were devoted to grazing,

down only about 5 percent compared to 1982 levels

(USDA NRCS 1997). (Much of the grazing land was

converted to other uses such as urban and residential

expansion, agricultural crops, or timber.) On the three

national forests, 131 permittees were grazing cattle in

1996, down from 401 in 1987; Animal Unit Months

(AUM’s) under permit declined from over 75,000 to

about 28,000 during the same period (table 2.3).

The timing and intensity of grazing are key variables

affecting its impacts on an ecosystem. Early and

continuous overgrazing can cause the loss of topsoil by

erosion and limit recovery of the vegetation. Overgrazing depletes the reserves in perennial plants and eventually kills them. In the long term, more palatable species

are replaced by less palatable ones.

Table 2.2—Lightning-caused and human-caused fires

on State and private lands from 1981 to 1996

Average annual Average annual

lightning-caused human-caused

State fires fires

Missouri 14 2,290

Arkansas 33 1,815

Oklahoma 27 1,606

Source: File records of the Arkansas Forestry Commission,

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture (Forestry Division), and

Missouri Department of Conservation (Forestry Division).

18
Even light or seasonal grazing can favor the spread

of certain less favorable species (Smith 1940).

Penfound (1964) found protection from grazing led to

rapid plant succession, decrease in forage, and increase

in mulch. Hazell (1964) found heavy grazing decreased

range conditions and vigor, while increasing undesirable

grasses and forbs. Similarly, Jensen and Schumacher

(1969) found the more desirable native bluestems

decreased and less desirable species increased in

numbers under long-term grazing.

Trampling by cattle can bury seeds and encourage

seedling establishment. Winkel and Roundy (1991)

found disturbance by cattle or mechanical methods may

enhance vegetation establishment during years with

moderate rainfall (depending on species and soil) but

may be unnecessary during wet years. They found that

during dry years it was futile to attempt to establish

seedlings. Thill (1984) found cattle grazing on newlyharvested forest sites could benefit white-tailed deer by

improving accessibility to sites, slowing plant succession,

and possibly increasing preferred foods, such as lespedezas, by reducing competing vegetation.

Implications and Opportunities

Several points emerge from the discussion of prehistoric and more recent change: 1) constantly changing

vegetation characterizes the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands;

2) the prominence of endemic species in the regional

biota indicate that even during extremes of climate,

refugia of oak-hickory forest existed; and 3) humans

were present (having arrived some 10,000 years ago)

during the assembly of “modern” communities and

ecosystems and very likely influenced their structure

and function.

Because people have been a constant influence on

plant communities and ecosystems of the Highlands for

thousands of years, ideas of “natural” (i.e., not humaninfluenced) conditions need to be reviewed carefully,

even challenged. Human and nonhuman disturbance

events are inextricably intertwined with the vegetation

and wildlife of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Society

cannot preserve ecosystems in unchanged states, nor

can it regulate them precisely to produce constant flows

of desired outputs or conditions—whether those desired

outputs are scenery, water, old-growth characteristics,

wildlife diversity, endangered species, or wood products.

Scientists face the challenge of countering long-held

ecological views and public policies that ignore the

consequences of disturbance and presume a constant

environment.

Knowledge of how ecosystems change enables

managers to take a more ecological approach to planning, implementation, and monitoring (Averill and others

1994, Pyne 1982, Williams 1993). For example, harvesting methods may mimic some types of wind-caused

disturbance. Single-tree selection may mimic lowintensity wind disturbance; group selection can mimic

gap-phase regeneration; and clearcutting may mimic

intensive disturbance, as from a tornado (see Chapter 4).

Knowledge of “natural” fire regimes gives forest

managers valuable perspective on modern questions

such as whether prescribed fire is necessary in specific

Table 2.3—Animal Unit Months (AUM’s) and number of grazing permittees on

national forests of the Highlands in 1987 and 1996

1987 1996

National forest AUM’s Permittees AUM’s Permittees

Ozark-St. Francis 20,809 112 10,262 35

Ouachita (AR) 22,742 140 4,271 34

Ouachita (OK) 8,000 33 1,438 9

Mark Twain 23,717 116 12,151 53

Total 75,268 401 28,122 131

19
circumstances, when it should occur, what intensity is

appropriate, and what are the most effective ways of

controlling wildfires. Wildlife, aesthetic, ecological, and

recreation values are served when fire is restored to

glades, savannas, and woodlands. Careful monitoring of

air, water, and soil qualities is an essential component of

efforts to ensure that prescribed fires remain a positive

overall environmental influence and that trade-offs are

understood. Studies that address the effects of reintroducing fire to oak ecosystems in the Highlands would be

helpful.

Similarly, information about past vegetation conditions

in the Highlands may expand the options that can be

considered by public land managers, research scientists,

and interested citizens. Information about presettlement

vegetation of the Boston Mountains is particularly

sketchy. Priority should be given to increasing knowledge of historic vegetation in this section.

Expanded efforts to reintroduce the American elk to

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands deserve consideration.

Populations have already been established at Cookson

Hills and Pushmataha Wildlife Management Areas in

Oklahoma and the Buffalo National River in Arkansas.

The more widespread reintroductions of elk suggested

by Bukenhofer and Hedrick (1997) would need to be

undertaken carefully, taking into consideration possible

diet overlaps with cattle, deer, and other species, as well

as possible physical changes to the forest.

20
Question 3.1: What trends in vegetation cover and

land use have occurred over the past 50 years?

Question 3.2: Are changes in vegetation cover—

including age-class distribution, species

composition (e.g., cover types), and

fragmentation—taking place?

Question 3.3: How are old-growth forest stands

distributed? What is their management status?

What is the potential for retention or restoration

of such communities?

This chapter provides information about the vegetation

cover of the Assessment area. The types and areal

extent of vegetation in the Highlands are of interest for

many reasons. Vegetation cover largely determines the

availability of habitat for terrestrial animals, plants, and

other organisms. Vegetation cover strongly influences

what uses (e.g., timber, forage, recreation) people can

make of natural biological resources. Vegetation cover

plays a major role in maintaining desired riparian and

aquatic conditions (see USDA FS 1999a). Many people

care (for aesthetic and other personal, largely noneconomic reasons) about the extent and types of vegetation

cover in the Highlands and the changes it may be undergoing. Finally, information about vegetation cover enhances the ability of scientists to study the availability of

plant and animal habitats over large areas and gives all

interested parties a clearer picture of the changing

representation of various cover types (e.g., coniferdominated vs. hardwood-dominated forest or forests vs.

pasture land) over time.

 Key Findings

 1. As measured by Advanced Very High-Resolution

Radiometer data, oak-hickory forest is the most

extensive vegetation type in the Assessment area,

covering 15 million acres (ac) or 36 percent of the

area.

 2. Oak-pine forest is the second most extensive vegetation type within the region, with 4.4 million ac (11

percent of the Assessment area). The largest acreage

of this type (660,000 ac) occurs within the Fourche

Mountains subsection of the Ouachita Mountains.

 3. Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners hold 68

percent of the 22.89 million ac of timberland in the

Assessment area; forest industry owns 11 percent.

Thus, private and corporate landowners together hold

more than 79 percent of the timberland. The remaining 21 percent consists of public timberlands, threefourths of which are within one of the national forests.

 4. The abundance of oak in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands is matched by only two other regions in

the United States, the Central Appalachian and

Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental) Provinces.

 5. The annual net growth of hardwoods and softwoods

is more than double the annual removals.

 6. Since the 1970’s, forested area has increased in five

of the six Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)

survey regions in the Highlands and, in some instances, dramatically.

Vegetation Cover

A Comparison of the Highlands to

Surrounding Ecoregions

Processes and patterns at local, landscape, and regional

scales influence the distribution of species and local

biological diversity, thus making assessments at

each of those scales important. The following sections

compare the composition and patterns of land cover in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands to land cover in surrounding

ecological provinces and to the Eastern United States.

Chapter 3: Status and Trends of Vegetation

21
Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

This analysis was conducted at the province level of

the National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological

Units (McNab and Avers 1994). The Assessment area

includes parts of two ecological provinces, the Southeastern Mixed Forest (map units 231and M231 in Keys

and others 1995) and Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental) Provinces (units 222 and M222 in Keys and

others 1995). The Team compared land cover of the

Assessment area to the remaining parts of provinces

222 and 231 and to provinces M221, 221, 232, 234, 251,

and 255 (fig. 3.1). The Team also compared the land

cover of the Assessment area to that of the Humid

Temperate Domain, which essentially corresponds to

the Eastern United States.

The Team used land cover units mapped by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, from

Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR)

data. Land cover types include 13 forest types, a

nonforest class, and an aquatic class. The classes are

mapped as 1-kilometer-square pixels. These data

provide a large scale but coarse-grained assessment of

land cover (fig. 3.2).

Because of the large scale and large pixel size, this

report includes only a few landscape statistics, including

the percentage of each land cover, the percentage of

coverage in all forest types combined, the mean forest

patch size, and the total area. Percent forest cover and

mean-patch size are useful statistics for a coarsegrained assessment of forest fragmentation (Robinson

and others 1995). When the percentage of forest cover

and mean patch sizes are relatively low, the forest is

more fragmented than when the percentage of forest

cover and mean patch size are high.

Patterns and Trends

Oak-hickory, oak-pine, and loblolly-shortleaf pine

forests cover large portions of the Assessment area (fig.

3.2 and table 3.1). Compared to other parts of the

Eastern United States, the Assessment area has the third

highest proportions of these forest types. Because of its

geographic location and the dominance of these three

forest types, the Assessment area has fewer forest types

than provinces that include more northern types (whitered-jack pine, spruce-fir, maple-beech-birch, aspen-birch)

or southeastern forest types (longleaf-slash pine).

Notable differences exist in land cover between the

Assessment area and surrounding provinces. The

Assessment area is in the mid-range of values for

percentage of forest cover and mean forest patch size

in the provinces and above these values for the Eastern

United States (table 3.1).

Implications and Opportunities

The prominence of oak in the Highlands is matched

by only two other provinces in the United States,

marking it as an especially significant forest resource.

The high percentage of forest cover and the large mean

forest patch size indicate low levels of forest fragmentation. As a result, the area is of high value to wildlife

species that are sensitive to fragmentation of forest

cover by nonforest land uses.

Forest Cover in the Highlands Based on FIA

Data

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) research

work units of the USDA Forest Service are the primary

sources of data on land use and forest cover types

within the Assessment area. The research division of

the Forest Service conducts surveys of forest land in

each State approximately every 10 years, depending on

budgets, available personnel, cooperation by States, and

other variables. These surveys supply intensive probability-based sample data available on a regional scale in

the United States. Data in these surveys summarize

general forest conditions in each State.

Two separate FIA research units conduct surveys in

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. The FIA research unit

of the Southern Research Station in Starkville, MS, is

responsible for surveying forest land in Arkansas and

Oklahoma, and the FIA research unit of the North

Central Forest Experiment Station, in St. Paul, MN, is

responsible for surveying forest land in Missouri.

Forest Inventory and Analysis researchers use a

large sampling network of permanent plots on public and

private lands across each State. Each plot is revisited

and measured on a predetermined schedule. All related

data for the plots are combined in a given area (such as

a region or State) to provide the general estimate of

forest conditions for that area. When recent data from a

22
Figure 3.1—Provinces included in the comparison of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment area to other portions of the

Humid Temperate Domain (the combination of all provinces shown; provinces from McNab and Avers 1994). Shaded areas

represent forest; unshaded areas are nonforest.

23
Ecological section Map code Subsection name and number

Ozark Highlands 1 St. Francois Knobs and Basins - 222Aa

2 Central Plateau - 222Ab

3 Osage River Hills - 222Ac

4 Gasconade River Hills - 222Ad

5 Meramec River Hills - 222Ae

6 Current River Hills - 222Af

7 White River Hills - 222Ag

8 Elk River Hills - 222Ah

9 Black River Ozark Border - 222Al

10 Springfield Plain - 222Am

11 Springfield Plateau - 222An

Boston Mountains 12 Upper Boston Mountains - M222Aa

13 Lower Boston Mountains - M222Ab

Arkansas Valley 14 Eastern Arkansas Valley - 231Ga

15 Western Arkansas Valley Mountains - 231Gb

16 Western Arkansas Valley - 231Gc

Ouachita Mountains 17 Fourche Mountains - M231 Aa

18 Western Ouachita Mountains - M231Ab

19 Central Ouachita Mountains - M231Ac

20 Athens Piedmont Plateau - M231Ad

Cover types

Loblolly-shortleaf pine

Oak-pine

Oak-hickory

Oak-gum-cypress

Elm-ash-cottonwood

Nonforest

Water

2

Figure 3.2—Generalized land cover of the Assessment area based on AVHRR data.

24
given plot are compared with previous survey data,

changes in forest condition can be determined. Details

of the procedures used in collecting and analyzing FIA

data can be found in Hansen and others (1992).

As with all sample-based information, survey data

are subject to sampling errors. For most of the analyses

in this section, survey data are based on a large number

of plots, and sampling errors will generally be low. For

example, the sampling error estimates for growing-stock

volume by region is ± 5 percent.

The most recent reports of surveys in the Assessment area were in different years—Arkansas in 1997,

Oklahoma in 1993, and Missouri in 1988 (table 3.2). (A

new survey was under way in Missouri at the time of

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment.) The

respective FIA units pooled data from those surveys to

provide information about the Assessment area.

The Terrestrial Team performed three analyses of

increasing complexity. The first analysis characterized

forested conditions in the Assessment area, based on

the most recent FIA data available. Only FIA sample

plots within the Assessment area boundary were used.

Thus, the current view is based on data obtained in

Arkansas from 1995 to 1997, in Oklahoma in 1993, and

in Missouri in 1988 (USDA FS 1997).

The second analysis evaluated changes in land use

and forest cover in the Assessment area. Because

historical plot data were inconsistent across States, it

was impossible to develop a specific link to the Assessment area boundary. Therefore, the Team had to use

Table 3.1—Land cover statistics for the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, surrounding ecological provinces, and the Eastern

United States, based on AVHRR data

Ecological region

Eastern

Habitat type OOH 221 M221 222 231 232 234 251 255 U.S.

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

White-red-jack pine 0.0 5.3 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

Spruce-fir 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 1.7

Longleaf-slash pine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 14.7 0.1 0 0.0 2.3

Loblolly-shortleaf pine 9.9 0.1 0.9 0.1 29.3 15.9 2.9 0 0.5 6.0

Oak-pine 10.8 5.3 11.9 1.0 19.0 8.2 1.3 0 1.5 4.8

Oak-hickory 35.4 37.4 50.9 13.8 17.3 4.1 2.5 2.6 9.5 12.1

Oak-gum-cypress 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.7 15.6 12.3 0 0.5 3.3

Elm-ash-cottonwood 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.5

Maple-beech-birch 0.0 8.5 5.3 5.2 0.1 0.0 0 0.4 0.0 5.7

Nonforest 40.3 41.5 28.6 75.7 28.4 40.3 79.3 95.3 85.8 51.9

Water 2.3 1.0 0.2 0.8 1.6 1.3 1.4 0.4 1.3 7.4

Total 57.4 57.6 71.1 23.5 69.9 58.5 19.3 4.3 12.8 40.9

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand square miles - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total area 64.3 95.2 65.5 232.2 167.2 210.2 47.5 200.5 88.8 1,413.5

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Square miles - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mean forest patch size 2,828 2,764 9,095 430 6,487 3,310 868 87 419 —

AVHRR = Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer; OOH = Ozark-Ouachita Highlands; 221 = Eastern broadleaf forest oceanic province;

M221 = Central Appalachian broadleaf-coniferous forest meadow province; 222 = Eastern broadleaf forest continental province; 231 = Southern

mixed forest province; 232 = Outer coastal plain mixed forest province; 234 = Lower Mississippi riverine forest province; 251 = Prairie parkland

temperate province; 255 = Prairie parkland subtropical province; Eastern U.S. = Humid temperate domain (all but OOH from McNab and Avers

1994); — = not calculated.

25
the traditional FIA regions, which correspond reasonably well with the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands (fig. 3.3).

The third analysis was an ecological assessment of

forest cover in the Assessment area based on the most

recent forest surveys. FIA data were stratified by

ecological section and subsection (see following paragraph and, for more detail, Chapter 1) by locating FIA

plots within these boundaries using a Geographic

Information System (GIS). Plots within each subsection

in the Assessment area were retained for analysis. By

using this method, a separate FIA data set was prepared for the Assessment.

The sections included in the Assessment area are,

from north to south: (1) the Ozark Highlands, (2) the

Boston Mountains, (3) the Arkansas Valley, and (4) the

Ouachita Mountains. Each section consists of several

ecological subdivisions, called “subsections” (see fig. 3.2

or, for a simpler image, fig. 1.1 in Chapter 1), which

represent areas of unique geological and ecological

character. FIA data were used to evaluate each section

in detail and to compare the sections with one another;

subsections were compared where data permitted.

Assessment Area

Current Forested Area. According to FIA data,

the Assessment area encompasses 37,286,600 acres

(ac). Of this, 23,954,800 ac (more than 64 percent) are

forested, and 13,331,400 ac (about 36 percent) are in

nonforest uses such as agriculture, roads, towns, or

cities (fig. 3.4).

Of the forested area, more than 95 percent is classified as timberland, which is land producing or capable of

producing commercial timber harvests. Woodlands too

unproductive to support commercial timber harvests and

forests where timber harvests have been prohibited

(Federal wilderness and other “reserved” areas)

account for the remainder.

Land Ownership. Nonindustrial private forest

(NIPF) owners, such as farmers, urban or suburban

residents, and corporations not involved in the timber

industry, hold 68 percent of the 22.89 million ac of

timberland in the Assessment area; forest industry owns

11 percent (fig. 3.5). Thus, private and corporate

landowners together hold 79 percent of the timberland.

Of the 21 percent of timberlands on public lands, 75

percent (16 percent of all timberlands) are in the

National Forest System (i.e., part of the Mark Twain,

Ouachita, or Ozark-St. Francis National Forests). The

remaining 25 percent of public timberland consists of

Federal, State, county, and municipal lands, including

State forests, wildlife management areas, national

wildlife refuges, military bases, and local parks.

General Attributes of Highlands Forests.

Hardwoods are the dominant cover on 85 percent of the

timberland in the Assessment area (fig. 3.6). The oakhickory forest type is the most common in the region,

occupying 67 percent of the timberland. Pine types,

primarily shortleaf and loblolly pines, occupy only 15

percent of the timberland. Of this amount, 65 percent is

in shortleaf pine stands of natural origin, and 35 percent

is in plantations of either shortleaf or loblolly pine.

The timberlands in the Assessment area occupy

relatively poor sites. Most of the timberland acres fall in

the two lowest productivity classes; less than 2 percent

fall within the two highest productivity classes (fig. 3.7).

Table 3.2—FIA survey regions, survey years, and

measurement intervals used for analysis of general trends

in forest cover of the Assessment area

State (survey Year of Measurement

regions) field work intervala

Oklahoma (Eastb) 1956 1950’s

1966 1960’s

1976 1970’s

1986 1980’s

1993 1990’s

Arkansas (Ouachita and Ozark) 1959 1950’s

1969 1960’s

1978 1970’s

1988 1980’s

1995 1990’s

Missouri (Eastern Ozarks,

Northwest Ozarks,

Southwest Ozarks) 1947 1950’s

1959 1960’s

1972 1970’s

1988 1980’s

a Measurement interval indicates how measurement year was stratified

for analysis of trends over time.

b Combination of northeast and southeast Oklahoma regions.

Source: USDA FS (1997).

26
However, the forests within the Assessment area

are, on average, adequately stocked (fig. 3.8). (Stocking

is a relative measure of the degree to which the growth

potential of the site is used by trees; for more information, refer to Hansen and others 1992.) Forests on more

than 50 percent of the timberlands have stocking from

60 to 100 percent. Less than 33 percent of the timberlands are less than fully stocked (less than 60 percent

stocking), and about 17 percent of the area is overstocked (greater than 100 percent stocking).

FIA analysts distinguish between live trees (all living

trees), growing-stock trees (live trees of commercial

species and potentially useful for harvest), and sawtimber trees (growing-stock trees large enough to use for

saw logs) (Rosson and London 1997). Generally, livetree comparisons best reflect the species composition

and distribution of the forest. Growing-stock comparisons reflect the commercial or merchantable component

of the forest, i.e., those trees that are suitable for

pulpwood or saw logs. Sawtimber comparisons indicate

Figure 3.3—FIA regions lying wholly or partially within the Assessment area.

White

Pope

Benton

Izard

Stone Newton

Sharp

Searcy

Fulton

Madison

Boone

Carroll Baxter

Johnson

Faulkner

Franklin Van Buren Cleburne

Crawford

Independence

Marion

Washington

Conway

Randolph

Yell

Polk

Scott

Saline

Logan

Pulaski

Perry

Garland

Montgomery

Sebastian

Le Flore

Atoka McCurtain

Bryan

Pittsburg

Pushmataha

Coal

Mayes

Adair

Latimer

Choctaw

Delaware

Haskell

Cherokee

Muskogee

McIntosh

Ottawa

Sequoyah

Polk

Benton

Phelps

Laclede

Miller

Camden

Dallas

St. Clair

Cedar

Morgan

Maries

Pulaski

Hickory

Texas

Barry Ho well

Taney Ozark

Do uglas

Wright

Stone

Newton

Webster

Christian

McDonald

Dent Iro n

Sh annon

Butler

Wayn e

Oregon Ripley

Reynolds

Carter

Crawford

Bollinger

Wash ington

Madison

St. Francois

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands (boundary)

Oklahoma counties

Northwest Missouri counties

Eastern Missouri counties

Southwest Missouri counties

Arkansas Ozark counties

Ouachita counties

27
Figure 3.4—Distribution of land cover in the OzarkOuachita Highlands.

Figure 3.5—Ownership of timberland in the OzarkOuachita Highlands. (NIPF = nonindustrial private

forest.)

Figure 3.6—Representation of major forest types on timberland in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

Figure 3.7—Area of timberland in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands in

five site productivity classes.

Figure 3.8—Area of timberland in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands in

five stocking classes.

Timberland

62%

Reserved 

timberland

1%

Woodland

1%

Nonforest

36%

National 

forest

16%

Other public

5%

Forest 

industry

NIPF 11%

owners

68%

Other

1%

Shortleafloblolly pine 

15%

Oak-hickory

67%

Oak-gumcypress 

2%

Beechmaple 1%

Oakpine14%

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

< 50 50–85 85–120 120–165 > 165

Cubic feet of growth/acre/year

Timberland, thousand acres

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

< 16.7%

16.7–60%

60–100%

100–130%

> 130%

Stocking

Timberland, thousand acres

28
forest conditions associated with large trees (trees 9

inches [in.] in diameter at breast height [d.b.h.] and

larger) that are suitable for saw logs.

The average acre in the Assessment area contains

639 live trees, of which 200 trees are in the growingstock category. Hardwoods account for 77 percent of

live trees and 76 percent of growing-stock trees. The

average live-tree volume in the Assessment area is

1,032 cubic feet/ac, of which 74 percent is hardwood

and 26 percent conifer (pines and eastern red cedar)

(table 3.3). Cubic volume decreases from live-tree to

growing-stock to sawtimber categories. The distribution

of cubic volume also changes, with the percentage of

hardwoods declining and percentage of conifers increasing. Finally, the average acre in the Assessment

area contains a sawtimber volume of 2,350 board feet

(40 percent pine and 60 percent hardwood).

The five species with the largest live-tree volumes in

the Assessment area are shortleaf pine, white oak, black

oak, post oak, and northern red oak (table 3.4). Together,

these five species account for 67 percent of the live-tree

cubic volume, 70 percent of the growing-stock volume,

and 76 percent of the sawtimber board-foot volume in

the Assessment area. Oaks as a group (those just noted

Table 3.3—Average per-acre volumes (live tree, growing stock, sawtimber) of conifers and hardwoods in

Assessment area timberlands

Sawtimber Sawtimber

Live-tree Growing-stock cubic board-foot

Tree type volume volume volume volume

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet/acre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Board feet/acrea

Conifer 269.7 (26.1%) 261.1 (32.1%) 154.3 (39.2%) 929.6 (39.6%)

Hardwood 762.5 (73.9%) 552.8 (67.9%) 239.3 (60.8%) 1,420.4 (60.4%)

Total 1,032.2 (100%) 813.9 (100%) 393.6 (100%) 2,350.0 (100%)

a International 1⁄4-inch rule.

Source: USDA FS (1997).

Table 3.4—Distribution of live-tree and sawtimber volume among major tree species

in the Assessment area

Species Live-tree volume Sawtimber volume

Cubic Percent Board Percent

feet/acre feet/acre

Shortleaf pine 214.4 20.7 847.6 35.9

White oak 172.1 16.6 339.0 14.4

Black oak 140.8 13.6 317.5 13.5

Post oak 117.0 11.3 142.4 6.0

Northern red oak 53.0 5.1 140.1 5.9

Loblolly pine 39.5 3.8 69.3 2.9

Scarlet oak 24.1 2.3 49.7 2.1

Sweetgum 20.9 2.0 55.2 2.3

Blackjack oak 19.9 1.9 5.8 0.2

Southern red oak 18.2 1.8 48.9 2.1

Other species 214.3 20.7 344.8 14.6

Total 1,034.1 100.0 2,360.3 100.0

Source: USDA FS (1997).

29
and scarlet, blackjack, chinquapin, and southern red oak)

account for about 50 percent of the live-tree volume and

44 percent of the sawtimber volume in the Assessment

area. Shortleaf pine alone, however, accounts for 36

percent of the board-foot volume in area. Almost 50

percent of the shortleaf pine sawtimber board-foot

volume in the Assessment area (9.56 billion board feet)

is located on national forest land.

Loblolly pine is the sixth-ranked species and accounts

for 3.8 percent of the live-tree volume in the Assessment area. This species is native only to a handful of

counties along the southern boundary of the Assessment

area, but it is commonly used in intensive plantation

management by forest industry to the north of its natural

range, especially in the Ouachita Mountains.

Distribution of Volume in the Assessment Area.

Eighty percent of the growing-stock volume consists of

oaks (50 percent) and pines (30 percent)(fig. 3.9).

Eighty five percent of the board-foot sawtimber volume

is oak (47 percent) or pine (38 percent). More than 50

percent of the growing-stock volume and sawtimber

volume are in hard hardwoods (primarily oaks but also

hickories, hard maple, beech, ashes, and black walnut).

Soft hardwoods (soft maples, sweetgum, tupelo,

blackgum, cottonwood, and basswood) account for

about 7 percent of the growing-stock and sawtimber

volumes in the Assessment area.

Only 30 percent of the timberland acreage in the

Assessment area have stand volumes greater than 1,000

cubic feet/ac (fig. 3.10). Ownership of this 30 percent is

not typical of the average. National forests account for

more than one-third (fig. 3.11), which is disproportionately high, given that national forests occupy just over

16 percent of the Assessment area. Conversely, NIPF

landowners own nearly 75 percent of the stands with

less than 1,000 cubic feet/ac, another disproportionately

high percentage.

Figure 3.12 shows that there are more oaks than

pines in the Assessment area throughout the range of

diameter classes. Overall, there are 2.8 living oaks for

every live pine in the Assessment area. For every live

conifer (pines, eastern red cedar), there are 6.6 living

Figure 3.9—Distribution of (A) growingstock volume and (B) sawtimber volume in

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands by species

group.

Figure 3.10—Distribution of growing-stock volume and

timberland in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands in stands of

various stocking levels.

A

Pine

30%

Other conifers

2%

Oaks

50%

Soft hardwoods

8%

Other hard 

hardwoods

10%

B

Pine

38%

Other conifers

1%

Oaks

47%

Soft hardwoods

7% Other hard 

hardwoods

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

< 500

500–1000

1000–1500

1500–2000

> 2000

Stand volume, cubic feet/acre

Timberland area

Percent of volume

Percent of area

30
Figure 3.12—Size-class distribution of oak and pine trees per acre on timberland in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

0

50

100

150

200

250

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Diameter, inches

Trees per acre

Live oaks

Live pines

Growing stock oaks

Growing stock pines

Figure 3.11—Ownership of forest stands in

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands with

(A) greater than and (B) less than 1,000

cubic feet of growing-stock volume per acre.

B

Industry

11%

National 

forest

10%

Other public

4%

NIPF

75%

A

National 

forest

38%

Other 

public

6%

Industry

11%

NIPF

45%

31
hardwoods. However, the proportion of conifers of

growing-stock quality (merchantable or sawtimber

category) is considerably higher than for hardwoods

(table 3.5). For conifers in general and pines in particular, the ratio of growing-stock trees to live trees exceeds

80 percent in all diameter classes and 95 percent in the

sawtimber size class. Conversely, the ratio does not

exceed 70 percent for oaks in any of the broad size

categories.

FIA analysts divide the live trees that are not of

growing-stock quality into two categories: (1) rough

trees, too gnarly or branched to qualify as growing

stock, and (2) rotten trees, which have excessive

internal defect. The volume of rough and rotten trees in

proportion to growing-stock trees is much greater in the

hardwood component, especially the hard hardwoods,

than in the pine or other conifer components (fig. 3.13).

These data suggest that a larger proportion of the

pines have potential commercial value than do oaks (or

hardwoods in general) in the Assessment area. There

are several causes for this trend. The determinate

growth form of conifers—the tendency of conifers to

produce a single stem—makes it easy to classify a

conifer as having potential commercial value early in the

tree’s life. Conversely, the indeterminate growth habit of

hardwoods—the tendency of hardwoods to form a

crooked stem or multiple stems under partially shaded

conditions—can result in a tree developing poor form,

which reduces its commercial value. However, lack of

commercial value in no way diminishes the other

resource values trees provide, including mast crops and

cavities for use by wildlife.

Growth, Removals, and Mortality. The average

acre in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands supports an

annual net growth of 29.6 cubic feet, most of which (85

percent) is in the pine and oak components (fig. 3.14).

Average annual removals by harvesting amount to 14.5

cubic feet/ac, of which 88 percent is in the pine and oak

components. The net result is that growth on the

average acre in the Assessment area is more than

double the removals. The oak component has a larger

growth-removals ratio than the pines, 6.9 versus 5.3

cubic feet/ac per year.

The average annual mortality rate is 12.3 percent of

the gross annual growth (3.7 cubic feet). However,

mortality rates differ between conifers and hardwoods—5.8 percent and 17.4 percent of gross annual

growth, respectively. Removals through harvest exceed

natural mortality by only 1.6 times in the hardwood

component but by over 9 times in the conifer component.

Differences Among Ecological Sections. The

Ozark Highlands section dominates the Assessment

area, containing 22.87 million ac or 61 percent of the

total land area (fig. 3.15). The other three sections—the

Table 3.5—Percent of live trees that qualify as growing- stock

trees by size category and species group

Species All Merchant- Sawgroup speciesa ableb timberc

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

Pine 82.7 90.7 97.4

All conifers 83.3 89.3 95.4

Oak 66.1 69.1 64.9

All hardwoods 58.5 64.1 65.1

All trees 59.7 68.7 71.7

a “All sizes” consist of diameter classes 2 in. and larger. b Merchantable size classes are diameter classes 4 in. and larger in the

conifer components and 6 in. and larger in the hardwood components.

c Sawtimber size classes are diameter classes 10 in. and larger in the

conifer components and 12 in. and larger in the hardwood components.

Source: USDA FS (1997).

Figure 3.13—Growing-stock volume, rough tree volume, and rotten

tree volume in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands by species group.

0

2,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,000

Pines

Other conifers

Soft

hardwoods

Hard

hardwoods

Volume, million cubic feet

Rotten

Rough

Growing stock

32
Ouachita Mountains, the Boston Mountains, and the

Arkansas Valley—occupy 18 percent, 11 percent, and

10 percent, respectively, of the area. Of the 23.95

million ac of total forest and in the Assessment area,

more than 50 percent are in the Ozark Highlands, again

followed in rank order by the Ouachita Mountains, the

Boston Mountains, and the Arkansas Valley. Total area,

forest land, and timberland acreage by section and

subsection are shown in table 3.6.

Within each section, the amount of forested land

differs considerably (fig. 3.16). In the Ozark Highlands,

only 56 percent of the land area is forested versus 60

percent in the Arkansas Valley, 78 percent in the Boston

Mountains, and 85 percent in the Ouachita Mountains.

The ratio of timberland to total forest land shows the

small amount of reserved forest land (such as wilderness areas) and “other forest” in the Assessment area.

More than 95 percent of the forested area is commercial timberland, i.e., capable of supporting commercial

timber harvests.

Private lands held by NIPF owners and forest

industry dominate the timberland acreage in the four

Figure 3.14—Average net annual growth, average annual removals,

and growth minus removals for the average timberland acre in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

Figure 3.15—Distribution of (A) total land

area and (B) forested land area in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands by ecological

section.

Figure 3.16—Distribution of total land area in the ecological

sections of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands by land category.

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Pines

Other conifers

Oaks

Other hardwoods

Growing stock volume, 

cubic feet/acre

Net growth

Removals

Growth minus removals

A

Ozark 

Highlands

61%

Arkansas 

Valley

10%

Boston 

Mountains

11%

Ouachita 

Mountains

18%

B

Ouachita 

Mountains

23%

Boston 

Mountains

13%

Ozark 

Highlands

55%

Arkansas 

Valley

9%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Ozark

Highlands

Boston

Mountains

Arkansas

Valley

Ouachita

Mountains

Total land area, thousand acres

Nonforest

Other forest

Timberland

33
sections (fig. 3.17). In each section, more than 70

percent of timberland is in private ownership. In the

Ozark Highlands and the Arkansas Valley, this figure

exceeds 83 percent. However, the character of private

ownership differs by section. In the Ozark Highlands,

Boston Mountains, and the Arkansas Valley, more than

96 percent of the private timberlands are in NIPF

ownership. But in the Ouachita Mountains, NIPF

owners own slightly less than one-half of the private

sector timberlands. Forest industry owns more than 2

million ac of timberland in the Ouachitas—80 percent of

the 2.5 million ac of forest industry timberland in the

entire Assessment area.

An examination of the distribution of types of forests

shows hardwood forests are more widely distributed

than pine-dominated types in each section, but the

proportions shift from north to south (left to right in fig.

3.18). Oak or oak-pine forests are dominant on 90

percent of timberland in the Ozark Highlands and

Boston Mountains, but they account for 78 percent of

the timberland in the Arkansas Valley and 58 percent in

the Ouachita Mountains. Generally, the percentage of

pine forest acreage increases directly with the decreasing proportion of oak types. This relationship is most

evident in the Ouachita Mountains, where pine types

occupy slightly over 40 percent of the timberland area.

Table 3.6—Total land area, forested land area, and timberland area by ecological section and subsection in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands (FIA data)

Ecological section

Subsectiona Map code Total land Forest land Timberland

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

Ozark Highlands Section 222 22,780.9 12,901.8 12,189.8 St.

Francois Knobs and Basins 222Aa 1,092.1 750.2 688.0

Central Plateau 222Ab 6,338.7 3,099.1 3,013.9

Osage River Hills 222Ac 1,399.2 855.3 778.9

Gasconade River Hills 222Ad 1,087.5 654.3 612.9

Meramac River Hills 222Ae 1,168.1 891.4 881.6

Current River Hills 222Af 1,563.3 1,322.0 1,215.7

White River Hills 222Ag 3,583.7 2,342.8 2,121.6

Elk River Hills 222Ah 434.0 264.2 264.2

Black River Ozark Border 222Al 860.7 677.1 665.7

Springfield Plain 222Am 3,103.1 641.8 634.0

Springfield Plateau 222An 2,240.4 1,403.6 1,313.3

Boston Mountains Section M222 4,090.1 3,181.7 3,035.3

Upper Boston Mountains M222Aa 1,129.7 904.9 837.0

Lower Boston Mountains M222Ab 2,960.3 2,276.8 2,198.3

Arkansas Valley Section 231 3,725.1 2,253.3 2,192.8

Eastern Arkansas Valley 231Ga 1,470.1 774.3 754.8

Mount Magazine 231Gb 664.1 616.8 592.8

Western Arkansas Valley Mountains 231Gc 1,590.9 862.2 845.2

Ouachita Mountains Section M231 6,600.1 5,617.9 5,477.0

Fourche Mountains M231Aa 2,740.8 2,147.3 2,050.6

West Central Ouachita Mountains M231Ab 1,443.2 1,421.8 1,406.8

East Central Ouachita Mountains M231Ac 1,526.6 1,292.4 1,263.2

Athens Piedmont Plateau M231Ad 889.5 756.4 756.4

Total 37,286.2 23,954.8 22,894.9

a See figure 1.1 for locations.

Source: USDA FS (1997).

34
Overall, site productivity is inversely related to

latitude, with poorer productivity in the north. This trend

is especially apparent in the lowest site productivity

class (fig. 3.19). More than 90 percent of the timberland

in the Ozark Highlands and the Boston Mountains falls

in the two poorest classes. The only section with more

than 25 percent of timberland in the moderately productive class (85 to 120 cubic feet/ac per year) is the

Ouachita Mountains. Less than 5 percent of the timberland in any section has growth rates exceeding 120

cubic feet/ac per year.

Conversely, stocking of timberland does not differ

greatly among sections (fig. 3.20). The Boston Mountains and Ouachita Mountains both have slightly less

timberland in understocked stands and slightly more in

overstocked stands than the Ozark Highlands or

Arkansas Valley sections. However, these differences

are not prominent. In addition the percent of area

occupied by sawtimber, pulpwood, and seedling-sapling

stands is similar across sections. There is a slightly

higher percentage of area occupied by stands of

sawtimber in the Ozark Highlands and Boston Mountains, but again the differences among sections are not

prominent.

Figure 3.17—Distribution of timberland in the ecological sections of

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands by ownership category.

Figure 3.18—Distribution of timberland in the ecological sections of

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands by forest type.

Figure 3.19—Distribution of timberland in the ecological sections of

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands by site quality (productivity) class.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Ozark

Highlands

Boston

Mountains

Arkansas

Valley

Ouachita

Mountains

Area of timberland, thousand acres

Forest industry

Nonindustrial private owners

Other public

National forest

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Ozark

Highlands

Boston

Mountains

Arkansas

Valley

Ouachita

Mountains

Area of timberland, thousand acres

Oak types

Oak-pine type

Pine type

Other types

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

< 50 50–85 85–120 120–165 > 165

Cubic feet of growth/acre/year

Timberland area

Ozark Highlands

Boston Mountains

Arkansas Valley

Ouachita Mountains

35
Ozark Highlands

General Land Attributes. The portion of the Ozark

Highlands section that lies within the Assessment area

includes 11 ecological subsections. Three of these—the

Central Plateau, the White River Hills, and the Springfield Plain—account for more than 50 percent of the

land area in this section. The Central Plateau and the

Springfield Plain are the only subsections with less than

50 percent of the land area in forest (fig. 3.21). When

these two subsections are excluded, the rest of the

Ozark Highlands is more than 66 percent forested, a

figure close to the Assessment area average. Percentage of land in forest cover varies from a low of 20

percent in the Springfield Plain subsection to a high of

85 percent in the Current River Hills subsection.

NIPF owners hold the majority of timberland in all but

one of the subsections (fig. 3.22). NIPF ownership

ranges from 49 percent in the Current River Hills to 97

percent in the Elk River Hills. Ten of the 11 subsections

have greater than 70 percent NIPF ownership of

timberland, and 6 have greater than 85 percent. Conversely, public ownership of timberland varies from 3

percent in the Elk River Hills subsection to just over 50

percent in the Current River Hills subsection. Figure 3.23

shows acres in public ownership by subsection. The four

subsections with greater than 20 percent Federal ownership are the Gasconade River Hills, the Meramac River

Hills, the Current River Hills, and the Black River Ozark

Border. An inverse relationship exists between percent

of timberland ownership in the NIPF sector and percent

forest cover in this section—the higher the percentage of

timberland in NIPF ownership, the lower the percent

forest cover.

Oaks, especially the oak-hickory forest type, dominate the timberlands of the Ozark Highlands in all

subsections (fig. 3.24). The percentage of oak types

(oak-hickory, oak-pine, and oak-gum-cypress) does not

fall below 87 percent in any of the subsections.

Figure 3.20—Distribution of timberland in the ecological sections of

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands by stocking class.

Figure 3.21—Distribution of forested land and total land area

of the Ozark Highlands section by ecological subsection.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

< 16.7%

16.7–60%

60–100%

100–130%

> 130%

Stocking

Timberland area

Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains

Arkansas Valley Ouachita Mountains

0

2,0004,0006,0008,000

Springfield Plateau

Springfield Plain

Black River Ozark

Border

Elk River Hills

White River Hills

Current River Hills

Meramac River Hills

Gasconade River Hills

Osage River Hills

Central Plateau

St. Francois Knobs and

Basins

Land area, thousand acres

Forest land

area

Total land area

36
Figure 3.22—Distribution of total timberland and nonindustrial

private forest in the Ozark Highlands section by ecological

subsection.

Figure 3.23—Distribution of timberland in public ownership and

national forest ownership in the Ozark Highlands by ecological

subsection.

Figure 3.24—Distribution of timberland in the Ozark Highlands by

forest type and ecological subsection.

0

500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

Springfield Plateau

Springfield Plain

Black River Ozark Border

Elk River Hills

White River Hills

Current River Hills

Meramac River Hills

Gasconade River Hills

Osage River Hills

Central Plateau

St. Francis Knobs and Basins

Timberland area, thousand acres

All timberland

NIPF ownership

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Springfield Plateau

Springfield Plain

Black River Ozark Border

Elk River Hills

White River Hills

Current River Hills

Meramac River Hills

Gasconade River Hills

Osage River Hills

Central Plateau

St. Francis Knobs and Basins

Timberland area, thousand acres

Public ownership

National forest

0

500

1,0001,5002,000

2,500

3,000

Springfield Plateau

Springfield Plain

Black River Ozark Border

Elk River Hills

White River Hills

Current River Hills

Meramac River Hills

Gasconade River Hills

Osage River Hills

Central Plateau

St. Francis Knobs and Basins

Timberland area, thousand acres

Oak-hickory type

Oak-pine type

Pine types

37
Pine types are a minor component in all subsections,

reaching a maximum of 9 percent of timberland area in

the Gasconade River Hills subsection. This dominance

of oaks is also reflected in growing-stock and sawtimber

volume data. Hard hardwoods (such as oaks, hickory,

hard maple, and black walnut) account for 81 percent of

growing-stock volume and 79 percent of sawtimber

board-foot volume on timberland across the Ozark

Highlands. The range in hard hardwood volume on

timberlands among subsections varies from 74 percent

to 94 percent for growing-stock volume and from 71 to

94 percent for sawtimber board-foot volume.

General Forest Attributes. An average acre of

timberland in the Ozark Highlands section has 582 live

trees, of which 432 trees qualify as growing stock.

These data are higher than for the Assessment area as

a whole. Nearly 80 percent of the trees are in the 2-in.

and 4-in. diameter classes, which is high relative to

normal stocking standards. Softwoods account for less

than 10 percent of the live trees and 11 percent of

growing-stock trees per acre. Live-tree basal area of

the average timberland acre is 79.7 square feet, of

which 66 percent is in growing stock. The quadratic

mean diameter of the average tree on the average

timberland acre is 5 in.

More than 33 percent of the timberland area in the

Ozark Highlands is either poorly stocked or nonstocked.

As shown in fig. 3.25, national forests have the highest

proportion of lands either moderately stocked (defined

by FIA as between 60 to 100 percent stocked) or fully

stocked (defined by FIA as from 100 to 130 percent

stocked). The NIPF sector has the lowest proportion of

lands in these classes. Further, the NIPF sector has the

largest percentage of timberland (39 percent) in the two

poorest stocking classes, whereas national forests have

the smallest (slightly over 10 percent).

The average timberland acre in the Ozark Highlands

has a live-tree volume of 961 cubic feet, a growingstock volume of 660 cubic feet, a sawtimber cubic

volume of 304 cubic feet, and a sawtimber board-foot

volume of 1,800 board feet. Thus, the Ozark Highlands

appear to have stands with lower volumes, on average,

than the Assessment area as a whole (refer to table 3.3

for the latter). The contribution of pine to the volume

components increases slightly, from 7 percent of livetree volume to 14 percent of sawtimber volume, while

that of hard hardwoods decreases from 84 percent to 78

percent across the same range. Thus, pine appears to

contribute only in a minor way to the character of the

average acre in the Ozark Highlands.

The six species with the greatest volumes in the

Ozark Highlands are black oak, white oak, post oak,

shortleaf pine, scarlet oak, and northern red oak.

Together they make up 74 percent of the live-tree

volume, 77 percent of the growing-stock volume, and 81

percent of the sawtimber board-foot volume in this

section. Almost 24 percent of the growing-stock volume

of these six species is found on public lands, which

consists of 17 percent of the section’s timberland area.

Nearly 50 percent of the shortleaf pine and 40 percent

of the scarlet oak growing-stock volume in this section

are on public lands (fig. 3.26).

Conversely, the NIPF class owns 81 percent of the

timberland area but has only 74 percent of the volume.

Post oak is the only species on NIPF lands that has a

proportional growing-stock volume that exceeds the

proportion of timberland. These data suggest that

timberland in the public sector supports a disproportionately high share of the growing-stock volume in this

section.

Growth, Removals, and Mortality. The Ozark

Highlands section shows a growth surplus in the major

forest types (fig. 3.27). Average annual net growth per

Figure 3.25—Distribution of timberland in the Ozark

Highlands by stocking level and ownership category.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

< 16.7 16.7–60 60–100 100–130 > 130

Stocking

Ownership of timberland area

National forest 

Other public 

Forest industry 

NIPF owners

38
acre on timberland in this section is 18.8 cubic feet, of

which 78 percent is in the hard hardwood component,

and 16 percent is in the pine component. Average

annual removals per acre total 8.5 cubic feet, of which

82 percent is hard hardwood and 15 percent is pine.

Thus, growth exceeds removals by 10.3 cubic feet/ac

annually.

Average annual mortality per acre on timberland in

this section is 4.1 cubic feet—nearly 18 percent of gross

annual growth per acre and slightly less than 50 percent

of the level of removals. Hardwood mortality is nearly

20 percent of gross hardwood growth, whereas softwood mortality is 8 percent of growth—less than 50

percent of the mortality rate. The highest mortality rate

is in the soft hardwoods—nearly 30 percent of gross

growth.

Boston Mountains

General Land Attributes. The Boston Mountains

section occupies about 4 million ac. It has two ecological subsections—the Upper Boston Mountains subsection (about 1 million ac) and the Lower Boston Mountains subsection (about 3 million ac). Both are entirely

contained within the Assessment area and are about

equally forested (fig. 3.28)—80 percent for the Upper

Boston Mountains subsection and 77 percent for the

Lower Boston Mountains. About the same physical

area of each subsection is reserved woodland, which

results in a slightly lower proportion of timberland in the

Upper Boston Mountains subsection (92 percent) than

in the Lower Boston Mountains (97 percent).

Land ownership in the subsections differs slightly

(fig. 3.29). More than 33 percent of the Upper Boston

Mountains subsection is public land, with 98 percent of

that in national forest. The balance of slightly less than

66 percent of the timberland is in private ownership. In

the Lower Boston Mountains subsection, about 27

percent of the timberland is public land, of which 84

percent is national forest. Of the 70 percent of Lower

Boston Mountains timberland that is in private ownership, 6 percent is owned by forest industry and the

balance by NIPF owners.

Forest types also differ in these subsections (fig.

3.30). More than 97 percent of the timberland area in

the Upper Boston Mountains subsection is oak-dominated, with more than 92 percent in the oak-hickory

Figure 3.26—Distribution of growing-stock volume on public

timberland and nonindustrial private forest land in the Ozark

Highlands section.

Figure 3.27—Growth, removals, and growth minus removals of

growing-stock volume in the Ozark Highlands section by

species group.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Black oak

White oak

Post oak

Shortleaf pine

Scarlet oak

Northern red

oak

All public

NIPF owners

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Pine

Other softwoods

Soft hardwoods

Hard hardwoods

Tree volume, cubic feet/acre/year

Net growth

Removals

Growth minus removals

Growing-stock volume

39
type alone. In the Lower Boston Mountains, pine and

oak-pine types are more prominent (at 11 and 13

percent, respectively), although oak-hickory remains the

most prevalent forest type.

The dominance of oaks in the Upper Boston Mountains and the higher amount of pine in the Lower Boston

Mountains are also apparent in growing-stock and

sawtimber-volume data (figs. 3.31 and 3.32). Hard

hardwoods make up 82 percent of the growing-stock

volume in the Boston Mountains and 80 percent of the

sawtimber board-foot volume. These percentages are

almost identical to those in the Ozark Highlands section.

However, hard hardwoods only make up 64 percent of

growing-stock volume and 58 percent of sawtimber

board-foot volume in the Lower Boston Mountains

subsection.

Conversely, pine increases from less than 5 percent

of growing-stock volume and 6 percent of sawtimber

board-foot volume in the Upper Boston Mountains to 20

percent of the growing-stock volume and more than 25

Figure 3.28—Distribution of timberland, other forest land,

and nonforest land in the Boston Mountains section by

ecological subsection.

Figure 3.29—Distribution of nonforest land, timberland, and other

forest land by ownership category in the Boston Mountains by

ecological subsection. (NIPF = nonindustrial private forest)

Figure 3.30—Distribution of timberland in the Boston Mountains

by forest type and ecological subsection.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Upper Boston

Mountains

Lower Boston

Mountains

Land area, thousand acres

Nonforest

Timberland

Other forest

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Upper Boston Mountains Lower Boston Mountains

Timberland area, thousand acres

NIPF

Forest industry

Other public

National forest

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Upper Boston Mountains Lower Boston Mountains

Timberland area, thousand acres

Oak-pine type

Oak-hickory type

Pine types

Other

40
percent of the sawtimber board-foot volume in the

Lower Boston Mountains.

General Forest Attributes. The average acre of

timberland in the Boston Mountains section has 612 live

trees, of which 277 are of growing-stock quality. These

values are greater than the average for the Assessment

area. The 2-in. and 4-in. d.b.h. classes contain 75

percent of the live trees, but only 56 percent of growingstock trees. Only 33 percent of the trees in these two

classes are growing stock, compared to slightly more

than 80 percent in the diameter classes 6 in. and larger.

Softwoods account for about 10 percent of the live

trees and 18 percent of growing-stock trees, which is

approximately equal to and slightly greater than the

respective softwood percentages in the Ozark Highlands section. This also indicates an increasing prominence of softwoods in the growing-stock component of

the Boston Mountains section.

Slightly more than 70 percent of the land in the

Boston Mountains section is either fully stocked or overstocked, a higher percentage than for the Ozark Highlands section. All forest industry land and nearly 90

percent of national forest land are in these two stocking

classes; however, less than 50 percent of the land in the

“other public” sector is in these classes (fig. 3.33).

The average timberland acre in the Boston Mountains section has a live-tree volume of 1,242 cubic feet,

a growing-stock volume of 1,096 cubic feet, a sawtimber cubic volume of 524 cubic feet, and a sawtimber

board-foot volume of 3,151 board feet. These values are

approximately 25 percent higher than the averages for

the Assessment area (refer to table 3.3 for the latter).

The Boston Mountains section appears to have better

sites and a higher percent stocking, on average, than the

Ozark Highlands. Fifteen percent of the growing-stock

volume and 21 percent of the sawtimber cubic foot

volume is pine. Hard hardwoods account for 69 percent

of the growing-stock volume and 64 percent of the

sawtimber cubic-foot volume. These data support the

previous observation that pine appears to be slightly

more prominent in the Boston Mountains section than in

the Ozark Highlands section.

White oak, shortleaf pine, northern red oak, black

oak, and post oak have the greatest live-tree and

growing-stock volumes in the Boston Mountains section.

Together they make up 64 percent of the live-tree

volume, 66 percent of the growing-stock volume, and 70

Figure 3.32—Distribution of sawtimber volume in the Boston

Mountains by species group and ecological subsection.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Upper Boston Mountains Lower Boston Mountains

Growing stock volume, million cubic feet

Hard hardwood

Soft hardwood

Other softwood

Pine

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Upper Boston Mountains Lower Boston Mountains

Sawtimber volume, million board feet

Hard hardwood

Soft hardwood

Other softwood

Pine

Figure 3.31—Distribution of growing-stock volume in the Boston

Mountains by species group and ecological subsection.

41
percent of the sawtimber board-foot volume in the

section. Shortleaf pine displaces white oak as the topranking species in sawtimber board-foot volume;

together, these two species account for 40 percent of

the sawtimber board-foot volume (21 percent and 19

percent, respectively) in the section.

Growth, Removals, and Mortality. Analysis

reveals a total annual growth surplus per acre of slightly

more than 20 cubic feet in the Boston Mountains section

(sum of the surpluses shown in light gray in fig. 3.34).

The average annual net growth per acre on timberland

in this section is 32.6 cubic feet, of which 62 percent is

in the hard hardwoods and 25 percent is in pine. Average annual removals per acre total 11.2 cubic feet, 50

percent of which is hard hardwood removals and 41

percent pine removals. Thus, net growth is nearly three

times the removals.

Average annual mortality per acre on timberland in

this section is 4.3 cubic feet—slightly more than 11

percent of gross annual growth and less than 50 percent

the level of removals. Hardwood mortality is nearly 14

percent of gross hardwood growth, whereas softwood

mortality is 5 percent of growth. The highest mortality

rate is in soft hardwoods, about 17 percent of gross net

annual growth.

Arkansas Valley

General Land Attributes. The Arkansas Valley

section, the smallest section in the Assessment area,

contains 3.73 million ac. It contains three ecological

subsections: the Western Arkansas Valley (1.59 million

ac), the Western Arkansas Valley Mountains (664,000

ac), and the Eastern Arkansas Valley (1.47 million ac).

Both Eastern and Western Arkansas Valley subsections have slightly more than 50 percent of their area in

timberland (fig. 3.35), but the Western Arkansas Valley

Mountains subsection is 93 percent forested. The

Western Arkansas Valley Mountains is also the only

subsection in this section with any reserved forestland,

but the other sections have lands in the “other woodland” category. Ninety-seven percent of the forestland

in the Arkansas Valley is commercial timberland.

Virtually all of the Eastern Arkansas Valley subsection is in private ownership—95 percent is NIPF

Figure 3.33—Distribution of timberland in the Boston Mountains

by stocking class and ownership category.

Figure 3.34—Growth, removals, and growth minus removals of

growing-stock volume in the Boston Mountains by species group.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

< 16.7

16.7–60

60–100

100–130

> 130

Stocking

Timberland area

National forest 

Other public 

Forest industry 

NIPF owners

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Pine

Other softwoods

Soft hardwoods

Hard hardwoods

Growing stock volume, cubic feet/year

Net growth

Removals

Growth minus removals

42
holdings. Nearly 33 percent of the Western Arkansas

Valley Mountains subsection consists of public lands

(fig. 3.36). The Western Arkansas Valley subsection

has 17 percent in public lands and 83 percent in private

ownership, similar to the average for the Arkansas

Valley section as a whole.

Differences in forest types are also prominent (fig.

3.37). In the Western Arkansas Valley, 86 percent of

the timberland area is in oak-dominated types. However,

in the Eastern Arkansas Valley 76 percent is in oakdominated types and almost 20 percent is in pine types.

Oak-dominated forests cover 70 percent of the Western

Arkansas Valley Mountains.

Figures 3.38 and 3.39 provide growing-stock and

sawtimber-volume data for this section, which contrasts

markedly from the two sections to the north. In the

Western Arkansas Valley subsection, hardwoods make

up 72 percent of growing-stock volume and 63 percent

of the sawtimber board-foot volume on timberland. But

hard hardwoods are only 42 percent of the growingstock volume and 38 percent of the sawtimber volume

in this subsection—50 percent less timberland volume in

hard hardwoods than in the Boston Mountains or Ozark

Highlands.

Figure 3.36—Distribution of timberland in the Arkansas Valley

section by ownership category and ecological subsection.

Figure 3.37—Distribution of timberland in the Arkansas Valley

section by forest type.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Western AR

Valley 

Western AR

Valley

Mountains

Eastern AR

Valley

Land area, thousand acres

Timberland Other forest Nonforest

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Western AR

Valley 

Western AR

Valley

Mountains

Eastern AR

Valley 

Timberland area, thousand acres

Oak-hickory type

Oak-pine type

Pine types

Other

Figure 3.35—Distribution of timberland, other forest land, and

nonforest land in the Arkansas Valley section by ecological

subsection.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Western AR

Valley 

Western AR

Valley Mountains

Eastern AR

Valley 

Timberland area, thousand acres

National forest

Other public

Forest industry

NIPF owners

43
The gain is in softwoods, which are 25 percent of the

growing-stock volume and 33 percent of the sawtimber

volume in the Western Arkansas Valley subsection.

Softwoods are even more prominent in the Eastern

Arkansas Valley subsection, where they make up nearly

40 percent of growing-stock volume and nearly 50

percent of sawtimber volume; hard hardwood volume

declines to 45 percent of growing-stock volume and 35

percent of sawtimber volume.

Finally, the Western Arkansas Valley Mountains

subsection is the first area from north to south in the

Assessment area where softwoods consistently show

higher volume than hardwoods. About 65 percent of

growing-stock volume and 75 percent of sawtimber

board-foot volume are in softwoods; hard hardwoods

are reduced to 28 percent of the growing-stock volume

and 17 percent of sawtimber board-foot volume.

General Forest Attributes. The average acre of

timberland in the Arkansas Valley section has 579 live

trees, of which 288 are of growing-stock quality. Only

41 percent of the trees in the 2-in. and 4-in. class are

growing-stock trees, compared with slightly more than

75 percent of trees 6 in. and larger. Softwoods account

for about 29 percent of the live trees and 46 percent of

growing-stock trees—much higher percentages than in

the Ozark Highlands or Boston Mountains.

Live-tree basal area of the average timberland acre

is about 90 square feet, of which nearly three-fourths

are in growing-stock. The quadratic mean diameter is

5.2 in. for the average live tree and 6.6 in. for the

average growing-stock tree. Growing-stock hardwoods

have a slightly larger quadratic mean diameter (6.7 in.)

than growing-stock softwoods (6.3 in.).

Slightly less than 66 percent of the timberland in the

Arkansas Valley section is either fully stocked or

overstocked. As in most other sections, stocking varies

markedly with ownership class (fig. 3.40). More than 95

percent of national forest land and 80 percent of forest

industry land fall into these two classes. Nonindustrial

private forestland is less well stocked, with 62 percent in

the moderate- and fully-stocked classes. More than

one-third of NIPF timberland is poorly stocked and over

half of the “other public” sector is poorly stocked.

The average timberland acre in the Arkansas River

Valley section has a live-tree volume of 959 cubic feet,

a growing-stock volume of 812 cubic feet, a sawtimber

cubic volume of 406 cubic feet, and a sawtimber

Figure 3.38—Distribution of growing-stock volume in the Arkansas

Valley section by species group.

Figure 3.39—Distribution of sawtimber volume in the Arkansas

Valley section by species group.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Western

Arkansas Valley 

Western

Arkansas Valley

Mountains

Eastern

Arkansas Valley 

Growing stock volume, milllion cubic feet

Hard hardwood

Soft hardwood

Other softwood

Pine

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Western AR

Valley 

Western AR

Valley

Mountains

Eastern AR

Valley 

 Million board feet, sawtimber

Hard hardwood

Soft hardwood

Other softwood

Pine

44
board-foot volume of 2,418 board feet. These values

are marginally lower in the live-tree and growing-stock

volume categories, and marginally greater in the

sawtimber categories, than the averages for the

Assessment area (see table 3.3 for the latter).

Significant differences exist among subsections. The

Western Arkansas Valley Mountains subsection has

growing-stock volumes that are 16 percent greater and

sawtimber board-foot volumes 34 percent greater than

the section average. In the pine component alone, the

Western Arkansas Valley Mountains has 85 percent

more growing-stock volume than the section average

and nearly double the sawtimber board-foot volume.

The five species with the greatest live-tree and

growing-stock volumes on timberland in the Arkansas

Valley section are shortleaf pine, post oak, sweetgum,

white oak, and eastern red cedar. Together they make

up 63 percent of the live-tree volume and 66 percent of

the growing-stock volume in the section. For sawtimber

board-foot volume, southern red oak replaces eastern

red cedar in the top five, which then collectively make

up 73 percent of the sawtimber board-foot volume in the

section.

Shortleaf pine far exceeds the other species in these

rankings; it has more than twice the live-tree volume,

three times the growing-stock volume, and more than

six times the sawtimber board-foot volume of the

second-ranked species, post oak. Shortleaf in total

represents 32 percent of the live-tree volume, 37

percent of growing-stock volume, and almost exactly 50

percent of the sawtimber board-foot volume in the

section.

Growth, Removals, and Mortality. The Arkansas

Valley section shows a total annual growth surplus per

acre of 20 cubic feet (sum of the surpluses shown in fig.

3.41). Average annual net growth per acre on timberland in this section is 33.3 cubic feet, of which 48

percent is in the pine component and 47 percent is in the

hardwood component. Average annual removals per

acre total 13.3 cubic feet, 59 percent of which is in pine

and 38 percent in hardwood. Thus, net growth is about

two and one-half times the removals.

Average annual mortality per acre on timberland in

this section is 5.1 cubic feet—slightly more than 13

percent of gross growth annually and less than 50

percent the level of removals. Hardwood mortality is

nearly 20 percent of gross hardwood growth, whereas

softwood mortality is about 6 percent of growth. The

highest mortality rate is in the soft hardwoods, at 41

percent of gross net annual growth.

Figure 3.40—Distribution of timberland in the Arkansas Valley

section by stocking class and ownership category.

Figure 3.41—Growth, removals, and growth minus removals of

growing-stock volume in the Arkansas Valley section by species

group.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

< 16.7 16.7-60 60-100 100-130 > 130

Percent stocking

Timberland area

National forest 

Other public 

Forest industry 

NIPF owners

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Pine

Other softwoods

Soft hardwoods

Hard hardwoods

Growing stock volume, cubic feet/acre

Net growth

Removals

Growth - removals

45
Ouachita Mountains

General Land Attributes. The Ouachita Mountains

section is the second largest in the Assessment area,

encompassing a total land area of 6.6 million ac. It

contains four ecological subsections: the Fourche

Mountains (2.74 million ac), the Western Ouachita

Mountains (1.44 million ac), the Athens Piedmont

Plateau (889,000 ac), and the Central Ouachita

Mountains (1.53 million ac).

The Central subsection is subdivided into two units,

one located in Arkansas and the other in Oklahoma.

About 85 percent of the Ouachita Mountains are

forested; subsections vary from 78 percent to nearly

100 percent forested (fig. 3.42). Slightly more than 97

percent of the total forest land in the Ouachita

Mountains is in commercial timberland; subsections

vary from 93 percent to 100 percent.

The ownership pattern in the Ouachita Mountains

(fig. 3.43) has two attributes unique in the Assessment

area. First, nearly 25 percent of the timberland in this

section is in national forest ownership. More than 57

percent of the Fourche Mountains subsection is in public

ownership, the highest proportion in any subsection of

the Assessment area. Second, in the private sector,

forest industry owns more land in the Ouachita Mountains than do NIPF owners; of the 71 percent of the

section in private ownership, industry owns 51.6 percent.

Forest industry timberland ownership varies from 25

percent of the Athens Piedmont Plateau section to 88

percent of the Central Ouachita Mountains subsection.

Forest type differences in the Ouachitas (fig. 3.44)

are much less prominent than in the Arkansas Valley.

Over the entire section, the proportion of pine forest is

slightly greater than 40 percent. The percentage of pine

type by subsections varies from 31 percent in the Central

Ouachita Mountains to 51 percent in the Athens Plateau.

However, oak forest types (which includes the oak-pine

type) occupy a larger percentage of timberland than pine

types in all subsections except the Athens Plateau.

The growing-stock and sawtimber-volume data

clearly show the prominence of pine volume on timberland in the Ouachita Mountains (figs. 3.45 and 3.46).

Pine makes up from 63.5 to 71.4 percent of growingstock volume and from 71 to 81 percent of sawtimber

Figure 3.42—Distribution of nonforest land, timberland, and other

forest land in the Ouachita Mountains section by ecological

subsection.

Figure 3.43—Distribution of timberland in the Ouachita Mountains

by ecological subsection and ownership category.

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Athens

Piedmont

Plateau

Central

Ouachita

Mountains

Western

Ouachita

Mountains

Fourche

Mountains

Land area, thousand acres

Nonforest

Other forest

Timberland

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Athens

Piedmont

Plateau

Central

Ouachita

Mountains

Western

Ouachita

Mountains

Fourche

Mountains

Timberland area, thousand acres

National forest

Other public

Forest industry

NIPF owners

46
Figure 3.44—Distribution of timberland in the Ouachita Mountains

by forest type and ecological subsection.

Figure 3.45—Growing-stock volume in the Ouachita Mountains by

species group and ecological subsection.

Figure 3.46—Sawtimber volume in the Ouachita Mountains by

species group and ecological subsection.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Athens

Piedmont

Plateau

Central

Ouachita

Mountains

Western

Ouachita

Mountains

Fourche

Mountains

Timberland area, thousand acres

Oak-pine type

Oak-hickory type

Pine type

Other

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Athens

Piedmont

Plateau

Central

Ouachita

Mountains

Western

Ouachita

Mountains

Fourche

Mountains

Growing stock, million cubic feet

Hard hardwood

Soft hardwood

Other softwood

Pine

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Athens

Piedmont

Plateau

Central

Ouachita

Mountains

Western

Ouachita

Mountains

Fourche

Mountains

Sawtimber volume, million board feet

Hard hardwood

Soft hardwood

Other softwood

Pine

board-foot volume in the five subsections of the

Ouachitas. Conversely, hard hardwoods vary from 22

percent to 34 percent of growing-stock volume and

from 15 percent to 24 percent of sawtimber board-foot

volume, in these subsections.

General Forest Attributes. The average acre of

timberland in the Ouachita Mountains section has 665

live trees, of which 363 are of growing-stock quality.

Only 45 percent of the trees in the 2-in. and 4-in.

classes are growing-stock trees, compared with slightly

more than 83 percent of trees 6 in. and larger. Softwoods account for about 34 percent of the live trees

and 52 percent of growing-stock trees—a higher

percentage than in any other section, and further

evidence of the prominence of pine in the Ouachita

Mountains section.

Live-tree basal area of the average timberland acre

is about 87 square feet, of which 76 percent is in

growing stock. Stocking by ownership category is less

variable in the Ouachita Mountains than in the other

sections (fig. 3.47). About 66 percent of the timberland

in the Ouachita Mountains is either fully stocked or

overstocked, ranging from 62 percent in the other public

sector to 84 percent on national forest land. As in the

Arkansas Valley, the other public and NIPF ownership

sectors have at least 33 percent of their timberland in

the two poorest stocking classes. These lands are more

likely to be poorly stocked than either forest industry

timberland (17 percent poorly stocked) or national forest

timberland (10 percent poorly stocked).

The average timberland acre in the Ouachita Mountains section has a live-tree volume of 1,104 cubic feet,

47
a growing-stock volume of 1,000 cubic feet, a sawtimber cubic volume of 514 cubic feet, and a sawtimber

board-foot volume of 3,097 board feet. These values are

all greater than the averages for the Assessment area

(refer to table 3.3 for the latter). However, volumes by

subsection are quite variable (figs. 3.48 and 3.49).

Growing-stock volume ranges from slightly less than

700 cubic feet/ac in the Western subsection to slightly

more than 1,100 cubic feet/ac in the Fourche Mountains

subsection. Three of the subsections—the Central

Ouachita Mountains, the Fourche Mountains, and the

Athens Piedmont Plateau—have growing-stock volumes in excess of 1,000 cubic feet/ac (fig. 3.48).

Sawtimber board-foot volume (fig. 3.49) ranges from

slightly more than 1,500 board feet/ac in the Western

Ouachita Mountains subsection to slightly more than

3,600 board feet/ac in the Fourche Mountains subsection. But the Central Ouachita Mountains, the Fourche

Mountains, and the Athens Piedmont Plateau all have

average sawtimber volumes in excess of 3,000 board

feet/ac.

In no other section within the Assessment area is a

single species as dominant in volume as shortleaf pine is

in the Ouachita Mountains. Shortleaf pine accounts for

46 percent of the live-tree volume, 50 percent of the

growing-stock volume, and slightly more than 67

percent of the sawtimber board-foot volume on timberland in the Ouachitas. Furthermore, 56 percent of all

Figure 3.47—Distribution of timberland in the Ouachita

Mountains by stocking class and ownership category.

Figure 3.48—Growing-stock volume in the Ouachita Mountains by

species group and ecological subsection.

Figure 3.49—Sawtimber volume per acre in the Ouachita Mountains

by species group and ecological subsection.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

< 16.7

16.7–60

60–100

100–130

> 130

Percent stocking

Timberland area

National forest 

Other public 

Forest industry 

NIPF owners

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Athens

Piedmont

Plateau

Central

Ouachita

Mountains

Western

Ouachita

Mountains

Fourche

Mountains

Growing stock volume, cubic feet/acre

Hard hardwood

Soft hardwood

Other softwood

Pine

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Athens

Piedmont

Plateau

Central

Ouachita

Mountains

Western

Ouachita

Mountains

Fourche

Mountains

Sawtimber volume, board feet/acre

Hard hardwood

Soft hardwood

Other softwood

Pine

48
shortleaf pine volume in the Ouachita Mountains is on

national forest land.

Growth, Removals, and Mortality. The Ouachita

Mountains section shows a total annual growth surplus

of 20 cubic feet/ac (sum of the surpluses shown in fig.

3.50). Higher net annual growth and higher annual

removals are found here than in any of the other

sections in the Assessment area.

Average annual net growth per acre on timberland in

this section is slightly more than 50 cubic feet, of which

more than 76 percent is in the pine component and 19

percent is in the hard-hardwood component. Average

annual removals per acre total 30 cubic feet, 80 percent

of which are pine removals and 16 percent of which are

hardwood removals. Thus, net growth is about 1.7 times

the removals.

Average annual mortality per acre on timberland in

this section is 3.8 cubic feet—about 7 percent of gross

annual growth and about 17 percent of removals.

Hardwood mortality is 12 percent of gross hardwood

growth—the lowest figure of any section in the Assessment area. Softwood mortality is about 5 percent of

growth. Overall, mortality in the Ouachita Mountains

section is fairly low.

Implications and Opportunities

There is a significant relationship between forest

cover and private land ownership—the larger the

percentage of private timberland in a subsection, the

smaller the percentage of timberland. Public land

management typically involves timely reforestation and

constraints on the conversion of forested land to other

uses. NIPF owners are under no such limitations and

often encounter different pressures concerning forest

retention. NIPF management is based strictly on the

will of the respective owner. On NIPF lands, owners

have few incentives that would encourage long-term

retention of forest cover. For example, some NIPF

owners convert timberlands to more productive nonforest uses, which would not likely occur on public

timberlands.

Vegetation Patterns Based on AVHRR Imagery

The previous section described vegetation of the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands based on FIA data. Other

sources of data on regional vegetation exist that may

provide different perspectives.

Of primary importance is digital satellite imagery.

These images are relatively inexpensive to acquire and

can be updated frequently. They provide a relatively

high level of spatial detail and reveal patterns of land

cover. Satellite and FIA data have complementary

strengths and weaknesses.

FIA data are collected manually from a field sample

plot with a high level of detail. The number of plots

must, therefore, be relatively small and is usually limited

to one plot every 3 miles. Plots over a relatively large

area (typically the size of one of the sections of the

Highlands) must be statistically aggregated to provide

meaningful results. Therefore, spatial discrimination of

FIA statistics is limited to relatively large areas where

many plots can be aggregated. If a few plots of an

uncommon vegetation type are tallied, even across a

large area, the statistical error on the acreage estimate

of that type will be relatively large.

In contrast, when satellite imagery is used, the land

surface is completely covered by digital dots, called

Figure 3.50—Growth, removals, and growth minus removals of

growing-stock volume in the Ouachita Mountains by species group.

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pine

Other softwoods

Soft hardwoods

Hard hardwoods

Growing stock volume, cubic feet/acre

Net growth

Removals

Growth minus removals

49
pixels, which correspond to individual sample plots of

FIA. These pixels typically range in width from 33 feet

(10 meters) to 3,300 feet (1 kilometer), depending on the

satellite system. Therefore, areas much smaller than a

section or subsection can be mapped using satellite

imagery.

A disadvantage of satellite data is that few measurements are made at each point. To use these spectral

data to map vegetation, the spectral signature (relationships in brightness among the various spectral bands) of

points on the ground is compared to known vegetation.

The relationships must be statistically characterized and

used to infer the vegetation at other places. The accuracy of any classification so derived will vary with

intrinsic similarity between vegetation types, time of

year of the image, amount of ground-truth data, and

other factors. Classifications based on satellite imagery

utilize many sample points but have a relatively low level

of detail. The FIA data entail relatively few plots but

incorporate a high level of detail.

The limiting factor on accuracy of analyses based on

the FIA data is the number of plots of a given vegetation type used for a specific analysis. In contrast, the

limiting factor on satellite imagery is the reliability of

prediction of vegetation types using spectral signatures.

Satellite data can provide a good estimate of the acreage of a land cover type within a relatively small area,

whereas estimates from FIA data are accurate only at

regional and subregional (multi-county) scales. Satellite

data should also provide more detailed information on

spatial patterns if an accurate discrimination of vegetation types is achieved.

This section on vegetation patterns of the Highlands

will concentrate on the most useful types of data from

satellite imagery. These include the acreage of specific

vegetation types by subsection and spatial patterns of

these types, particularly fragment size and distance to

nearest forest fragment.

Each State in the Highlands has developed or is

developing a vegetation map under the National Gap

Analysis Project (GAP), led by the U.S. Geological

Survey, Biological Resources Division. These maps are

based on Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery and show

a relatively high level of detail (pixel size of 30 meters or

98 feet). Unfortunately, at of the time of this analysis,

the GAP map was completed only for Arkansas.

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

In the absence of a Highlands-wide GAP map, a

national map based on AVHRR satellite imagery

(USDA FS SFES 1992) was used as the source for this

analysis. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) collects AVHRR data for land

cover characterization.

The pixel size is relatively large (1 kilometer or about

3,300 feet) and only four bands of data are collected, but

worldwide, frequent coverage is available. The primary

problem with using AVHRR data is the large pixel size.

The spectral signature of the pixel is affected by all of

the ground cover over 247 ac. Several vegetation types

and other features can occur within an area this size.

Therefore, errors in classification are bound to occur.

For this analysis, sections and subsections of the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands were overlaid on the

AVHRR-based vegetation map to compute acreage and

spatial statistics by subsection. This map uses the FIA

classification system and so provides information on

comparable vegetation types. Neither source classifies

vegetation other than forest; therefore, prairie, improved

grassland, shrubland, and open woodland (savanna) are

not distinguished.

In addition to computing acreage of forest types by

subsection, the program FRAGSTATS (McGarigal and

Marks 1995) was used to compute mean forest-patch

size, variation in patch size, and mean distance between

forest patches within each subsection. To register as a

forest patch, at least one pixel (247 ac) must contain

sufficient tree cover to be classified as forest. A forest

patch as defined in this analysis is a substantially

forested area of at least 247 ac that is separated from

other forest patches by a substantially nonforested belt

at least 3,300 feet wide.

Patch size coefficient of variation and mean distance

between patches were also calculated. Patch size

coefficient of variation is a measure of the variability in

patch size. When this number is high, it indicates that

the patches range in size from very large to very small;

when this number is relatively small, most patches are

about the same size. Mean distance between forest

patches is a measure of the dispersion across the

landscape. For instance, there could be few patches

widely spread apart or close together or many patches

widely spread apart or close together. Generally, as

50
mean patch size decreases, mean distance between

patches increases.

Comparison of AVHRR and FIA Acres

The AVHRR-based estimate of the total acreage of

the Assessment area is 9 percent larger than the

FIA-based estimate (table 3.7). The maximum discrepancies for subsections are 29 percent for the Western

Arkansas Valley Mountains subsection (231Gb), 27

percent for the Springfield Plateau subsection (222An),

and 27 percent for the Western Arkansas Valley

subsection (231Gc). However, the overall estimates

of forested acreage, which both sources of data

Table 3.7—Total area, forest area, and percent of area forested by subsection, based on AVHRR and FIA data and

showing the different results obtained from the two sources

Total area Forest area Percent Forest

Differ- Differ- DifferSubsection AVHRR FIA ence AVHRR FIA ence AVHRR FIA ence

 - - Thousand acres - - Percent - - Thousand acres - - Percent - Thousand acres - Percent

222Aa 1,148.5 1,092.1 4.9 862.6 750.2 13.0 75.1 68.7 6.4

222Ab 6,830.5 6,338.7 7.2 2,893.9 3,099.1 6.6 42.4 48.9 6.5

222Ac 1,633.1 1,399.2 14.3 1,256.3 855.3 31.9 76.9 61.1 15.8

222Ad 1,122.4 1,087.5 3.1 744.5 654.3 12.1 66.3 60.2 6.2

222Ae 1,178.4 1,168.1 0.9 1,069.2 891.4 16.6 90.7 76.3 14.4

222Af 1,498.4 1,563.3 4.1 1,444.1 1,322.0 8.5 96.4 84.6 11.8

222Ag 3,764.7 3,583.7 4.8 2,142.9 2,342.8 8.5 56.9 65.4 8.5

222Ah 435.2 434.0 0.3 125.0 264.2 52.7 28.7 60.9 32.1

222Al 876.5 860.7 1.8 660.8 677.1 2.4 75.4 78.7 3.3

222Am 3,502.2 3,103.1 11.4 234.0 641.8 63.5 6.7 20.7 14.0

222An 3,086.3 2,240.4 27.4 1,292.1 1,403.6 7.9 41.9 62.6 20.8

Total 25,076.3 22,870.8 8.8 12,725.4 12,901.8 1.4 50.7 56.4 5.7

231Ga 1,505.1 1,470.1 2.3 599.0 774.3 22.6 39.8 52.7 12.9

231Gb 939.2 664.1 29.3 724.5 616.8 14.9 77.1 92.9 15.7

231Gc 2,170.3 1,590.9 26.7 571.6 862.2 33.7 26.3 54.2 27.9

Total 4,614.7 3,725.1 19.3 1,895.1 2,253.3 15.9 41.1 60.5 19.4

M222Aa 1,081.6 1,129.7 4.3 928.9 904.9 2.6 85.9 80.1 5.8

M222Ab 3,270.7 2,960.3 9.5 2,135.5 2,276.8 6.2 65.3 76.9 11.6

Total 4,352.3 4,090.0 6.0 3,064.4 3,181.7 3.7 70.4 77.8 7.4

M231Aa 2,895.3 2,740.8 5.3 2,269.2 2,147.3 5.4 78.4 78.3 0.0

M231Ab 1,665.7 1,443.2 13.4 1,521.9 1,421.8 6.6 91.4 98.5 7.2

M231Ac 1,626.2 1,526.6 6.1 1,357.6 1,292.4 4.8 83.5 84.7 1.2

M231Ad 901.4 889.5 1.3 817.9 756.4 7.5 90.7 85.0 5.7

Total 7,088.7 6,600.1 6.9 5,966.6 5,617.9 5.8 84.2 85.1 0.9

Total 41,131.9 37,286.0 9.4 23,651.4 23,954.7 1.3 57.5 64.2 6.7

AVHRR = Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer, FIA = Forest Inventory and Analysis.

51
emphasize, differ by only 1.3 percent, with maximum

discrepancies of 64 percent for the Springfield Plain

subsection (222Am) and 54 percent for the Elk River

Hills subsection (222Ah). These two subsections have

the least area of forest in the Assessment area.

The large differences may illustrate the problems

with statistical extrapolation based on having only a few

FIA plots. The difference in percentage of area forested by subsection is 7 percent. Maximum discrepancies are 32 percent for Elk River Hills and 28 percent

for the Western Arkansas Valley (231Gc). These

estimates are closely related given that the methods are

dramatically different. They should reinforce reliance on

both sets of data.

Forest Type Coverage

Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine Type. This type covers

4 million ac or almost 10 percent of the Assessment

area (table 3.8). The largest acreage and percentage of

this cover type occur in the subsections of the Ouachita

Mountains, where it occupies 0.5 to 1 million ac and

from 66 percent to 33 percent of each subsection’s

area. By contrast, the type does not occur in the Elk

River Hills and only occurs on 247 ac (one pixel) in the

Springfield Plain.

Oak-Pine Type. This type is the second most

extensive within the Assessment area, covering 4.4

million ac or nearly 11 percent of the Highlands (table

3.8). The greatest acreage of this type occurs within the

Fourche Mountains (M231Aa, 658,000 ac) and Western

Ouachita Mountains (M231Ab, 440,000 ac) subsections,

but its maximum percent cover is in the Western

Arkansas Valley Mountains (376,000 ac, 40 percent).

Oak-pine covers a mere 0.1 percent of the Springfield

Plain subsection.

Oak-Hickory Type. This forest type is usually

described as the characteristic vegetation cover of the

northern two-thirds of the Interior Highlands (Ozark

Highlands and Boston Mountains sections). As measured by AVHRR data, oak-hickory forest is the most

extensive forest type in the Highlands, covering almost

15 million ac or almost 36 percent of the area (table

3.8). Oak-hickory cover is the most prevalent cover

type in the Assessment area, exceeded by other types

only in the Western Arkansas Valley Mountains and in

three of the four subsections of the Ouachita Mountains.

The Central Plateau subsection (222Ab) has the

greatest area of oak-hickory type (2.1 million ac) of any

subsection, followed by 1.7 million ac in the Lower

Boston Mountains (M222Ab). The greatest proportion

of oak-hickory is 84 percent of the total cover in the

Current River Hills (222Af) subsection and 76 percent

in the Upper Boston Mountains (M222Aa). The lowest

coverage of oak-hickory type (4.9 percent) occurs in

the Springfield Plain, where only 6.7 percent of the

landscape is forested.

Oak-Gum-Cypress Type. This swamp forest type

is the least common in the Highlands and occupies only

164,000 ac or 0.4 percent of the area (table 3.8). The

Western Arkansas Valley subsection has the highest

acreage (35,000 ac) and highest percentage (1.6

percent) of area occupied by oak-gum-cypress forest.

Oak-gum-cypress covers 26,000 ac in the Fourche

Mountains subsection and 24,000 ac in the White River

Hills subsection. It covers 1 percent of the Central

Ouachita Mountains (M231Ac) and Athens Piedmont

Plateau (M231Ad) subsections.

Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Type. This riverfront forest

type covers only 360,000 ac (0.9 percent of the total

area) within the Highlands (table 3.8). It occurs only

within the Ozark Highlands section, where the largest

area and largest percentage of area—148,000 ac, 9.1

percent—are within the Osage River Hills subsection

(222Ac).

Forest Patch Size and Distribution Within

Subsections

Comparing the Springfield Plain subsection to the

Current River Hills subsection (222Am and 222Af,

respectively) reveals extremes of forest patchiness

(table 3.9). The Springfield Plain has many forest

patches and a mean patch size of only about 900 ac, a

high variation in patch size, and a high mean distance

between patches. In contrast, the Current River Hills

subsection has few patches, a low mean distance

between patches, and a mean patch size of 481,000 ac.

In many of these statistics, these two subsections are

near or at the extreme values for the region. The

exceptions are that four subsections have patches closer

together than the Current River Hills. Tables 3.8 and 3.9

provide forest cover and forest area and patch statistics,

respectively, for each subsection. A brief overview is

presented here.

52
222Aa—St. Francis Knobs and Basins. OakHickory forest dominates this subsection (789,000 ac, 69

percent). Other forest types make up 6.4 percent of the

area. All patch statistics are intermediate in the range

presented for the Assessment area.

222Ab—Central Plateau. This subsection has a

relatively low forest cover dominated by oak-hickory

forests (2.1 million ac, 31 percent). In addition, oak-pine

forest covers 627,000 ac (9.2 percent). It has many

patches, and the patch-size variance is high.

222Ac—Osage River Hills. The Osage River

Hills are dominated by oak-hickory forest (1 million ac,

63 percent) with a high occurrence of elm-ash-cottonwood (148,000 ac, 9.1 percent). All patch statistics are

intermediate except patches are close together.

222Ad—Gasconade River Hills. Oak-hickory

forest dominates this subsection (648,000 ac, 58 percent). All patch statistics are intermediate.

222Ae—Meramac River Hills. The Meramec

River Hills are dominated by oak-hickory forest

Table 3.8—Vegetation cover of the Assessment area (based on AVHRR data), showing thousands of acres and percent representation

in each subsection of five forest cover types, nonforested land, and water

Sub- Loblolly- Oak-gum Elm-ashsectiona shortleaf Oak-pine Oak-hickory cypress cottonwood Nonforested Water Total

k acres % k acres % k acres % k acres % k acres % k acres % k acres % k acres

Ozark Highlands Section

222Aa 14.8 1.3 46.5 4.0 788.5 68.7 0 0 12.8 1.1 285.9 24.9 0 0 1,148.5

222Ab 78.8 1.2 627.4 9.2 2,119.4 31.0 13.6 0.2 54.6 0.8 3,931.2 57.6 5.4 0.1 6,830.5

222Ac 3.2 0.2 72.9 4.5 1,032.2 63.2 0 0 148.0 9.1 358.8 22.0 18.0 1.1 1,633.1

222Ad 26.2 2.3 50.2 4.5 648.2 57.7 0 0 20.0 1.8 377.8 33.7 0 0 1,122.3

222Ae 13.1 1.1 186.3 15.8 864.4 73.3 0 0 5.4 0.5 109.2 9.3 0 0 1,178.4

222Af 16.8 1.1 151.7 10.1 1,259.7 84.1 0 0 15.8 1.1 54.4 3.6 0 0 1,498.4

222Ag 113.7 3.0 799.4 21.2 1,205.6 32.0 23.5 0.6 0.7 0 1,462.1 38.8 159.6 4.2 3,764.6

222Ah 0 0 17.1 3.9 107.7 24.8 0.2 0.1 0 0 303.9 69.8 6.2 1.4 435.2

222Al 3.0 0.3 81.1 9.2 528.1 60.2 0 0 48.7 5.6 193.7 22.1 22.0 2.5 876.5

222Am 0.2 0 4.7 0.1 170.0 4.9 4.9 0.1 54.1 1.5 3,209.6 91.6 58.6 1.7 3,502.2

222An 26.7 0.9 183.8 6.0 1,071.7 34.7 9.9 0.3 0 0 1,695.4 54.9 98.8 3.2 3,086.3

Total 296.5 1.2 2,221.1 8.8 9,795.5 39.1 52.1 0.2 360.1 1.4 11,982.0 47.8 368.6 1.7 25,076

Arkansas Valley Section

231Ga 72.9 4.8 28.7 1.9 493.7 32.8 3.7 0.2 0 0 854.0 56.7 52.1 3.5 1,505.1

231Gb 251.8 26.8 376.1 40.0 93.1 9.9 3.4 0.4 0 0 208.3 22.2 6.4 0.7 939.2

231Gc 100.3 4.6 211.5 9.7 224.6 10.3 35.1 1.6 0 0 1,495.2 68.9 103.5 4.8 2,170.3

Total 425 9.2 616.3 13.3 811.4 17.6 42.2 0.9 0 0 2,557.5 55.4 162 3.5 4,614.6

Boston Mountains Section

M222Aa 5.9 0.5 99.1 9.2 823.8 76.2 0 0 0 0 152.7 14.1 0 0 1,081.6

M222Ab 246.1 7.5 196.9 6.0 1,676.6 51.3 15.8 0.5 0 0 1,017.3 31.1 117.9 3.6 3,270.7

Total 252 5.8 296 6.8 2,500.4 57.4 15.8 0.4 0 0 1,170 26.9 117.9 2.7 4,352.3

 Ouachita Mountains Section

M231Aa 1,074.7 37.1 658.3 22.7 510.5 17.6 25.7 0.9 0 0 580.7 20.1 45.5 1.6 2,895.3

M231Ab 843.4 50.6 440.3 26.4 235.0 14.1 3.2 0.2 0 0 111.4 6.7 32.4 1.9 1,665.7

M231Ac 535.0 32.9 143.6 8.8 663.0 40.8 16.1 1.0 0 0 116.4 7.2 152.2 9.4 1,626.2

M231Ad 599.2 66.5 50.7 5.6 159.4 17.7 8.6 1.0 0 0 35.8 4.0 47.7 5.3 901.4

Total 3,052.3 43.1 1,292.9 18.2 1,567.9 22.1 53.6 0.8 0 0 844.3 11.9 277.8 3.9 7,088.6

Assessment

area 4,025.8 9.5 4,426.3 10.8 14,675.2 35.7 163.7 0.4 360.1 0.9 16,553.8 40.2 926.3 2.2 41,131.9

AVHRR = Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer; k = thousand.

a See figure 1.1 for map of sections and subsections.

53
(864,000 ac, 73 percent). There are a few large patches

of similar size and very close together.

222Af—Current River Hills. Oak-hickory forest

dominates this subsection (1.3 million ac, 84 percent),

with significant additional coverage by oak-pine forest

(152,000 ac, 10 percent). There are a few very large

patches close together.

222Ag—White River Hills. The White River Hills

are co-dominated by oak-hickory forest (1.2 million ac,

32 percent) and oak-pine forest (799,000 ac, 21 percent). There are many forest patches of intermediate

size and distribution.

222Ah—Elk River Hills. Forests are dominated by

the oak-hickory type (108,000 ac, 25 percent of the

area), but forest cover as a whole occupies only 29

percent of the subsection. Patches are small, on average, but have a high variability in size.

Table 3.9—Forest area, mean forest patch size, variation in patch size, and mean distance between

forest patches, for each subsection, based on AVHRR data

Mean

Patch size distance

Mean forest coefficient of between

Subsectiona Total area Forest area patch size variation patches

 - - Thousand acres - - Percent k acres Feet

Ozark Highlands

222Aa 1,148 862 75.11 66.33 344.26 4,261.65

222Ab 6,828 2,893 42.37 6.82 708.04 4,753.15

222Ac 1,632 1,256 76.93 48.30 486.83 3,407.02

222Ad 1,122 744 66.34 14.88 630.23 4,299.08

222Ae 1,178 1,069 90.73 178.13 223.30 3,280.84

222Af 1,498 1,443 96.37 481.12 141.28 3,733.83

222Ag 3,763 2,142 56.92 15.19 1,118.53 4,413.75

222Ah 435 125 28.73 1.92 346.43 4,229.36

222Al 876 660 75.39 47.18 356.06 4,800.62

222Am 3,501 234 6.68 0.90 372.95 6,457.05

222An 3,085 1,292 41.87 5.79 513.28 4,788.35

Arkansas Valley

231Ga 1,504 599 39.80 7.13 417.09 4,526.90

231Gb 939 724 77.14 65.84 175.78 4,439.96

231Gc 2,169 571 26.33 3.17 570.07 5,218.37

Boston Mountains

M222Aa 1,081 928 85.88 116.06 263.29 3,690.94

M222Ab 3,269 2,135 65.29 15.14 1,069.37 5,161.22

Ouachita Mountains

M231Aa 2,894 2,268 78.37 40.50 723.54 4,308.53

M231Ab 1,665 1,521 91.37 69.15 454.98 3,825.20

M231Ac 1,626 1,357 83.48 84.81 316.43 5,659.68

M231Ad 901 818 90.73 204.39 172.86 3,280.84

Total 41,131 23,641 57.48

AVHRR = Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer; k = thousand.

a See fig. 1.1 for map of sections and subsections.

54
222Al—Black River Ozark Border. This subsection is dominated by oak-hickory forest (528,000 ac, 60

percent), with substantial coverage by oak-pine forest

(81,000 ac, 9.2 percent). Elm-ash-cottonwood forest

covers an additional 49,000 ac (5.6 percent). Patch

characteristics are all intermediate.

222Am—Springfield Plain. This subsection is

substantially nonforested, with no forest type exceeding

5 percent. Oak-hickory is the most prominent forest

type (170,000 ac, 4.9 percent). There are many very

small patches on average but with a high variability in

size and spread far apart.

222An—Springfield Plateau. The subsection has

relatively low forest cover, dominated by oak-hickory

(1.1 million ac, 35 percent). In addition, oak-pine forest

covers 184,000 ac (6.0 percent). There are many

intermediate-sized patches with little variability in size.

231Ga—Eastern Arkansas Valley. The subsection

has relatively low forest cover, dominated by the oakhickory type (494,000 ac, 33 percent). All forest patch

statistics are intermediate.

231Gb—Western Arkansas Valley Mountains.

Although this subsection is co-dominated by oak-pine

forest (376,000 ac, 40 percent) and loblolly-shortleaf

pine forest (252,000 ac, 27 percent), oak-hickory forest

also covers a substantial acreage (93,000 ac, 9.9

percent). There are a few patches with an intermediate

mean but with a high variability in size.

231Gc—Western Arkansas Valley. The subsection has relatively low forest cover, co-dominated by

oak-hickory (225,000 ac, 10 percent) and oak-pine

forest (212,000 ac, 9.7 percent). There are many

patches with a low to average size but with a high

variability in size spaced far apart.

M222Aa—Upper Boston Mountains. This

subsection is dominated by oak-hickory forest (824,00

ac, 76 percent) with a substantial coverage of oak-pine

forest (99,000 ac, 9.2 percent). There are a relatively

few but very large forest patches of similar size spaced

close together.

M222Ab—Lower Boston Mountains. Dominated

by oak-hickory forest (1.7 million ac, 51 percent), this

subsection also has considerable coverage by loblollyshortleaf pine forest (246,000 ac, 8 percent) and oakpine forest (197,000 ac, 6.0 percent). All forest patch

statistics are intermediate.

M231Aa—Fourche Mountains. This subsection is

co-dominated by loblolly-shortleaf pine forest (1.1

million ac, 37 percent) and oak-pine forest (658,000 ac,

23 percent), but oak-hickory forest also covers a

substantial area (511,000 ac, 18 percent). All forest

patch statistics are intermediate.

M231Ab—Western Ouachita Mountains. Codominated by loblolly-shortleaf pine forest (843,000 ac,

51 percent) and oak-pine forest (440,000 ac, 26 percent), this subsection also has a substantial amount of

oak-hickory forest (235,000 ac, 14 percent). All forest

patch characteristics are intermediate.

M231Ac—Central Ouachita Mountains. Codominated by oak-hickory forest (663,000 ac, 41

percent) and loblolly shortleaf pine forest (535,000 ac,

33 percent), this subsection also has about 144,000 ac of

oak-pine forest cover (8.8 percent). Patches are large,

with little size variation, and spaced relatively far apart.

M231Ad—Athens Piedmont Plateau. This

subsection is dominated by loblolly-shortleaf pine forest

(599,000 ac, 67 percent), but oak-hickory forest covers

significant acreage (159,000 ac, 18 percent). Oak-pine

forest also covers an additional 51,000 ac (5.6 percent).

There are a few very large patches, similar in size and

spaced close together.

Trends in Vegetation Cover

Previous sections of this report have addressed

current (or recent) vegetation cover. As outlined in the

questions at the beginning of this chapter, the Terrestrial

Team also sought to analyze changes in vegetation

conditions over time. Although data to address these

questions are limited, the results of surveys by the FIA

units of the research branch of the USDA Forest

Service show interesting trends in the Highlands since

the 1940’s in Missouri and the 1950’s in Arkansas and

Oklahoma.

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

The FIA data used earlier to highlight current conditions by ecological section and subsection could not be

used to consider historical trends in forests over time

within the Assessment area. Sorting the plots by their

respective ecological sections and subsections requires

55
that data be available in computer files. Unfortunately,

old FIA data are not computerized; calculations before

the 1970’s were done by hand. Therefore, the analysis

of trends will be based on the six multi-county FIA

regions in the Assessment area, which are shown in

figure 3.3.

Forest Survey measurements of these six regions

were not conducted in the same calendar year. Thus,

for comparative purposes, each measurement was

assigned to the decade or decennial (10-year) interval in

which it was conducted. FIA region, year measured,

decennial interval, and sources are shown in table 3.2.

Trends were analyzed by comparing common variables

in the Forest Survey reports from one measurement

period to the next from the 1940’s to the 1990’s.

This approach is incomplete because several gaps in

the data exist. For example, the Arkansas and Oklahoma regions have no survey data in the 1940’s;

conversely, the Missouri data have gaps in the 1960’s

and 1990’s. Nevertheless, these are the most quantitative data available on trends over time. Data for all six

regions are available for three periods—the 1950’s,

1970’s, and 1980’s—allowing the Terrestrial Team to

examine trends during the period of the 1950’s through

the 1980’s.

Patterns and Trends

Area by Land Classes

The total land area of the FIA regions is relatively

constant over time for all regions (fig. 3.51). The

exception is Oklahoma, where region area was relatively unstable between the 1960’s and 1980’s because

the Forest Survey included different counties in these

surveys. These changes were due to questions about

the natural limit of commercial forest land in the post

oak belt of eastern Oklahoma. Minor variations in

acreage for the other regions are due to changes in the

process used by the Bureau of the Census to estimate

county area.

The amount of forested land area has declined over

time. In each of the six regions, the total forest area in

the last decennial interval was less than four decades

previous (fig. 3.52). From the 1940’s to the 1980’s in

Missouri, forest area declined from 10.22 million ac to

8.78 million ac—a loss of 1.44 million ac (a 14.1 percent

Figure 3.51—Total land area by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

Figure 3.52—Total forest area by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1940's1950's1960's1970's1980's1990's

Decennial interval

Area, thousand acres

AR Ozark MO SW Ozark

Oklahoma MO NW Ozark

MO Eastern Ozark AR Ouachita

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Forest area, thousand acres

AR Ozark AR Ouachita

Oklahoma MO SW Ozark

MO Eastern Ozark MO NW Ozark

56
decline from the 1940’s forest area). Similarly, from the

1950’s to the 1990’s in Arkansas and Oklahoma, forest

area declined from 16.35 million ac to 15.23 million ac—

a decline of 1.12 million ac (a 6.9 percent reduction

from the 1950’s forest area).

Forest area reached a four-decade minimum in the

1970’s in five of the six regions (fig. 3.52). However,

some regions lost a larger proportion of forest than did

others. For example, forested area in the Arkansas

Ozarks declined from 66.2 percent in the 1950’s to 48.6

percent forested in the 1970’s—a loss of nearly 2 million

ac of forest land during that period. The loss of forest

area from the 1950’s to 1970’s varied from 2.5 percent

in the Missouri Eastern Ozarks to 17.5 percent in both

Oklahoma and the Arkansas Ozarks.

Since the 1970’s, forest area has increased in five of

the six regions, in some instances dramatically. Between

the 1970’s and 1980’s, the only region to lose forest area

was the Missouri Eastern Ozarks, which lost 1.9

percent (134,000 ac). Gains in the other five regions

varied from 1.2 percent in the Missouri Southwestern

Ozarks to 10.9 percent in Oklahoma. When all six

regions were combined, the net gain in forest area from

the 1970’s to the 1980’s was slightly more than 1.89

million ac, or about 4.5 percent. Moreover, this trend of

increasing forest area continued from the 1980’s to the

1990’s in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Forest area in the

three regions increased 631,000 ac (5.8 percent).

Distribution by Ownership

Three of the six regions—the Arkansas Ouachitas,

Arkansas Ozarks, and Missouri Eastern Ozarks—

currently have more than 1 million ac in public forest

area (fig. 3.53). From the 1970’s to the 1980’s, public

forest ownership increased by approximately 289,000 ac.

Total forest ownership, however, increased by 1.39

million ac. Therefore, the proportion of land in public

ownership was fairly constant from the 1970’s to 1980’s.

Overall, the area of public forest is relatively stable.

Private forest ownership is more variable over time,

with the largest variations appearing in the Arkansas

Ozarks and Oklahoma regions (fig. 3.54). Privately

owned forest area reached a minimum in the 1970’s, but

trends show increases since then in most of the regions.

Figure 3.53—Total public forest area by FIA region, 1940’s to

1990’s.

Figure 3.54—Total private forest area by FIA region, 1940’s to

1990’s.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Public forest, thousand acres

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ozark MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Private forest, acres

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ozark MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

57
Distribution by Size Class

The area occupied by sawtimber stands has increased dramatically over time in all six regions. Every

region has shown increases in the amount of area in

sawtimber-sized trees (fig. 3.55) and in the percentage

of forest area occupied by sawtimber-sized trees (fig.

3.56). Between the 1970’s and 1980’s, total forest area

increased by 1.39 million ac (6.5 percent), but forest

area in sawtimber-sized trees increased by 2.08 million

ac (34.4 percent).

From the 1940’s to the 1980’s, Missouri forests

increased sawtimber area from 10 percent to 46

percent. From the 1950’s to the 1990’s, Arkansas and

Oklahoma forests increased sawtimber area from 17

percent to 37 percent. In the most recent decennial

interval, five of the six regions have more than 33

percent of their forest area in sawtimber. The exception

is Oklahoma, with 31 percent sawtimber area.

Figure 3.55—Commercial forest area occupied by sawtimber stands

by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

Figure 3.56—Percentage of commercial forest land area occupied by

sawtimber stands by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Sawtimber area, thousand acres

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ozark MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Sawtimber area as a percent of total

OK

AR Ouachita

AR Ozark

MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark

MO NW Ozark

58
For the three intervals when all six regions were

measured—the 1950’s, 1970’s, and 1980’s—forest area

in seedling/sapling- and poletimber-sized stands has

decreased, and sawtimber area has increased (fig.

3.57). These data indicate an increasing maturity of the

forests in the region over time. As stands recovered

from the uncontrolled cutting at the turn of the century,

tree size in stands increased. The ratio of area in these

three size classes should stabilize at some point, but that

does not appear to have happened yet.

Distribution by Forest Type

Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine Type. The loblolly-shortleaf pine type is somewhat of a misnomer in the OzarkOuachita Highlands. Shortleaf pine is the dominant

naturally occurring pine in the region, with loblolly a

distant second. Because over 90 percent of this type

was in Arkansas and Oklahoma in the 1950’s, the

Missouri regions will not be included in the discussion.

Data show a prominent decrease in the pine type in

the three survey regions in Arkansas and Oklahoma

from the 1950’s to the 1960’s (fig. 3.58). This decrease

was probably due in part to a real decline in acreage,

and in part to changes in the way that FIA plots were

measured and forest types assigned.

Nevertheless, the area in pine forest type in these

three regions declined from 3.8 million ac in the 1950’s

to 2.2 million ac in the 1960’s, a 1.6 million acre loss.

Over 1 million ac were lost in the Ouachita region alone.

By the 1990’s, pine forest type had recovered to 1950’s

levels in Oklahoma and the Arkansas Ozarks, but was

still only 60 percent of the 1950’s level in the Ouachitas.

Another way to consider these data is that from the

1950’s to the 1960’s, these three regions lost nearly 1.78

million ac of timberland. Over the same time period, the

pine type declined 1.61 million ac, or over 90 percent of

the total forest area lost.

Several explanations are possible for this dramatic

decline—all somewhat speculative. First, measurement

standards for forest survey changed between the

1950’s and 1960’s (Hedlund and Earles 1970), and this

may have affected the computation of area by forest

type. The most logical direction for those changes

would have been that some pine type areas were

changed to oak-pine. However, the area of oak-pine

type increased in only two of the three Arkansas and

Oklahoma regions (fig. 3.59), and these increases fell

short of the magnitude of the decline in the pine forest

type. A second possibility for the decline might be that

an increase in agricultural land uses took land from

forest areas entirely. A third possibility might be that

continued selective harvesting of pines converted some

areas to oak-hickory and other hardwood types rather

than oak-pine types. In all probability, a combination of

these factors was responsible for the decrease.

Figure 3.57—Distribution of commercial forest land area in the

Assessment area by stand size class for the 1950’s, 1970’s, and

1980’s.

Figure 3.58—Commercial forest land area in the loblolly-shortleaf

pine type by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1950's 1970's 1980's

Decennial Interval

Forest area, acres

Seedling/sapling

Poletimber

Sawtimber

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Pine types, thousand acres

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ozark MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

59
However, from the 1960’s to the 1990’s, pine-type

areas increased 34 percent in the Oklahoma and

Arkansas regions. Thus, the declines in pine-type areas

seen between the 1950’s and 1960’s have been reversed, and pine area has generally increased over time

since the 1960’s.

Oak-Hickory Type. The oak-hickory type is the

dominant forest type in the Arkansas and Missouri

Ozarks and is also important in Oklahoma. Over time,

the area in oak-hickory type has been relatively stable in

Missouri and the Arkansas Ouachitas and less so in

Arkansas and Oklahoma (fig. 3.60). A net decline of

1.7 million ac of this type occurred in the Arkansas and

Oklahoma regions between the 1950’s and 1990’s. The

largest drop was during the 1960’s, probably due to the

increased conversion of poor-quality oak-hickory stands

to pasture land. This decline was partly offset by

increases in pine percentage and partly by increases in

other hardwood forest types.

In Missouri, percent forest area in the oak-hickory

type has remained between 75 percent and 90 percent

throughout the measurement period (fig. 3.61). In

contrast, the Arkansas Ozark and Oklahoma regions

have had steady declines in the proportion of total forest

Figure 3.59—Commercial forest land area in the oak-pine type by

FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

Figure 3.60—Commercial forest land area in the oak-hickory type

by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

Figure 3.61—Percentage of commercial forest land area occupied by

the oak-hickory type by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Oak-pine types, thousand acres

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ozark MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Oak-hickory type

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ozark MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Oak-hickory type, thousand acres

AR Ozark MO SW Ozark

MO Eastern Ozark MO NW Ozark

OK AR Ouachita

60
area that oak-hickory type represents since the 1960’s.

Although the Ouachita region has the lowest percentage

in the oak-hickory type—about 30 percent over the past

three decennial intervals—its relative prominence on the

landscape has increased since the 1950’s.

Distribution by Growing-Stock Cubic Volume

Overall, the total growing-stock cubic volume increased in all regions over time (fig. 3.62). From the

1950’s to the 1980’s, growing-stock cubic volume nearly

doubled, from 8.4 billion cubic feet to slightly more than

16 billion cubic feet. The distribution of this volume by

State has been remarkably stable, as shown by the

following tabulation:

 Growing-stock volume

State 1950’s 1980’s

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

Arkansas 50.9 50.8

Missouri 33.5 35.3

Oklahoma 15.6 13.9

In addition, the rank by regions did not change from the

1950’s to the 1980’s—the Arkansas Ozarks had the

greatest volume, the northwest Missouri Ozarks the

lowest volume, and the other regions remained in the

same rank order.

The growing-stock cubic volume of pine shows an

increasing trend over time across all regions (fig. 3.63).

Volumes generally increased from one decennial interval

to the next. The exceptions were a decline in the

Missouri Eastern Ozarks between the 1950’s and

1960’s, a decline between the 1970’s and 1980’s in the

Ouachita region, and a slight decline in Oklahoma during

that same interval. During the 1970’s and 1980’s,

industry and national forests were actively cutting older

pine stands and replacing them with fast-growing pine

plantations. The increase in pine volume from the 1980’s

to the 1990’s is consistent with this interpretation;

plantations are now in their second and third decades of

growth and, as a whole, contributed to the increased

cubic volume over the past decennial interval.

The growing-stock volume of hard hardwood also

shows a general increase over time (fig. 3.64). The area

with the highest cubic volume of hard hardwoods is the

Figure 3.62—Growing-stock volume of all species on commercial

forest land by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

Figure 3.63—Growing-stock volume of the pine species group on

commercial forest land by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Million cubic feet, all species

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ozark MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial Interval

Million cubic feet, pine

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ozark MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

61
Arkansas Ozarks, which increased from about 1.4

billion cubic feet in the 1950’s to over 3.9 billion cubic

feet in the 1990’s. The slight decline in cubic volume

from the 1960’s to the 1970’s suggests a withdrawal of

marginal lands for agricultural use, which was common

at the time. The eastern Missouri Ozarks show a similar

increase in the hard-hardwood component over time,

from roughly 1 billion cubic feet in the 1940’s to slightly

more than 2.5 billion cubic feet in the 1980’s. Hardhardwood volumes in the other regions roughly doubled

across the four-decade span between the first and the

latest decennial interval, and at the most recent interval

all exceeded 1 billion cubic feet.

Distribution by Sawtimber Volume

Total sawtimber volume has increased over time (fig.

3.65). The biggest absolute increase from the 1950’s to

the 1980’s was in the Arkansas Ozarks, which experienced an increase of 8 billion board feet. The largest

percentage increase in sawtimber volume was in the

eastern Missouri Ozarks, which had a 167 percent

increase since the 1950’s. In total, where the six regions

were combined, they more than doubled in sawtimber

volume over the past three decades, from 22 billion

board feet to more than 45 billion board feet.

Pine-sawtimber volume has increased in all regions

over time (fig. 3.66). The increases have been smallest

in Missouri, larger in the Arkansas Ozarks and Oklahoma, and largest in the Arkansas Ouachita region.

However, the percentage increase in pine-sawtimber

volume has been greatest in the Missouri Ozarks,

especially the eastern Missouri Ozark region, where

pine volume has increased more than 400 percent

relative to levels four decades previous. From the

1950’s to the 1980’s, pine-sawtimber volume across all

six regions increased 77 percent.

Based on the 1980’s decennial interval, the “other

softwood (conifer)” component (primarily eastern red

cedar) is about 2.5 percent of total softwood-sawtimber

volume. However, volume in this species group has

increased over time (fig. 3.67). From the 1950’s to the

1980’s, the other softwood-sawtimber volume increased

more than any other species group, by more than 250

percent. Cedar is most prominent in the Arkansas

Ozarks where, from the 1960’s to the 1990’s, cedarsawtimber volume increased more than eightfold.

Figure 3.64—Growing-stock volume of the hard-hardwoods species

group on commercial forest land by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

Figure 3.65—Sawtimber volume of all species on commercial forest

land by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Million cubic feet, hard hardwoods

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ozark MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Million board feet, all species 

AR Ouachita MO Eastern Ozark

AR Ozark MO SW Ozark

OK MO NW Ozark

62
Soft hardwoods had the smallest percentage increase

in sawtimber volume of all four species groups (fig.

3.68). In the three Missouri regions, soft-hardwood

sawtimber volume decreased sharply from the 1940’s to

the 1950’s, but subsequently volumes have gradually

increased.

The Oklahoma and Ouachita regions have seen slight

increases in soft-hardwood sawtimber volume from one

decade to the next, with volumes more than doubling over

the four-decade interval. The largest increase in softhardwood-sawtimber volume has been in the Arkansas

Ozarks, where volume almost doubled from the 1970’s to

the 1990’s.

The hard-hardwood component has been the dominant

sawtimber component in the Assessment area and

continues to grow at a disproportional rate (fig. 3.69).

Hard-hardwood volume increased from 10.6 billion board

feet (47 percent of total sawtimber volume) in the 1950’s

to 26 billion board feet (55 percent of total sawtimber

volume) in the 1980’s.

Two of the six regions—the Arkansas Ozarks and the

eastern Missouri Ozarks—had the greatest increases in

hard-hardwood sawtimber volume. From the 1950’s to

the 1980’s, these two regions supported an increase of

greater than 10 billion board feet in hard-hardwood

sawtimber volume—nearly 66 percent of the growth

across the six regions.

Distribution of Volume in White Oak and Red Oak

Groups

Together, the red oaks and white oaks are the major

element of the hard hardwoods. But the dynamics of the

two subgroups are slightly different over time. For

example, across all regions, the percentage of oak volume

in the red-oak group was relatively constant from the

1950’s (48.5 percent of growing-stock cubic volume, 50.7

percent of sawtimber volume) to the 1980’s (48.6 percent

of growing-stock cubic volume, 55.5 percent of sawtimber volume).

The Ouachita, Oklahoma, and southwestern Missouri

Ozarks regions, however, exhibit a trend in which the

proportion of oak volume in the red oak group increases

over time (fig. 3.70). The absolute volume of white oaks

and red oaks is increasing. Differences between the two

groups may be due to developmental dynamics or perhaps to different levels of harvest.

Figure 3.66—Sawtimber volume of the pine species group on

commercial forest land by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

Figure 3.67—Sawtimber volume of the other softwoods species

group on commercial forest land by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Million board feet, pine sawtimber

AR Ouachita MO Eastern Ozark

OK MO SW Ozark

AR Ozark MO NW Ozark

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Million board feet, other softwoods sawtimber

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ozark MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

63
When the red oak and white oak groups are combined, they appear to account for a moderately increasing proportion of volume over time (figs. 3.71 and 3.72).

For growing-stock cubic volume, the combined oaks

constituted 48 percent of total volume in the 1950’s and

52 percent in the 1980’s. The increase is greater in

sawtimber volume; oaks accounted for 39 percent of

sawtimber volume in the 1950’s and 47.6 percent in the

1980’s.

Figures 3.71 and 3.72 show the proportion of oak

cubic feet and sawtimber volume, respectively, by

region. The Ouachita and Oklahoma regions have the

lowest volume of the oaks (recall that the pine component dominates in these regions). Conversely, oaks

provide over 70 percent of growing-stock and sawtimber volume in the three Missouri regions.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Million board feet, hard hardwood sawtimber

OK

AR Ouachita

AR Ozark

MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark

MO NW Ozark

Figure 3.69—Sawtimber volume of the hard-hardwoods species

group on commercial forest land by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Million board feet, soft hardwoods

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ozark MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

Figure 3.68—Sawtimber volume of the soft-hardwoods species

group on commercial forest land by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Red oak as percent of all oaks

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ozark MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

Figure 3.70—Red oak growing-stock volume as a percentage of all

oak growing-stock volume on commercial forest land by FIA region,

1940’s to 1990’s.

64
Implications and Opportunities

National forests and other public lands will likely

contribute significantly to the retention of forest cover in

the region over the long term. Forests under public land

management are unlikely to be converted to other uses.

Furthermore, where timber harvests occur, the land is

promptly reforested. Public lands, however, represent

only 22 percent of the timberland acreage in the Highlands

Across the Highlands, the average annual net growth

of trees is nearly 30 cubic feet/ac, while the average

annual removals from harvesting are 14.5 cubic feet/ac.

Mortality due to other causes claims 3.7 cubic feet/ac.

Tree growth, therefore, exceeds “losses” by more than

11.8 cubic feet/ac per year. Removals and mortality, in

other words, claim slightly less than 40 percent of

annual tree growth. This is the first of many indicators

that total tree biomass is increasing significantly in the

Highlands.

The proportion of total forest cover represented by

oak-hickory has declined steadily in the Arkansas

Ozarks and slightly in Oklahoma over the past three

decades. The simplest explanation is that, although total

oak-hickory acres are stable or increasing, the acreage

in pine and mixed pine-hardwood types is increasing

even more rapidly. This trend is probably a result of

oak-pine being replaced with pine.

The FIA trend data clearly show that the total

volume of trees is increasing in the Highlands and has

been for decades. Sawtimber volume and percent of

forest in sawtimber are both substantially higher than in

the 1970’s in all six FIA regions. Sawtimber volume of

hard hardwoods was four times greater in the 1990’s

than in the 1950’s, and both oak cubic volume and oak

sawtimber volume have remained steady as a percentage of total volume. Total cubic volume and cubic

volume of both pines and hardwoods is substantially

higher than in the 1950’s. In the Arkansas Ozarks, the

Ouachitas, and in easternmost Oklahoma, total cubic

volume is two to three times greater than in the 1950’s.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Oak cubic volume as percent of total

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ouachita MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

Figure 3.71—Oak growing-stock volume as a percentage of all

species growing-stock volume on commercial forest land by

FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1940s 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Decennial interval

Oak sawtimber as a percent of the total

OK AR Ouachita

AR Ozark MO Eastern Ozark

MO SW Ozark MO NW Ozark

Figure 3.72—Oak sawtimber volume as a percentage of all

species sawtimber volume on commercial forest land by FIA

region, 1940’s to 1990’s.

65
Old Growth

Scientists estimate that 90 percent of the virgin

forests in the United States are gone. The remaining

virgin stands are principally in the Northwest, on

national park lands, or in isolated pockets on private or

State lands (Noss and others 1995).

Very little virgin forest remains in the East, and most

of it is in small, isolated stands. There are, however,

stands having some characteristics of old-growth forest.

Those characteristics typically include trees at least a

century in age, the plants and animals associated with

old trees, downed logs, and standing snags.

Disturbances, such as periodic fires, blow downs, and

insect attacks, perpetuate these conditions in true oldgrowth forests. Old-growth conditions can gradually

redevelop after timber harvests, natural catastrophic

events, such as tornadoes, or even in agricultural fields.

At least 16 types of old-growth forests exist in the

Southern United States. The Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

could support seven of those types (Gaines and others

1997). The Terrestrial Team assessed existing and

potential old-growth stands on the three national forests

in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Other Federal and

State agencies could assess their lands for potential old

growth, using the same criteria. In this report, the term

“potential old-growth stand” refers to areas having

some characteristics of old-growth stands, mainly trees

of at least 100 years in age.

Data Sources

Any stand has the potential to become an old-growth

forest. However, the presence of several characteristics

of an old-growth forest can make a stand of public forest

a better candidate for designation as potential old growth.

The presence of old trees is a significant characteristic,

yet many acres with suitably old trees lack other important characteristics, such as dead and downed trees or

live trees with cavities for animal habitat.

The size of old-growth stands is another important

consideration; plant and animal species utilizing old

growth may respond differently to areas of various

sizes. Gaines and others (1997) identified three size

categories for management of old growth in the Southern Region: small patches of up to 99 ac, medium-sized

patches of 100 to 2,499 ac, and large patches of 2,500

or more acres.

The process of identifying areas that merit designation begins with locating potential old-growth stands

having some or all of the identified old-growth characteristics. After the stands have been located, an initial

inventory of the oldest stands of different forest types

must be conducted. Gaines and others (1997) have

provided guidance to national forests in the South, and

Tyrrel and others (1977) have provided guidance to

national forests in the East for selecting stands for

Federal designation as potential old-growth forests.

The Terrestrial Team used the Continuous Inventory

of Stand Conditions, a geographic information system, to

identify potential stands in the Ozark and Ouachita

National Forests and the Combined Data System

database to find potential stands in the Mark Twain

National Forest. A spatial analysis of the Ozark and

Ouachita National Forests’ data enabled researchers to

assemble adjacent potential old-growth stands of similar

forest cover types on those forests.

Patterns and Trends

The Forest Service identified seven types of oldgrowth forests as potentially existing in the OzarkOuachita Highlands. Each is described below.

Dry and Xeric Oak Forest, Woodland, and Savanna

This widespread mix occurs on ridge tops and some

southern slopes or rock outcrops of dry, infertile uplands

where conditions are dry most of the year. Oaks,

including post, black, white, and blackjack, dominate the

overstory. The average ages of trees ranges from 65 to

150 years, depending on the species (Gaines and others

1997).

This community depends upon fire to control competition from smaller trees and other aggressive species of

plants. Fires contribute to a more open canopy than in

dry-mesic oak forests.

Xeric Pine and Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland

Shortleaf pines dominate stands of this type, which

are found on dry, south-facing upper slopes where soils

are acidic and poor in nutrients and little moisture is

available. Black, blackjack, post, and white oaks are

also part of the overstory and much of the mid- and

lower-levels of the stand. Shortleaf pines average 200

66
years in age (Gaines and others 1997). The Lake

Winona Research Natural Area in the Ouachita

National Forest is an example of this type of old growth.

Frequent, low-intensity fires maintain this

community’s composition and structure. Windstorms, ice

storms, and intense fires may cause large openings in

these stands, and windblown trees may feed more

intense fires. Pockets of younger trees then begin to

renew the stand, as well as filling gaps caused by the

deaths of individual trees from lightning, insect attack, or

old age. The Ouachita National Forest is managing 38

sites for future xeric pine and pine-oak old-growth

forests, using fire and other management techniques.

Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

This type occurs primarily on north-facing slopes and

at the bottoms of south-facing slopes. The species in

this type of old growth, which vary depending upon

location and elevation, include oaks, hickories, and

maples tolerant of dry conditions. Shortleaf pine may

occur but does not make up more than 25 percent of the

stand. Trees are more than 300 years old (Gaines and

others 1997).

Fire is an important factor in maintaining these forest

communities. Thick-barked oaks easily survive frequent,

low-intensity fires, while more sensitive, thin-barked

species, such as maples, succumb readily to fires. Thus,

fires produce widely-spaced larger trees with understories of herbaceous plants, allowing germination of new

growth in sunlit or mostly sunlit areas.

Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak-Pine Forest

This type develops on the same kind of sites as the

dry-mesic oak forest. White oak dominates the stands

with shortleaf pine occupying at least 20 percent. Oaks

and pines can reach 300 years in age (Gaines and

others 1997).

Frequent fire maintains the structure of this type of

old-growth forest by recycling nutrients (releasing

nutrients in dead and decaying material) and controlling

competition. More intense fires renew stands by

removing large patches of trees or individual trees.

Mixed Mesophytic and Western Mesophytic Forest

One of the most biologically diverse ecosystems in

the United States, this type may occur in coves or on

north- or east-facing slopes throughout the OzarkOuachita Highlands. Oaks dominate the communities in

this broad category, but the forests may also include

sugar maple, beech, basswood, and red maple. They are

uneven- or all-aged stands, with the maximum age for

basswood, the indicator or key species for this community, being 198 years (Gaines and others 1997).

Deaths of individual trees create small gaps in the

canopy, permitting new growth in these stands. Less

frequent disturbances from fire, windstorms, floods, and

other natural events also create openings for renewal of

the forest.

Seasonally Wet Oak-Hardwood Woodland

Hardwood species that thrive in wet conditions, such

as willow oak, sweetgum, and red maple, make up this

type. The semi-open woodlands require standing or

subsurface water; upland trees cannot survive in this

community. Large trees in this community are between

80 and 100 years old (Gaines and others 1997).

Infrequent fires in conjunction with dry years can

eliminate woody debris and cause isolated tree deaths.

These fires break down dead timber and leaf litter,

improving the nutrient return to the soil and supporting

new growth. Suppression of these renewing fires has

caused stands of this type to develop into dense forests

instead of open woodlands. Under this condition, growth

of individual trees is poor, leaving the entire stand

vulnerable to disease and insect threats.

River Floodplain Hardwood Forest

This type occurs along large rivers such as the

Arkansas, the Current, the Eleven Point, and the White,

often on the most productive soils in the area. A mix of

oaks, red maple, hickory, birch, ash, sweetgum, and elms

make up the tallest trees in the canopy. The dominant

trees reach a maximum age of more than 100 years.

American beech may be present at the first bench

above the floodplain (Gaines and others 1997).

Catastrophic floods infrequently destroyed entire

stands of this type in the past. With the damming of the

Arkansas, Ouachita, and White Rivers to control floods,

67
it is more typical for individual trees to succumb to

changes in water level. Changes to a river’s course

occasionally isolate portions of these stands, causing

them to lose their old-growth characteristics. Fires

occur infrequently in these communities due to the yearround presence of moisture.

Designated Old Growth

Within the Assessment area, almost all designated

old-growth stands (ones the national forests manage for

old-growth characteristics) are xeric pine and pine-oak

or dry and dry-mesic oak-pine forests (table 3.10). The

only designated old-growth areas in the Highlands

exceeding 2,500 ac are parts of federally designated

wilderness. The national forests within the OzarkOuachita Highlands have the following numbers of

wilderness areas and total acres of wilderness per

forest:

National forest Areas Area

Acres

Mark Twain 6 63,627

Ouachita 7 65,974

Ozark-St. Francis 5 66,931

In addition, the McCurtain County (OK) Wilderness

Area, which the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife

Conservation manages, includes approximately 13,000

ac of old-growth xeric pine and pine-oak (Kreiter 1995).

The Buffalo National River in northern Arkansas

contains three wilderness areas with 10,529 ac of drymesic oak, dry and xeric oak, and river floodplain

hardwood.

The designation of land as wilderness can affect the

potential for development of old growth because it

restricts managers from using some techniques that

would support restoration of old-growth characteristics.

Thus, wilderness may not be the best choice for perpetuating some types of old growth.

Potential Old Growth

Each potential old-growth type is represented by

existing forest cover on one or more of the Highland’s

national forests. Table 3.11 shows the percent cover of

these types on the three national forests (excluding

wilderness). On the Mark Twain National Forest, dry

and xeric oak, xeric pine and pine-oak, and dry and drymesic oak-pine make up 98 percent of the existing

forest types. On the Ozark National Forest, 66 percent

of the existing forest cover is dry-mesic oak, and 29

percent is xeric pine and pine-oak. These figures are

nearly reversed on the Ouachita National Forest, where

xeric pine and pine-oak forests cover 69 percent of the

area and dry-mesic oak covers 21 percent.

Table 3.12 summarizes the estimated number of

potential old-growth stands in the national forests by

forest type and stand size class. No large stands

(> 2,500 ac) of potential old-growth (of a given forest

type) were identified on these national forests. However, it seems likely that if adjacent, medium-size stands

(100–2,500 ac) of different forest types were considered, examples of the “large” size class could be

identified. Xeric pine and pine-oak potential old-growth

stands were the most numerous on the Ozark and

Ouachita National Forests; dry and xeric oak stands

were the most numerous potential old-growth stands on

the Mark Twain National Forest.

Implications and Opportunities

Because they are more resilient, the more common

types of old-growth forests may need relatively little

intervention for conservation or restoration. Less

common types may need more management, even

Table 3.10—Acreage and types of designated old-growth

areas in the national forests of the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands

National

forest Area Old-growth type

Acres

Ouachita 80,468 XP-PO, DDM-OP

Ozark 9,656 XP-PO, DDM-OP

Mark Twain 122,519 XP-PO, DDM-OP, DMO, DXO, RFH

Total 212,643

XP-PO = xeric pine and pine oak; DDM-OP = dry and dry-mesic oakpine; DMO = dry-mesic oak; DXO = dry and xeric oak; RFH = river

floodplain hardwood.

68
69

Table 3.11—Percent of existing forest cover in seven potential old-growth cover

types, by national forest (excluding wilderness)

Mark Ouachita

Cover type Twain NF Ozark NF NF

Mixed and western mesophytic 0 0.25 0.13

River flood plain hardwood 1.23 0.51 0.30

Dry-mesic oak 0 65.86 20.60

Dry and xeric oak 70.12 0.01 0.69

Xeric pine and pine-oak 9.08 29.38 69.34

Dry and dry-mesic oak-pine 19.44 2.76 8.43

Seasonally wet oak-hardwood 0.13 1.32 0.52

Totala 100.00 100.00 100.00

a Percent totals rounded to 100.

Table 3.12—Number of potential old-growth stands in the three national forests of the OzarkOuachita Highlands by forest type and stand size

Stand size classa

Old-growth forest type Small Medium Large Total

Ozark National Forest

Mixed and western mesophytic 0 0 0 0

River floodplain hardwood 623 859 0 1,482

Dry-mesic oak 1,385 437 0 1,822

Dry and xeric oak 0 0 0 0

Xeric pine and pine-oak 4,412 1,732 0 6,144

Dry and dry-mesic oak-pine 111 0 0 111

Seasonally wet oak-hardwood 97 0 0 97

Total 6,628 3,028 0 9,656

Ouachita National Forest

Mixed and western mesophytic 0 0 0 0

River floodplain hardwood 245 0 0 245

Dry-mesic oak 556 977 0 1,533

Dry and xeric oak 271 0 0 271

Xeric pine and pine-oak 16,960 15,572 0 32,532

Dry and dry-mesic oak-pine 360 415 0 775

Seasonally wet oak-hardwood 163 0 0 163

Total 18,555 16,964 0 35,519

Mark Twain National Forest

Mixed and western mesophytic — —— 0

River floodplain hardwood — —— 910

Dry-mesic oak — —— 31,886

Dry and xeric oak — —— 55,393

Xeric pine and pine-oak — —— 723

Dry and dry-mesic oak-pine — —— 4,953

Seasonally wet oak-hardwood — —— 0

Total 93,865

— = not available. a Small = 1 to 99 ac; medium = 100 to 2,499 ac; large = 2,500+ ac.
restoration, to perpetuate them as part of the OzarkOuachita Highlands. The emphasis should be to put

together a desired condition and a clear set of guidelines

for managers to follow for each type of old growth.

With most designated old-growth forest stands in the

categories of xeric pine and pine-oak or dry and drymesic oak-pine, clear priorities for future old-growth

stands are needed. Policymakers will need to determine

whether each national forest should promote old-growth

stands of each type or whether they concentrate on

expanding the number and/or size of old-growth stands

of the types most typical to the individual national forest.

These old-growth forest types might represent the

greatest opportunity for restoration.

Rare Communities

The concept of “rare community” is relatively new in

ecology. For decades, scientists have identified certain

species of plants and animals as rare. More recently,

ecologists have recognized entire communities in nature

may become rare or may have always been rare

because they exist on restricted sites or because of a

variety of imposed factors. Timber harvests; conversion

of land for grazing, development, or other uses; flooding

for lake systems; fire suppression; and other factors

may cause declines in the health of various ecological

communities so that some become rare. Types of rare

communities include old-growth forest communities (see

the preceding section) as well as prairies, glades, and

shrublands.

Data Sources

There has been no thorough interagency inventory of

rare communities, and therefore data concerning rare

communities within the Assessment area are extremely

limited. The list of rare communities in table 3.13 is

based on a national classification system developed by

The Nature Conservancy (Weakley and others 1996,

1997). The table is a preliminary summary and may

exclude some types of rare communities that are

actually present in the Highlands.

Patterns and Trends

Table 3.13 presents 21 types of rare communities

that occur in the Assessment area. Types are in three

categories: forests and woodland, shrubland, and

grassland. Ten community types appear in the forest

and woodland category, four in the shrubland category,

and seven in the grassland category.

Implications and Opportunities

Conservation agencies in Missouri, Oklahoma, and

Arkansas have met with representatives of the three

national forests in the Assessment area to discuss

management of rare communities, tracking actions, and

naming systems. Revision of management plans for the

national forests in the Assessment area will present

additional opportunities for State and Federal agencies

to collaborate in planning for the management or

restoration of rare communities.

The three national forests and other cooperating

agencies plan to use the National Classification System

being developed by The Nature Conservancy. That

system should be specific yet flexible enough to meet

the needs of individual agencies while facilitating

information sharing. When complete, this classification

system may be a useful addition to Forest Service data

bases.

70
Table 3.13—Types of rare communities in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, with TNC and State nomenclature, global ranking,

States of occurrence, and reason for rarity

Global States of

Nomenclature ranka occurrence Reason for rarity

Forest and Woodland Types

I.A.8.N.b.030.

Pinus echinata/Vaccinium

Dry shortleaf pine-oak forest G2 AR, OK, MO Few old growth examples

I.B.2.N.a.070.

Acer saccharum-Quercus rubra-Carya cordiformis

Mixed mesophytic forest G2Q AR, OK, MO Limited distribution

I.B.2.N.b.070.

Q. alba/Vaccinium spp.

Stunted white oak woodland G1G2 AR, OK Limited distribution

I.B.2.N.a.280.

Q. alba-C. ovata/Ostrya virginiana

Q. alba-C. ovata forest association G2G3 OK, MO Few old growth examples

I.B.2.N.b.090.

Q. stellata montaine

Stunted post oak-blackjack oak woodland G1 MO Limited distribution

I.B.2.N.e.120.

Q. palustris-Q. bicolor/Carex critina/Sphagnum spp.

Pin oak-swamp oak seasonally flooded forest G1Q MO Conversion to nonforest

I.C.3.N.a.050.

P. echinata-Q. velutina/Vaccinium spp.

Dry shortleaf-pine-oak-hickory forest G2G3 AR, MO Fire exclusion, few old growth examples

II.A.4.N.a.070.

P. echinata-Schizachyrium scoparium

Shortleaf pine-little bluestem woodland G2 AR, OK, MO Harvesting, fire exclusion

II.B.2.N.a.170.

Q.stellata-Q. velutina-Q. alba-(Q. falcata)/Croton

michauxii

Post oak-black oak-white oak-croton woodland G2Q AR, MO Disturbance, conversion

II.C.3.N.a.050.

P. echinata-Q. alba

Xeric shortleaf pine-white oak G2 Fire exclusion

Shrubland

III.A.2.N.g.010.

Aruninaria gigantea ssp. gigantea

Giant cane shrubland G2 AR, OK Disturbance, conversion

III.B.2.N.a.080.

Toxicodendron radicans/Polymnia canadensis

Poison ivy-leaf cup G2 AR, OK Infrequent on sandstone talus

(continued)

71
Table 3.13—Types of rare communities in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, with TNC and State nomenclature, global ranking,

States of occurrence, and reason for rarity (continued)

Global States of

Nomenclature ranka occurrence Reason for rarity

Shrubland (continued)

Toxicodendron radicans/Polymnia cossatotensis

Poison ivy-leaf cup G1 AR Infrequent on novaculite talus

III.C.2.N.c.010.

Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana-Andrachne

phyllanthoides

Eastern redcedar-andrachne G2 AR, OK Limited to certain streamside zones

Grassland

V.A.5.N.a.010.

Andropogon gerardii-Panicum virgatum

Tallgrass prairie G2G3 OK Conversion, fire exclusion

Andropogon gerardii-Calamagrostis canadensisHelianthus grosseserratus

Bluestem tallgrass prairie G2G3 AR, OK, MO Conversion, fire exclusion

V.A.5.N.a.100.

Schizachyrium scoparium-Sorghastrum nutansAristida lanosa-Polypremum procumbens

Southern sand prairie G1Q AR, MO Conversion, fire exclusion

Schizachyrium scoparium-Silene regia

Lowland sand prairie G2? OK, MO Conversion, fire exclusion

Schizachyrium scoparium-Sorghastrum nutansDanthonia spicata-Silene regia

Glade G2 OK, MO Limited distribution

V.A.5.N.c.110.

Schizachyrium scoparium-Sporobolus neglectus

Chert glade G1? OK, MO Limited distribution

V.A.5.N.c.120.

Schizachyrium scoparium-Bouteloua curtipendulaAtrostis hyemalis-Eleocharis spp.

Little bluestem hardpan prairie G2? OK, MO Limited distribution

TNC = The Nature Conservancy.

a Ranking based on known distribution, with global rank “1” (G1) representing the rarest element of interest and G5 the most common;

see Chapter 5 for a complete description of global and state ranks.

72
Chapter 4: Silvicultural Practices

Question 4.1: Which silvicultural practices are

best suited to the forests of the Assessment area?

Question 4.2: What trends are taking place in

silvicultural practices on the Highlands’ national

forests?

The Terrestrial Team examined the silvicultural

practices that foresters apply in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands to provide a foundation for future discussions

about forest management in this region. This chapter

begins with a brief introduction to silviculture—the theory

and practice of controlling forest establishment, composition, structure, and growth. Second, the chapter assesses

current scientific knowledge of silvicultural systems in the

major forest types of the Highlands. Third, it concludes

by summarizing trends on the three national forests in the

Highlands.

By presenting a chapter that is primarily about silviculture, the Terrestrial Team does not intend to imply that

other fields, such as wildlife biology, ecology, or soil

science, are less important to forest management. In fact,

some findings and perspectives from these other fields

are woven into the discussion that follows. Silvicultural

practices, however, are likely to affect terrestrial forests,

plants, and animals more than any other management

activity that takes place on public lands and, therefore,

deserve the extensive treatment offered here.

 Key Findings

 1. Upland hardwood forests consist of relatively shade

intolerant species that typically are best suited to

even-aged management. Except for one case in

Missouri, the few successful examples of unevenaged management in upland oak forests required

aggressive chemical control of competing hardwoods.

 2. Shortleaf pine forests can be managed with a variety

of even-aged or uneven-aged methods, but successful regeneration under single-tree selection typically

requires chemical and/or mechanical control of

competing vegetation. Natural regeneration also

depends upon the co-occurrence of good seed crops,

suitable seedbeds, and sufficient light.

 3. Clearcutting declined on national forests from 27,729

acres (ac) in 1988 to 698 ac in 1996, a 97.5 percent

decline. This decline in clearcutting was the single

most significant silvicultural trend on national forests

in the Assessment area.

 4. Reproduction cutting on the national forests using the

seed tree method averaged 2,382 ac/year (8.6

percent of the 1988 clearcutting level) from 1991

through 1996. During the same period, the area

harvested using the shelterwood method averaged

3,157 ac/year (11.4 percent of the 1988 clearcutting

level).

 5. The largest increase of a silvicultural method on the

national forests was in the use of the single-tree

selection. This increase was due more to single-tree

selection being the exact opposite of clearcutting

rather than to any particular advantages for either

pine or oak-hickory silviculture. Together, the Ozark

and Ouachita National Forests applied single-tree

selection on an average of 8,916 ac annually from

1991 through 1995.

 6. Herbicide application for site preparation declined on

the national forests from 12,705 ac in 1988 to 2,132

ac in 1997, an 83 percent decline over the 10-year

period. Conversely, acres burned in site preparation

on the Ouachita National Forest increased from 536

ac in 1989 to 3,137 ac in 1997. Each year, more

acres have been burned than in the previous year.

This trend suggests that the limits to using prescribed

fire for site preparation have not yet been reached.

 7. The use of prescribed burning as a tool for managing

intermediate stands has increased nearly four-fold

over the past 5 years and exceeded 100,000 ac in

1997 (due primarily to actions on the Ouachita

National Forest). The Ouachita National Forest has

increased the use of prescribed burning to restore

shortleaf pine-bluestem grass communities over

extensive areas of the western Ouachitas, to sustain

wildlife habitat diversity, and to encourage natural

regeneration.

73
Silvicultural Systems

This section provides an overview of silvicultural

systems. For people who want more detail about this

section or other silvicultural topics, consult one of the

textbooks commonly used in undergraduate forestry

classes (e.g., Smith 1986, Daniel and others 1979).

Ecological Basis of Silvicultural Practices

Nature provides the models and patterns that silviculturists strive to follow or mimic. Two major ecological

phenomena are particularly important. The first, succession, is defined as the normal growth and development

of an established forest or stand (Kimmins 1987). The

second, disturbance, is the partial or complete removal

of a forest canopy through natural events (Spurr and

Barnes 1980). Disturbance is the exact opposite of

succession, and the interactions of disturbance and

succession are major determinants of the ecological

structure and function of all forests.

Foresters imitate the natural processes of succession

and disturbance through the prudent use of carefully

defined silvicultural treatments. For example, intermediate treatments, such as thinning, generally promote

stand development in a manner similar to that of natural

succession. Conversely, the cutting methods that

foresters use to regenerate forest stands (called reproduction cutting methods) emulate natural disturbances

that remove part or all of a forest canopy. Foresters try

to imitate the natural variations in disturbance by using

similar variations in reproduction cutting.

However, silviculture should not be considered an

exact replication of natural succession and disturbance

processes. The major difference is that most harvested

wood is manufactured into wood products, and most

trees felled or otherwise killed or cut back by natural

disturbance remain in the forest. Other ecologically

important differences exist. For example, windstorms

often uproot trees, a practice that foresters rarely

attempt to imitate. However, the ecological importance

of the microtopographic variation created by uprooted

trees for plants and animals is well established. As

ecologists gain a better understanding of the ecological

effects of natural succession and disturbance, silviculturists will seek ways to refine common silvicultural

practices to better reflect both the obvious and the

subtle ecological effects associated with natural events.

Succession

Secondary forest succession is usually thought of as

the normal growth and development of a forest stand.

Succession begins immediately after a disturbance when

new trees and other plants begin to grow or older ones

resprout. Succession continues through various stages

that, if unaffected by additional major disturbances,

culminate in an old growth forest stage (which remains

susceptible to major disturbances).

Foresters modify stand development in different

ways. They use active interventions such as thinning,

release treatments, or controlled fires (in fire-adapted

ecosystems) to influence the rate and direction of

succession. At times, they implement passive alternatives, which include deferring treatments, conducting no

treatments in a given area, or allowing naturally initiated

disturbances, such as wildfire or insect outbreaks, to run

their course. The practices that managers ultimately

select, whether active or passive, are intended to

influence the direction of stand development toward

desired conditions and/or to achieve desired trends in

landscapes. Essentially silviculture, however, is concerned only with stand-level conditions in a forest.

Traditionally, desired conditions have been heavily

weighted toward timber production. A broader view

provides for a full range of human needs and expectations, including ecological sustainability. Desired conditions must encompass ecological and aesthetic as well

as economic objectives. For example, current forest

management on national forest lands in the OzarkOuachita Highlands is trying to broaden the concept of

acceptable stocking from nearly pure pine stands to

mixtures of pines and hardwoods. These mixtures would

be maintained at densities such that both kinds of trees

would undergo acceptable development and be able to

persist together in many stands.

As silviculturists seek to better approximate natural

patterns and processes in the context of sustainable

forest management (ecosystem management), the

short-term goal is to ensure regeneration of desired

species or mixtures of species after reproduction

cutting. The long-term goal is to ensure that these

74
mixtures and other desired conditions continue to

develop or be sustained over time.

Disturbance

The most critical time in the life of a forest stand is

after a major natural disturbance, an event that is

inevitable in the life of a forest community. Windstorms,

crown fires, insect outbreaks, and other natural events

sometimes set forests back to their earliest stages of

development. On other occasions, disturbances leave

parts of the forest canopy intact but still change the

structure and species composition of the stand. Many

forest species, however, are able to reproduce and

persist in particular forest landscapes because of

periodic disturbances.

Disturbances vary according to three scales: intensity, frequency, and duration (White 1979). Intensity is

the percentage of standing forest that undergoes

mortality. Frequency is the rate at which existing

disturbances recur, typically over spans of years.

Frequent disturbances occur every few years, whereas

some infrequent disturbances occur only once every

few centuries. Finally, duration is the length of time that

the disturbance occurs. Duration can vary from a few

seconds or minutes (such as a wildfire) to several years

(some droughts). By human time scales, major disturbances are relatively rare; however, they are no less

important than more frequent but less intense disturbances.

Disturbance and stand structure are closely related.

Some disturbances cause new trees to be established

over large areas at the same time, creating even-aged

stands. Others cause new trees to grow within very

small openings in the canopy, creating uneven-aged

stands.

Silvicultural Systems and Reproduction

Cutting Methods

A silvicultural system is a long-term series of treatments. The series includes reproduction cutting (stand

regeneration) by a particular method (the most prominent feature of any such system), the regeneration of

new trees, intermediate treatments, and subsequent

reproduction cutting. The goals of the silvicultural

system are to use forest resources for the benefit of

society and to maintain desired ecological conditions.

Reproduction cutting methods evolved in forestry to

imitate different intensities of disturbance. Thus, the

range of reproduction cutting treatments loosely approximates the intensities of natural disturbances.

Even-aged reproduction cutting methods imitate intense

but infrequent disturbances. Uneven-aged reproduction

cutting methods imitate less intense disturbances that

are more frequent. Regardless of the method, establishing new trees in place of harvested trees is the most

important goal of a reproduction cutting method. Although the foregoing discussion implies that silvicultural

methods are distinct from one another, in practice they

represent gradations of light penetration to the forest

floor. Clearcuts produce the greatest light penetration to

the forest floor, and single-tree selection produces the

least.

Not all silvicultural treatments result in a new stand

becoming established. Intermediate treatments, such as

commercial thinning, effectively imitate the natural stand

dynamics that result from overcrowding (called “density-dependent mortality”). Instead of trees dying and

falling to the forest floor, they are harvested for wood

products. Commercial thinning is typically recommended in situations where the immediate objective is to

allow the better trees in the stand to continue to grow,

rather than to obtain a new stand of seedlings.

Clearcutting

Foresters use clearcutting to approximate very

intense but infrequent disturbances, such as crown fires

or catastrophic windstorms. Extreme natural disturbances occur at times in most ecosystems, occasionally

covering extensive areas (see Chapter 2). Ecological

conditions within such heavily disturbed areas promote

species adapted to rapid colonization and growth.

After clearcutting, foresters accelerate the natural

cycle by promptly reforesting the area, usually by

planting a particular species. Often, the planted trees

are from genetically improved stock chosen for rapid

growth and survival. Clearcuts are usually planted in the

spring immediately after a harvest, which minimizes the

degree to which the site lies fallow.

75
Seed-Tree Method

The seed-tree method mimics a moderately extreme

natural disturbance that eliminates most, but not all, of

the canopy trees in a stand. Under natural disturbances,

the trees that survive are usually found on the fringes of

the extreme disturbances or scattered in less intensely

affected spots of moderately severe disturbances. The

trees that survive are typically spaced far enough apart

that they do not cast sufficient shade to lessen the

exposed ecological conditions on the forest floor.

Conditions for the new stand are, thus, very similar to

those found in open conditions. Foresters apply the

seed-tree method to recreate such highly exposed

conditions. The trees remaining after the regeneration

cut, typically about 5 to 10 percent of those in the high

canopy of the original stand, are called seed trees

(because they subsequently cast the seeds that regenerate the site).

Shelterwood Method

The shelterwood method mimics a disturbance that

affects the entire area but leaves more overstory trees

than those disturbances the seedtree method imitates.

During this hypothetical natural event, more residual

trees survive the disturbance and promote a new wave

of seedlings that grow under the shelter of the residual

trees, and hence the name “shelterwood.”

Foresters often prescribe the shelterwood method if

a site is too harsh for seedlings to survive under the

more open conditions created by clearcutting or seedtree methods. The shelterwood method is also popular

for species that have erratic or unreliable seed production. The additional seed trees in the shelterwood often

make the difference between adequate and less-thanadequate stocking. In some applications, foresters

prescribe harvest of the sheltering trees after young

seedlings have grown sufficiently to compete well and

re-establish the forest stand. Depending on management

objectives, the forester may defer final harvest for up to

half of the rotation length (time interval between

reproduction cutting), which results in a two-aged stand.

This method is called an irregular shelterwood. In

mature stands where advance reproduction is present

before treatment, a single removal cut is often feasible.

Group Selection Method

The group selection method imitates a small-scale

disturbance that removes small groups or clusters of

trees from several small portions of the stand. Examples

of comparable natural events include localized insect

infestations, such as those of the southern pine beetle, a

severe lightning strike, a locally severe wind, or the

flare-up of a surface fire. These small-scale disturbances cause openings in a stand, called gaps, within

which regeneration occurs and develops. Seeds from

trees bordering the gaps typically regenerate these

patches naturally. The border trees also influence

ecological conditions within the gap. If the gap is

sufficiently large, microclimatic conditions at its center

will allow early successional (shade intolerant) species

to develop within the opening.

Foresters typically apply the group selection method

when they want to use an uneven-aged silvicultural

system to regenerate shade-intolerant species or provide

openings in the forest for wildlife or both. Size, placement, and regulation of group openings are still not

clearly established in silvicultural theory. The major

ecological distinction between group selection and small

clearcuts is that the group is typically small enough that

its center is still influenced by the surrounding forest

canopy, that is, still partially shaded. This is not the case

with a small clearcut. Technical differences also exist in

the way that openings are scattered within a given

stand, but these differences are of greater interest to

forest biometricians than to the public. Groups do

resemble small clearcuts and, therefore, are still associated with the controversy surrounding clearcutting (see

Chapter 9 of the Social-Economic Conditions report,

USDA FS 1999b).

The ecological literature suggests that an opening

with a diameter equivalent to two tree heights is the

largest gap under which the center of the opening is still

influenced by the adjacent stand. However, national

forest policy maintains that an opening should be no

more than 2 acres (ac), which, if imposed as a circle,

would have a radius of 166.5 feet (ft).

Single-Tree Selection Method

Single-tree selection imitates the smallest scale of

disturbance, i.e., when a single tree dies and/or falls in a

forest. These small-scale disturbances are caused by

76
insects, lightning, disease, wind, and other agents. If the

dying tree had a large crown, seedlings will become

established in the gap created in the canopy. In the

smallest gaps, the canopy may close before saplings can

grow into the main canopy. Saplings may persist without

any further growth, or their growth may become

suppressed. Multiple gaps (where a nearby tree succumbs and creates a second nearby opening, either at

the same time or soon after the first) or the expansion

of existing gaps (where gap-bordering trees fall) will

favor regeneration, survival, and development. To

maintain the vigor of the smallest trees, stands under

single-tree selection typically have lower relative

densities than fully stocked, even-aged stands. By

definition, an uneven-aged stand has at least three age

classes. In practice, age is not measured, and foresters

manage stand structure by controlling the numbers of

trees of various diameters according to various mathematical formulas or desired ecological relationships.

Silvicultural Distinctions

The term “selective cutting” needs to be explained.

To the professional forester, selective cutting means no

more than “select some trees and cut them.” Selective

cutting in no way refers to uneven-aged silviculture

using the “selection method.” In practice, selective

cutting typically means the uncontrolled harvesting of

trees (that is, removing all commercially desirable

species), with no intention or provision for reforesting

the stand. Therefore, professional foresters usually refer

to this approach as “highgrading.”

In fact, the forester’s judgment is critical when

determining if a harvest cut is considered good silviculture. Under the principles of silviculture, the goal of

reproduction cutting is to reforest the site, and that

decision is made before the harvest. The intensity of the

harvest is a byproduct of the decisions regarding what

ecological conditions are desired for regeneration.

Under selective cutting, the goal is to harvest trees with

commercial value.

Immediately after the trees are cut, selective cutting

and reproduction cutting may seem to resemble one

another. The difference, however, is established after

reproduction cutting when treatments, such as site

preparation and release, are used to ensure a new stand

of desired species is established (see following section).

Such treatments are absent under selective cutting. It is

important to realize that even the most carefully planned

reproduction cut can become a selective cut if subsequent site preparation and reforestation fail to regenerate the desired species. By intent or not, selective

cutting is always detrimental to a forest. The site will

become a forest of poor quality that has little benefit for

timber, wildlife, or recreation.

Regeneration

Regeneration refers to the methods by which new

seedlings are established after reproduction cutting or on

lands that currently do not support trees. The two general

categories of regeneration are artificial and natural.

Artificial regeneration occurs when seeds, seedlings, or

saplings are planted in an area. Natural regeneration

results when trees provide new seedlings through natural

seed-fall or by sprouting. Both methods are important in

the forests of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

Artificial Regeneration

Planting. Because of differences in regeneration

biology, planting is used more often to regenerate pines

than hardwoods. In pines, seeds fall, germinate, and

grow in the open conditions that follow major disturbances (such as a tornado). Planting a seedling after a

harvest imitates this natural process rather closely.

Conversely, most hardwoods, especially oaks, are

adapted to persist as seedlings and saplings in the

understory for long periods before a disturbance. When

a disturbance occurs, small hardwood stems are released from their suppressed condition and can grow to

full size. However, few if any new seedlings become

established. Thus, planting hardwoods after a disturbance does not imitate natural hardwood regeneration,

except for a few species not commonly used in timber

management, such as sweetgum and red maple.

Considerable effort has gone into developing the

technology and procedures to produce high-quality

shortleaf pine seedlings. Barnett and others (1986)

reported three main opportunities associated with

artificial regeneration of shortleaf pine: (1) poor-quality,

natural stands can be rehabilitated, especially those

supporting low-grade hardwoods as a result of highgrading pines and hardwoods; (2) tree growth can be

77
increased by using genetically improved seedlings; and

(3) productivity can be improved by controlling spacing

between seedlings. Recommended seed sources of

genetically improved shortleaf pine seedlings for use in

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands are those from within the

region or from the more northern portions of the natural

range of shortleaf pine (Wells 1969).

The Southern Region of the Forest Service maintains

a shortleaf pine seed orchard on the Ouachita National

Forest. This orchard is made up of families drawn from

the highest quality trees in the Ouachitas, Boston

Mountain, and Ozark Highlands. All shortleaf pine

planted on national forest lands in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands developed from seed produced by this

orchard, which has implications for the prevailing

genetic diversity of the shortleaf pine resource in the

region. The high-grade harvesting that occurred at the

turn of the century had a detrimental effect on the

shortleaf pine gene pool because the highest quality

trees were cut and the lowest quality trees were left to

grow. Many of the shortleaf pine stands of today are

from seedlings produced within this inferior gene pool.

In this light, the seedlings produced through the shortleaf

pine tree improvement program have value not only as

fast growing trees for timber production but also as seed

sources that can contribute to restoring the genetic

diversity of the species.

The preparation of an ideal seedling, however, is only

the first step in the process required to establish a new

stand using artificial regeneration. The second step is to

plant seedlings in such a way that they will become

established and develop successfully (Hallgren and

Ferris 1995, Hallgren and others 1993, Hallgren and

Tauer 1989, Harrington and others 1989, Venator 1985,

Dixon and others 1979). Site preparation (discussed

later) is essential for the second step.

Direct seeding. Direct seeding has occasionally

been used to reforest sites in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands. Technology for the direct seeding of shortleaf pine has existed for about three decades (Derr and

Mann 1971). Compounds that contain capsaicin are

currently being developed to replace the fungicides

made of chlorinated hydrocarbons used in the 1960’s

and 1970’s. Typically about 0.5 pound of treated seeds

(~23,000) per acre are broadcast (Lawson 1990). Seed

should be applied only on sites that have been prepared

to receive planted seedlings (Derr and Mann 1971).

Natural Regeneration

Natural regeneration refers to the naturally occurring

processes in trees that result in new seedlings and

sprouts. That the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands remain

forested today is a tribute to the ability of the region’s

tree species to regenerate naturally.

When foresters are given a choice between trees

(pines or hardwoods) of seed or sprout origin, they

prefer trees from seeds. Regeneration from seeds is the

result of natural processes of open pollination, flowering,

fruiting, and seed-fall. Maternal flowers yield seed after

viable pollen is borne to them by wind, pollinating

organisms, or other agents. When the best formed, most

vigorous trees are left in a given stand to produce seeds,

the regeneration will more likely express desired genetic

traits. The danger inherent in cutting the best trees and

leaving the poorest trees to reforest the site is that the

regenerated trees will have genetic traits that result in

poor growth.

Pines and hardwoods that have light seeds are

generally better adapted to germinate and grow after a

disturbance. Under certain conditions, however, seedlings can exist as advance growth or advance regeneration in the understory of a well-stocked stand. If a

disturbance should occur and growing space becomes

available, the advance growth will be ready to respond

and grow.

Shortleaf pine is an erratic seed producer. Good seed

crops occur only every 3 to 6 years (Lawson 1990).

Thus, it is often difficult to conduct a reproduction cut

relying on natural regeneration. To overcome this

limitation, a sufficient number of residual trees must

remain on the site to ensure adequate seedfall. Site

preparation treatments must be timed to coincide with

expected seed crops. These requirements can be

difficult to meet, especially on national forest lands,

where multi-year harvesting contracts limit a forester’s

ability to coordinate the timing of harvesting with optimal

conditions for seedfall, germination, and establishment.

The most important influences on establishment of

shortleaf pine are the condition of the seedbed and

control of competing vegetation, especially competition

from hardwoods (Shelton and Wittwer 1996, Boggs and

Wittwer 1993, Yocom and Lawson 1977).

One unique advantage of shortleaf pine is its ability to

resprout if top-killed at a young age (Lawson 1990).

78
This habit has unique adaptive value in an environment

where frequent surface disturbances such as fire are

common.

Conversely, the advance-growth attribute is more

critical for hardwoods that have heavy seeds, such as

oaks. Oaks are poorly adapted for seed (acorn) dispersal after a disturbance or for fast growth after

acorns germinate. However, oaks disperse acorns in

most years, and the resulting new seedlings are able to

take advantage of light openings when part or all of the

high canopy is removed. Oak seedlings usually need to

be in place before harvest if they are to succeed in

replacing the stand (Bey 1964, Sander 1966, Clark 1970,

McQuilkin 1975, Sander and Clark 1971, Sander and

others 1976, Loftis 1983, Janzen and Hodges 1987).

Oak also has the ability to sprout vegetatively, even at

an advanced age. The number of sprouts from a given

stump depends on the size of the stump and on site

quality. Sprouting is generally greater on better sites, but

the bigger the stump, the less likely it is to sprout. Small

stumps sprout much better than big ones. Regardless of

the size of the originating stump, viable sprouts tend to

be fast growing and well formed.

Site Preparation

Smith (1986) defines site preparation as those

treatments designed to prepare and treat the site for

regeneration. Treatment of unwanted standing trees and

logging slash is generally the first practice undertaken

following harvest. The methods used for this initial stage

include felling unwanted trees with a chain saw, drumchopping slash and small trees with a rolling chopper

pulled by a bulldozer, or shearing unwanted trees with a

bulldozer-mounted KG blade.

Controlling competing vegetation is a major goal

during site preparation. Stump spouts can be controlled

by increasing the intensity of mechanical treatment

(such as using a root rake to push all stumps, slash, and

tops into piles called windrows) or by applying herbicides. Generally, mechanical methods of site preparation

alone do not control sprouting by unwanted hardwoods.

Herbicides are often the only effective way to reduce or

eliminate hardwood sprouts.

Several herbicides and application techniques are

effective after a mechanical site preparation, from a

topical application on individual stems to spraying the

resprouting vegetation after leaves emerge. Herbicides

approved for use in forestry in Arkansas include

imazapyr, imazapyr-glyphosate mixtures, imazapyrmetsulfuron mixtures, picloram, picloram-triclopyr

mixtures, and picloram-imazapyr mixtures (Baldwin and

Boyd 1998). An effective low-cost method that minimizes resprouting is to combine chain-saw felling with

an application of a liquid formulation of herbicide

(commonly triclopyr) that is applied directly to the cut

surface of the stems.

Fire is another tool occasionally used in site preparation. The broadcast burning of felled debris can dispose

of slash, top-kill resprouting vegetation, and expose

mineral soil, which may be desired for natural or

artificial regeneration.

Treatment of mineral soil prior to reforestation can be

important for either natural or artificial regeneration in

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. If exposure of mineral

soil is insufficient, implements mounted on small bulldozers can be used effectively to prepare seedbeds for

shortleaf pine. Subsoiling or “ripping” is a popular

technique for treating mineral soil before planting on

both public and private lands in the Assessment area

(Walker 1992, Wittwer and others 1986). Ripping breaks

through the rocky substrate of the soils and provides

seedlings with more moisture so that they have a better

chance to become established. Typically, ripping is

conducted using a heavy-duty steel implement attached

to a large bulldozer. A pair of vertical steel bars is

mounted at the ends of an 8- to 10-ft horizontal bar

mounted behind the bulldozer. The ripping bars are

oriented perpendicular to the soil surface and can be

lowered into the soil using the hydraulic power of the

bulldozer. The operator can raise or lower the bars from

2 to 3 ft into the soil, and the bars are fixed so that the

furrows, or “rips,” are 8 to 10 ft apart. The “rips”

created by the steel bars break through the rocks

commonly found at or near the surface of OzarkOuachita Highlands soils, especially in the heavily folded

and faulted strata of the Ouachita Mountains.

After the rips are in place, rainfall erodes soil particles into the rips. This small-scale erosion deposits soil

in the bottom of the rip and produces a more stable

microenvironment for seedlings to become established

and to survive. The beneficial effect is most pronounced

late in the growing season, when rips retain soil moisture

more effectively than unripped microsites.

79
Additional methods for site preparation can be found

in the Vegetation Management Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis

National Forests (USDA FS 1990) and the Forest Plan

for the Mark Twain National Forest (USDA FS 1986).

Intermediate Treatments

Intermediate treatments represent the set of treatments foresters apply to stands where the desired

species are larger than saplings (typically, greater than

0.5 inches [in.] in diameter) but not old enough for

reproduction cutting. Smith (1986) defines four categories

of intermediate treatments: thinning, release, improvement cutting, and salvage cutting. Three other intermediate treatments (not defined by Smith 1986) are also used.

Thinning

The most common intermediate treatment that

foresters apply is thinning, which is defined as the

harvesting of some immature trees of desired species so

that other immature trees with better developmental

potential might thrive. When properly applied, thinning

will usually remove the poorer quality trees and improve

the growing conditions for the better quality trees.

The thinning method used depends on the relative

crown condition of the trees being cut and the trees

being retained (Smith 1986). “Low thinning” is the

removal of trees with small crowns to create less

crowded conditions for trees with larger crowns.

Conversely, “crown thinning” is the removal of large

trees from the upper canopy of a stand so that the more

desirable trees in the upper canopy can be released

from competition for light. “Row thinning” is the removal of trees according to a predetermined spacing,

such as in a plantation where all of the trees in every

third or fourth row are removed. Row thinning is usually

the first thinning in a young plantation. The most common thinning practice is “free thinning,” in which the

poorer trees, regardless of spacing or condition, are cut

to release the better trees.

Some nonforesters use the term “selective” thinning

to define any of the preceding forms of thinning.

Foresters, however, generally object to this terminology

because it carries no technical meaning beyond that

some trees are “selected” to be cut. The term generally

implies cutting the better trees and leaving the poorer

ones for reasons that relate more to immediate financial

returns than to long-term development of the stand.

Selection thinning can also be confused with “selection

cutting,” which should be reserved for the uneven-aged

methods of reproduction cutting.

If the trees cut during thinning are too small to be

sold commercially, the thinning is called “precommercial

thinning.” If the trees cut can be sold to a commercial

operator, the thinning is called “commercial thinning.”

However, thinning is rarely done strictly for commercial

reasons. The purpose of thinning is to allow the uncut

trees to continue developing at an acceptable rate by

using some of the resources of the site (water, nutrients,

and light) that the cut trees had been using before the

thinning.

Release Treatments

Smith (1986) defines release treatments as those that

free desired trees from competing vegetation in stands

not yet past the sapling stage. Competitors can be

smaller (grasses and other herbaceous plants) or of

equal or larger size (woody shrubs and trees). In the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, common competitors for

oaks are other hardwood species that sprout more

profusely. For pines, competitors include grasses and

sprouting hardwood stems.

Release treatments commonly entail chemical

applications, but mechanical methods and prescribed

burning also can meet management objectives for

release. A list of accepted methods for conducting

release on national forests in the Ouachita Mountains

and Ozark Plateaus of Arkansas and Oklahoma,

including acceptable herbicides and application methods

for release, is included in USDA Forest Service (1990).

Baldwin and Boyd (1998) list herbicides and application

methods approved for release in Arkansas.

Herbaceous weeds are increasingly recognized as

significant competitors with newly planted seedlings,

especially for soil moisture. Recent research in competition control points to the success of using herbicides for

herbaceous weed control in promoting rapid early

growth of planted seedlings (Yeiser and Barnett 1991,

Yeiser and Cobb 1988). Herbicide release of pines or

hardwoods from herbaceous competition is within the

scope of approved practices on national forests in

80
Arkansas and Oklahoma (USDA FS 1990) but is rarely

used. The technique is more common on private lands in

the region. Treatment commonly includes the use of

sulfometuron in mixture with other chemicals. Details

regarding application methods and herbicides approved

for use in Arkansas are available in Baldwin and Boyd

(1998).

As competing vegetation gets larger and more

woody, the choice of methods for release expands

slightly. Felling with chain saws or other hand tools

becomes an affordable alternative in some circumstances. The usual practice is to cut the stems in closest

competition with the desired tree. In stands where pines

are desired, prescribed fire is occasionally used as a tool

for release. Surface fires will affect hardwoods more

than pines, providing the latter with a temporary competitive advantage, although hardwood trees often

resprout after fires.

Chemical methods are also highly effective for

releasing desired stems from woody competitors. One

approach is to apply an herbicide directly to the competitor of a desired sapling either by spraying the foliage

or bark or by injecting the stem (Yeiser and others 1987,

Yeiser 1986). Another approach is to apply an herbicide

to the entire area in a way, or in the season, that takes

advantage of the differences in susceptibility of hardwoods and pines. For example, pines become dormant

in late summer when hardwoods are still actively

growing. This window of differential metabolic activity

provides an opportunity to apply herbicides in such a

way that hardwoods are affected more adversely than

pines.

Among the herbicides for which this tactic is approved for use in Arkansas are imazapyr, either alone

or in mixture with glyphosate, and metsulfuron

(Baldwin and Boyd 1998). Again, these application

methods are not appropriate for national forest lands

since they were not included in the vegetation management EIS for the Ozark and Ouachita National Forests.

However, industrial and nonindustrial private forest

(NIPF) landowners may find opportunities for their

use.

Thus, the environment for developing a successful

program for the release of desired species is well

documented in the literature. Forest managers are

offered a complicated series of choices to consider. On

national forest lands, the options most often selected

tend to be those that (1) minimize the use of intensive

mechanical activity; (2) minimize the use of herbicides

and, if used, limit their application to specific individuals

rather than across the entire site; and (3) accept

considerable latitude in the number of pines that represent “acceptable establishment.”

On private industrial and NIPF lands, the options

available to landowners are much broader. Private

landowners are not constrained in their choice of the

many site preparation methods discussed above,

except insofar as they represent reasonable capital

investments.

Improvement Cutting

Smith (1986) defines improvement cutting as a

treatment applied to stands past the sapling stage

(poletimber or sawtimber-sized stands) to remove trees

of undesired or inferior species, quality, or condition that

are in competition with desired trees. Other terms

commonly used synonymously are “cull-tree removal”

(which, in the private sector, has tax implications for

expensing rather than compounding costs) or “timber

stand improvement.”

Generally, improvement cutting is the first practice

conducted in stands that have been unmanaged or

mismanaged for an extended time. If a stand has been

attended to during younger ages, the need for improvement cutting is reduced. Improvement cutting is not

commonly needed on public or private industry timberlands. The method is more likely to be used on private

lands, especially NIPF lands, in the Assessment area.

If the trees removed are of merchantable size or

value, improvement cutting often can be done at little or

no cost to the landowner by simply selling the unwanted

trees to a logging contractor or mill. However, if the

trees are of low value and poor quality, as is commonly

the case, options for commercial sale may be limited

and the landowner may have to pay for the improvement cutting.

Typical ways to conduct improvement cutting by

means other than timber sales are mechanical, chemical,

or some combination of the two. Mechanical means

include simply girdling unwanted trees with a sharp tool,

such as a hatchet or machete, or cutting them down

with a chain saw. It is generally easier and safer to use

herbicides to kill undesired trees.

81
There are several simple and effective methods of

applying herbicides to trees, including injection, hackand-squirt with a hatchet and applicator bottle, and thinline basal spray on the bark of the unwanted tree. As

noted earlier, herbicides and application methods

approved for use in Arkansas are listed in Baldwin and

Boyd (1998).

Salvage Cutting

Smith (1986) defines salvage cutting as practices

undertaken to cut trees that have succumbed, or are in

danger of succumbing, to the actions of disturbance.

Based on subjective reports from foresters in the region,

the two disturbances that occur with the greatest

frequency in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands are windstorms and insect outbreaks.

Wind damage occurs when linear winds or tornadoes

blow down or break trees. Salvage activities generally

follow to reduce fuel buildup, reestablish access and

power to affected areas, and restore forest health and/

or appearance through the felling or harvesting of trees

affected by the storms. Insect outbreaks are discussed

in Chapter 6.

Other Intermediate Treatments

There are three subsets of intermediate treatments

that Smith’s (1986) definitions do not specifically

address, and which are increasingly common in immature stands in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands—prescribed burning, fertilization, and pruning.

Prescribed burning. Prescribed burning is the use

of fire to achieve forest (or, more broadly, land) management objectives. In a sense, burning is a release or

improvement “cutting” technique designed to promote

desired fire-resistant species of sapling size or larger at

the expense of fire-sensitive species or stems of sapling

size and smaller (Yocom 1972). Prescribed burning has

the concurrent benefit of restoring fire-adapted shrub

and herbaceous communities, while reducing the

influence of species not adapted to fire (Masters and

others 1993, 1996).

Controlled burning in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Highlands is common on national forest lands (see data

presented later in this chapter) but is much less common

on other lands. Typically, prescribed fire is used in

shortleaf pine stands for three primary reasons: to

reduce fuel, to improve wildlife habitat, and to restore

open forests and herbaceous (grass, forb) components

in the ground layer.

Where consistently applied, prescribed fire has

greatly benefited ecological restoration of the shortleaf

pine-bluestem plant community and improved habitat for

the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and many

other birds (Wilson and others 1995, Bukenhofer and

Hedrick 1997). Another benefit, one noted by early

foresters in the region, is that young shortleaf pines often

sprout from the base if they are top-killed by fire

(Mattoon 1915). The best opportunities for ensuring

natural regeneration of shortleaf pine will probably be in

pine forests managed under a prescribed burning regime.

Fertilization. Fertilization refers to the practice of

applying a soil amendment to the stand to enhance tree

growth. This practice is valuable in situations where soil

or foliage analysis indicates that low amounts of one or

more essential plant nutrients are limiting tree growth.

Fertilization is more commonly used, however, in

situations later in the life of the stand where the addition

of nitrogen enhances growth within a few years of

harvest. The added value of the wood in the stem then

exceeds the cost of the fertilizer treatment. Fertilization

is an option primarily for forest industry lands in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Fertilization is never used on

public timberlands and only rarely used on NIPF lands.

Pruning. Pruning refers to the practice of cutting the

lower branches of young trees to develop stems free of

knots, which enhances the quality of the wood. The

practice is usually conducted by hand, with workers

sawing off the branches flush with the stem. Only the

first 17 to 18 ft of the bole are pruned, which enables

the first 16-ft log in the tree to be “clear” of knots. As

with fertilization, pruning is never done on public timberlands in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, and only the

most zealous NIPF landowner will tackle this arduous

task. However, pruning is being conducted extensively

on some forest industry lands in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands.

82
Silvicultural Practices for Oak-Hickory

Stands in the Assessment Area

Much of the Eastern deciduous forest is presently

oak-dominated, and foresters and ecologists usually

place oak stands in the oak-hickory forest type. Oakhickory forests, however, may be successionally stable

(changing little until a major disturbance occurs) or

transitional to forests dominated by other hardwoods

(Barrett 1995).

A transitional oak-hickory stand typically has a higher

site index (growing to 70 ft or more in 50 years) and is

usually found on better soils than a successionally stable

oak-hickory stand. But transitional oak-hickory stands

are also the most difficult to regenerate to oak. In many

cases, the dominant oaks in transitional stands developed after extensive and severe disturbances, such as

wildfire, grazing, and/or mowing (Aust and others 1985,

Lorimer 1989, Abrams 1992). In the absence of such

disturbance, ecological succession on these sites tends

toward more shade-tolerant and/or mesophytic (moisture-loving) species (Barrett 1995, Johnson 1993,

Sander and Graney 1993).

Data from the Missouri River Hills, an area just north

of the Assessment area, show that sugar maple is

increasing in importance in the lower layers of oakdominated stands where disturbance has been greatly

reduced (Pallardy and others 1988, Nigh and others

1985). Such mixed hardwood stands, however, occur

sporadically throughout the Ozarks and Ouachitas. They

make up a relatively small portion of the forest cover of

the region and typically are not under active silvicultural

management. Therefore, the silviculture of mixed

hardwood forests will not be discussed in this chapter.

However, oak-hickory stands themselves differ

slightly in species composition across the Assessment

area. Researchers think that oak-hickory stands in the

Boston Mountains behave differently than oak-hickory

stands in the Springfield Plateau. The major difference

seems to be the increased prominence of red maple and

hickories in the Boston Mountains. FIA data (previous

chapter) show that the Boston Mountains contain fewer

live hardwood trees per timberland acre than the

Springfield Plateau, but 1.5 times the hardwood growing

stock volume. Combining three species groups of

interest—the soft maples, the hickories, and the

tupelo-blackgum group—the Boston Mountains contain

2.6 times the number of live trees and 2.5 times the

growing-stock volume per timberland acre than the

Springfield Plateau. In addition, 62 percent of timberland

acres in the Boston Mountains are capable of producing

more than 50 cubic feet of hardwood per acre per year,

compared with 53 percent of the timberland acres on

the Springfield Plateau. Thus, available data suggest that

hardwood stands in the Boston Mountains have slightly

higher average productivity and a higher proportion of

shade-tolerant midstory species than the Springfield

Plateau does. These trends support the empirical

observation of forest scientists in the region that oak

regeneration is more difficult to obtain in the Boston

Mountains than in the Springfield Plateau. These trends

also suggest that there may be silvicultural differences

in the management of the oak-hickory forest type

between the regions.

Successionally stable oak-hickory stands are located

on the much more abundant low- to medium-quality

sites. These sites tend to be more prone to droughts and

to support fewer tree species (Weitzman and Trimble

1957, Roach and Gingrich 1968, Sander and Clark 1971,

Barrett 1995). These stands may develop a pool of oak

reproduction containing stems established over several

decades (Merz and Boyce 1956, Ward 1966, Clark

1970, Tryon and Powell 1984). Such ecosystems are

said to be “autoaccumulating” (Johnson 1993).

Translating these observations of natural systems into

practical silvicultural recommendations for managed

oak-hickory stands has been a challenge. Roach (1962)

suggests that if the object is simply to regenerate trees,

the method used in the central hardwoods is irrelevant.

However, if controlling species composition is an issue,

the silvicultural method is paramount. Stout and others

(1975) state that successional trends in a mixed species

stand are probabilistic and may have multiple pathways

depending on the initial species composition, site quality

(environmental variables), and chance. Sims (1980)

suggests that when oak fails to regenerate in the midsouth, the resulting stand consists of low-quality red

maple, dogwood, and sassafras.

Graney (1989) is more blunt. He states that oak must

be a significant component of regenerating stands in the

Boston Mountains because the alternative is species

that are less valuable economically and slower growing.

Unfortunately, the species that are less valuable and

83
slower growing tend to be very competitive, especially

on better sites. At present, there are few options

available for consistently securing oak reproduction.

Oaks must exist as advance growth—small saplings

living in the understory before a major disturbance—to

compete with other, faster growing vegetation following

disturbance. In addition, the size of the advance-growth

stem needed to compete is rather robust. Oaks must

have a diameter at the root collar (the point where the

stem emerges from the soil) of at least 0.5 inches

(Sander 1971) or be 4.5 ft tall (Sander and others 1976)

to have a high probability of successfully competing after

release. Oak reproduction of sufficient size and numbers

is usually present in autoaccumulating ecosystems.

Currently, the best available tool for estimating tree

regeneration potential in the Ozark Highlands is A

Comprehensive Ozark Regenerator (ACORn) (Dey and

others 1996). ACORn is available as an MS-DOS

computer program and users guide from the Forest

Service, North Central Research Station in Columbia,

MO. No comparable guidelines are available for the rest

of the Assessment area, and it is rarely advisable to use

a model outside of the region in which it was developed

and tested.

Even-Aged Reproduction Cutting Methods

Conventional silvicultural wisdom suggests that

upland hardwoods, oaks in particular, are best suited to

even-aged management (Roach 1962, Roach and

Gingrich 1968, Clark 1970, Sander 1980, Beck 1988).

Roach and Gingrich (1968) compiled an even-aged

silvicultural guide based on more than 20 years of

research across the central hardwoods region. It

includes a key for silvicultural decision-making based

primarily on stand stocking percentage and average tree

diameter. Site index is used to determine the preferred

species mix and rotation length.

Sander (1977) also presents a decision key for

tending and regenerating oak-dominated stands and oak

mixtures. Regional physiography and site indexes are

used to generate broad recommendations for silvicultural prescriptions. Both of these guides draw from

experience in and data collected from Missouri and

States to the north and east. Although the principles

should apply to most oak-dominated systems, foresters

should be cautious when applying them in the highlands

of Arkansas and Oklahoma. The authors of this chapter

know of no general silvicultural guides for the region as

a whole. Roach and Gingrich (1968) and Sander (1977),

therefore, are the best general resources currently

available for even-aged hardwood silviculture in the

Highlands.

Clearcutting Method

Clearcutting can be used to regenerate oak stands.

Successful regeneration of oak after clearcutting

depends on the presence of large oak advance reproduction before the cut. If advance-growth saplings are

present, logging and site preparation will often break

them off or sever their stems at the root collars. The

resulting sprout from the topkilled sapling has among the

best developmental potential of any tree in the stand. A

sufficient number of advance-growth stems is needed to

ensure the timely development of a suitable density of

oaks in the future stand (Nyland 1996).

To ensure successful regeneration, the reproductive

potential of a stand should be evaluated in advance of

harvest. If sufficient reproduction is present, the stand

may be regenerated. If not, one of two choices exists—

the stand may be site-prepared to stimulate oak germination and establishment, or oak stump sprouts can be

relied on to supplement the existing oak advance

growth.

In successionally stable oak-hickory stands, the

absence of large oak advance regeneration does not

mean the site will never regenerate to oak. In fact, the

authors were unable to find a single documented case in

the Assessment area of a long-term compositional shift

after an oak-hickory stand was clearcut and abandoned.

However, if sufficient numbers of large advance

reproduction and potential trees from sprouts are not

present, the regenerating stand may remain covered by

dogwood, sassafras, and/or woody shrubs for an

extended period (30+ years). When the succeeding oak

stand emerges from this brush stage, it is likely to be

understocked and have many poorly formed (opengrown) trees.

Reliance on oak stump sprouts requires post-harvest

treatment. When a stand is clearcut, all desired stems

greater than 2 in. in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.)

should also be cut. In the absence of additional treatment, these hardwoods will resprout. If sprouting is not

84
desired from a given stem, it should be injected with

herbicide or girdled instead of being cut. If cut, the

stump should be treated with a herbicide (Roach and

Gingrich 1968, Gottschalk 1983, Beck 1988).

Oak stump sprouts have good developmental potential. Based on a study of white oak, 10-year height

growth of a stump sprout is approximately 35 percent

greater than from sprouts of advance reproduction, and

stem form is comparable (McQuilkin 1975). Height

growth reaches a maximum in sprouts originating from

stumps with a diameter of 6 in. (Johnson 1979).

Seed-Tree Method

This regeneration method typically is not used to

regenerate oaks or other species with heavy seeds that

rely on advance reproduction (Sander 1980, Gottschalk

1983). Hardwoods with light seeds, such as sweetgum,

tend to remain viable on the forest floor for several

years. These species tend to have adequate seed

production annually (Roach and Gingrich 1968, Clark

and Boyce 1964, Young and Young 1992, Gottschalk

1983); therefore, the seed-tree method is not suited for

their regeneration, either.

The seed-tree method has been suggested for the

oak-hickory type for purposes other than regeneration,

including aesthetics, mast production (for wildlife), and

structural diversity. Each of these objectives has merit

but has little, if anything, to do with regeneration.

Shelterwood Method

In the event that a preharvest survey of regeneration

potential indicates that advance reproduction and sprout

potential are inadequate or of unacceptable composition,

managers can use the shelterwood method to encourage

the development of vigorous advance-growth oak

saplings. The shelterwood method consists of several

sequential cutting operations. Each cut leaves fewer

residual trees than the previous one. This method is

designed to favor the establishment and development of

oak advance growth and to control competing vegetation. When the advance growth is sufficiently dense and

of sufficient size, the final removal cut is made to

promote its development into the future stand. When

possible, stand density is reduced by thinning from

below. Initial stocking levels of 60 percent are typically

recommended to develop oak reproduction (Sander

1980, Gottschalk 1985). When properly applied, the

shelterwood method is quite successful in regenerating

oak (Loftis 1990, Graney 1989, Johnson 1993).

The remaining high canopy trees (overwood) should

not be removed until the advance reproduction and

sprout potential is sufficient to regenerate the stand. If

adequate acorn crops are infrequent or establishment

and development are slow, this process may take up to

30 years (Gottschalk 1983). An additional preparatory

cut may be needed to maintain the vigor of the developing saplings if stand stocking reaches 75 to 80 percent

during the period of regeneration. As the advance

reproduction develops, overstory stocking may be

reduced below the 60 percent level. Sander (1980)

suggests reducing stocking to about 50 percent if a

second preparatory cut is needed.

In the Boston Mountains, an initial shelterwood cut to

60 percent stocking resulted in the greatest increase in

the numbers of oak, ash, and black cherry reproduction

(Graney and Rogerson 1985). Additionally, fertilization

increased 5-year height growth of ash and cherry but

did not affect the oaks. A similar study found little

difference in the growth rates of oak, ash, and cherry at

stocking levels of 40 and 60 percent but noted a greatly

increased amount of undesirable competition at the 40

percent stocking level (Graney 1989). This same study

found that understory control (herbicide application of

cut stems) decreased undesirable competition, and the

intensity of competition control directly affected height

growth of oak, ash, and cherry. Competition control may

prove to be the most important factor in regenerating

oak on these mixed-hardwood sites.

Where an extended regeneration period is not an

option and natural regeneration has not produced the

large advance reproduction needed to successfully

regenerate a stand, underplanting may be an option.

Johnson and others (1989) successfully established 30 to

50 percent of planted northern red oak in Missouri.

They controlled the understory with herbicides, reduced

overstory stocking to approximately 60 percent, planted

large diameter seedlings (greater than 0.5 in. root collar

diameter), and removed the shelterwood after three

growing seasons. The total cost for this treatment was

estimated to be between $200 and $400 for planting 400

to 800 seedlings. Establishment probabilities increase

85
with an increase in seedling size but so do costs of

nursery stock and planting.

When the reproduction beneath a shelterwood is

sufficiently well established, the overwood is typically

removed. However, the resulting visual impact is the

same as that of a relatively young stand, which is not

desirable in some instances. When a high-forest canopy

is desired to meet aesthetic or forest-structure goals,

and uneven-aged management is not an option, some

portion of the overwood may be retained for a time,

even indefinitely. This system is called an irregular

shelterwood.

The irregular shelterwood may offer many advantages: (1) the maintenance of a high forest canopy; (2)

opportunities to harvest timber and generate returns on

a shorter cycle than for clearcutting; and (3) the regeneration period is extended as needed because of the onsite seed source. However, there are some important

limitations. The remaining overstory trees are prone to

epicormic branching (new branches sprout vertically

from older branches suddenly exposed to full sun) and

other structural defects. The overstory may suppress

the development of the subordinate trees if not kept at a

sufficiently low level of stocking. Finally, lightning and

wind-throw may eliminate some or all of the residual

overstory trees.

Research support, however, for the irregular

shelterwood method in oaks is limited. The only longterm study of the method is in West Virginia, where

Miller (1996) found that defects could be kept to an

acceptable level by retaining only trees with little or no

preharvest epicormic branching and the greatest vigor.

The same relationships probably would apply in the

Assessment area.

Uneven-Aged Reproduction Cutting Methods

Group Selection Method

Group selection may be an appropriate way to

maintain shade-intolerant tree species in a stand when

circumstances preclude the use of even-aged silvicultural systems (Roach and Gingrich 1968, Sander 1977).

Law and Lorimer (1989) present a good overview of

the method along with some general guidelines for

implementation. Because regeneration occurs only in

the openings (“groups”) when using this method, some

proportion of the stand must be regenerated on a regular

basis to maintain a stable diameter structure. Size and

placement of these groups are critical.

When using the relatively small openings of a group

selection harvest, variation in size and orientation of

openings affects their suitability for some species

(Marquis 1965). Light management is the main issue

affecting the size of group openings. Fischer (1981)

developed a computer model, SHADOS, that calculates

the effect of size, shape, and aspect on light availability

in a group opening.

Decisions about placement of group openings must

be made on site, not in the office. Foresters must

examine local conditions to identify areas where robust

advance reproduction (seedlings and saplings) is already

available and ready for “release.” In group openings

where such seedlings and saplings are absent, oak

regeneration is not likely to develop.

Group selection can be used to convert even-aged

stands to ones with uneven-aged structure. In southern

Illinois on an oak-hickory site, Schlesinger (1976b) found

that both diameter structure and species composition

were fairly stable after 16 years.

Murphy and others (1993) presented a thorough

discussion of the group selection system, including

alternative methods for dealing with stand regulation

(area versus volume control) and a methodology for

using group selection to convert even-aged stands. They

also present an argument for placing a limit of two treeheights on the size of group selection openings. Harvest

openings significantly larger than this are considered

patch cuts or clearcuts. Graney and Murphy (1997)

recently installed a large-scale experiment to test the

feasibility of converting even-aged stands in the Boston

Mountains to uneven-aged structure using both singletree selection and group selection.

Single-Tree Selection

Roach and Gingrich (1968) asserted that “upland

hardwoods cannot be reproduced with single-tree

selection.” Although there is at least one major landowner in the Highlands whose experience suggests

otherwise, there is substantial evidence that supports

their finding as it pertains to mesic (moist) forests

(Schlesinger 1976, Della-Bianca and Beck 1985,

Trimble 1970, 1973). Most experimental trials of

86
single-tree selection in oak-dominated forests, in fact,

have been made in the more mesic portions of the

central hardwoods forest where oaks tend to be displaced successionally. In such areas, single-tree selection accelerates the shift toward more shade-tolerant

species.

On drier sites, there is evidence that the use of

single-tree selection can sustain stands of oaks and

other drought tolerant but shade-intolerant hardwoods

(Johnson 1993, Loewenstein and others 1995,

Loewenstein 1996). Pioneer Forest, a large, privately

owned tract in the Ozark Highlands, has been managed

with single-tree selection for over 45 years. During this

time, the diameter structure of the forest has remained

remarkably stable. Since 1957, the oak component plus

shortleaf pine have made up over 90 percent of the

total stems and the total basal area of the forest

(Loewenstein and others 1995, Loewenstein 1996). A

1992 inventory showed white oak was the most common species in the understory (1.6 to 4.9 in. d.b.h.),

which suggests that a compositional shift toward more

shade-tolerant species is not occurring. Scientists

speculate that oak apparently is able to regenerate

under this system because the forest is autoaccumulating

and its managers maintain stands at relatively low

stocking levels (data on file at the North Central Forest

Experiment Station, Columbia, MO).

The periodic reduction of stocking below full site

utilization is essential to the periodic recruitment of oak

into the stand (Larsen and others 1997). Preliminary

silvicultural guidelines suggest a target diameter distribution defined by a residual stand stocking of between 50

and 55 percent, a cutting cycle of 15 to 20 years, and a

q-value (quotient of the number of trees in the xth

diameter class divided by the number in the (x+1)th class

such that the distribution of diameters across all classes

forms a reverse J-shaped curve) of approximately 1.7

(2-in. diameter classes). The most critical variable in the

target distribution is stocking; stand stocking should not

exceed 75 percent, unless the youngest saplings succumb to mortality from competition for light, water, and

nutrients.

Thinning

Thinning allows selected crop trees to grow more

freely, modifies stand composition and structure, and

reduces natural mortality. If a regular thinning schedule

is begun early in the life of a stand, rotation length may

be reduced by 40 percent (Gingrich 1970). The stimulating effect of thinning has been maintained for 20 years

in pole-sized white oak (Schlesinger 1978) and 10 years

in 40-year-old black and scarlet oaks (Durham and

others 1983).

Trials conducted in the Missouri Ozarks suggest that

the most profitable thinning schedule for black and/or

scarlet oak stands (assuming a market for small diameter products is available) is to begin with a

precommercial thinning at age 30 followed by additional

thinnings at 10-year intervals to age 80 (Kurtz and

others 1981). Even when there is no market for small

diameter products, a single precommercial thinning to a

residual basal area of 65 to 70 square feet per acre (ft2

/

ac) at age 30 significantly increased value over not

thinning (Kurtz and others 1981). In another study,

beginning a thinning regime at age 40 and carrying the

stand to age 63 yielded a financial gain of 35 percent in

net present value (Dwyer and Kurtz 1991).

Proper residual stocking levels must be considered

when developing a thinning schedule. Growth following

thinning in mixed stands of black and scarlet oak seems

little affected by residual basal areas in the range of 50

to 70 ft2

/ac (Durham and others 1983). If residual stand

stocking is not reduced below 50 percent, tree quality is

not seriously affected (Dale and Sonderman 1984).

However, thinning to a level below full stocking wastes

growing space and reduces yield and return (Durham

and others 1983). Reducing the stocking to approximately 60 ft2

/ac (the “B-level” specified by Gingrich

1967) is the heaviest thinning recommended.

Often, foresters’ first efforts at thinning occur in

previously unmanaged stands. The last stocking-control

thinning should be made at approximately two-thirds of

the rotation age (60 to 70 years for oak on medium

quality sites) (Roach and Gingrich 1968).

Graney (1989) says that oak must be a significant

component in young stands in western Arkansas or the

forest will be stocked with less valuable, slower growing

species. An initial shelterwood cut to 60 percent stocking resulted in the greatest increase in the number of

87
oak, ash, and black cherry reproduction (Graney and

Rogerson 1985). A similar study found little difference

in growth rates of oak, ash, and cherry at stocking levels

of 40 and 60 percent but noted a greatly increased

amount of undesirable competition at the 40-percent

stocking level (Graney 1989). The same study concluded that understory control (herbicides applied to cut

stems) decreased competition and that the intensity of

competition control directly affected height growth of

oak, ash, and cherry.

Silvicultural Practices for Shortleaf Pine

Stands in the Assessment Area

Summaries of shortleaf pine literature, with special

reference to silviculture, are found in several sources.

Lawson (1990) and Lawson and Kitchens (1983)

present information on silvicultural systems for shortleaf

pine. Citations of older literature are found in a bibliography on shortleaf pine that covers literature from

1896 to 1984 (Hu and Burns 1987). However, this

reference does not distinguish between citations about

pure stands of shortleaf pine in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands versus the very different stands of mixed

loblolly-shortleaf pine (in which shortleaf is a minor and

varying component) in the West Gulf Coastal Plain and

in the southern and southeastern Piedmont and Coastal

Plain. A third summary of shortleaf pine is found in the

proceedings of the Symposium on the Shortleaf Pine

Ecosystem, published as an unnumbered State Extension Service document (Murphy 1986). Papers in this

publication refer more directly to the shortleaf pine type

in the Highlands. Baker (1992) provides an overview of

reproduction cutting methods and natural regeneration in

shortleaf pine from a theoretical basis. Site quality

assessment and site-index curves applicable to shortleaf

pine in the Highlands are also available (Graney 1976;

Ferguson and Graney 1972, 1975; Graney and Burkhart

1973; Graney and Ferguson 1972).

National forests in the Highlands rarely plant conifers

other than shortleaf pine, the only native pine species in

all but the southernmost part of the region. The private

sector enjoys greater flexibility in terms of species to

plant. In fact, a major forest industry in the Highlands

has conducted extensive research on loblolly pine in the

Highlands and planted this species well to the north of

its natural range as defined in Critchfield and Little

(1966).

Planting loblolly pine outside its range does involves

some risk. Why the natural range of loblolly pine stops

in the southernmost part of the Highlands is poorly

understood. The risk is that the conditions that limit the

range of loblolly pine naturally might adversely affect

plantations at some point in their development. A 1980

drought in Arkansas, for example, killed loblolly trees in

some plantations established from non-Arkansas seed

sources (Lambeth 1984). Yet the 1-year drought in

1980 was not the worst on record in the State. A

drought of similar intensity occurred during a 3-year

period in the 1950’s. There is a question as to whether

loblolly plantations in the Highlands could survive an

extended drought if one should occur. Because of the

considerable economic benefits provided by widespread

planting of loblolly pine in the Highlands, an environmental and economic risk analysis of the practice might

be beneficial. Loblolly pine, however, is not discussed

further in this section.

Even-aged Reproduction Cutting Methods

Clearcutting and Planting

Clearcutting and planting is an excellent reproduction

cutting method for shortleaf pine stands in the Highlands. All clearcuts on public timberlands and almost all

that are done on private timberlands owned by forest

industry in the Assessment area are reforested by

planting. This combination of clearcutting and planting is

a highly reliable way to regenerate shortleaf pine and

pine-hardwood stands in the Highlands.

Clearcutting typically results in harvest of all merchantable pines on the site. Site preparation begins after

the harvest ends. It is usually done using mechanical

means, such as shearing with a bulldozer-mounted KG

blade, drum-chopping with a rolling chopper pulled by a

bulldozer, or chainsaw felling. Occasionally, unharvested

material is scraped into piles or windrows. Only the

most intensive methods result in diminished hardwood

sprouting. Herbicides generally must be used to further

control sprouting. Several herbicides and application

techniques are effective, including spraying resprouting

vegetation (Baldwin and Boyd 1998).

88
Fire is frequently used for site preparation after

clearcutting, since there is little concern about damage

to residual trees. The major reason to use fire after

clearcutting is to get rid of slash and other logging debris

and to topkill unmerchantable small trees left behind

after the clearcut. Even though fire will also expose the

mineral soil, this is not an important result if the stand is

to be planted.

Ripping is used after clearcutting to create furrows

for planting. Shortleaf seedlings planted in “rips” have

survival rates at least 20 percent greater than those

planted on unripped sites (Walker 1992). Such differences often represent the difference between plantation

success and failure in the Highlands.

The final step in establishing a new stand is to plant

seedlings. Typical planting densities recommended for

shortleaf pine depend upon landowner objectives. On

national forest lands, densities resulting in 300 or more

trees per acre of free-to-grow shortleaf pine stems are

generally acceptable; greater densities allow more

opportunities for commercial thinning to improve stand

conditions over time. Generally, spacings of 6 by 8 ft

(908 trees/ac) are recommended under the Conservation

Reserve Program guidelines. National forest clearcuts

typically have been replanted using spacings of from

7 by 8 ft (778 trees/ac) to 8 by 10 ft (544 trees/ac).

Clearcutting and plantations have been so unpopular

with the general public in the region that national forests

in the Highlands typically no longer clearcut and plant

except under exceptional situations. These exceptions

include the rehabilitation of poorly stocked lands that

come into Government ownership and the reforestation

of areas affected by catastrophic disturbance.

Natural regeneration after a clearcut is an option for

shortleaf pine (Lawson and Kitchens 1983). The size

of the clearcut, however, must be much smaller than

the one designed to precede planting because seed

dispersal is likely to be limited. In one approach, the

stand is clearcut in a patch or in strips small enough

that the seeds can blow in from surrounding trees.

Seeds can travel 66 to 132 ft from the nearest producer

(Yocom 1971). The most effective way to combine

natural regeneration with clearcutting is to cut narrow

strips no more than 2 to 4 chains (132 to 264 ft) wide,

oriented perpendicular to the prevailing winds. However, the authors know of no instances in the Highlands

where managers use strip clearcutting with natural

regeneration.

The second option for natural regeneration is to rely

on seeds already on the site. The stand can be felled in

the autumn when cones are mature but before the seeds

have dispersed. The tops of the harvested trees will dry

out quickly; the cones will open; and mature seeds

should fall to the ground, germinate, and become

established (Smith 1986, Lawson 1990). While theoretically feasible, this option is risky. It only gives one

chance for the overstory trees to naturally seed the site.

If the technique does not result in successful seedling

establishment, then the only option is the more expensive process of planting.

Seed-Tree Method

The seed-tree method can be an effective tool for

regenerating shortleaf pine (Brinkman and Rogers 1967,

Lawson and Kitchens 1983). Obviously, the trees that

provide the seeds are critical. Brinkman and Rogers

noted that 5 (preferably 10) well-spaced trees per acre

were necessary; Lawson and Kitchens suggested 10 to

16 trees/ac. This range of from 5 to 16 trees would

result in spacing between trees of from 93 to 52 ft. A

spacing between trees of 66 ft, which according to

Yocom (1971) would provide reliable seed dispersal in

both windward and leeward directions, results in 10

trees/ac.

The ratio of seed coverage can be considered as

well. If a tree disperses the seeds in a circle with a 66-

ft radius circle, each tree covers 0.31 ac. Five and 16

trees/ac provide 1.57 and 5.02 ac of seedfall area per

acre.

In Missouri, good shortleaf pine seed crops occur

every 5 to 7 years (Brinkman and Rogers 1967). Other

references cite data suggesting good seed crops occur

every 3 to 6 years (Fowells 1965). In the most comprehensive study to date, Shelton and Wittwer (1992)

reported three good or better seed crops over a 9-year

period in the Highlands. However, there were periods

and areas (especially the western Ouachitas) where

seed production was more limited. Thinning trees

several years before harvest was important because this

allowed trees to enlarge their crowns and increased

their likelihood of successful cone crops. As in other

pines of the South, cone production is a highly inherited

89
trait (Dorman 1976). Since shortleaf pine retains its

cones well after seed dispersal, one of the keys to

choosing seed trees is to look for evidence of cone

production in the past.

Shelton and Wittwer (1996) and Guldin and others

(1993) suggest that dense stands of shortleaf pine that

have not been recently thinned contain many trees with

small crowns and little evidence of cone production.

Furthermore, crowns and cones respond to treatments

that provide growing space in the canopy. Thus, in

unthinned shortleaf stands, marking and leaving seed

trees may be less effective than thinning before harvest,

observing which of the residual trees become fruitful,

then choosing seed trees based on direct evidence of

cone production.

To the extent possible, site preparation after harvest

should be associated with seedfall. Logging and mechanical site preparation after logging must be done

carefully to minimize damage to the residual trees.

Burning is easier to conduct before a harvest than after

a harvest, because harvesting will add considerable

inflammable material to the forest floor, thereby increasing the risk that overly hot fires will damage the residual

trees. Logging by itself can provide sufficient exposure

of mineral soil to ensure that favorable seedbeds exist

for naturally regenerated seedlings to become established and to develop.

Shelterwood Method

The shelterwood method is another successful

reproduction cutting method for shortleaf pine (Lawson

and Kitchens 1983, Shelton 1997). Lawson and Kitchens report that recommended residual basal areas for

the shelterwood method are between 50 and 60 ft2

/ac or

when “half the stand” is retained. Shelton used target

residual basal areas of 30 ft2

/ac. Other studies in the

region used shelterwood prescriptions that leave 30 to

40 ft2

/ac of pine in the overstory (Guldin and others

1994).

Shelton (1997) reviewed the significance of hardwood competition for shortleaf pine. He observed that

adding 15 ft2

/ac of hardwoods to 30 ft2/ac of pines

essentially doubled the effective canopy coverage. To

meet a shelterwood target basal area for pine seedling

development of 40 ft2

/ac by retaining both overstory

pines and overstory hardwoods, the basal area of the

hardwoods must be doubled and added to the pines.

Both the seed-tree and shelterwood methods can

probably be adapted to accommodate the added shade

from hardwoods in mixed-species stands.

As with the seed-tree method, site preparation after

harvest should be associated with seedfall. Logging and

mechanical site preparation after logging must be done

carefully to minimize damage to the seed-bearing

trees—and the more trees that remain after harvest, the

more difficult this becomes. Burning is easier before the

harvest than after the harvest because harvesting will

add considerable fuel to the forest floor, which will

increase the possibility of damage to the residual trees.

Logging might provide sufficient exposure of some

mineral soil to ensure favorable seedbeds for naturally

regenerated seedlings. However, mineral soil exposure

will probably be less than after a seed-tree harvest

because fewer trees are being cut. Therefore, foresters

must determine if mineral soil exposure is adequate and,

if necessary, conduct a treatment to expose additional

mineral soil. A scarification tool pulled by a small

bulldozer has been effective for this sort of seedbed

preparation in operational practice in shortleaf pine

stands on national forests in Arkansas.

The timing and degree of overstory removal should

be considered in the shelterwood method. Data suggest

that natural, even-aged stands of shortleaf pine in the

Ouachita Mountains add about 2 ft2

/ac annually

(Murphy and others 1992). If the residual basal area

under a shelterwood is 40 ft2

/ac, in 10 years the basal

area will increase to 60 ft2

/ac. At this point, regeneration may become suppressed (Shelton 1997, Baker and

others 1996). Thus, to ensure long-term sustainability,

some removal cutting in the residual stand will become

necessary. One option is to remove the overstory after

natural regeneration is established. Another is to

manage for a two-aged stand, removing part but not all

of the residual overstory when sapling development

might be suppressed.

In summary, the shelterwood method is an effective

method for regenerating shortleaf pine in the Highlands.

Where seed production is the most limiting factor for

successful natural regeneration, the shelterwood method

is preferable to the seed-tree method. Shelterwoods

leave more residual trees and produce higher seedfall. If

overstory hardwoods are mixed with pines in the

shelterwood, care must be taken to ensure that the

90
added cover from hardwoods does not impede regeneration. Long-term retention of the shelterwood overstory must be observed so that all or part of the canopy

can be removed if regeneration is being adversely

affected.

Uneven-Aged Reproduction Cutting Methods

Little is known about uneven-aged silviculture in

shortleaf pine stands in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

(Murphy and others 1991, 1993). However, research in

the Coastal Plain loblolly-shortleaf stands at the Crossett

Experimental Forest (e.g., Reynolds 1969, Reynolds and

others 1984) provides considerable knowledge about

uneven-aged silviculture in Arkansas pine stands. Two

factors limit the interpretation of that work: (1) the

differences in silvics, especially regeneration ecology, of

loblolly pine compared with shortleaf pine; and (2) the

difficulty of harvesting on the terrain in the Highlands.

Experiments to test uneven-aged methods are in place

to compare group selection and single-tree selection

stands in the Ouachita Mountains and Arkansas Valley

(Shelton and Murphy 1997, Guldin and others 1994).

Lawson and Kitchens (1983) reported that shortleaf

pine can be managed using the selection system. They

note that the system has been used in understocked

stands and that control of hardwoods has been applied.

They cite Reynolds (1969) to support their observations.

At least one timber company in the Highlands uses

uneven-aged silviculture for shortleaf pine. The goal of

this company is to produce high-quality sawlogs, and

they have found that uneven-aged silviculture best

meets this goal. One key to that company’s success is

that it has controlled hardwoods with herbicides. In light

of the observed effects of hardwood canopies on forest

regeneration (Shelton 1997), it is unclear whether mixed

pine-hardwood stands can be managed using unevenaged reproduction cutting methods.

Group Selection

The group selection method increasingly is being

used in shortleaf pine on national forest timberlands in

the Assessment area. With this method, the stand is

managed by periodically creating openings as large as 2

ac. The forest matrix between the openings is often

thinned. No long-term research data exist that can

enable scientists to determine if the method is sustainable either in the short term or the long term. Several

studies are in place, however, to examine the feasibility

of the method (Shelton and Murphy 1997, Guldin and

others 1994).

The goal of the method is to develop a series of age

classes so that the stand will be sustainable in regeneration, growth, and volume production. Natural seedfall

from nearby stands, together with seeds produced on

site during harvest, produce the regeneration. Generally,

site preparation and release treatments take place only

in the groups because regeneration is not expected

between the groups. Loggers like to use the group

openings as the concentration point for skidding logs

from the woods and loading them onto their trucks. As

a result, most of these openings are heavily disturbed

during logging. This creates a suitable seedbed for pine

seedlings to become established.

Regulation of group selection stands is the subject of

considerable debate (Murphy and others 1993). Regulation methods that rely on assessment of structure or

volume are generally thought to be more consistent with

the philosophy of uneven-aged silviculture than regulation by area. Area-based regulation approaches to group

selection tread closely to the notion of patch

clearcutting.

Despite these theoretical concerns, group selection

has recently been a popular choice in the Interior

Highlands. Reliance on natural regeneration in the

group openings suggests openings should be small and

under the ecological influence of the surrounding stands.

Preparation of the seedbed and control of competing

vegetation is probably more important in the group

selection method than other methods, since some

alternatives for seedbed preparation, such as prescribed

fire, are less feasible in group selection than in other

reproduction methods.

Single-Tree Selection

The single-tree selection method is currently the

subject of considerable interest in shortleaf pine stands

in the Assessment area (Murphy and others 1991;

Baker 1994; Guldin and others 1993, 1994; Shelton and

Murphy 1997). Lawson and Kitchens (1983) reported

shortleaf pine can be managed in uneven-aged stands,

but they cited no data from pure shortleaf stands in the

91
Highlands to support the contention. Long-term data

demonstrating the feasibility of the method do not yet

exist.

However, empirical observations support the contention. A major timber company in the Assessment area

has managed an extensive land base in the Highlands

using the selection method for several decades. The

timber company maintains a residual basal area in the

stand after harvest of between 50 and 60 ft2

/ac, marking trees only from the sawtimber component of the

stand, allowing the sub-sawtimber component to develop

without regulation and managing primarily for pine.

Herbicides are used during every cutting cycle harvest

to control hardwoods.

As pointed out in Lawson and Kitchens (1983) and

Baker (1992), Coastal Plain loblolly-shortleaf pine

stands can be managed with single-tree selection. This

provides a starting point for applying the method in

shortleaf pine stands of the Assessment area, using

adaptations of the method developed at Crossett. In

southern Arkansas, foresters have regulated stands by

either the volume control-guiding diameter limit method

(Reynolds and others 1984) or the structural control

method.

These efforts are directed toward obtaining shortleaf

pine regeneration with every harvest and securing

successful development from seedling to maturity.

Shelton and Murphy (1997) observed that hardwoods

severely affect environmental conditions in the understory and suppress pines. Shelton (1997) suggests that

hardwoods have twice the apparent canopy cover of

pines per square foot of basal area. Hardwoods may

adversely affect pine establishment and development at

pine basal areas close to 60 ft2

/ac (Shelton and Murphy

1997). Considerably more research is needed to quantify the relative influence of pines and hardwoods,

especially at basal areas of 60 ft2

/ac and higher.

The most critical element in applying the single-tree

selection method in shortleaf pine is to ensure regeneration establishment and development. Doing so requires a

balance of proper shade management, appropriate

actions for site preparation and preparation of the

seedbed, and sensitivity to the early differences between height growth of sprouting hardwoods versus

seed-origin pines (Baker and others 1996, Guldin and

Baker 1998, Shelton and Murphy 1997). There is

probably less room for error in the application of

uneven-aged single-tree selection method than in any

other reproduction cutting method. The tendency is to

leave too many trees, provide too little mineral soil

exposure for seedling establishment, and allow too much

vegetation to compete with the pine seedlings. If

regeneration fails, however, reproduction cutting can be

reapplied or a supplemental site preparation treatment

can be used.

In summary, application of the single-tree selection

method in shortleaf pine is in its infancy in both research

and practice. Data from empirical practice and research

studies suggest careful attention to residual basal area,

careful preparation of seedbed and site, and control of

competing hardwoods are keys to success. Success

must be defined in terms of establishment and development of pine regeneration, regardless of regulatory

scheme. However, application of the method can be

done conservatively, with opportunities for incremental

retreatment of the overstory and/or understory if

regeneration is not obtained.

Thinning

Shortleaf pine responds well to thinning, as Lawson

(1990) and Lawson and Kitchens (1983) document. The

advantages of thinning include accelerated diameter

growth and development of larger trees more rapidly

than in unthinned stands. The intensity of thinning

depends on ownership objectives, since more intensive

thinning enhance individual tree volume development at

the expense of stand volume.

Wittwer and others (1996) note that shortleaf pine

in the Ouachita Mountains responds to release, with

diameter increases more pronounced in the eastern

Ouachitas than the western Ouachitas. Nickles and

others (1981) note that precommercial thinning can be

accomplished with prescribed fire and herbicide

application.

Numerous reports, then, demonstrate the response of

shortleaf pine to thinning. As more models are developed with individual tree capability, the ability of forest

managers and landowners to project the outcomes of

alternative approaches will increase.

92
Silvicultural Practices on the Highlands’

National Forests

The three national forests in the Assessment have

undergone dramatic changes in silvicultural practices

over the last 10 years. This section summarizes those

changes.

Data Sources

Each national forest in the Assessment area provided

data for 1986 through 1997 in the following broad

categories of silvicultural activity: volumes offered and

cut, reproduction cutting methods employed, reforestation, site preparation, release treatments, and intermediate treatments. Because of differences in reporting

methods and requirements on each national forest,

uniformity at a detailed level was not possible. However,

general categories and trends were reported that offer

insights into the changing nature of silvicultural activities

on national forests over time.

National forests report the progress of their timber

program in several ways. Briefly stated, three volume

measurements are used. The first, “volume offered,” is

the total volume of timber offered to bidders in a given

fiscal year (recorded at the point when the timber sale is

advertised to the public). This is the primary variable

national forests use to judge whether the timber program

meets levels suggested by Congress and allocated by

national and regional headquarters of the Forest Service.

A second, “volume sold,” is the amount of timber

actually sold for harvest. This measure generally

reflects the volume offered on a year-by-year basis,

after accounting for variation resulting from timber

being offered at the end of a given fiscal year and sold

in the subsequent year, since nearly all advertised timber

sales are sold. If a forest did not report volume offered,

volume sold was used for comparison.

Finally, “volume cut” is the amount of timber actually

harvested in a given fiscal year. It does not exactly

mirror the others, since timber purchasers generally are

given contracts that span several years.

The Terrestrial Team requested data on reproduction

cutting by type of cutting method, reported in acres

treated per year. The Ouachita National Forest reported

reproduction cutting data for 1986 through 1995 (uneven-aged methods) or 1996 (even-aged methods); the

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests reported data for

1987 through 1997; the Mark Twain National Forest

reported data for 1988 through 1995.

There were some differences in reporting by year in

specific instances. For example, the Ouachita reported

total uneven-aged reproduction cutting, but not singletree and group selection totals, in 1996. The Team

accounted for these discrepancies as missing data when

preparing graphs.

The Team also requested reforestation data by

planted versus naturally regenerated for pine, hardwood,

and total. All forests provided total reforestation area.

The Ozark-St. Francis National Forests were able to

provide data broken down by species and whether

reforestation was by planting or natural regeneration.

The Ouachita National Forest provided data for pine

seedlings planted and pine regenerated naturally.

The Team requested data on specific forms of site

preparation: ripping, shear/rake/windrow, other scarifying, manual felling, chemical by area, chemical by stem,

prescribed burning, and other. However, national forests

do not track site preparation by such specific categories.

Combinations are typical, and reporting requirements

vary by region.

In addition, land managers use some site preparation

techniques by themselves and others in combination.

Records of these treatments may also vary. For

example, if manual felling is done alone in one stand and

done in conjunction with herbicide treatment in another,

the method of recording the treatments may differ from

one forest to another. Because of these limitations, only

two of the three national forests were able to report on

total site preparation, and these reports only included a

subset of the requested categories.

The Team sought data concerning specific forms of

release treatment: herbicide treatment using aerial spray,

herbicide treatment of individual stems, manual cutting,

and other methods. However, the same reporting

difficulties described for site preparation apply for

reporting of release treatments as well. Only two of the

three national forests were able to report on release

treatments, and these reports only included a subset of

the requested categories.

The Team obtained some data regarding intermediate

treatments, including (1) precommercial thinning,

93
(2) commercial thinning, (3) prescribed fire, (4) wildlife

habitat improvement, (5) midstory removal, and (6)

timber stand improvement. There was insufficient

uniformity in the available information for the Team to

assess use of these treatments across the Assessment

area. Thus, total acres treated and trends in individual

treatments are reported for each national forest.

Patterns and Trends

Volume Harvested

Over the last 12 years, the volume of timber offered

on the three national forests in the Assessment area has

declined, from slightly more than 300 million board feet

in 1986 to 225 million board feet in 1997 (fig. 4.1). The

highest volume offered was 340 million board feet in

fiscal year 1987; the lowest was 150 million board feet

in 1991.

The decline in volume from 1987 to 1991 was

dramatic, and the result of both internal and external

influences which together acted to limit the timber sale

program. The total decline in volume offered on the

three national forests between 1987 and 1991 was 192

million board feet, of which 70 percent occurred on the

Ouachita National Forest and 21 percent on the Ozark

National Forest.

Since 1992, however, the total volume offered by the

three national forests has declined from slightly more

than 250 million board feet in 1992 to slightly less than

225 million board feet in 1997. Of the three national

forests, the Ouachita and Mark Twain National Forests

have seen slight declines in volume offered over the

past 6 years, whereas the Ozark-St. Francis National

Forests have seen a slight increase.

The volume cut on the three national forests reflects

the pattern in volume offered—declines from 1986 to

1992, followed by increases from 1993 through 1996

(fig. 4.2). Generally, the annual change in volume cut is

less than that of volume offered, and variation in annual

changes is less as well, as suggested in the following

tabulation:

Standard

Annual change Mean error

 - - - Million board feet - - -

Volume offered 36.6 8.91

Volume cut 30.7 6.46

This relationship exists because the 3-year contract

window typically given to timber purchasers attenuates

the annual variation in volume offered. As with volume

offered, the volume cut on the Ouachita National Forest

has been much more variable than the volumes cut on

either the Mark Twain National Forest or the Ozark-St.

Francis National Forest.

The minimum for volume cut (which occurred in

1992) is a year later than the minimum for volume

offered (fig. 4.3). Comparable time lags are apparent

from 1988 through 1992, when volumes from national

forests were declining. Timber purchasers were unable

to maintain a backlog of purchased volume during these

years and essentially cut the available amount soon after

it was sold. Since 1992, the general trend has been for

volume cut to be slightly less than the previous year’s

volume offered, suggesting some portion of volume

offered is not being immediately cut.

Figure 4.1—Timber volume offered (Ouachita National Forest)

or offered and sold (Ozark-St. Francis and Mark Twain

National Forests) on the national forests in the Assessment

area, 1986 through 1997. (Comparable data were not available

for all forests; volume offered and volume offered and sold in a

given year tend to be nearly identical, however.)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Million board feet

Total Mark Twain NF

Ouachita NF Ozark NF

94
Reproduction Cutting

The three national forests in the Assessment area

have virtually eliminated clearcutting (fig. 4.4). From

1988 through 1996, the area harvested through

clearcutting declined from 27,729 ac to 698 ac—a

decline of 97.5 percent. Each national forest contributed to the decline. In 1996, clearcutting was conducted

at 5.4 percent of 1988 levels on the Mark Twain

National Forest, and at 1 percent of 1987 levels on the

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. The Ouachita

National Forest has conducted no operational

clearcutting since 1991 (the 195 ac clearcut in 1993

were the “control” treatments in the Southern Research Station’s Phase II stand-level ecosystem

management research program).

Another way to quantify the decline in clearcutting is

to track the proportion of total reproduction cutting area

that this method represents each year. In 1988,

clearcutting accounted for 93.5 percent of all acres

subject to reproduction cutting on the three national

forests in the Assessment area; by 1996, it accounted

for only 2.6 percent. Without question, this dramatic

decline in clearcutting is the single most significant

silvicultural trend on national forests in the Assessment

area.

Figure 4.2—Timber volume cut on the three national forests in

the Assessment area, 1986 through 1997.

Figure 4.3—Timber volume offered (Ouachita National Forest)

or offered and sold (Ozark-St. Francis and Mark Twain

National Forests) and volume cut on the national forests in the

Assessment area, 1986 through 1997. (Comparable data were

not available for all forests; volume offered and volume offered

and sold in a given year tend to be nearly identical, however.)

Figure 4.4—Area harvested using the even-aged clearcutting

reproduction cutting method on the national forests in the

Assessment area, 1986 through 1996.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Million board feet 

Total Mark Twain NF

Ouachita NF Ozark NF

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Volume, million board feet

Volume offered (sold)

Volume cut

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Acres cut by clearcutting

Ouachita NF

Ozark NF

MarkTwain NF

Total

95
During the same period, the use of several methods

of reproduction cutting increased. These methods

include the even-aged seed-tree and shelterwood

methods and uneven-aged group selection and singletree selection methods. The increase in these other

methods is directly related to the decline in clearcutting.

Use of the seed-tree method increased over the past

decade, with prominent increases in 1992 and 1993 (fig.

4.5). Reproduction cutting using the seed-tree method

averaged 2,382 ac/year over the 6-year period from

1991 through 1996, which is equivalent to 8.6 percent of

acres clearcut in 1998.

Although the seed-tree method has been increasingly

applied, it has not been a major substitution for

clearcutting because the method is a poor choice for

regeneration of oak-hickory stands (see preceding

discussion). Virtually all seed-tree cutting on national

forest lands in the Assessment area has been in pine

forests.

A slightly larger increase has occurred in the use of

the shelterwood method (fig. 4.6). From 1991 through

1996, the area harvested using the shelterwood method

averaged 3,157 ac/year, or 11.4 percent of the acres

clearcut in 1988. The Mark Twain National Forest

applied the most shelterwood cutting (57 percent of the

total), averaging over 1,800 ac annually from 1991

through 1996.

National forest managers also made increased use in

the 1990’s of the uneven-aged group selection method

(fig. 4.7). Together, the Ozark-St. Francis and Ouachita

National Forests applied group selection on an average

of 4,067 ac annually from 1991 through 1995, which is

equivalent to 25.4 percent of the total area clearcut on

those two forests in 1988.

The largest increase was in the use of the unevenaged single-tree selection method (fig. 4.8). Together,

the Ozark-St. Francis and Ouachita National Forests

applied single-tree selection on an average of 8,916 ac

annually from 1991 through 1995, which is equivalent to

55.7 percent of the total area clearcut on those two

forests in 1988.

Thus, using the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis

National Forests as the basis, single-tree selection was

used on more than two-thirds of the uneven-aged

reproduction cutting areas between 1991 and 1995. This

is more likely due to its being the polar opposite of

Figure 4.5—Area harvested using the even-aged seed-tree

reproduction cutting method on the national forests in the

Assessment area, 1986 through 1996.

Figure 4.6—Area harvested using the even-aged shelterwood

reproduction cutting method on the national forests in the

Assessment area, 1986 through 1996.

Figure 4.7—Area harvested using the uneven-aged group

selection reproduction cutting method on the Ouachita and

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, 1986 through 1995.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Acres of seed-tree cutting

Total

Mark Twain NF

Ouachita NF

Ozark NF

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Acres cut by shelterwood

Total

MarkTwain NF

Ouachita NF

Ozark NF

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

Fiscal year

Acres cut by group selection

Total

Ouachita

Ozark

96
Figure 4.8—Area harvested using the uneven-aged single-tree

selection reproduction cutting method on the Ouachita and

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, 1986 through 1995.

clearcutting than any innate advantages of the singletree selection method for either pine or oak-hickory

silviculture, because the research basis for application of

single-tree selection in these forest types is extremely

limited.

The reproduction cutting trends over the past decade

can be summarized by combining the three even-aged

methods (clearcutting, seed-tree, and shelterwood

methods) and the two uneven-aged methods (group

selection and single-tree selection methods). Data from

the three national forests clearly show the decline in

area subject to even-aged reproduction cutting and the

increase in area subject to uneven-aged reproduction

cutting over this time period (fig. 4.9). Even-aged

methods declined from 29,343 ac in 1988 to 5,286 ac in

1996, a decrease of nearly 82 percent.

Conversely, the area in uneven-aged methods

increased from 359 ac in 1988 to 21,437 ac in 1996—a

60-fold increase. From 1992 through 1996, uneven-aged

methods averaged 21,916 ac and even-aged methods

7,724 ac (74 percent and 26 percent, respectively, of the

total annual reproduction cutting on the three national

forests in the Assessment area).

Reforestation

Between 1986 and 1997, reforestation on the three

national forests of the Assessment area declined from

32,600 to 23,600 ac/year (fig. 4.10). The decline was

17.8 percent in the Ouachita, 43.1 percent in the OzarkSt. Francis, and 31.9 percent in the Mark Twain.

Figure 4.9—Area harvested using all even-aged methods, all

uneven-aged methods, and total area harvested using all

reproduction cutting methods on the national forests in the

Assessment area, 1988 through 1996.

Figure 4.10—Area subject to reforestation on the national

forests in the Assessment area, 1986 through 1997.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

Fiscal year

Acres cut by single-tree selection

Total

Ouachita NF

Ozark NF

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Acres of reproduction cutting

Total

Even-aged

Uneven-aged

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Reforestation acres

Total

Ouachita NF

Mark Twain NF

Ozark NF

97
However, the acres reforested compares favorably with

acres subject to reproduction cutting. Between 1988 and

1996, the cumulative area harvested by reproduction

cutting was 235,874 ac, and the cumulative area reforested was 239,645 ac—indicating that the national

forest managers achieved prompt reforestation of

harvested lands.

In the Assessment area, reforestation is generally

limited to planting of pine seedlings, natural regeneration

of pine, and natural regeneration of hardwoods. The

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests broke down their

reforestation efforts by each of these categories, but the

only clear trend is a steady decline in acres planted in

pine (fig. 4.11). Generally speaking, pine planting

declined from 1986 through 1997, natural regeneration

of pine slightly increased, and natural regeneration of

hardwoods decreased slightly. On the Ozark-St. Francis

National Forests, hardwood planting is extremely rare.

Experience suggests planting hardwoods is not yet

practical and effective as an operational practice on

national forest lands in the Assessment area.

Reforestation in the pine type on the Ozark-St.

Francis and Ouachita National Forests shows two clear

trends (fig. 4.12): pine planting has declined dramatically, and natural regeneration of pine has increased

equally dramatically. This trend parallels the reproduction cutting trend almost exactly.

The standard reforestation prescription following

clearcutting in pine stands is to reforest the site by

planting pine seedlings. The decline in clearcutting is

mirrored almost exactly by a decline in pine planting

across the Assessment area, and the rise in natural

reforestation of pine similarly parallels the increase in

the use of modified seedtree and shelterwood techniques and uneven-aged reproduction cutting methods in

pine stands across the Assessment area.

Site Preparation

Trends in site preparation for the reporting forests

suggest a slight decrease over time (fig. 4.13). Between

1988 and 1997, the Ouachita National Forest reported a

decrease in site preparation from 22,652 ac to 17,166 ac,

a decline of 24 percent. The Ozark-St. Francis National

Forests reported a decrease from 7,128 ac to 2,937 ac

over the same period, a decline of 58.8 percent. Thus,

fewer acres are currently being site prepared than a

decade ago.

Figure 4.11—Area subject to reforestation by planting pine,

natural regeneration of pine, natural regeneration of hardwoods,

and planting hardwoods on the Ozark-St. Francis National

Forests, 1986 through 1997.

Figure 4.12—Area subject to reforestation of pine by planting

and natural regeneration on the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis

National Forests, 1986 through 1997.

The clearest trends are on the Ouachita National

Forest, which reported two primary forms of site

preparation: herbicide application to individual stems,

which has declined dramatically, and prescribed burning,

which has increased gradually (fig. 4.14). Herbicide

application for site preparation declined from 12,705 ac

in 1988 to 2,132 ac in 1997 an 83 percent decline over

the 10-year period.

Conversely, acres burned in site preparation on the

Ouachita increased from 536 ac in 1989 to 3,137 ac in

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Reforestation acres

Pine planted

Pine natural seeding

Hardwood natural seeding/sprouting

Hardwood planted

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Reforestation acres

Pine planted

Pine natural

98
Figure 4.13—Area subject to site preparation on the

Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, 1988

through 1997.

Figure 4.14—Area subject to site preparation by either

herbicide application through individual stems or prescribed

burning on the Ouachita National Forest, 1988 through 1997.

1997. Each year slightly more acres have been burned

than the previous year, which suggests limits in using

prescribed fire for site preparation have not yet been

reached.

On the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, site

preparation treatments are more variable, but generally

are on downward tracks. Manual felling decreased

between 1988 and 1997 (fig. 4.15) but erratically, with

large decreases contrasting with small increases.

Figure 4.15—Area subject to site preparation by either

herbicide application through individual stems or manual felling

on the Ozark-St Francis National Forests, 1988 through 1997.

Similarly, herbicide application to individual stems has

been variably applied, although acres treated in 1997

were only about half those treated in 1988.

Release

Trends in release treatments for the reporting forests

suggest a marked decrease over time (fig. 4.16).

Between 1988 and 1997, the Ouachita National Forest

reported a decrease in release treatments from 8,164 ac

to 2,409 ac, a decline of 70.5 percent. The Ozark-St.

Francis National Forests reported a similar decrease of

from 7,646 ac to 1,920 ac over the same period, a

decline of 74.4 percent.

Thus, in one 10-year period, release treatments have

declined substantially. By and large, this trend is in

keeping with the increasingly prevalent philosophy of

managing for mixtures of pine and hardwoods; the

greater the tolerance for hardwoods in pine stands, for

example, the less need there is to use release treatments

to suppress the hardwoods.

Detailed consideration of specific release treatments

supports this thesis. Of the two treatments reported by

the Ouachita National Forest, herbicide application to

individual stems declined from over 6,000 ac in 1989 to

less than 1,000 ac in 1997 (fig. 4.17). Manual felling

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Site preparation, acres

Herbicide by stem

Prescribed burning

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Site preparation, acres

Manual felling

Herbicide by stem

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Site preparation, acres

Ouachita NF

Ozark NF

Fiscal year

99
Francis National Forests), one treatment does not seem

to replace another.

Other Intermediate Treatments

Other intermediate treatments generally increased

over the period studied (fig. 4.19). But nearly all of the

increase was due to increased intermediate treatments

on the Ouachita National Forest. Without the Ouachita

National Forest’s influence, intermediate treatments

would be up slightly on the Mark Twain National Forest

and down slightly on the Ozark-St. Francis National

Forests.

The nature of the increase on the Ouachita National

Forest is quickly apparent by considering the treatments

reported (fig. 4.20). Use of prescribed burning as a tool

for intermediate stand management has increased

nearly fourfold over the past 5 years and exceeded

100,000 ac in 1997. The increase in burning is consistent

with the efforts by the Ouachita National Forest to

Figure 4.16—Area subject to release treatments on the

Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, 1988

through 1997.

Figure 4.17—Area subject to release treatments by either

herbicide application through individual stems or manual felling

on the Ouachita National Forest, 1988 through 1997.

treatments rose in the early 1990’s and then leveled off

from 1992 through 1995, reflecting substitution of

manual felling for herbicide treatments.

On the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, the two

major methods of release have declined dramatically

(fig. 4.18). Unlike on the Ouachita National Forest,

manual felling and herbicide application to individual

stems both show a very similar pattern, suggesting that,

in hardwoods (the major forest type on the Ozark-St.

Figure 4.18—Area subject to release treatments by either

herbicide application through individual stems or manual felling

on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, 1988 through 1997.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Release treatments, acres

Ouachita NF

Ozark NF

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Release treatments, acres

Herbicide by stem

Manual cutting

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Release treatments, acres

Herbicide by stem

Manual cutting

100
Figure 4.19—Area subject to intermediate treatments, for each

of three national forests and the total for all three national

forests in the Assessment area, 1988 through 1997.

Figure 4.20—Area subject to intermediate treatments by either

precommercial thinning, commercial thinning, prescribed

burning, or midstory removal on the Ouachita National Forest,

1988 to 1997.

restore shortleaf pine-bluestem grass communities over

extensive areas of the western Ouachitas (fire is the

primary ecological tool used in this effort), sustain

wildlife habitat diversity, and encourage natural regeneration in stands that are scheduled for or have already

been subject to reproduction cutting. This dramatic trend

screens a second important trend on the Ouachita

National Forest—the gradual increase in commercial

thinning, from 11,869 ac in 1989 to 13,829 ac in 1995, an

increase of 16.5 percent.

The Ozark-St. Francis National Forests reported two

primary forms of intermediate treatment—

precommercial thinning and commercial thinning (fig.

4.21). No clear trends are evident, but precommercial

thinning increased slightly from 1988 to 1997 and

commercial thinning decreased slightly.

The Mark Twain National Forest reported three

primary forms of intermediate treatment: commercial

thinning, timber stand improvement (TSI), and wildlife

habitat improvement (WHI). More acres were treated

by each method in 1996 than were treated in 1988 (fig.

4.22). Commercial thinning doubled, from 2,420 ac in

1988 to 5,050 ac in 1996; in 4 of the past 6 years, more

than 5,000 ac were thinned commercially. TSI treatments also more than doubled, from 3,249 ac in 1988 to

7,039 ac in 1996. Finally, WHI treatments also generally

increased, from 6,346 ac in 1988 to 7,640 ac in 1996,

with a peak of over 12,000 ac treated in 1993. Collectively, these treatments are typical for silvicultural

interventions intended to upgrade the silvicultural and

habitat conditions of oak-hickory stands.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Intermediate treatments, acres

Total Mark Twain NF

Ouachita NF Ozark NF

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Intermediate treatments, acres

Prescribed burning

Commercial thinning

Pre-commercial thinning

Midstory reduction

101
Figure 4.21—Area subject to intermediate treatments by

either precommercial thinning or commercial thinning on the

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, 1988 to 1997.

Figure 4.22—Area subject to intermediate treatments by

wildlife habitat improvement, commercial thinning, or timber

stand improvement on the Mark Twain National Forest, 1988

to 1996.

acreage on which clearcutting and/or herbicide use

occurs is down dramatically, while the acreage subject

to other even-aged and uneven-aged reproduction

cutting methods is up. The total area subject to reproduction cutting on all three national forests was about

30,000 ac in both 1988 and 1996. In 1988, however,

nearly all of the cut area was subject to clearcutting. In

1996, most of the area on which reproduction cutting

occurred was treated by uneven-aged methods, and the

remainder underwent forms of even-aged harvest other

then clearcutting. These shifts in national forest management have been accompanied by a reduction in

timber volume: data show that volumes harvested on

national forest lands declined from a peak of about 350

million board feet from 1986 through 1988 to about 200

million board feet in 1997.

Research has not yet provided definitive recommendations for use of reproduction cutting alternatives in

shortleaf pine, but extensive studies are in place and

preliminary results based on 5-year seedling growth will

be available in summer 1999. Similarly, research has

produced silvicultural recommendations for regeneration

of oak using the shelterwood method but not yet for

single-tree selection, at least in areas south of the Ozark

Highlands section. When research results become

available, they will be useful not only to Federal land

managers but also to foresters advising private landowners.

Oak silviculture is considerably more complicated

than pine silviculture because the regeneration ecology

of oak is more involved than that of shortleaf pine. Pines

are adapted to follow disturbance; after a reproduction

cut, it is a rather straightforward process to conduct

effective site preparation and either plant pine seedlings

or catch a natural pine seedfall. On the other hand, oaks

of adequate size and number must exist within the stand

prior to harvest if oak is to be retained in the stand after

harvest.

If landowners fail to plan ahead for development of

oak advance growth, the probability of successfully

regenerating oak diminishes. Generally speaking, the

ownership sector with the least incentive or knowledge

to plan ahead for oak regeneration is the NIPF sector. If

NIPF lands are to support better stands of oak in the

future, managers of State and Federal forestry programs must concentrate on how to help those landowners establish vigorous oak advance growth at least a

decade prior to harvest.

Implications and Opportunities

The silvicultural practices that national forest managers in the Assessment area prescribe have changed

considerably since the late 1980’s. Most notably, the

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Intermediate treatment, acres

Commercial thinning

Pre-commercial thinning

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Intermediate treatments, acres

Wildlife habitat improvement

Commercial thinning

Timber stand improvement

102
Chapter 5: Plant and Animal Populations

Question 5.1: What are the current and likely

future trends for populations and/or habitats for

(1) federally listed threatened and endangered

species; (2) other terrestrial and amphibious

species with viability concerns; (3) species that are

hunted; (4) neotropical migratory birds; and

(5) animals that live in caves?

Thousands of plant and animal species inhabit various

portions of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Some are as

common as white oak and white-tailed deer, 2 of several

species found in all 107 counties of the Assessment area.

Others, including black bear and American beech, are far

more restricted in their distributions but tend to be relatively

common where they do occur. Finally, the rarest plants and

animals, those probably most susceptible to local, if not

range-wide extinction, include seven insect species, five

amphibians, and nearly two dozen plant species.

People care about different plants and animals (or

groups of plant and animal species) for many reasons,

including the simple pleasures of seeing them or knowing

that they exist; the enjoyment of hunting or harvesting

selected wild animals and plants; and the desire to

conserve the diversity of life. Some people are concerned

about species that pose threats to their well being or to

other plants and animals they care about.

Obviously, there are many ways to categorize plants

and animals that people are concerned about. For this

chapter, the Terrestrial Team focused on the categories

public land managers typically must address as part of

their planning, habitat management, and monitoring

programs: those with viability concerns, Federally listed

threatened and endangered species, species that are

hunted (game), neotropical migrant birds, and animals that

live in caves. These 5 categories include 521 species of

terrestrial and amphibious plants and animals (those that

live primarily on land, not in aquatic habitats). See the

companion general technical report Aquatic Conditions

(USDA Forest Service 1999a) for discussion of similar

categories of animal species that occupy streams, lakes,

and other aquatic habitats in the Assessment area.

Another large category, species that pose threats to

forest resources in the Highlands, is discussed in the final

chapter of the present report.

 Key Findings

 1. Of the 333 plants and animals with viability concerns

in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, 35 are imperiled

(having 20 or fewer known populations) or critically

imperiled (5 or fewer known populations).

 2. More than half (53 percent) of the species with

viability concerns in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

are known to occur there only on national forest

lands; about one-third of these species are known to

occur there only on private lands.

 3. Sixteen species in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands are

federally listed as threatened or endangered.

 4. Available data for game species in the Highlands

show that most populations have increased or

remained stable since 1970.

 5. North American Breeding Bird Survey data revealed

that 21 of 90 species in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands declined significantly from 1966 to 1996. Six

species showed a significant increase during the

same period.

Species with Viability Concerns

Scientists designate terrestrial species with viability

concerns according to global rankings of 1 to 5 (G1, G2,

G3, G4, G5) and State rankings of 1, 2, or 3 (S1, S2, S3).

The Federal Government lists some but by no means all

of these species as threatened or endangered (see next

section of this chapter for discussion). The current

section addresses plant and animal species solely in terms

of global rankings.

Global and State Ranks

Biologists give each species two ranks—a global (G)

rank reflecting its rarity throughout the world and a State

103
(S) rank reflecting its rarity in the State. Following are

definitions and criteria for each global rank. State ranks

parallel the global ranks closely but are based on the

range of each species within a State, not the complete

range of the species.

• G1—Critically imperiled globally because of extreme

rarity (five or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor of

its biology making it especially vulnerable to extinction.

• G2—Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20

occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or

because of other factors demonstrably making it very

vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.

• G3—Either very rare and local throughout its range

or found locally in a restricted area (“endemic”);

from 21 to 100 occurrences.

• G4—Apparently secure globally, although it may be

quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the

periphery.

• G5—Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be

quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the

periphery.

• GH—Historically known, with the expectation that it

may be rediscovered.

• GX—Believed to be extinct.

• GU—Not yet ranked.

• G?—There is a question about the assigned rank.

• GQ—There are taxonomic questions concerning the

species or subspecific taxon.

• GT—Associated with global rank, indicating a global

rarity for a particular subspecific taxon.

Data Sources

The data bases of State Natural Heritage agencies in

Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma were the primary

sources of the spatial and quantitative data for this

analysis. Members of the Terrestrial Team also contributed personal observations. The Team developed the

tables included in this chapter and in the Appendix at the

end of this chapter.

Patterns and Trends

At least 333 terrestrial species of plants and animals

occurring in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands are at risk

because of habitat loss or other threats and thus appear

on State and global lists of species with viability concerns

(see Appendix tables 5.1 and 5.2 for complete listing and

subset of species with global viability concerns, respectively). Nearly three-fourths of these species inhabit

geologically or hydrologically isolated and/or unusual

sites, including riparian wetlands, seeps, fens, prairies,

rock outcrops, glades, talus, and cliffs, or communities

dependent upon fire (table 5.1). Many of these communities are highly vulnerable to disruption and, therefore,

their dependent species are vulnerable to habitat loss.

Two-thirds of the viability concern species occur on

public lands, with 187 (56 percent) occurring on Federal

lands (table 5.2). Almost all such species occurring on

Federal lands in the Assessment area are found on one

or more of the Highland’s three national forests. Private

lands are the only known sites in the Assessment area

for 108 of these species.

Table 5.1— Species with viability concerns in selected habitat associations of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Habitat association Animals Plants Total

Percent Percent Percent

Riparian wetlands, seeps, fens 7 12 70 26 77 23

Mesic forest 9 15 50 18 59 18

Glades, talus slopes, cliffs, rock outcrops 3 5 53 19 56 17

Prairie 15 25 37 14 52 16

Fire-maintained pine/oak woodland 7 12 44 16 51 15

Bottomland hardwood forest 9 15 13 5 22 7

Nonspecific (habitat generalists) 7 12 1 0 8 2

Unknown 3 5 5 2 8 2

Source: State Natural Heritage Program databases [accessed 1997].

104
Many viability concern species occur in more than

one ecological subsection (see fig. 1.1 in Chapter 1 for

map of sections and subsections), and the number of

such species per ecological subsection ranges from 4 to

86 (table 5.3). The highest concentrations of viability

concern species are in the White River Hills of Arkansas and Missouri, the Central Ouachita Mountains, the

Fourche Mountains, and the Springfield Plateau.

Thirty-five of the terrestrial or amphibious species

with viability concerns are globally imperiled (“G2,” i.e.,

with 20 or fewer known populations) or critically

imperiled globally (“G1,” i.e., with 5 or fewer known

populations) (table 5.4). About half of these species

(see Appendix table 5.3) inhabit the kinds of restricted

plant communities noted previously. The 12 nonaquatic

animals biologists rate as having global viability concerns

are either amphibians or invertebrates. Fourteen of the

35 imperiled species are known to occur only on public

lands, and 11 are known to occur only on private lands

(table 5.5). Ten (29 percent) of these species are known

to occur on both public and private lands.

The Team analyzed the conservation status and

conservation trends of the 35 critically imperiled and

Table 5.2—Number of terrestrial species with viability

concerns in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands found within

various land ownership categories

Viability Portion of

concern all such

Ownership category species species

Percent

Ouachita National Forest 118 35

Ozark National Forest 70 25

Mark Twain National Forest 25 8

National forests combineda 175 53

Other Federal lands 26 8

All Federal landsa 187 56

Arkansas State lands 55 17

Missouri State lands 27 8

Oklahoma State lands 16 5

All State lands 89 27

All public landsa 225 68

Private lands 176 53

Private lands exclusively 108 32

a Species known to occur in more than one ownership category were

counted only once; thus, totals cannot be derived by adding numbers of

species listed in various categories in this table.

Source: State Natural Heritage program databases [accessed 1997].

Table 5.3—Ecological subsections in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands where species with viability concerns occur

Ecological subsection Subsection numbera Species

White River Hills 222Ag 86

Central Ouachita Mountains M231Ac 72

Fourche Mountains M231Aa 71

Springfield Plateau 222An 71

Lower Boston Mountains M222Ab 64

Western Ouachita Mountains M231Ab 58

Central Plateau 222Ab 52

Western Arkansas Valley 231Gc 35

Athens Piedmont Plateau M231Ad 29

Western AR Valley Mountains 231Gb 25

Upper Boston Mountains M222Aa 24

Eastern Arkansas Valley 231Ga 23

Springfield Plain 222Am 20

Current River Hills 222Af 14

St. Francois Knobs and Basins 222Aa 10

Elk River Hills 222Ah 8

Osage River Hills 222Ac 7

Black River Ozark Border 222Ai 5

Gasconade River Hills 222Ad 5

Meramec River Hills 222Ae 4

a See figure 1.1.

Source: State Natural Heritage program databases [accessed 1997].

imperiled taxa, assigning each a conservation status of

satisfactory, unsatisfactory, critical, or unknown based

on the following criteria: satisfactory = 5 or more

conserved populations; unsatisfactory = 1 to 4 conserved populations; critical = no conserved populations;

unknown = number of populations unknown. A conserved population is one the landowner or manager

(1) is aware of and (2) on a site being managed in a

way likely to sustain viable habitat for the population.

The 35 species were also assigned a “conservation

trend” rating of stable, increasing, decreasing, or

unknown. Both kinds of rankings are subjective, but the

Team felt these were reasonable estimates of the

conservation status and trend of vulnerable species.

Federally listed threatened and endangered species

were not included here, but were treated in a separate

section (see subsequent discussion).

The conservation status of the 35 critically imperiled

and imperiled taxa, where known, is relatively good,

with 37 percent satisfactory and none critical (table 5.6

and Appendix table 5.4). However, the conservation

status of 49 percent of the species is unknown. The

pattern for conservation trend is similar. Those species

105
Table 5.4— Imperiled and critically imperiled terrestrial plant and animal species

(including amphibians) in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlandsa

Scientific name Common name Rank Habitat

Plants

Calamovilfa arcuata A sandgrass G2 SS

Carex amphibola var. globosa A sedge G?T? M F

Carex bicknellii var. opaca A sedge G5T2T3 SS

Carex fissa var. fissa A sedge G2QT? PR

Carex gravida var. gravida A sedge G5T? PR

Eriocaulon kornickianum Small-headed pipewort G2G3 RO

Galium arkansanum var.

pubiflorum Ouachita bedstraw G5T2Q WFM

Homaliadelphus sharpii Sharp’s homaliadelphus G2G3 —

Hydrophyllum brownei Browne’s waterleaf G1 M F

Luzula acuminata var. carolinae Southern hairy woodrush G5T? SS

Matelea baldwyniana Baldwin’s milkvine G2G3 WFM

Neviusia alabamensis Alabama snowwreath G2 RO

Platanthera praeclara Western white fringed orchid G2 PR

Polygonum pensylvanicum var.

eglandulosum Pinkweed G5T2T4Q SS

Polymnia cossatotensis Heartleaf leafcup G1 RO

Quercus shumardii var. acerifolia Maple-leaved oak G1Q RO

Rosa foliolosa White prairie rose G2 PR

Sagittaria ambigua Kansas arrowhead G2? SS

Scirpus hallii Hall’s bulrush G2 SS

Scutellaria bushii Bush’s skullcap G2G3 RO

Thalictrum arkansanum Arkansas meadow-rue G2 SS

Tradescantia ozarkana Ozark spiderwort G2G3 MF

Vertigo meramecensis Bluff vertigo G2 RO

Invertebrates

Arianops sandersoni Magazine Mountain mold beetle G1? WFM

Ophiogompus westfalli Arkansas snaketail dragonfly G2 SS

Panorpa braueri A panorpid scorpionfly G1 —

Papipema eryngium Rattlesnake master borer moth G1 PR

Rhadine ozarkensis A ground beetle G1 —

Rimulincola divalis A beetle G1 —

Stenotrema pilsbryi Rich Mountain slitmouth snail G2 RO

Amphibians

Plethodon caddoensis Caddo Mountain salamander G2 M F

Plethodon fourchensis Fourche Mountain salamander G2 M F

Plethodon ouachitae Rich Mountain salamander G2G3 MF

Plethodon sequoyah SE Oklahoma slimy salamander G2Q M F

Scaphiopus holbrookii hurteri Hurter’s spadefoot G5T? —

MF = mesic forest; WFM = woodlands, fire maintained; PR = prairie; SS = seep, fen, pond, upland riparian;

RO = rock outcrop, glade, talus, cliff; — = habitat not defined. a See text for definitions of imperilment and global ranks.

106
Table 5.5—Imperiled and critically imperiled terrestrial plant and animal species in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands,

sorted by categories of land ownership where the species are known to occura

Taxonomic Global

Scientific name Common name group rank Habitat

Federal ownership

Plethodon caddoensis Caddo Mountain salamander Amphibian G2 M F

Plethodon fourchensis Fourche Mountain salamander Amphibian G2 M F

Scaphiopus holbrookii hurteri Hurter’s spadefoot Amphibian G5T? WFM

Papipema eryngium Rattlesnake master borer moth Invertebrate G1 PR

Rimulincola divalis A beetle Invertebrate G1 —

Homaliadelphus sharpii Sharp’s homaliadelphus Plant G2G3 —

Hydrophyllum brownei Browne’s waterleaf Plant G1 M F

Polymnia cossatotensis Heartleaf leafcup Plant G1 RO

Quercus shumardii var. acerifolia Maple-leaved oak Plant G1Q RO

Rosa foliolosa White prairie rose Plant G2 PR

Federal and private

Panorpa braueri A panorpid scorpionfly Invertebrate G1 —

Neviusia alabamensis Alabama snowwreath Plant G2 RO

Federal and State

Arianops sandersoni Magazine Mountain mold beetle Invertebrate G1? WFM

Stenotrema pilsbryi Rich Mountain slitmouth snail Invertebrate G2 RO

Luzula acuminata var. carolinae Southern hairy woodrush Plant G5T? SS

Vertigo meramecensis Bluff vertigo Plant G2 RO

Federal, State, and private

Plethodon ouachitae Rich Mountain salamander Amphibian G2G3 M F

Ophiogompus westfalli Arkansas snaketail dragonfly Invertebrate G2 SS

Calamovilfa arcuata A sandgrass Plant G2 SS

Carex fissa var. fissa A sedge Plant G2QT? PR

Eriocaulon kornickianum Small-headed pipewort Plant G2G3 RO

Galium arkansanum var. pubiflorum Ouachita bedstraw Plant G5T2Q WFM

Matelea baldwyniana Baldwin’s milkvine Plant G2G3 WFM

Tradescantia ozarkana Ozark spiderwort Plant G2G3 M F

Private only

Plethodon sequoyah SE Oklahoma slimy salamander Amphibian G2Q M F

Rhadine ozarkensis A ground beetle Invertebrate G1 —

Carex amphibola var. globosa A sedge Plant G?T? M F

Carex bicknellii var. opaca A sedge Plant G5T2T3 SS

Carex gravida var. gravida A sedge Plant G5T? PR

Platanthera praeclara Western white fringed orchid Plant G2 PR

Polygonum pensylvanicum var.

eglandulosum Pinkweed Plant G5T2T4Q SS

Sagittaria ambigua Kansas arrowhead Plant G2? SS

Scirpus hallii Hall’s bulrush Plant G2 SS

Thalictrum arkansanum Arkansas meadow-rue Plant G2 SS

Scutellaria bushii Bush’s skullcap Plant G2G3 RO

MF = mesic forest; WFM = woodland, fire maintained; PR = prairie; SS = seep, fen, riparian wetland; RO = rock outcrop, glade, talus, cliff;

— = habitat not defined. a See text for definition of imperilment and global ranks.

Source: State Natural Heritage program databases [accessed 1997].

107
that have been studied show stable or increasing

populations while, for 60 percent of the species, the

conservation trend is unknown.

Implications and Opportunities

The importance of national forests in the Assessment

area to the conservation of viability concern species

cannot be overstated: appropriate management of

national forest lands is critical to the conservation of

biodiversity in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. The

conservation of special habitats, expanded use of

prescribed fire, and special inventory and monitoring

programs are essential activities. Opportunities for

partnerships among concerned citizens, landowners, and

land managers are many.

Federally listed Threatened and

Endangered Species

Sixteen federally listed threatened or endangered

terrestrial species occur in the Assessment area:

Species Scientific name Status

Plants

Geocarpon Geocarpon minimum Threatened

Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered

Mead’s milkweed Asclepias meadii Threatened

Missouri bladderpod Lesquerella filiformis Endangered

Running buffalo clover Trifolium stolonifera Endangered

Invertebrates

American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus Endangered

Magazine Mtn. shagreen snail Mesodon magazinenesis Threatened

Reptiles

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened

Mammals

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered

Gray bat Myotis grisescens Endangered

Ozark big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii ingens Endangered

Birds

Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Endangered

Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened

Interior least tern Sterna antillarum Endangered

Table 5.6—Summary of conservation status and conservation

trend for imperiled and critically imperiled species in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlandsa

 Species

Percent

Conservation status

Satisfactory 13 37

Unsatisfactory 5 14

Critical 0 0

Unknown 17 49

Total 35 100

Conservation trend

Stable 13 37

Increasing 1 1

Decreasing 0 0

Unknown 21 60

Total 35 100

a Satisfactory status means that there are at least five or more

conserved populations; unsatisfactory, that one to four populations

have been conserved; critical, that there are no conserved populations;

see text for further explanation of conservation status and

conservation trend.

Source: State Natural Heritage program databases [accessed 1997].

108
Except for Mead’s milkweed and the American

alligator, each of these species has a recovery plan in

place. The most recent change in the status of these

species occurred in 1995, when the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service changed the bald eagle from endangered to threatened because of population increases. No

additional proposed or candidate terrestrial species are

known to inhabit the Assessment area.

Of this group of species, the most widely distributed

in the Highlands is the Indiana bat (table 5.7), which

occurs in caves throughout the Ozark Highlands. The

Magazine Mountain shagreen snail has the most limited

range of this group, being found only on the north-facing

slopes of Magazine Mountain, which is in the Western

Arkansas Valley Mountains subsection. This habitat is

entirely in the Ozark National Forest.

Game Species

Hunting is an important recreational pursuit in the

Highlands (see Chapter 5 of the Social and Economic

Conditions report, USDA FS 1999b). Population trends

of game species are important to agencies promoting

hunting opportunities. State agency biologists provided

data concerning densities of nine species.

Data Sources

Biologists with State wildlife agencies provided

estimates of population densities in 1970 and 1996 for

white-tailed deer, eastern wild turkey, black bear, gray

squirrel, fox squirrel, eastern cottontail rabbit, raccoon,

ruffed grouse, and bobwhite quail. Biologists used

harvest and survey data where available, as well as

professional judgment, to estimate densities according to

Table 5.7—Number of occurrences of endangered and threatened species in the four ecological sections of the

Assessment area, their global ranks, and estimated population trends

Ozark Boston Arkansas Ouachita Global Population

Species Highlands Mountains Valley Mountains ranka trend

Geocarpon 2 1 G2 Stable

Harperella 2 G2 Stable

Mead’s milkweed 3 G2 Declining

Missouri bladderpod 2 G2 Increasing

Running buffalo clover 11 G3 Declining

American burying beetle 1 2 1 G1 Increasing

Magazine Mountain

shagreen snail 1 G1 Stable

American alligator 1 G5 Increasing

Indiana bat 10 2 1 1 G2 Declining

Gray bat 9 2 1 G2G3 Stable

Ozark big-eared bat 2 1 G4T1 Declining

Red-cockaded woodpecker 2 G3 Stable

Bald eagle 1 1 1 G4 Increasing

Peregrine falcon G4 Increasing

Piping plover G3 Declining

Interior least tern 2 1 G4T2Q Declining

a See text for definition of global ranks.

Source: State Natural Heritage program databases [accessed 1997].

109
a classification of absent, low, medium, or high (table

5.8). Population densities likely vary widely within

counties, but this broad analysis relies upon estimates of

county-wide average densities. Data for certain species

in some counties were not available.

Patterns and Trends

White-tailed deer densities are increasing in the

Highlands, particularly in Arkansas and Oklahoma. This

trend is occurring across the range of white-tailed deer

(deCalesta and Stout 1997). Most of the Highlands had a

low population density in 1970 (fig. 5.1), but 20 counties

had high densities in 1996 (fig. 5.2). Today, more than

Table 5.8—Density classes for selected game species found in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

 Density class

Species Very low Low Medium High

Eastern wild turkey < 1/mi2 1–5/mi2 6–15/mi2 > 15/mi2

Black bear < 1/10,000 ac < 1/ 3,000–10,000 ac 1/1,000–3,000 ac > 1/1,000 ac

Gray and fox squirrel < 1/15 ac < 1/10–15 ac 1/ 3–9 ac > 1/3 ac

Raccoon < 1/mi2 1–5/mi2 5–10/mi2 > 10/mi2

Ruffed grouse < 1 /mi2 1–5/mi2 5–10/mi2 > 10/mi2

Bobwhite quail < 1/160 ac 1/80–160 ac 1/10–80 ac > 1/10 ac

White-tailed deer < 1/mi2 1–15/mi2 15–30/mi2 > 30/mi2

Eastern cottontail < 1/ 40 ac 1/20–40 ac 1/10–20 ac > 1/10 ac

Figure 5.1—Relative deer abundance in Assessment area counties, 1970.

Medium

Low

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

110
one half of the counties in the Assessment area support

moderate to high densities of white-tailed deer.

Eastern wild turkey population densities have increased from 1970 (fig. 5.3), when most counties had

low populations. By 1996, low to medium densities

occurred in most of the Highlands (fig. 5.4).

Black bear are either absent, low, or very low in most

of the Highlands, except in counties in Arkansas with

national forest land, where the density is considered

moderate. Comparing 1970 densities with 1996 densities

(figs. 5.5 and 5.6), the population is expanding and

increasing. At present, this species is hunted only in the

Arkansas portion of the Assessment area.

Fox squirrels are associated with open woodlands

and forest edges and grays are more abundant in areas

of dense forest. Populations of these species fluctuate in

relation to food supply, with changes in food supply

having a greater impact on grays than on fox squirrels.

Both species have cyclic population fluctuations. While

squirrels are present in every county of the Highlands,

only Missouri furnished data for gray and fox squirrels

(figs. 5.7 and 5.8). Estimates of populations for these

species in 1996 were very similar to those for 1970.

Efforts since the mid-1970’s to reestablish ruffed

grouse in the Assessment area through transplanting,

habitat management, and protection on public lands have

had some success in parts of the Ozarks. By 1996,

grouse occurred in at least 29 counties (fig. 5.9),

although population densities were low. Within the

Assessment area, hunting for ruffed grouse is permissible in only a few counties in Missouri.

Bobwhite quail population densities in most counties

are moderate to low. Only a few counties on the northwestern border of the Assessment area are maintaining

high densities. The number of counties with lower quail

densities has increased slightly since 1970 (figs. 5.10 and

5.11), which is presumably part of an overall decline of

the northern bobwhite reported by Brennan (1991).

Eastern cottontail rabbit populations were stable in

the Missouri counties of the Assessment area between

Figure 5.2—Relative deer abundance in Assessment area counties, 1996.

High

Medium

Low

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

111
Figure 5.3—Relative eastern wild turkey abundance in Assessment area

counties, 1970.

Figure 5.4—Relative eastern wild turkey abundance in Assessment area

counties, 1996.

Low

Very low

Absent

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Medium

Low

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

112
Figure 5.5—Relative black bear abundance in Assessment area counties, 1970.

Figure 5.6—Relative black bear abundance in Assessment area counties, 1996.

Low

Very low

Absent

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Medium

Low

Very Low

Absent

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

113
Figure 5.7—Relative gray squirrel abundance in Assessment area counties of

Missouri, 1996.

Figure 5.8—Relative fox squirrel abundance in Assessment area counties

of Missouri, 1996.

High

Medium

Low

No data

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

High

Medium

Low

No data

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

114
Figure 5.9—Relative ruffed grouse abundance in Assessment area

counties, 1996.

Figure 5.10—Relative bobwhite abundance in Assessment area counties of

Arkansas and Missouri, 1970.

Low

Very low

Absent

No data

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

High

Medium

Low

No data

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

115
1970 and 1996, according to the available data (fig.

5.12). Counties with higher densities tend to be on the

border of the Highlands. Rabbits depend upon an

abundance of escape cover interspersed with grassland

communities containing a large proportion of broadleaf

plants—habitat uncommon in the forested portions of

the Highlands.

Raccoon densities are moderate to high throughout

the Highlands (fig. 5.13). Seventeen counties had a high

density in 1996. Raccoons are most abundant in floodplains, mesic forests, swamps, marshes, farmlands, and

suburban residential areas. They tend toward low

population density in areas with xeric woodlands and

pine forests. Highland counties adjacent to agricultural

areas tend to have the higher populations. Raccoon

densities were not estimated for 1970.

Implications and Opportunities

The future for wild turkeys in the Assessment area

is promising. Turkey densities are higher on public lands

than on adjacent private forests because of past and

present management programs. The expanding use

of prescribed fire on the national forests of the Assessment area is likely to improve habitat conditions for this

species.

Because black bear apparently are reproducing

successfully in both the Ozarks and Ouachitas, they

could continue to expand in the Highlands. Forest

regeneration areas are very important as sources for

food and denning sites, because black bears thrive

within landscapes that provide a mix of young and

mature forests.

The future of squirrels depends upon management

practices that encourage a variety of trees, with an

emphasis on mature trees of nut-producing species

(Christisen 1970). Since most of the merchantable trees

in the Highlands were cut by the 1920’s, many hardwoods are just beginning to reach optimal mast-producing ages. Mast production, while somewhat dependent

on weather, should continue to increase for decades.

Grouse populations in the Assessment area probably

will always be lower than in the northern part of the

grouse range. Research indicates that quality of habitat

limits grouse populations more than predation and fall

hunting. Favorable management programs on national

Figure 5.11—Relative bobwhite abundance in Assessment area counties,

1996.

High

Medium

Low

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

116
Figure 5.12—Relative rabbit abundance in Assessment area counties of Missouri, 1996.

Figure 5.13—Relative raccoon abundance in Assessment area counties,

1996.

High

Medium

Low

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

High

Medium

No data

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

117
forest lands can contribute significantly to regional

grouse populations because of the extensive acreage

available as habitat.

Bobwhite quail populations on public lands could

increase with more widespread use of prescribed

burning, savanna restoration, and other enhancements.

The Shortleaf Pine-Bluestem Grass Management Area

on the Ouachita National Forest is an example of how a

reduced forest canopy and periodic fire can support an

increase in the bobwhite quail population (USDA FS

1996).

Neotropical Migratory and Resident

Birds

Birds in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands are a large

and diverse group of vertebrates. The Terrestrial Team

studied the status of 157 species that breed or are likely

to breed in the Assessment area. Some species are the

subjects of international conservation efforts. In particular, neotropical migratory birds are the focus of one of

the largest international conservation efforts for nongame wildlife that are not yet endangered (Terborgh

1989, Hagan and Johnston 1992, Finch and Stangel

1993, Martin and Finch 1995).

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

The Team analyzed data from several databases to

compile three lists (table 5.9): species identified as

conservation priorities for the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands by the Partner’s in Flight Program (PIF);

declining birds in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands; and

species that occur in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

considered national conservation priorities. Partners in

Flight is a collection of Government agencies and

nongovernment organizations working to conserve birds

(Rogers and others 1993). The list of priority species

and declining species was developed for the OzarkOuachita Plateau, a region that corresponds closely to

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment area (fig.

5.14).

The PIF Priority Species were developed for physiographic regions across the United States and are based

on the PIF database, which includes information on

breeding landbirds within physiographic regions or

States. This information includes global abundance of

each species, breeding distribution, winter distribution,

threats on breeding grounds, threats on wintering

grounds, importance of the region or State to the

individual species, and population trends (Hunter and

others 1993, Carter and Barker 1993). The Team

reported species that are considered conservation

priorities, based on the information in the database, for

the Ozark-Ouachita Plateau (Colorado Bird Observatory 1998). Species were classified as priorities by PIF

if they met one or more of the following criteria:

• a species total score in the database is 23 or greater;

• a species total score is 19 to 22, with the sum of

Area Importance and Population Trend equal to or

greater than 8;

• it is an Audubon Watchlist species and the Area

Importance score is 3 or greater;

• its Area Importance score and Population Trend

scores add up to 10 (regardless of total score);

• the percentage of the population breeding in the

planning unit is greater than 5 percent in planning units

smaller than 2,000 square kilometers or 10 percent in

areas greater than 2,000 square kilometers;

• a species is federally listed as threatened or endangered; or

• the species is of local concern as identified by PIF

Technical, State or Regional Working Groups.

The Team also listed the scores for each element in the

database and the total scores for species in the OzarkOuachita Plateau (Appendix table 5.5).

The Team identified declining species from the North

American Breeding Bird Survey, which the U.S.G.S.

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center coordinates

(Robbins and others 1986, Sauer and others 1997). This

large-scale roadside survey does not provide good

information on species that are rare or not sampled well

from roads but does provide the most extensive longterm abundance information for nongame wildlife. The

Team analyzed data for the Ozark-Ouachita Plateau

physiographic region from this survey to create a list of

species with significant population declines during the

period 1966 to 1996.

The Terrestrial Team also identified species on the

National Audubon Society’s Watchlist that may breed

within the Assessment area. This list identifies birds that

are at risk but do not qualify for Federal listing as

threatened or endangered. The National Audubon

118
Table 5.9—Bird species of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands on various lists of species with

management concerns

Partners in Breeding Bird Audubon Society

Species Flight scorea Survey trendb Watchlistc

Red-cockaded woodpecker 28

Swainson’s warbler 26 x

Cerulean warbler 25 x

Worm-eating warbler 25 x

Henslow’s sparrow 25 x

Bachman’s sparrow 25 x

Acadian flycatcher 23 -2.9

Kentucky warbler 23 x

Louisiana waterthrush 23

Dickcissel 23 -1.8 x

Bell’s vireo 23 x

Prairie warbler 23 -4.6 x

Chuck-will’s-widow 22 x

Whip-poor-will 22

Brown-headed nuthatch 22

Blue-winged warbler 22

Field sparrow 22 -3.1 x

Painted bunting 22 x

Sedge wren 22

Northern bobwhite 21 -2.6

Hooded merganser 21

Hooded warbler 21

Mississippi kite 21

Prothonotary warbler 21 x

Wood thrush 21 x

Scissor-tailed flycatcher 21

Orchard oriole 21 -3.7 x

Brown thrasher 21 -2.9

Eastern wood-pewee 20 x

Ovenbird 20 -3.6

Summer tanager 20

Yellow-billed cuckoo 20 x

Loggerhead shrike 20 -9.4 x

Yellow-throated vireo 20

Yellow-throated warbler 20

Rufous-crowned sparrow 20

Common nighthawk -8.8

Lark sparrow -6.4 x

Horned lark -6.1

Gray catbird -3.5 x

Northern flicker -2.9

House sparrow -2.8

Pileated woodpecker -2.6

Eastern towhee -2.2

Blue jay -1.0

Brown-headed cowbird -1.0

Northern mockingbird -1.0

White-eyed vireo -0.9

Black-billed cuckoo x

Short-eared owl x

Chimney swift x

Red-headed woodpecker x

Grasshopper sparrow x

a The Partners in Flight (PIF) list includes species considered a high conservation priority for the OzarkOuachita Plateaus; the greater the total score, the higher the conservation concern. These scores change

over time. Check the Colorado Bird Observatory Web site (<http://www.cbobirds.org>) for the latest

scores.

b Species that had statistically significant population declines from 1966 to 1996, according to the North

American Breeding Bird Survey.

c A national list of species not yet threatened or endangered but considered of concern for conservation

purposes.

Source: Sauer and others (1997), Colorado Bird Observatory (1998).

119
Figure 5.14—A comparison of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment area and the boundaries of the

Ozark-Ouachita Plateau physiographic region used by the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and

the Partner’s in Flight Landbird Database.

Assessment area

BBS region 18

120
Society compiles the list in collaboration with scientists

and PIF. The Watchlist is based on the PIF Landbird

Database but provides a national perspective. Thus, the

Watchlist is useful for identifying opportunities in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands to contribute to national

conservation priorities. The Team also classified species according to the

following general habitats: aquatic, developed, agriculture, grassland, savanna/glade, shrub/sapling, and forest

(Probst and Thompson 1996, Dickson and others 1995,

Hamel 1992). “Developed habitats” include suburban,

urban, and commercial areas. “Agriculture” refers to

cropland, pasture, fencerows, and farmyards. “Grassland” includes prairie and rangeland; “savanna/glade”

includes semi-forested grassland habitats; “shrub/

sapling” includes old fields and young regenerating

forest; and “forest” includes upland, lowland, coniferous,

and deciduous forest.

In addition to identifying birds breeding in the region

and species that pose a management concern, the Team

reviewed recent research and recommendations on the

effects of habitat fragmentation and forest management

practices on birds. These topics have been the subject

of significant debate and investigation, particularly

regarding neotropical migratory birds in the Eastern

United States (Finch 1991, Hagan and Johnston 1992,

Martin and Finch 1995, Thompson 1995).

Patterns and Trends

Forty-one (26 percent) of 157 species of birds that

breed within the Assessment area are classified as

priority species by PIF. Analysis of the North American

Breeding Bird Survey reveals that 21 of 90 bird species

in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands have significantly

declined in abundance during the period 1966 to 1996.

Six of the species had significant population increases.

Finally, 25 of the 90 species on the National Audubon

Watchlist occur within the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

(table 5.9).

The three lists of birds with management concerns

have some species in common but also differ in many

ways. The priority species list and the Audubon

Watchlist are based on similar criteria but applied at

different scales (the Ozark Highlands Plateau and the

United States, respectively). These two lists consist of a

mix of resident, short-distance, and long-distance

migrants, but are dominated by neotropical migratory

birds. By contrast, the list of species in the region with

population declines is a more balanced mix of resident,

short-distance, and long-distance migrants.

Most bird species, including most species with

management concerns in the Assessment area,

primarily use forest and shrub/sapling habitats (Appendix table 5.5, fig. 5.15). Some species with management concerns inhabit savannas and glades. Half of the

species on the PIF list are forest birds, although just

one fifth (19 percent) of the list of declining species are

forest birds. Shrub/sapling birds are a larger component

of declining species (37 percent) than of those on the

PIF list (25 percent). This difference exists because

the PIF list is based on other factors in addition to

population trends. Shrub/sapling birds exhibit some of

the steepest population declines in the region, but in

general are still more abundant or more broadly

distributed than some forest birds with management

concerns (Appendix table 5.6).

Landscape composition and pattern significantly

affect the reproductive success and status of forest bird

populations in the Assessment area. Productivity,

source-sink status of populations (see next paragraph),

and levels of nest depredation or brood parasitism (see

following paragraphs) are related to landscape patterns

in forest cover (Donovan and others 1995a, Robinson

and others 1995, Thompson and others in press). Strong

regional patterns in the productivity of some songbirds in

midwestern forests occur because of the great variation

in amount of forest cover (Robinson and others 1995).

Reproductive rates of some forest birds are so low in

some fragmented landscapes that these populations are

likely sinks that cannot sustain themselves without

immigration from more productive source populations

(Donovan and others 1995, Robinson and others 1995,

Brawn and Robinson 1996).

Interactions between local habitat factors and

features of the landscape influence population size and

viability of bird species. At a local or habitat patch scale,

the size of the patch, the proximity to habitat edges, and

the habitat type or structure can affect birds. Local

management practices, including forest management

practices, typically determine local habitat patch characteristics (Donovan and others 1995a, Robinson and

others 1995, Thompson and others, in press). At a

regional or landscape scale, the amount and distribution

121
Figure 5.15—Distribution by (A) primary breeding

habitat of all birds, (B) species of management

concern derived from the Partners in Flight Landbird

Database (PIF priorities), and (C) species with

significant population declines based on the North

American Breeding Bird Survey for the OzarkOuachita Plateau physiographic region.

of habitats affect a species abundance and viability, or

reproductive success. Land uses such as agriculture,

forest management, range management, and development can fragment once-contiguous habitats, shrinking

the areas of deep forest, which some species require,

and altering the proportion of “edge” in the landscape.

Reproductive rates of birds can be so low in fragmented

landscapes that these populations are “sinks” that

cannot sustain themselves without immigration from

more productive “source” populations (Donovan and

others 1995a, Robinson and others 1995, Brawn and

Robinson 1996).

Reproductive rates appear high enough in the

Missouri Ozarks for this area to act as a population

source for many forest birds (Donovan and others 1995,

Robinson and others 1995). This is probably true for

other heavily forested portions of the Assessment area,

as well. However, while observed variation in reproductive rates and population modeling generally support the

idea of source-sink population structure in the Highlands,

there is no evidence of this in the Assessment area.

The likely reason for the relationship between the

reproductive success of forest breeding birds and

landscape composition is that predator and cowbird

numbers are greater in landscapes where the forest is

fragmented by agriculture and development. Apparently

any human activities creating cowbird and predatorfeeding habitat within a forested landscape will reduce

nesting success. Even a single cowbird feeding area in a

forested landscape can reduce nesting success over a

large area because cowbirds can commute up to 4 miles

between feeding and breeding sites (Rothstein and

others 1984, Thompson 1994). In practice, however,

mostly forested landscapes where there are few feeding

opportunities for cowbirds have low numbers of cowbirds and low parasitism levels (Thompson and others, in

press). Because nest predators are so diverse, regional

and landscape patterns of nest predation generally are

less pronounced than those for cowbird parasitism

(Robinson and others 1995). Predators such as raccoons, opossums, jays, and crows that forage extensively in agricultural habitats may be a much greater

problem in agricultural landscapes than in forested

landscapes (Paton 1994, Marini and others 1995). Some

snakes also appear to be most abundant near agricultural openings (Durner and Gates 1993).

A

Agriculture

7%

Aquatic

16%

Forest

37%

Grassland

8%

Developed

3%

Savanna/

glade

8%

Shrub/

sapling

21%

B Aquatic

5%

Shrub/

sapling

29%

Savanna/

glade

7%

Grassland

5%

Forest

54%

C

Grassland

10%

Shrub/

sapling

37% Forest

19%

Developed

5%

Agriculture

10%

Savanna/

glade

19%

122
These findings address large-scale patterns in major

categories of land use, including forest, agriculture,

range, and development, and may not be directly

applicable to changes in forest landscapes per se. Forest

management practices also affect landscape composition and pattern and local habitat structure and composition, but in different ways.

Table 5.10 and figure 5.16 indicate bird use of

habitats created by different silvicultural practices in the

Missouri Ozarks. Species such as blue-winged warblers,

prairie warblers, yellow-breasted chats, indigo buntings,

Kentucky warblers, common yellowthroats, white-eyed

vireos, gray catbirds, rufous-sided towhees, and northern cardinals commonly breed in recently regenerated

Table 5.10—Abundanceof neotropical migratory birds in oak-hickory and loblolly-shortleaf pine forest habitats in

the Ozark Highlands

 Oak-hickory Loblolly-shortleaf pine

Bird species Reg Sap Pole Mat Gs St Reg Sap Pole Mat Og

Whip-poor-will U U U U U U N N N N?

Ruby-throated hummingbird C N N N ? N U U U UU

Acadian flycatcher N N C A N A N N U CC

Eastern wood-pewee N N U A N A N U P CA

Eastern phoebe N N U U N U N N N N?

Great crested flycatcher C C C C C C N N U PC

Blue-gray gnatcatcher A C C C C C N N U CA

Eastern bluebird C N N N N N U U N NP

Wood thrush U C C C U C N N U C A

American robin —————— N U U UU

Gray catbird C C N N ? N U U N UU

White-eyed vireo C C N N ? N U A P U C

Yellow-throated vireo N N N U N U N N U AC

Red-eyed vireo U U A A U A N U C AA

Blue-winged warbler A C N N ? N N N N NN

Golden-winged warbler C U N N ? N N N N NN

Northern parula N N U C N C N N U U C

Chestnut-sided warbler C C N N ? N N N N NN

Yellow-throated warbler N N U U N U — — — ——

Prairie warbler A C N N ? N C A N N U

Black-and-white warbler C C C C C C N U C CC

Worm-eating warbler U C C C C C N N C CC

Chuck-will’s-widow —————— U U U UU

Ovenbird U C C C U U N N U CC

Louisiana waterthrush N U C C C C N N N PP

Common yellowthroat A U N N ? N C A P P U

Kentucky warbler A C U U A C N U C P P

Hooded warbler C C U U C C N U C A C

Yellow-breasted chat A C N N ? N C A U N P

Orchard oriole U N N N N N N N U UU

Summer tanager C C C A C C N N U C C

Scarlet tanager U U C A U A N N U UU

Indigo bunting A C U U A C N A P U P

Rufous-sided towhee A U N N C N N P C C P

Brown-headed cowbird A C C C C C P C P PN

American goldfinch U N N N N N U U U UU

Blue grosbeak —————— C U N NN

Reg = regeneration; Sap = sapling; Pole = poletimber; Mat = mature; Gs = group selection; St = single-tree selection; Og = old growth;

U = uncommon; N = not present; ? = insufficient data; C = common or regular; A = abundant; P = present; — = does not occur in habitat.

Source: Dickson and others (1998), Thompson and others (1995).

123
Figure 5.16—Relative abundance of breeding songbirds in habitats managed by various

silvicultural practices in oak and oak-pine forests in the Missouri Ozarks (reprinted from

Annand and Thompson 1997).

even-aged stands. Black-and-white, worm-eating, and

Kentucky warblers are common in these stands as they

mature into dense sapling stands, and ovenbirds, wood

thrushes, and red-eyed vireos may also begin using

them. Once even-aged stands have matured into poleor sawtimber-sized stands, the common birds of mature

forests return, including red-eyed vireos, scarlet tanagers, summer tanagers, eastern wood-pewees, wood

thrushes, ovenbirds, Acadian flycatchers, pine warblers,

and yellow-throated warblers. Because uneven-aged

silviculture systems create stands with diverse tree sizes

and small canopy gaps, many of the previously mentioned species will be present in uneven-aged stands.

Species requiring large patches of young forest or shrub

habitat, however, will not be present. These include

blue-winged warblers, prairie warblers, yellow-breasted

chats, and white-eyed vireos. Species that use or prefer

small gaps, such as the hooded warbler, Kentucky

warbler, and indigo bunting, will benefit from unevenaged management. (See Dickson and others 1995 and

Thompson and others 1996 for more detail on the use of

managed forest habitats by forest breeding birds within

the Assessment area.)

Rufous-sided towhee 

Yellow-breasted chat 

Indigo bunting 

Brown-headed cowbird 

Blue-gray gnatcatcher 

Tufted titmouse 

Black-and-white warbler 

Pine warbler

Hooded warbler 

Worm-eating warbler 

Red-eyed vireo 

Ovenbird

Clearcut Shelterwood Group Single-tree Mature

Acadian flycatcher 

Prairie warbler 

= 0.05 detections/10-min point count

124
Implications and Opportunities

The list of bird species of the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands with management concerns (table 5.9) is a

starting point for avian conservation. However, these

species have distinct habitat requirements. Conservation

efforts directed at any one species on this list will be to

the detriment of at least some other species on the list.

Thus, land managers and planners should plan for a

diversity of habitats, including grasslands, in the Assessment area in order to conserve all of these species.

Several recent reviews of research that address

forest management’s effects on songbirds within the

Assessment area suggest the impact of silviculture on

forest songbirds depends primarily on whether evenaged or uneven-aged silvicultural systems are used

(Thompson and others 1995, Dickson and others 1995,

Thompson and others 1996).

Even-aged systems harvest an existing stand and

result in a young even-aged stand. Over time, across a

landscape, this results in a mosaic of stands or habitat of

different ages. Even-aged management creates high

habitat diversity at a landscape scale, but within stands

or habitat patches the habitat is dominated by a single

age-class of trees.

Uneven-aged silvicultural methods will maintain a

range of tree sizes within a stand. Because single trees

or small groups of trees are harvested at one time in an

uneven-aged management system, small gaps are

created in the forest canopy. These small gaps in the

canopy may be too small to function as habitat for areasensitive early successional species, e.g., prairie warbler. Consequently, uneven-aged management results in

high structural habitat diversity within habitat patches

(stands) but creates less diversity at the landscape scale

(Thompson and others 1995).

No single silvicultural practice can be generalized as

good or bad for birds. Any silvicultural system will

create habitat for some species while degrading habitats

for others. Land management for species conservation

should consider patterns and practices at both the

landscape scale and the stand scale (Freemark and

others 1995, Thompson and others 1995).

Extensively forested landscapes are of greater value

to forest breeding songbirds than forests fragmented by

nonforest land uses. The Ozark-Ouachita Highlands are

one of the most extensively forested regions in the

Midwest and probably of great value to forest songbirds.

How forests are managed within the region will also

affect their value to individual songbird species. A

diversity of forest management practices will meet the

habitat needs of songbirds better than any one practice.

The mix of practices will largely determine the abundance of individual species.

Cave Animals

Caves in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands are habitat

for a rich and diverse fauna. The diversity of aboveground habitats, such as forests and springs, contributes

to an abundance of cave-dwelling species in the Highlands. These subterranean and surrounding forest

habitats are sanctuaries for a number of State and

federally listed threatened and endangered species.

Worms, leeches, snails, isopods, amphipods, crayfish,

flies, pseudoscorpions, crickets, beetles, fleas, spiders,

millipedes, springtails, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and

mammals occupy caves (Weaver 1992). The movement

of some of these animals, especially bats, in and out of

the cave, and the continual flow of water from a surface

recharge area, link these communities to the surface.

Numerous solution caves riddle the Ozark Mountains. These caves form as weakly acidic groundwater

seeps or flows through joints and bedding planes in the

limestone and dolomite bedrock, causing the rock to

slowly dissolve (Weaver 1992).

In contrast, there are no solution caves in the

Ouachita Mountains due to the lack of sedimentary

limestone in the region. Talus caverns and rock shelters,

which are formed when large rocks fall, roll, slide, or tilt

against each other, are present in the Ozarks and

Ouachitas.

A few talus caverns are extensive enough to provide

total darkness. These “caves” are important shelter for

some animals and plants (Halliday 1982). Bear Den

Caves, large talus on Winding Stair Mountain in southeastern Oklahoma, occur in an outcrop belt of sandstone. These caves have more than 1,200 feet of

passageway and are the only known caves in the

Ouachita National Forest (Puckette 1974–75). Abandoned mines are a third type of cave habitat in the

Assessment area and provide the same specialized

habitat, as do natural caves (Foti 1974). There are 27

known abandoned mines on national forests in the

Assessment area (Saugey and others 1988).

125
Data Sources

The information in this section is from published

reports and field observations by members of the

Terrestrial Team.

Patterns and Trends

This section concerns caves and the management of

caves within the three national forests in the Assessment area. A list of State and federally listed cave

species and other sensitive cave species in or near the

three forests appears in table 5.11.

Caves in the Mark Twain National Forest

There are 409 known caves on the Mark Twain

National Forest, of which 306 have been nominated as

significant under the Federal Cave Resource Protection

Act and 140 have been mapped. These caves are

habitat for five federally listed species, including the

endangered gray and Indiana bats. Seven of these

caves have been gated to control human disturbance.

Table 5.11—Threatened and endangered cave-dwelling species in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

by national forest, global and State rank, and Federal and State statusa

Global State Federal State

Common name Scientific name rank rank status status

Mark Twain National Forest

Gray bat Myotis grisescens G2G3 S3 E E

Indiana bat M. sodalis G2 S1 E E

Eastern small-footed bat M. leibii G3 S1 R

Long-eared bat M. septentrionalis G4

Ozark cavefish Amblyopis rosae G2 S1 T E

Southern cavefishb Thyphlichthys subterraneus G3 S3 WL

Central MO cave amphipod Allocrangonyx hubrichti G1G3 S1S3 R

Tumbling Creek cave snail Antrobia culveri G1 SX C E

Salem Cave crayfish Cambarus hubrichti G3 S2 WL

Bristly Cave crayfish Cambarus setosus G2 S2 WL

Onondaga Cave amphipod Stygobromus onondagaensis G1G3 S1S3 WL

Ozark Cave amphipod S. ozarkensis G?

Ozark National Forest

Gray bat M. grisescens G2G3 S2 E S2

Indiana bat M. sodalis G2 S2 E S1

Eastern small-footed batb M. leibii G3 S1 S1

Ozark big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii ingens G4T1 S1 E S1

Rafinesque’s big-eared batb C. rafinesquii G3G4 S2 S2

Oklahoma salamanderb Eurycea tynerensis G3 S2 S1

Ozark cavefishb Amblyopis rosae G2 S1 T S1

Southern cavefishb Thyphlichthys subterraneus G3 S1 S1

Ouachita National Forest

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis G2 S2 E S1

Eastern small-footed bat M. leibii G3 S1 S1

a See text for explanation of designations; blank spaces mean no corresponding rank has been assigned.

b Has never been documented as occurring on the national forest but may be present.

Source: Harvey and others (1996), Saugey and others (1989), Weaver (1992).

126
Caves in the Ozark National Forest

Federally and State-listed threatened and endangered

cave species along with other sensitive cave species

found in the Ozark National Forest are listed in Table

5.11. The endangered gray and Indiana bats and the

Ozark big-eared bat use at least 10 caves in the Ozark

National Forest. Two of only five known remaining

hibernating colonies of Indiana bats in Arkansas occur

on the Sylamore Ranger District of the Ozark National

Forest. During the winter of 1995 to 1996, 1 cave

contained about 400 hibernating Indiana bats, and the

other contained about 350 (Harvey and Redman 1996).

Blanchard Springs Caverns, also on the Sylamore

Ranger District, demonstrates the vulnerability of bat

colonies to disturbance. After the Forest Service began

constructing trails in the cave in 1963 and opened it to

the public for guided tours in 1973, a hibernating colony

of 5,000 to 7,000 gray bats dwindled to about 150 in the

winter of 1978 to 1979 and dropped to only 33 bats

during the winter of 1985 to 1986. Since then, the Forest

Service has limited disturbance at the roost site and the

bat population has increased dramatically to more than

50,000 in 1995. During the summer of 1996, there were

about 34,000 bats present.

Caves in the Ouachita National Forest

Nine species of bats and six species of salamanders

use caves and abandoned mines in the Ouachita Forest.

Heath and others (1986) reported the occurrence of 27

vertebrate taxa using abandoned mine drifts in the

Ouachita Mountains.

The discovery in 1989 of a hibernating cluster of

seven Indiana bats in Bear Den Caves (Saugey and

others 1989) may indicate the occurrence of this species

in the Ouachita Mountains during other times of the

year, although females are known to travel considerable

distances from hibernacula to maternity sites (LaVal and

LaVal 1980).

Implications and Opportunities

The Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988

(P.L. 100-691) secures and preserves significant caves

on Federal lands for the perpetual use, enjoyment, and

benefit of all people and encourages cooperation and

exchange of information between government authorities and those utilizing caves located on Federal lands

for scientific, educational, or recreational purposes.

Inventories of threatened, endangered, rare, and

sensitive cave species and new caves (as they are

discovered) are important for ecosystem management

on public lands. Interagency collaboration also is

valuable. The Missouri Department of Conservation and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to reestablish

certain extirpated cave species, which may present

opportunities for further cooperation with the Mark

Twain National Forest.

Because the health of aboveground habitat affects

the health of cave communities, management of connections to aboveground habitat and management in the

vicinity of cave entrances is important. Controlling the

use of insecticides and herbicides in the vicinity of caves

also protects subsurface watersheds. Controlling access

to sensitive caves in the Assessment area will further

protect cave communities.

The bat fauna represents an integral component of

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Bats, particularly those

inhabiting caves and mines, represent an extremely

vulnerable faunal element (Saugey and others 1988).

Most species are currently fairly widespread and have

adequate populations; however, the gray bat, Indiana

bats, and Ozark big-eared bat are endangered, and the

southeastern big-eared bat and eastern small-footed

bats are species of concern. Marginal habitats of

importance to bats, such as caves and abandoned

mines—alone or combined with diverse and spatially

distributed forest types and age classes—appear to

have contributed to the rich bat fauna of the region.

Recent investigations of habitat utilization by Indiana

bats in Illinois (Gardner and Gardner 1982) revealed use

of living red oak, white oak, post oak, and hickory trees

as roosts and use of shagbark hickory snags, all of

which occur in the national forests of the Highlands, as

maternity sites. Surface disturbances damaging forests

and soil cover or contaminating ground water, including

some agricultural, residential, and industrial development, affect the health of caves. Protection, maintenance, and enhancement of all habitat components must

be considered in all phases of planning and implementation of management activities.

127
Appendix Table 5.1—Assessment area terrestrial plant and animal species, the viability of which is of concern to

scientists, the global and State ranks of these species, and their known habitats

 State rank

Global

Scientific name Common name rank AR M O OK Habitat

Amphibians

Ambystoma talpoidium Mole salamander G5 S2? S1 BLH

Eurycea tynerensis Oklahoma salamander G3 S2 S3 SS

Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed salamander G5 S2 S1 SS

Plethodon caddoensis Caddo Mountain salamander G2 S2 MF

Plethodon fourchensis Fourche Mountain salamander G2 S2 MF

Plethodon ouachitae Rich Mountain salamander G2G3 S2 S2 MF

Plethodon sequoyah Southeast Oklahoma slimy

salamander G2Q S2 MF

Plethodon serratus Southern redback salamander G5 S2? S3S4 MF

Pseudocris streckeri streckeri Strecker’s chorus frog G5T4 S1? S4 HG

Rana areolata circulosa Northern crayfish frog G4T4 S1? S4 PR

Scaphiopus holbrookii hurteri Hurter’s spadefoot G5T? S2? S3 WFM

Spea bombifrons Plains spadefoot G5 S1 S5 PR

Birds

Accipiter cooperi Cooper’s hawk G5 S1 S2 WFM

Aimophila aestivalis Bachman’s sparrow G3 S3 S1 S2 WFM

Aimophila ruficeps Rufous-crowned sparrow G5 S1 S4 RO

Ammodramus henslowii Henslow’s sparrow G3G4 S3 S1 PR

Anhinga anhinga Anhinga G5 S1 S1 BLH

Cistothorus platensis Sedge wren G3G5 S2 PR

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler G3G4 S2 S2 SS

Dendroica pensylvanica Chestnut-sided warbler G5 S1 S2 WFM

Dendroica virens Black-throated green warbler G5 S1 S3 MF

Egretta caerulea Little blue heron G5 S2 S5 BLH

Egretta thula Snowy egret G5 S2 S5 BLH

Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson’s warbler G3G4 S3 S2 S1 BLH

Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned night-heron G5 S2? S4 BLH

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night-heron G5 S2 S4 BLH

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe G5 S2? S5 BLH

Quiscalus mexicanus Great-tailed grackle G5 S2 S5 HG

Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren G5 S2 S4 RO

Invertebrates

Arianops sandersoni Magazine Mountain mold beetle G1? S1? WFM

Calephelis borealis Northern metalmark G3G4 S1 RO

Gryllotalpa major Prairie mole cricket G3 S? S2 S2 PR

Ophiogompus westfalli Arkansas snaketail dragonfly G2 S? S? SS

Panorpa braueri A panorpid scorpionfly G1 S1 ND

Papipema eryngium Rattlesnake master borer moth G1 S1 S? PR

Rhadine ozarkensis A ground beetle G1 S1 ND

Rimulincola divalis A beetle G1 S1 ND

Speyeria idalia Regal fritillary G3 S3 SH PR

Stenotrema pilsbryi Rich Mountain slitmouth snail G2 S1 S2 RO

Mammals

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s big-eared bat G3G4 S2 S1 MF

Myotis austroriparus Southeastern myotis G4 S2? S1 HG

(continued)

128
Appendix Table 5.1—Assessment area terrestrial plant and animal species, the viability of which is of concern to

scientists, the global and State ranks of these species, and their known habitats (continued)

 State rank

Global

Scientific name Common name rank AR M O OK Habitat

Mammals (continued)

Myotis lucifugus Little brown bat G5 S1 HG

Notiosorex crawfordi Desert shrew G5 S1? S3 WFM

Ochotomys nuttali Golden mouse G5 S1 MF

Reithrodontomy humulis Eastern harvest mouse G5 S1? S1 HG

Reithrodontomy montanus Plains harvest mouse G5 S1? S5 PR

Sorex longirostris Southeastern shrew G5 S2? BLH

Spilogale putorius interrupta Plains spotted skunk G5T3T4 S1 S2 PR

Ursus americanus Black bear G5 S1 HG

Plants

Abutilon incanum Pelotazo abutilon G5 S1S2 RO

Acer leucoderme Chalk maple G5 S2S3 SS

Acer nigrum Black maple G5Q S1S2 MF

Actaea pachypoda Baneberry G5 S1 MF

Agalinis auriculata Auriculate false foxglove G3 S1 S2 PR

Agalinis skinneriana A false foxglove G3 S3 PR

Agalinis viridis Green gerardia G4? S1 PR

Aletris aurea Golden colicroot G5 S1S2 S1 SS

Allium stellatum Glade onion G5 S2S3 RO

Amianthium muscaetoxicum Fly poison G4G5 S1 WFM

Amorpha canescens Leadplant G5 S2 PR

Amorpha ouachitensis Ouachita leadplant G3Q S3 S2 SS

Amsonia hubrichtii Ouachita blue star G3 S3 S1S2 SS

Androsace occidentalis Western rock jasmine G5 S1 RO

Anemone quinquefolia Wood anemone G5 S2 MF

Antennaria neglecta Field pussytoes G5 S1 WFM

Aplectrum hyemale Puttyroot G5 S1 MF

Aplenium x gravesii Grave’s spleenwort HYB S1 RO

Arabis shortii var shortii Short’s rock-cress G5T5 S1 S1S2 SS

Arenaria benthami Hilly sandwort G4 S1 RO

Argyrochosma dealbata Powdery cloak fern G4G5 S2 RO

Armoracia aquatica Lake cress G4? S1S3 SS

Artemisia annua Annual wormwood G? S1 HG

Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed G5 S2 PR

Asclepias stenophylla Narrow-leaved milkweed G4G5 S1 RO

Asplenium bradleyi Bradley spleenwort G4 S1 RO

Asplenium pinnatifidum Lobed spleenwort G4 S1 S1 RO

Asplenium x ebenoides Scott’s spleenwort HYB S1S2 RO

Aster furcatus Forked aster G3G4 SH S3 RO

Aster novae-angliae New England aster G5 S1 PR

Aster sericeus Silky aster G5 S2 PR

Astragalus crassicarpus var.

crassicarpus Ground plum G5T5 S2 RO

Bergia texana Texas bergia G5 S2 BLH

Brachyelytrum erectum Bearded short-husk G5 S1 MF

Brasenia schreberi Watershield G5 S1 SS

Brickellia grandiflora Tassel flower G5 S2 RO

Bromus nottawayanus Nottaway brome-grass G3G5 S1 SS

(continued)

129
(continued)

Appendix Table 5.1—Assessment area terrestrial plant and animal species, the viability of which is of concern to

scientists, the global and State ranks of these species, and their known habitats (continued)

 State rank

Global

Scientific name Common name rank AR M O OK Habitat

Plants (continued)

Bryoxiphium norvegicum Sword moss G3? S1 ND

Bryun miniatum A moss G3G4 S1 ND

Cacalia muehlenbergii Great Indian plantain G4 S2 S1S3 SS

Calamagrostis porteri ssp. insperata Ofer hollow reed grass G4T3 SH S2 WFM

Calamovilfa arcuata A sandgrass G2 S1 S2 SS

Callirhoe bushii Bush’s poppy mallow G3Q S3 S2 S3 WFM

Calopogon tuberosus Tuberous grass-pink G5 S2 PR

Cardamine dissecta Dissected toothwort G4? S1 SS

Carex amphibola var. globosa A sedge G?T? S1S2 MF

Carex atlantica ssp. atlantica Prickly bog sedge G5T4 S2 SS

Carex atlantica ssp. capillacea A sedge G5T5? S2 SS

Carex bicknellii var. opaca A sedge G5T2T3 S2 SS

Carex bromoides A sedge G5 S2 SS

Carex careyana Carey’s sedge G5 S2 MF

Carex communis Fibrous root sedge G5 S2S3 MF

Carex crebiflora A sedge G4G5 S1 SS

Carex emoryi Emory’s sedge G5 S1S3 SS

Carex fissa var. fissa A sedge G2QT? S1 SU S2 PR

Carex gravida var. gravida A sedge G5T? S2 PR

Carex hitchcockiana Hitchcock’s sedge G5 S1 PR

Carex interior Interior sedge G5 S1 RO

Carex laevivaginata Smooth-sheath sedge G3 S3 S2 SS

Carex latebracteata Waterfall’s sedge G5 S1 WFM

Carex laxiculmis A sedge G5 S1 MF

Carex mesochorea A sedge G4G5 S1 PR

Carex microdonta A sedge G4 S1 PR

Carex oklahomensis Oklahoma sedge G3? S2 S2 PR

Carex ouachitana Ouachita sedge G3? S2S3 MF

Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge G5 S2S3 WFM

Carex prasina Drooping sedge G4 S1S2 SS

Carex projecta Necklace sedge G5 S2 BLH

Carex retroflexa var. texensis A sedge G5T3T5 S1 WFM

Carex socialis Social sedge G3 S2 SU BLH

Carex stricta Upright sedge G5 S1S3 SS

Carex suberecta A sedge G4 S2 SS

Carex swanii Swan’s sedge G5 S3 S1 SS

Carex virescens Ribbed sedge G5 S2 WFM

Carex willdenowii A sedge G5 S2 SS

Castenea pumila var. ozarkensis Ozark chinquapin G5T3 S3S4 S2 S2 WFM

Caulophyllum thalictroides Blue cohosh G5 S2 MF

Cayaponia grandifolia A gourd G3?Q S1 S1 BLH

Chelone obliqua var. speciosa Rose turtlehead G4T3Q SH S1 SS

Cirsium muticum Swamp thistle G5 S1 S1 SS

Cissus incisa Marine vine G5 S1 S2 RO

Claytonia caroliniana Carolina spring beauty G5 S2S3 WFM

Clematis crispa Blue jasmine leather-flower G5 S1 BLH

Clematis drumondii Drumond leather-flower G5 S1S2 WFM

Collinsia verna Spring blue-eyed mary G5 S1 MF

130
(continued)

Appendix Table 5.1—Assessment area terrestrial plant and animal species, the viability of which is of concern to

scientists, the global and State ranks of these species, and their known habitats (continued)

 State rank

Global

Scientific name Common name rank AR M O OK Habitat

Plants (continued)

Cooperia drummondii Evening rainlily G5 S1S2 PR

Corallorhiza odontorhiza Autumn coral-root G5 S1 WFM

Coreopsis grandiflora var. saxicola Large-flowered tickseed G5T3T4 S3 PR

Crataegus brachyacantha Blueberry hawthorn G4 S2 SS

Croptilon hookeranum var. validum Scratch-daisy G5T5 S2 PR

Cyperus setigerus Bristled cyperus G3G5 S1 BLH

Cypripedium kentuckiense Southern lady’s-slipper G3 S3 S1 SS

Cypripedium reginae Showy lady’s-slipper G4 S1 SS

Dalea gattingeri Gattinger prairie-clover G3G4 S? S1 RO

Delphimium newtonianum Moore’s larkspur G3 S2 MF

Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur G3 S3 WFM

Delphinium treleasi Trelease’s larkspur G3 S3 S3 MF

Dennstaedtia punctilobula Eastern hay-scented fern G5 S2 RO

Deschampsia flexuosa Crinkled hairgrass G5 S2S3 S1 WFM

Desmodium illinoense Illinois tick-trefoil G5 S2 PR

Diarrhena americana var. americana American beakgrain G3G5T? S3 S2S3 MF

Didiplis diandra Water-purslane G5 S1S3 S1 SS

Dirca palusitris Eastern leatherwood G4 S1S2 BLH

Disporum lanuginosum Yellow mandarin G5 S2 MF

Dodecatheon frenchii French’s shooting star G3 S2 MF

Draba aprica Open-ground whitlow-grass G3 S2 S2 S1 WFM

Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose wood-fern G4 S2 RO

Dryopteris celsa Log fern G5 S1 MF

Dryopteris x australis Dryopteris HYB S1 MF

Dryopteris x leedsi Leed’s wood fern HYB S1 MF

Dulichium arundinaceum Three-way sedge G5 S2S3 S1 SS

Echinacea paradoxa Bush’s yellow coneflower G4 S2 S? RO

Eriocaulon kornickianum Small-headed pipewort G2G3 S2 S1 RO

Erysimum capitatum Western wallflower G5 S2 RO

Euphorbia comutata Wood spurge G5 S1S2 MF

Euphorbia hexagona Six-angle spurge G5 S2 PR

Euphorbia longicruris A euphorbia G4G5 S1 RO

Euphorbia missourica Missouri spurge G5 S2 RO

Eustoma russellianum Showy-prairie gentian G5 S2 PR

Fagus grandifolia American beech G5 S1? MF

Fothergilla major Witch-alder G3 S1 WFM

Frasera caroliniensis Carolina gentian G5 S1 MF

Galium arkansanum var. pubiflorum Ouachita bedstraw G5T2Q S2 S1 WFM

Galium texense Texas bedstraw G4 S1 WFM

Gaura demareei Demaree’s gaura G3G4Q S1 WFM

Gentiana alba Pale gentian G4 S1 WFM

Gentiana puberulenta Downy gentian G4G5 S2 PR

Gentiana saponaria Soapwort gentian G5 S3 S1 SS

Gratiola brevifolia Sticky hedge-hyssop G4 S2 SS

Hedyotis ouachitana Ouachita hedyotis G3 S3 S1 WFM

Helianthus occidentalis ssp.

plantagineus Plantain-leaved sunflower G5T5 S1 PR

Heliopsis gracilis Pinewoods ox-eye G5? S1 WFM

131
(continued)

Appendix Table 5.1—Assessment area terrestrial plant and animal species, the viability of which is of concern to

scientists, the global and State ranks of these species, and their known habitats (continued)

 State rank

Global

Scientific name Common name rank AR M O OK Habitat

Plants (continued)

Heuchera parviflora var. puberula Little-leaved alumroot G5T3Q S3 RO

Heuchera villosa var. arkansana Arkansas alumroot G4T3T4 S3 RO

Hexalectris spicata Crested coralroot G4? S2 S1S2 WFM

Hieraium scabrum Rough-hawkweed G5 S2 WFM

Homaliadelphus sharpii Sharp’s homaliadelphus G2G3 S1 ND

Huperzia lucidula Shining clubmoss G5 S2S3 RO

Hydrophyllum brownei Browne’s waterleaf G1 S1 MF

Hydrophyllum macrophyllum Waterleaf G5 S2 MF

Hymenocalis caroliniana Carolina spider-lily G4 S1 BLH

Ilex verticillata Winterberry holly G5 S2 RO

Iris verna Dwarf iris G5 S2 MF

Isoetes melanopoda Midland quillwort G5 S1S2 SS

Isotria verticillata Large whorled pogonia G5 S1 WFM

Iva angustifolia Narrow-leaved marsh-elder G5? S1 PR

Juncus subcaudatus A rush G5 S1 SS

Leitneria floridana Corkwood G3 S3 BLH

Liatris squarossa var. compacta Ouachita blazing star G5T3? S3 RO

Lilium superbum Turk’s-cap lily G5 S1 MF

Liparis loeselli Yellow twayblade G5 S1 SS

Lithospermum incisum Narrow-leaved puccoon G5 S2S3 RO

Ludwigia microcarpa False loosestrife G5 S1 SS

Luzula acuminata var. carolinae Southern hairy woodrush G5T? S2 SS

Lyonia mariana Stagger-bush G5 S1S2 WFM

Magnolia acuminata Cucumber magnolia G5 S1 MF

Magnolia tripetala Umbrella magnolia G5 S1 MF

Malus coronaria Sweet crab-apple G5 S2S3 WFM

Marshallia caespitosa var. caespitosa Marshallia G4T4 S2 S? RO

Marshallia caespitosa var. signata Barbara’s buttons G4T4 S2 S? SS

Matelea baldwyniana Baldwin’s milkvine G2G3 S? WFM

Mentha arvensis Field mint G5 S1 SS

Mimulus floribundus Floribundus monkeyflower G5 S2S3 MF

Mimulus ringens Square-stem monkeyflower G5 S1S2 SS

Minuartia drummondii Drummond’s sandwort G5 S2S3 WFM

Minuartia michaxii Rock sandwort G5 S1 RO

Mitella diphylla Two-leaf bishop’s-cap G5 S2 RO

Monarda stipitatoglandulosa Ouachita horsemint G3 S2 RO

Monotropa uniflora Indian-pipe G5 S1 WFM

Muhlenbergia bushii Bush’s muhly G5 S2 S1S2 MF

Neviusia alabamensis Alabama snow wreath G2 S1S2 SX RO

Osmorhiza claytonii Hairy sweet-cicely G5 S1S3 MF

Osmunda claytoniana Interrupted fern G5 S1 SS

Panax quinquefolius American ginseng G4 S1 MF

Pancium philadelphicum var.

tuckermanii Tuckerman’s panic grass G3G5 S? SS

Parnassia grandifolia Large-flowered grass-of-parnassus G3G4 S3 SS

Paronychia canadensis Forked nail-wort G5 S1S2 WFM

Paronychia virginica var. scoparia A paronychia G4T4Q S2 ND

Paspalum dissectum Water paspalum G4? S1 SS

132
(continued)

Appendix Table 5.1—Assessment area terrestrial plant and animal species, the viability of which is of concern to

scientists, the global and State ranks of these species, and their known habitats (continued)

 State rank

Global

Scientific name Common name rank AR M O OK Habitat

Plants (continued)

Pedicularis lanceolata Swamp lousewort G5 S1 SS

Perideridia americana Periderdia G4 S2 S1S2 WFM

Phacelia gilioides Brand phacelia G5 S2S3 S1 WFM

Phaseolus polystachios Wild kidney bean G4 S1 WFM

Philadelphus hirutus Hairy mock orange G5 S2S3 MF

Phlox bifida ssp stellaria Bifid phlox G5?T3 S3 S2 WFM

Phyllanthus polygonoides Knotweed leaf-flower G5 S1 RO

Pilularia americana American pillwort G5 S2 RO

Platanthera ciliaris Yellow-fringed orchid G5 S1 SS

Platanthera clavellata Small green woodland orchid G5 S1S2 MF

Platanthera cristata Yellow-crested orchid G5 S1S2 SS

Platanthera flava Southern rein-orchid G4 S1S2 S1 BLH

Platanthera lacera Ragged orchid G5 S1S2 MF

Platanthera peramoena Purple fringeless orchid G5 S2 SS

Platanthera praeclara Western white fringed orchid G2 S1 S1 PR

Pogonia ophioglossoides Rose pogonia G5 S2 S1 SS

Polygonella americana Jointweed G5 S1S2 WFM

Polygonum pensylvanicum var.

eglandulosum Pinkweed G5T2T4Q S4 SS

Polymnia cossatotensis Heartleaf leafcup G1 S1 RO

Potamogeton natans Floating leaf pondweed G5 S1 SS

Potentilla arguta Tall cinquefoil G5 S1S2 PR

Psoralea esculenta Indian scurf-pea G5 S2 PR

Psoralea onobrychis French-grass G5 S1 MF

Pycnanthemum virginianum Virginia mountain-mint G5 S1S2 SS

Quercus coccinea Scarlet oak G5 S2S3 RO

Quercus laurifolia Laurel oak G5 S2S3 BLH

Quercus shumardii var. acerifolia Maple-leaved oak G1Q S2 S1? RO

Rhynchospora capillacea Capillary beak rush G1 S1 SS

Rhynchospora clorata White-top sedge G5 S2 SS

Ribes curvatum Granite gooseberry G4 S1 S1 RO

Ribes cynosbati Prickly gooseberry G5 S2S3 S1S2 RO

Ribes missouriense Missouri gooseberry G5 S1 WFM

Rosa arkansasa var. suffultaa Wild rose G5T5 S1S3 PR

Rosa foliolosa White prairie rose G2 S2 PR

Sagittaria ambigua Kansas arrowhead G2? S1 S1 SS

Sagittaria rigida Sessile-fruited arrowhead G5 S1 SS

Scirpus etuberculatus Canby’s bulrush G3G4 S1 SS

Scirpus hallii Hall’s bulrush G2 S1 S1 SS

Scirpus polyphyllus Leafy bulrush G5 S2 SS

Scleria reticularis Nutrush G3G4 S1S2 S1S2 SS

Scleria verticillata Low nutrush G5 S1 SS

Scutellaria bushii Bush’s skullcap G2G3 S2 RO

Seligeria calcarea A moss G3G4 S? ND

Seligeria pusilla A moss G3G5 S1 ND

Sida eliottii Elliott’s sida G4G5 S2S3 PR

Silene ovata Ovate-leaf catchfly G3 S2 WFM

Silene regia Royal catchfly G3 S2 S3 S1 PR

133
(continued)

Appendix Table 5.1—Assessment area terrestrial plant and animal species, the viability of which is of concern to

scientists, the global and State ranks of these species, and their known habitats (continued)

 State rank

Global

Scientific name Common name rank AR M O OK Habitat

Plants (continued)

Sium suave Hemlock water-parsnip G5 S1S3 SS

Smilacina stellata Starry false solomon’s-seal G5 S1 MF

Smilax ecirrata Carrion-flower G5? S2 MF

Smilax tamnoides Bristly greenbriar G5 S2 SS

Solidago auriculata Eared goldenrod G4 S2 S? MF

Solidago flexicaulis Broad-leaved goldenrod G5 S1 MF

Solidago ouachitensis A goldenrod G3 S3 S1 WFM

Solidago ptarmicoides Prairie goldenrod G5 S1S2 S1 PR

Solidago riddellii Riddell’s goldenrod G5 S1 SS

Spigelia marilandica Woodland pinkroot G5 S? SS

Spiranthes lucida Shining ladies’-tresses G5 S2 SS

Spiranthes magnicamporum Great Plains ladies’-tresses G3G4 S1 PR

Sporobolus ozarkanus Ozark poverty grass G5?Q S1S2 RO

Sporobolus pyramidatus Whorled dropseed G5 S2 PR

Stachys eplingii Epling’s horse-nettle G5 S3 S1S2 SS

Stachys palustris Hedge nettle G5 S1 PR

Streptanthus obtusifolius A twistflower G3 S3 RO

Streptanthus squamiformes A twistflower G3 S2 S1 RO

Sullivantia sullivantii Sullivantia G3G4 S2 MF

Thalictrum arkansanum Arkansas meadow-rue G2 S2 S1 SS

Tilia caroliniana Carolina basswood G5 S1S2 MF

Tipularia discolor Crippled cranefly orchid G4G5 S1 WFM

Tradescantia longipes A spiderwort G3G4 S2 WFM

Tradescantia ozarkana Ozark spiderwort G2G3 S3 S2 S1S2 MF

Tradescantia subaspera A spiderwort G5 S1S3 MF

Triadenum tubulosum Large marsh St. John’s wort G4? S1S2 BLH

Trichomanes boschianum Bristle-fern G4 S2S3 RO

Trichomanes petersii Dwarf filmy-fern G4G5 S2 RO

Trillium flexipes Drooping trillium G5 S1 MF

Trillium pusillum var. ozarkanum Ozark least trillium G3T3 S3 S2 S1 WFM

Ulmus thomasii Rock elm G5 S2 BLH

Uvularia sessilifolia Sessile-leaf bellwort G5 S1 MF

Valerianella ozarkana Ozark corn-salad G3 S3 S2 SU RO

Valerianella palmeri Palmer’s corn-salad G3 S3 S1 RO

Veratrum woodii Wood’s false hellbore G5 S1 S1 MF

Verbesina walteri Rayless crown-beard G3 S1 S1 WFM

Vernonia fasciculata Prairie ironweed G5 S1 PR

Vernonia lettermannii Lettermann’s ironweed G3 S? SS

Vertigo meramecensis Bluff vertigo G2 S1 RO

Viola canadensis var. canadensis Canada violet G5 S2 MF

Viola pedatifida Prairie violet G5 S2 PR

Waldsteinia fragarioides Barren strawberry G5 S1 MF

Woodsia scopulina var. appalachiana Appalachian woodsia G4T4 S1 RO

Zizia aptera Golden alexanders G5 S1S3 PR

Reptiles

Cemophora coccinea copei Northern scarlet snake G5T5 S2? S2S3 MF

Eumeces inexpectatus Southeastern five-lined skink G5 S1? HG

134
Appendix Table 5.1—Assessment area terrestrial plant and animal species, the viability of which is of concern to

scientists, the global and State ranks of these species, and their known habitats (continued)

 State rank

Global

Scientific name Common name rank AR M O OK Habitat

Reptiles (continued)

Eumeces obsoletus Great Plains skink G5 S1? S5 PR

Eumeces septentrionalis obtusirostris Southern prairie skink G5T5 S1? S4 PR

Heterodon nasicus gloydi Dusty hognose snake G5T3T4Q S1? S5 PR

Lampropeltis triangulum amaura Louisiana milk snake G5T4 S1? S3 WFM

Nerodia cyclopion Green water snake G5 S2? SS

Regina grahamii Graham’s crayfish snake G5 S2? S3 SS

Regina septemvittata Queen snake G5 S1? SS

Sonora semiannulata Ground snake G5 S1? S5 PR

Terrapene ornata ornata Ornate box turtle G5T5 S2 S5 PR

Thamnophis radix Plains garter snake G5 S1? S2S3 PR

BLH = bottomland hardwood forest; MF = mesic forest; WFM = woodland, fire maintained; PR = prairie; SS = seep, fen, and riparian

wetland habitats; RO = rock outcrop; glade, talus, and cliff habitats HG = habitat generalist; ND = not determined.

Source: State Natural Heritage databases [accessed 1997].

135
Appendix Table 5.2—Assessment area terrestrial plant and animal species with global viability concerns,

showing their global ranks and known habitats

Scientific name Common name Global rank Habitata

Amphibians and reptiles

Eurycea tynerensis Oklahoma salamander G3 SS

Plethodon caddoensis Caddo Mountain salamander G2 MF

Plethodon fourchensis Fourche Mountain salamander G2 MF

Plethodon ouachitae Rich Mountain salamander G2G3 MF

Plethodon sequoyah SE Oklahoma slimy salamander G2Q MF

Scaphiopus holbrookii hurteri Hurter’s spadefoot G5T? WFM

Heterodon nasicus gloydi Dusty hognose snake G5T3T4Q PR

Birds

Aimophila aestivalis Bachman’s sparrow G3 WFM

Ammodramus henslowii Henslow’s sparrow G3G4 PR

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler G3G4 SS

Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson’s warbler G3G4 BLH

Invertebrates

Arianops sandersoni Magazine Mountain mold beetle G1? WFM

Calephelis borealis Northern metalmark G3G4 RO

Gryllotalpa major Prairie mole cricket G3 PR

Ophiogompus westfalli Arkansas snaketail dragonfly G2 SS

Panorpa braueri A panorpid scorpionfly G1

Papipema eryngium Rattlesnake master borer moth G1 PR

Rhadine ozarkensis A ground beetle G1 —

Rimulincola divalis A beetle G1 —

Speyeria idalia Regal fritillary G3 PR

Stenotrema pilsbryi Rich Mountain slitmouth snail G2 RO

Mammals

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s big-eared bat G3G4 MF

Spilogale putorius interrupta Plains spotted skunk G5T3T4 PR

Plants

Agalinis auriculata Auriculate false foxglove G3 PR

Agalinis skinneriana A false foxglove G3 PR

Amorpha ouachitensis Ouachita leadplant G3Q SS

Amsonia hubrichtii Ouachita blue star G3 SS

Aster furcatus Forked aster G3G4 RO

Bromus nottawayanus Nottaway brome-grass G3G5 SS

Bryoxiphium norvegicum Sword moss G3? —

Bryun miniatum A moss G3G4 —

Calamagrostis porteri ssp. insperata Ofer hollow reed grass G4T3 WFM

Calamovilfa arcuata A sandgrass G2 SS

Callirhoe bushii Bush’s poppy-mallow G3Q WFM

Carex amphibola var. globosa A sedge G?T? MF

Carex bicknellii var. opaca A sedge G5T2T3 SS

Carex fissa var. fissa A sedge G2QT? PR

Carex gravida var. gravida A sedge G5T? PR

Carex latebracteata Waterfall’s sedge G3 WFM

Carex oklahomensis Oklahoma sedge G3? PR

Carex ouachitana Ouachita sedge G3? MF

Carex retroflexa var. texensis A sedge G5T3T5 WFM

(continued)

136
Appendix Table 5.2—Assessment area terrestrial plant and animal species with global viability concerns,

showing their global ranks and known habitats (continued)

Scientific name Common name Global rank Habitat

Plants (continued)

Carex socialis Social sedge G3 BLH

Castenea pumila var. ozarkensis Ozark chinquapin G5T3 WFM

Cayaponia grandifolia A gourd G3?Q BLH

Chelone obliqua var. speciosa Rose turtlehead G4T3Q SS

Cissus incisa Marine vine G3G5 RO

Coreopsis grandiflora var. saxicola Large-flowered tickseed G5T3T4 PR

Cyperus setigerus Bristled cyperus G3G5 BLH

Cypripedium kentuckiense Southern lady’s-slipper G3 SS

Dalea gattingeri Gattinger prairie-clover G3G4 RO

Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur G3 WFM

Delphimium newtonianum Moore’s larkspur G3 MF

Delphinium treleasi Trelease’s larkspur G3 MF

Diarrhena americana var. americana American beakgrain G3G5T? MF

Dodecatheon frenchii French’s shooting star G3 MF

Draba aprica Open-ground whitlow-grass G3 WFM

Eriocaulon kornickianum Small-headed pipewort G2G3 RO

Fothergilla major Witch-alder G3 WFM

Galium arkansanum var. pubiflorum Ouachita bedstraw G5T2Q WFM

Gaura demareei Demaree’s gaura G3G4Q WFM

Hedyotis ouachitana Ouachita hedyotis G3 WFM

Heuchera villosa var. arkansana Arkansas alumroot G5T3Q RO

Heuchera parviflora var. puberula Little-leaved alumroot G4T3T4 RO

Homaliadelphus sharpii Sharp’s homaliadelphus G2G3 —

Hydrophyllum brownei Browne’s waterleaf G1 MF

Leitneria floridana Corkwood G3 BLH

Liatris squarossa var. compacta Ouachita blazing star G5T3? RO

Luzula acuminata var. carolinae Southern hairy woodrush G5T? SS

Matelea baldwyniana Baldwin’s milkvine G2G3 WFM

Monarda stipitatoglandulosa Ouachita horsemint G3 RO

Neviusia alabamensis Alabama snowwreath G2 RO

Pancium philadelphicum var.

tuckermanii Tuckerman’s panic grass G3G5 SS

Parnassia grandifolia Large-flowered grass-of-parnassus G3G4 SS

Phlox bifida ssp stellaria Bifid phlox G5?T3 WFM

Platanthera praeclara Western white fringed orchid G2 PR

Polygonum pensylvanicum var.

eglandulosum Pinkweed G5T2T4Q SS

Polymnia cossatotensis Heartleaf leafcup G1 RO

Quercus shumardii var. acerifolia Maple-leaved oak G1Q RO

Rosa foliolosa White prairie rose G2 PR

Sagittaria ambigua Kansas arrowhead G2? SS

Scirpus hallii Hall’s bulrush G2 SS

Scirpus etuberculatus Canby’s bulrush G3G4 SS

Scleria reticularis Nutrush G3G4 SS

Scutellaria bushii Bush’s skullcap G2G3 RO

Seligeria calcarea A moss G3G4 —

Seligeria pusilla A moss G3G5 —

Silene ovata Ovate-leaf catchfly G3 WFM

Silene regia Royal catchfly G3 PR

Solidago ouachitensis A goldenrod G3 WFM

(continued)

137
Appendix Table 5.2—Assessment area terrestrial plant and animal species with global viability concerns,

showing their global ranks and known habitats (continued)

Scientific name Common name Global rank Habitata

Plants (continued)

Spiranthes magnicamporum Great Plains ladies’-tresses G3G4 PR

Streptanthus obtusifolius A twistflower G3 RO

Streptanthus squamiformes A twistflower G3 RO

Sullivantia sullivantii Sullivantia G3G4 MF

Thalictrum arkansanum Arkansas meadow-rue G2 SS

Tradescantia longipes A spiderwort G3G4 WFM

Tradescantia ozarkana Ozark spiderwort G2G3 MF

Trillium pusillum var. ozarkanum Ozark least trillium G3T3 WFM

Valerianella ozarkana Ozark corn-salad G3 RO

Valerianella palmeri Palmer’s corn-salad G3 RO

Verbesina walteri Rayless crown-beard G3 WFM

Vernonia lettermannii Lettermann’s ironweed G3 SS

Vertigo meramecensis Bluff vertigo G2 RO

BLH = bottomland hardwood forest; MF = mesic forest; WFM = woodland, fire maintained; PR = prairie; SS = seep, fen, riparian

wetland; RO = rock outcrop, glade, talus, cliff; HG = habitat generalist; — = habitat not defined.

Source: State Natural Heritage Program databases [accessed 1997].

138
Appendix Table 5.3—Critically-imperiled and imperiled terrestrial plant and animal species in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, by habitat association, with rank

 Taxonomic

Scientific name Common name group Global rank

Fire-maintained woodland

Scaphiopus holbrookii hurteri Hurter’s spadefoot Amphibian G5T

Arianops sandersoni Magazine Mountain mold beetle Invertebrate G1?

Galium arkansanum var. pubiflorum Ouachita bedstraw Plant G5T2Q

Matelea baldwyniana Baldwin’s milkvine Plant G2G3

Seep, fen, pond, and/or upland riparian areas

Ophiogompus westfalli Arkansas snaketail dragonfly Invertebrate G2

Calamovilfa arcuata A sandgrass Plant G2

Carex bicknellii var. opaca A sedge Plant G5T2T3

Luzula acuminata var. carolinae Southern hairy woodrush Plant G5T?

Polygonum pensylvanicum var.

eglandulosum Pinkweed Plant G5T2T4Q

Sagittaria ambigua Kansas arrowhead Plant G2?

Scirpus hallii Hall’s bulrush Plant G2

Thalictrum arkansanum Arkansas meadow-rue Plant G2

Rock outcrop, glade, talus, and/or cliff

Stenotrema pilsbryi Rich Mountain slitmouth Invertebrate G2

Eriocaulon kornickianum Small-headed pipewort Plant G2G3

Neviusia alabamensis Alabama snowwreath Plant G2

Polymnia cossatotensis Heartleaf leafcup Plant G1

Quercus shumardii var. acerifolia Maple-leaved oak Plant G1Q

Scutellaria bushii Bush’s skullcap Plant G2G3

Vertigo meramecensis Bluff vertigo Plant G2

Prairie, grassland

Papipema eryngium Rattlesnake master borer moth Invertebrate G1

Carex fissa var. fissa A sedge Plant G2QT?

Carex gravida var. gravida A sedge Plant G5T?

Platanthera praeclara Western white fringed orchid Plant G2

Rosa foliolosa White prairie rose Plant G2

Mesic forest

Plethodon caddoensis Caddo Mountain salamander Amphibian G2

Plethodon fourchensis Fourche Mountain salamander Amphibian G2

Plethodon ouachitae Rich Mountain salamander Amphibian G2G3

Plethodon sequoyah SE Oklahoma slimy salamander Amphibian G2Q

Carex amphibola var. globosa A sedge Plant G?T?

Hydrophyllum brownei Browne’s waterleaf Plant G1

Tradescantia ozarkana Ozark spiderwort Plant G2G3

Habitat not defined

Panorpa braueri A panorpid scorpionfly Invertebrate G1

Rhadine ozarkensis A ground beetle Invertebrate G1

Rimulincola divalis A beetle Invertebrate G1

Homaliadelphus sharpii Sharp’s homaliadelphus Plant G2G3

Source: State Natural Heritage Program databases [accessed 1997].

139
Appendix Table 5.4—Conservation status for imperiled and critically imperiled terrestrial species in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands, with global and State ranks and conservation trend

 Organism Conservation

Specific name Common name type Rank trend

Unsatisfactory

Arianops sandersoni Magazine Mtn mold beetle Invertebrate G1? S1? STA

Papipema eryngium Rattlesnake master borer moth Invertebrate G1 S1 UNK

Polymnia cossatotensis Heartleaf leafcup Plant G1 S1 STA

Quercus shumardii var.

acerifolia Maple-leaved oak Plant G1Q S2 STA

Thalictrum arkansanum Arkansas meadow-rue Plant G2 S1 UNK

Satisfactory

Plethodon caddoensis Caddo Mtn salamander Amphibian G2 S2 STA

Plethodon fourchensis Fourche Mtn salamander Amphibian G2 S2 STA

Plethodon ouachitae Rich Mountain salamander Amphibian G2G3 S2 STA

Plethodon sequoyah SE Oklahoma slimy salamander Amphibian G2Q S2 STA

Ophiogompus westfalli Arkansas snaketail dragonfly Invertebrate G2 S? UNK

Stenotrema pilsbryi Rich Mtn slitmouth snail Invertebrate G2 S1/S2 STA

Calamovilfa arcuata A sandgrass Plant G2 S1/S2 STA

Eriocaulon kornickianum Small-headed pipewort Plant G2G3 S2S1 INCR

Galium arkansanum var.

pubiflorum Ouachita bedstraw Plant G5T2Q S2/S1 STA

Hydrophyllum brownei Browne’s waterleaf Plant G1 S1 STA

Luzula acuminata var. carolinae Southern hairy woodrush Plant G5T? S2 STA

Neviusia alabamensis Alabama snowwreath Plant G2 S1S2 UNK

Tradescantia ozarkana Ozark spiderwort Plant G2G3 S3/S2/S1S2 STA

Unknown

Scaphiopus holbrookii hurteri Hurter’s spadefoot Amphibian G5T? S2? UNK

Panorpa braueri A panorpid scorpionfly Invertebrate G1 S1 UNK

Rhadine ozarkensis A ground beetle Invertebrate G1 S1 UNK

Rimulincola divalis A beetle Invertebrate G1 S1 UNK

Carex amphibola var. globosa A sedge Plant G?T? S1S2 UNK

Carex bicknellii var. opaca A sedge Plant G5T2T3 S2 UNK

Carex fissa var. fissa A sedge Plant G2QT? S2 UNK

Carex gravida var. gravida A sedge Plant G5T? S2 UNK

Homaliadelphus sharpii Sharp’s homaliadelphus Plant G2G3 S1 UNK

Matelea baldwyniana Baldwin’s milkvine Plant G2G3 S? UNK

Platanthera praeclara Western white fringed orchid Plant G2 S1 UNK

Polygonum pensylvanicum var.

eglandulosum Pinkweed Plant G5T2T4Q S4 UNK

Rosa foliolosa White prairie rose Plant G2 S2 UNK

Sagittaria ambigua Kansas arrowhead Plant G2? S1 UNK

Scirpus hallii Hall’s bulrush Plant G2 S1 UNK

Scutellaria bushii Bush’s skullcap Plant G2G3 S2 UNK

Vertigo meramecensis Bluff vertigo Plant G2 S1 UNK

STA = stable; INCR = increasing; UNK = unknown.

Source: State Natural Heritage Program databases [accessed 1997].

140
Appendix Table 5.5—Breeding birds and their conservation scores from Partners in Flighta

Species RA BD ND TB TN PT AI Score Habitat

Pied-billed grebe 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 13 Aquatic

American bittern 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 17 Aquatic

Least bittern 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 17 Aquatic

Great blue heron 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 12 Aquatic

Great egret 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 13 Aquatic

Little blue heron 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 14 Aquatic

Cattle egret 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 11 Agriculture

Green heron 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 15 Aquatic

Black-crowned night-heron 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 14 Aquatic

Yellow-crowned night-heron 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 16 Aquatic

Canada goose 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 13 Aquatic

Wood duck 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 17 Aquatic

Mallard 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 12 Aquatic

Blue-winged teal 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 14 Aquatic

Hooded merganser 4 2 4 3 2 3 3 21 Aquatic

Black vulture 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 11 Agriculture

Turkey vulture 2 1 1 2 1 3 3 13 Forest, agriculture

Mississippi kite 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 Forest, savanna/glade

Bald eagle 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 18 Aquatic

Northern harrier 3 1 1 4 3 3 2 17 Grassland, savanna/glade

Sharp-shinned hawk 3 1 1 3 2 3 2 15 Forest

Cooper’s hawk 3 1 1 3 2 3 3 16 Forest

Red-shouldered hawk 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 17 Forest, shrub/sapling

Broad-winged hawk 3 1 1 2 2 3 4 16 Forest

Red-tailed hawk 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 13 Forest, agriculture

American kestrel 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 12 Agriculture, savanna/glade

Peregrine falcon 4 1 1 4 3 3 3 19 Aquatic, grassland

Ruffed grouse 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 17 Shrub/sapling, forest

Wild turkey 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 17 Forest

Northern bobwhite 2 2 2 3 3 5 4 21 Agriculture, grassland

Sora 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 14 Aquatic

Common moorhen 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 14 Aquatic

American coot 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 12 Aquatic

Killdeer 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 16 Grassland, agriculture

Spotted sandpiper 2 1 1 2 1 3 3 13 Aquatic

Upland sandpiper 2 2 3 3 4 3 2 19 Grassland, agriculture

American woodcock 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 19 Shrub/sapling, forest

Rock dove 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 11 Agriculture, developed

Mourning dove 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 11 Savanna/glades, grassland

Black-billed cuckoo 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 18 Shrub/sapling, savanna/glade

Yellow-billed cuckoo 3 1 2 3 3 3 5 20 Forest

Greater roadrunner 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 17 Savanna/glade

Barn owl 3 1 1 3 3 3 2 16 Agriculture

Eastern screech-owl 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 18 Forest

Great horned owl 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 12 Forest

Barred owl 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 15 Forest

Long-eared owl 3 1 1 2 3 3 2 15 Forest, agriculture

Short-eared owl 4 1 1 4 4 3 2 19 Grassland, savanna/glade

Common nighthawk 2 1 1 3 2 4 2 15 Savanna/glade, grassland

Chuck-will’s-widow 3 2 3 3 3 3 5 22 Forest

Whip-poor-will 3 2 3 3 3 3 5 22 Forest

Chimney swift 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 18 Developed, forest

Ruby-throated hummingbird 3 1 3 2 2 3 5 19 Forest, shrub/sapling

Belted kingfisher 3 1 1 2 2 3 4 16 Aquatic

(continued)

141
Appendix Table 5.5—Breeding birds and their conservation scores from Partners in Flighta

 (continued)

Species RA BD ND TB TN PT AI Score Habitat

Red-headed woodpecker 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 19 Forest

Red-bellied woodpecker 2 2 3 2 2 3 4 18 Forest

Downy woodpecker 3 1 1 2 1 3 5 16 Forest

Hairy woodpecker 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 15 Forest

Red-cockaded woodpecker 5 4 4 5 5 3 2 28 Forest

Northern flicker 2 1 1 2 1 5 3 15 Savanna/glade, developed

Pileated woodpecker 3 1 1 2 2 5 5 19 Forest

Eastern wood-pewee 3 1 2 3 3 3 5 20 Forest

Acadian flycatcher 3 2 4 3 3 5 3 23 Forest

Willow flycatcher 3 1 4 3 2 3 2 18 Shrub/sapling

Least flycatcher 2 1 3 3 2 3 2 16 Forest

Eastern phoebe 3 1 2 2 2 3 5 18 Forest, developed

Great crested flycatcher 2 1 3 2 3 3 4 18 Forest

Western kingbird 2 1 4 2 2 3 2 16 Savanna/glade, agriculture

Eastern kingbird 2 1 2 2 2 3 4 16 Shrub/sapling, savanna/glade

Scissor-tailed flycatcher 2 4 5 2 3 3 2 21 Grassland, agriculture

Horned lark 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 12 Grassland, agriculture

Purple martin 2 1 1 3 3 1 4 15 Aquatic, developed

Tree swallow 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 14 Savanna/glade, shrub/sapling

Northern rough-winged swallow 2 1 3 2 2 3 3 16 Savanna/glade, shrub/sapling

Bank swallow 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 14 Aquatic

Cliff swallow 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 11 Aquatic

Barn swallow 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 13 Agriculture, grassland

Blue jay 2 1 2 1 1 2 5 14 Forest

American crow 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 11 Agriculture, forest

Fish crow 2 3 4 1 1 3 2 16 Aquatic

Black-capped chickadee 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 13 Forest

Carolina chickadee 2 3 3 2 1 3 5 19 Forest

Tufted titmouse 2 2 2 1 1 3 5 16 Forest

White-breasted nuthatch 3 1 1 2 2 3 5 17 Forest

Brown-headed nuthatch 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 22 Savanna/glade

Brown creeper 3 1 1 3 2 3 1 14 Forest

Carolina wren 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 17 Forest, shrub/sapling

Bewick’s wren 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 17 Shrub/sapling

House wren 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 11 Forest, developed

Sedge wren 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 22 Shrub/sapling, aquatic

Marsh wren 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 19 Shrub/sapling, aquatic

Blue-gray gnatcatcher 2 1 2 2 2 3 5 17 Forest, shrub/sapling

Eastern bluebird 2 1 2 2 2 3 5 17 Savanna/glade, agriculture

Wood thrush 2 2 4 3 4 3 3 21 Forest

American robin 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 Developed, agriculture

Gray catbird 2 1 3 2 2 5 2 17 Shrub/sapling

Northern mockingbird 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 13 Shrub/sapling, agriculture

Brown thrasher 3 1 3 3 2 5 4 21 Shrub/sapling

Cedar waxwing 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 13 Shrub/sapling, developed

Loggerhead shrike 3 1 1 4 3 5 3 20 Savanna/glade, shrub/sapling

European starling 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 11 Grassland

White-eyed vireo 2 2 4 3 2 2 3 18 Shrub/sapling, savanna/glade

Bell’s vireo 3 3 5 4 3 3 2 23 Shrub/sapling

Yellow-throated vireo 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 20 Forest

Warbling vireo 2 1 4 2 2 3 2 16 Forest, savanna/glade

Red-eyed vireo 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 15 Forest

Blue-winged warbler 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 22 Shrub/sapling, savanna/glade

Northern parula 2 2 4 2 2 3 4 19 Forest

(continued)

142
Appendix Table 5.5—Breeding birds and their conservation scores from Partners in Flighta

 (continued)

Species RA BD ND TB TN PT AI Score Habitat

Yellow warbler 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 12 Shrub/sapling

Chestnut-sided warbler 2 2 4 2 3 3 2 18 Shrub/sapling

Black-throated green warbler 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 18 Forest

Yellow-throated warbler 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 20 Forest

Pine warbler 2 3 3 2 2 3 4 19 Forest

Prairie warbler 3 3 4 3 2 5 3 23 Shrub/sapling, savanna/glade

Cerulean warbler 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 25 Forest

Black-and-white warbler 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 18 Forest

American redstart 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 14 Forest

Prothonotary warbler 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 21 Forest, aquatic

Worm-eating warbler 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 25 Forest, shrub/sapling

Swainson’s warbler 4 4 5 4 4 3 2 26 Shrub/sapling, forest

Ovenbird 2 2 3 2 3 5 3 20 Forest

Louisiana waterthrush 4 2 3 3 4 3 4 23 Forest

Kentucky warbler 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 23 Forest, shrub/sapling

Common yellowthroat 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 14 Shrub/sapling

Hooded warbler 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 21 Forest, shrub/sapling

Yellow-breasted chat 2 1 3 3 2 3 5 19 Shrub/sapling

Summer tanager 3 2 2 3 2 3 5 20 Forest, savanna/glade

Scarlet tanager 2 2 4 2 2 3 3 18 Forest

Northern cardinal 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 12 Shrub/sapling

Rose-breasted grosbeak 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 17 Forest, savanna/glade

Blue grosbeak 2 1 3 2 2 3 5 18 Shrub/sapling, savanna/glade

Indigo bunting 1 1 3 1 2 3 5 16 Shrub/sapling, savanna/glade

Painted bunting 2 4 3 4 3 3 3 22 Shrub/sapling

Dickcissel 1 2 4 4 4 5 3 23 Grassland

Eastern towhee 1 2 2 3 2 5 3 18 Shrub/sapling

Bachman’s sparrow 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 25 Savanna/glade

Rufous-crowned sparrow 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 20 Shrub/sapling, savanna/glade

Chipping sparrow 2 1 2 2 1 3 4 15 Savanna/glade, shrub/sapling

Field sparrow 2 2 2 3 3 5 5 22 Shrub/sapling, savanna/glade

Vesper sparrow 1 1 2 3 2 3 2 14 Shrub/sapling, savanna/glade

Lark sparrow 2 1 3 3 2 5 2 18 Shrub/sapling, grassland

Savannah sparrow 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 12 Grassland, agriculture

Grasshopper sparrow 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 16 Grassland, agriculture

Henslow’s sparrow 4 3 5 4 4 3 2 25 Grassland

Song sparrow 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 11 Shrub/sapling

Red-winged blackbird 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 12 Shrub/sapling, grassland

Eastern meadowlark 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 16 Grassland, agriculture

Western meadowlark 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 15 Grassland, agriculture

Great-tailed grackle 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 12 Agriculture

Common grackle 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 12 Agriculture

Brown-headed cowbird 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 14 Agriculture, grassland

Orchard oriole 2 2 3 3 2 5 4 21 Savanna/glade, agriculture

Baltimore oriole 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 17 Forest

House finch 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 10 Developed

Pine siskin 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 10 Forest, shrub/sapling

American goldfinch 2 1 1 2 1 3 3 13 Shrub/sapling, agriculture

House sparrow 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 13 Developed, agriculture

RA = relative abundance; BD = size of breeding distribution; ND = size of non-breeding distribution; TB = threats in breeding range; TN = threats in nonbreeding range; PT = population trend; AI = importance of area being considered to the species.

a Categories are scored 1–5 based on current knowledge; the greater the total score, the higher the conservation concern. One or two general breeding

habitats are identified; see text for further description. The scores change over time. Check the Colorado Bird Observatory Web site (<http://

www.cbobirds.org>) for the latest scores.

Source: Colorado Bird Observatory (1998).

143
Appendix Table 5.6—Population trends and relative abundance of birds breeding in the Ozark-Ouachita

Plateaus, as determined by the North American Breeding Bird Survey

 1966 to 1996 1980 to 1996

Species Trenda P-valueb N RA Trenda P-valueb N

Wood duck 11.3 0.03 19 0.16 8.3 0.17 17

Great blue heron 6.5 0.00 39 1.12 5.1 0.02 39

Green heron -1.4 0.36 41 1.18 -3.4 0.13 39

Killdeer 0.0 0.99 39 2.09 -1.8 0.13 37

Northern bobwhite -2.6 0.00 51 22.71 -3.9 0.00 49

Wild turkey 7.8 0.07 25 0.37 -2.9 0.48 24

Rock dove 0.2 0.87 31 3.26 -1.3 0.74 28

Mourning dove 0.0 0.97 49 13.90 2.2 0.04 47

Turkey vulture 0.0 0.98 46 2.81 3.6 0.04 43

Red-tailed hawk -1.8 0.31 45 0.68 -2.3 0.43 43

Red-shouldered hawk 0.3 0.91 25 0.41 4.7 0.16 24

Broad-winged hawk -0.8 0.74 19 0.16 1.3 0.87 17

Barred owl 3.7 0.18 23 0.18 5.1 0.02 20

Yellow-billed cuckoo 0.2 0.74 52 12.47 -3.0 0.01 50

Belted kingfisher -2.0 0.30 33 0.36 3.6 0.29 28

Hairy woodpecker -1.3 0.63 33 0.34 -2.2 0.65 28

Downy woodpecker 0.2 0.83 49 2.53 0.3 0.82 47

Pileated woodpecker -2.6 0.00 49 2.88 -0.3 0.87 46

Red-headed woodpecker -2.2 0.24 39 1.17 -8.2 0.03 34

Red-bellied woodpecker -0.2 0.76 51 6.07 0.4 0.71 49

Yellow-shafted flicker -2.9 0.07 43 1.61 -4.2 0.03 40

Chuck-will’s-widow 0.5 0.69 45 2.47 0.7 0.70 41

Whip-poor-will 0.2 0.91 35 1.60 1.1 0.67 34

Common nighthawk -8.8 0.02 15 0.22 -3.7 0.65 9

Chimney swift -0.3 0.79 46 6.61 -0.2 0.84 44

Ruby-throated hummingbird 0.2 0.93 43 0.94 4.4 0.02 41

Scissor-tail flycatcher 0.6 0.37 26 1.57 0.7 0.56 25

Eastern kingbird -0.4 0.61 44 5.32 -2.2 0.04 42

Great crested flycatcher -1.6 0.17 51 5.97 0.2 0.84 49

Eastern phoebe 1.1 0.21 50 4.44 0.6 0.51 48

Eastern wood-pewee -1.6 0.12 52 8.81 1.1 0.28 50

Acadian flycatcher -2.9 0.08 37 1.45 0.9 0.80 36

Horned lark -6.1 0.08 16 0.25 -10.8 0.00 12

Blue jay -1.0 0.03 52 15.28 -1.3 0.16 50

American crow 1.9 0.00 52 41.00 1.9 0.00 50

European starling -0.8 0.31 42 23.70 -2.6 0.03 40

Brown-headed cowbird -1.0 0.01 51 16.77 -1.9 0.02 49

Red-winged blackbird -0.1 0.91 46 26.30 -4.1 0.00 44

Eastern meadowlark -1.3 0.33 47 28.32 -3.4 0.00 45

Orchard oriole -3.7 0.01 45 3.80 -3.6 0.04 43

Baltimore oriole -2.7 0.54 27 0.47 5.4 0.30 21

Common grackle 0.4 0.63 43 25.84 -2.1 0.10 41

American goldfinch 0.9 0.53 46 3.17 1.5 0.40 44

Grasshopper sparrow 1.1 0.75 21 0.77 -1.3 0.83 17

Lark sparrow -6.4 0.0 30 0.82 -5.1 0.14 25

Chipping sparrow -0.6 0.65 49 5.87 1.9 0.29 47

Field sparrow -3.1 0.00 48 13.94 0.0 0.96 46

Eastern towhee -2.2 0.02 41 5.61 -3.5 0.02 39

Northern cardinal 0.1 0.87 51 27.97 1.4 0.02 49

Blue grosbeak 1.0 0.48 44 4.67 -1.8 0.29 42

(continued)

144
Appendix Table 5.6—Population trends and relative abundance of birds breeding in the Ozark-Ouachita

Plateaus, as determined by the North American Breeding Bird Survey (continued)

 1966 to 1996 1980 to 1996

Species Trenda P-valueb N RA Trenda P-valueb N

Indigo bunting 0.1 0.83 52 34.41 -0.4 0.49 50

Dickcissel -1.8 0.07 40 7.57 -2.7 0.07 38

Scarlet tanager 0.5 0.86 34 2.18 1.4 0.71 33

Summer tanager -0.4 0.66 52 7.53 -0.2 0.85 50

Purple martin 1.9 0.05 46 7.34 -0.9 0.59 44

Barn swallow 0.4 0.54 47 15.54 -2.4 0.01 45

N. Rough-winged swallow 1.2 0.52 33 1.52 -4.1 0.05 30

Loggerhead shrike -9.4 0.00 36 0.99 -7.2 0.13 28

Red-eyed vireo 1.1 0.14 50 14.69 3.7 0.02 48

Warbling vireo 5.3 0.15 19 0.36 6.3 0.42 15

Yellow-throated vireo -1.7 0.60 33 0.58 4.0 0.36 32

White-eyed vireo -0.9 0.09 50 4.66 -0.5 0.65 47

Black-&-white warbler -0.5 0.75 40 1.97 -0.4 0.88 38

Prothonotary warbler -3.8 0.16 15 0.15 7.1 0.07 10

Worm-eating warbler -2.3 0.61 23 0.68 7.0 0.11 21

Blue-winged warbler 4.4 0.27 18 0.60 5.0 0.22 17

Northern parula -0.3 0.83 43 1.91 4.3 0.00 40

Yellow-throated warbler 1.8 0.57 24 0.44 -5.2 0.61 23

Pine warbler 0.1 0.94 31 6.39 1.4 0.50 30

Prairie warbler -4.6 0.02 37 1.55 -3.8 0.08 33

Ovenbird -3.6 0.02 29 2.86 0.6 0.87 28

Louisiana waterthrush 1.6 0.70 29 0.37 -3.2 0.56 25

Kentucky warbler -1.4 0.37 46 3.43 -1.8 0.63 43

Common yellowthroat -0.7 0.38 48 4.65 -2.1 0.12 46

Yellow-breasted chat -0.6 0.15 51 11.59 -0.4 0.66 49

House sparrow -2.8 0.00 44 24.55 -8.2 0.00 42

Northern mockingbird -1.0 0.09 45 12.29 0.6 0.38 43

Gray catbird -3.5 0.00 38 1.00 -5.0 0.01 33

Brown thrasher -2.9 0.00 46 3.70 -5.1 0.00 43

Carolina wren 1.3 0.30 51 7.58 8.7 0.00 49

Bewick’s wren -3.0 0.42 24 0.81 2.0 0.68 19

House wren -0.2 0.94 17 0.52 1.0 0.65 14

White-breasted nuthatch 0.5 0.61 52 3.41 1.6 0.17 49

Tufted titmouse -0.6 0.59 52 16.17 1.7 0.05 50

Carolina chickadee -1.1 0.17 50 7.96 -1.3 0.30 49

Blue-gray gnatcatcher -0.3 0.84 50 8.45 1.9 0.24 48

Wood thrush -1.3 0.20 44 3.11 3.1 0.18 38

American robin 1.7 0.03 47 16.05 -0.2 0.89 45

Eastern bluebird 0.6 0.68 51 8.92 2.0 0.14 49

N = number of survey routes on which the bird species was counted; RA = mean annual abundance expressed as birds per route.

a Trend is the mean percent annual population change.

b

 P-values are for the test that the trend is not different than 0.

Source: Sauer (1997).

145

Chapter 6: Biological Threats to Forest Resources

Question 6.1: What are the current and predicted

trends for insect and disease infestations or outbreaks in the Assessment area?

Certain introduced (i.e., exotic, nonnative) species of

plants, animals, and other organisms threaten forest

resources as competitors for living space, as diseasecausing agents, or as aggressive consumers of plants.

Some native species also periodically pose threats to

forest resources. To assess the various threats, the

Terrestrial Team sought to answer the above question.

 Key Findings

 1. The European gypsy moth, a defoliator of hardwood

trees, has been found in the Assessment area. The

outbreaks have been minor and eradication has been

successful. Scientists expect a general infestation

might reach the Assessment area between 2025 and

2050.

 2. Red imported fire ants are invading the Assessment

area from the south and are expected to continue a

gradual northward expansion. Eradication is probably

impossible. An integrated pest management program

is the best approach to this problem.

 3. The southern pine beetle is indigenous to the southern part of the Assessment area. Serious outbreaks

will continue to occur in the Ouachita Mountains

section. These outbreaks are cyclic and related to

stand age and density of pine trees in a stand.

 4. Knapweeds, invasive nonnative plants, have been

present for several decades on some roadsides in

southern Missouri. There are health concerns for

humans and livestock related to this plant. Precautions should be taken to minimize direct contact with

this plant.

 5. Purple loosestrife, a serious pest in wetlands, is

present in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands and may

spread.

Invasive Nonnative Insects

Data Sources

The information in this section is from published

reports. (See “References” at the end of this report.)

Scientists participating in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Assessment provided additional expertise.

Patterns and Trends

European Gypsy Moth

The European gypsy moth was introduced into the

United States in 1869. A defoliator, it has caused considerable damage to forests in the northeastern part of the

country and has gradually expanded its range. Scientists

expect the moths’ natural expansion to reach the OzarkOuachita Highlands between 2025 and 2050 (USDA FS

1995b).

European gypsy moths feed on numerous trees,

shrubs, and vines but prefer oaks. After European gypsy

moth larvae hatch in the spring, the young caterpillars

climb to the tops and extended branches of trees, from

whence they ride winds for distances of up to 2 miles

(mi). The airborne caterpillars land on other host plants

and begin intense feeding. In the Assessment area, this

occurs in late April or early May. The caterpillars feed

through May and early June, going through five or six

larval stages as they increase in size and appetite. They

then reach the pupal stage where they transform into

moths. Male moths emerge first and begin their search

for females. The females do not fly, but stay very close to

where they pupate, emitting a pheromone (chemical

attractant) to attract male moths. After mating, the

female lays an egg mass, that contains approximately 300

to 750 eggs, then dies. The next generation overwinters

within the egg mass, to repeat the cycle in the spring

(Doane and McManus 1981).

Spread rates for the European gypsy moth have

increased from 1.8 mi/year from 1916 to 1965 to more

than 12.4 mi/year from 1966 to 1990 (Liebhold and others

1992). In addition to the steady spread of the adults by

147
wind, they can be transported in other life stages by

human activities. Movements aided by humans cause

isolated infestations outside generally-infested areas.

Where European gypsy moths are numerous, the

larvae can defoliate trees. Their impact on a forest

stand depends upon the abundance of host trees and

other site and stand conditions. Defoliated trees may die,

either directly as the result of defoliation or indirectly

from drought, disease, or other pests. Vigorous trees can

withstand one or two consecutive defoliations, but trees

in poor condition can die after a single defoliation.

If left untreated, a European gypsy moth infestation

causes a shift in the overstory from primary host species, such as oak, to other species. As susceptible trees

die, other organisms are affected—plants dependent on

the overstory for shade are stressed; and animals living

in trees, feeding on the tree seeds or fruits, or browsing

in the stressed understory may be adversely affected

(USDA FS 1995b, Gottschalk 1990, Tigner 1992).

The European gypsy moth also affects humans.

Some individuals are allergic to the hairs of the caterpillars (Anderson and Furniss 1983). Homeowners’ shade

trees and plantings may be lost, reducing property

values. Residents lose the use of their property and

recreational areas during outbreaks because of the

presence of thousands of caterpillars and falling frass

(droppings). Obviously, dead and dying trees diminish

the aesthetic value of the landscape.

The European gypsy moth was discovered in the

Assessment area near Hardy, AR, in 1982. It was

eradicated in 1983 with two applications of carbaryl over

1,500 acres (ac). A separate infestation in Newton,

Boone, Madison, Marion, and Carroll Counties (AR)

(fig. 6.1) has been the subject of a 5-year eradication

project involving aerial applications of diflubenzuron, an

insect-growth regulator, spread over 600 ac of private

land in 1993, and treatments with Bacillus thuringiensis,

a biological insecticide, over 25,000 ac in 1994 and

Figure 6.1—Counties with historic European gypsy moth infestations in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

148
18,000 ac in 1995 (Fitzgibbon 1997). A third introduction

in Dent County (MO), discovered in 1995, received a

ground application of Bacillus thuringiensis (Brown

1997). Trapping from 1995 to 1997 yielded no further

evidence of European gypsy moth.

Management of the European gypsy moth in the

Assessment area consists mainly of monitoring (through

trapping) and eradication projects where necessary.

Post-eradication monitoring of European gypsy moths in

Carroll County was carried out in 1996 and 1997.

Trapping in early 1998 suggests that eradication was

successful. Monitoring has included an examination of

the effects on neotropical migrant birds, canopy insects

other than the European gypsy moth, and interactions

between these groups.

Detection monitoring consists of a system of trapping

in which all areas with suitable host types are checked

every other year, and special sites, such as campgrounds, are checked every year. Eradication projects

are considered when trapping indicates a breeding

population. Federal and State agencies, including the

Arkansas State Plant Board, the Missouri Departments

of Agriculture and Conservation, and the Oklahoma

Department of Agriculture cooperate in eradication

projects, while State laws govern participation by private

land owners (USDA FS 1995b).

Further introductions of this insect are likely to occur

before the area of general infestation encompasses the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Accidental introductions

during transport of lumber, outdoor furnishings, firewood, or nursery stock will likely cause small spot

infestations in residential areas.

Another exotic gypsy moth, an Asian strain in which

the female moth can fly, has been in the United States

since 1994. The areas of infestation by Asian gypsy

moths have been quarantined and are being eradicated.

Red Imported Fire Ant

The red imported fire ant, a native of Argentina, was

accidentally introduced into the United States in the

1930’s and was first documented in Arkansas in 1957.

It is omnivorous and preys on insects and small vertebrates (Shores 1994).

Fire ants can significantly reduce local populations of

arthropods. They are attracted to all kinds of foods and

to low levels of electricity. When foraging, they may

gnaw holes in roots and buds and, in the spring, they

seek sap from trees. These ants can damage highways,

roofs, joints in pavements, and electrical boxes.

More aggressive than native ants, red imported fire

ants have been implicated in declines of ground-nesting

birds, such as quail and turkey, because they attack

newly hatched young. Red imported fire ants compete

with native scavengers that feed on dead animals and

fallen fruit. Fire ant mounds can cause problems for

agricultural machinery (Wojcik and others 1976, Shores

1994).

Fire ants have established colonies as far north as

Stone County in Arkansas and McCurtain County in

Oklahoma. The infestation in Arkansas is moderate.

Attempts to eradicate fire ants from generally infested

areas have been unsuccessful, although eradication of

isolated colonies has been somewhat successful (Shores

1994). It is probable the ant will spread accidentally

through transport by potted plants, trees, sod, and cattle.

Arkansas counties with quarantine programs in the

Assessment area include Garland, Hot Spring, Howard,

Pulaski, and Saline. Because the ant is not acclimated to

freezing temperatures, colder winters in Missouri and

northern Arkansas and Oklahoma may prevent the ant

from invading these areas.

Asiatic Oak Weevil

The Asiatic oak weevil, native to northeastern Asia

(Roelofs 1873), first appeared in the United States in

1933 in New Jersey (Triplehorn 1955). The adult weevil

is greenish-gray and, with age, may become nearly

black. It is about 1.5 inches (in.) long.

The insects are parthenogenic (they reproduce

without fertilization). The Asiatic oak weevil feeds on

the foliage of susceptible hosts by eating the intervein

area, attacking the lower leaves of the host plant first.

The weevil feeds on 44 or more species of woody

plants, but damage to oaks—particularly oak seedlings—far exceeds damage to any other host. It can

become a pest in and around households.

The range of the Asiatic oak weevil within the

Assessment area is unknown. Because the Asiatic oak

weevil can survive on many host plants, it is likely to

spread throughout the area. However, the lack of

reports of this insect in recent years indicates that native

or introduced predators, parasites, or diseases are

controlling the insect.

149
Africanized Honey Bee

The Italian honey bee, which produces most of the

honey in the United States, was introduced in the 17th

century. The Africanized honey bee, a more aggressive

strain of honey bee, entered the United States through

southern Texas in 1990.

Africanized bees defend their hives more vigorously

than other honey bees. They replace or interbreed with

the more docile Italian honey bees. Like the gentler

strains, Africanized honey bees can escape from

domestication and establish colonies in hollow trees or

buildings.

The Africanized honey bee is not yet reported in the

Assessment area. Perhaps overly feared, these socalled killer bees need not cause alarm, since they have

rarely harmed humans. However, it is important to

prevent colonies in buildings and high-use areas, such as

recreation sites, and to remove such colonies if they

become established. Beekeepers in South America have

adjusted to Africanized honey bees, which produce

more honey than many other strains of bees (except

Italian honey bees) (Hubbell 1993).

Exotic Diseases

Exotic or introduced plant diseases have caused

great economic impacts on agriculture and forestry.

Foremost among such impacts was the Irish potato

famine of 1845–1846. Among trees, the chestnut blight,

white pine blister rust, and Dutch elm disease have

caused significant impacts on forest ecosystems in the

United States. Introduced diseases are particularly

severe on native plants and may spread rapidly because

the hosts have no genetically developed resistance. The

following sections address significant exotic plant

diseases in the Assessment area.

Data Sources

The Forest Health Protection unit of the USDA

Forest Service, which maintains survey and map

records, provided most of the information concerning

exotic diseases for the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Assessment. University researchers and pest specialists

in State agencies provided much of the data to the

Forest Service. The Forest Health Atlas at the

Asheville, NC, Forest Health Protection Field Office

contains the spatial data employed here. Other data and

information are from published sources.

Patterns and Trends

Dogwood Anthracnose

Dogwoods, particularly the native flowering dogwood in the Eastern United States, are valuable for

their fruit production, which benefit a wide variety of

wildlife (Halls 1977a), and for their ornamental display

of white “flowers” (technically bracts) and red berries

(McLemore 1990). Dogwood anthracnose is a relatively new fungal disease of the native flowering

dogwood and the Pacific dogwood in the Pacific

Northwest. The disease was first seen in Washington

State in 1976 (Byther and Davidson 1979) and 2 years

later in New York (Hibben and Daughtrey 1988). Since

then it has been confirmed in the Northwest in British

Columbia, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington and in at

least 17 Eastern States (fig. 6.2).

Although its origin is unknown, three factors suggest

that this disease agent may be an exotic: the nearly

concurrent discoveries near major seaports (Seattle and

New York), indicating possible introduction sites; the

severity of the disease, indicating that native dogwood

populations have little natural resistance to the fungus,

which in turn suggests they have not been exposed to it

before; and the rapidity with which the disease seemed

to spread, also indicating a lack of resistance in host

species and the absence of natural competitors likely to

be present if the fungus were native to the United

States (Daughtrey and Hibben 1983).

The fungus affects the lower foliage of flowering

dogwood trees in the early spring in the Eastern United

States, causing leaf spots that are tan with purplish rims.

Large dead blotches, veins, and leaf margins also occur.

Leaves may die but do not fall, hanging on the tree

throughout the following winter.

The fungus invades the petioles of blighted leaves

and can then cause cankers on twigs, branches, and the

main bole. As branches die back, epicormic shoots often

develop, mostly on the main bole; these are succulent,

readily infected, and the initiation point for the stem

cankers that frequently occur. Dieback and stem

150
cankers eventually result in the death of the tree in

some environments.

Both infection and spread of the disease is favored

by moist, cool weather, which tends to occur at higher

elevations, sheltered coves, and north-facing slopes. The

disease is particularly severe in such environments in

the Southern Appalachians (Anderson and others 1994).

By 1994, anthracnose was present on more than 12

million ac in the South (Anderson and others 1994) (fig.

6.2). The only documented anthracnose finds in the

Assessment area are three counties in Missouri.

However, these and finds in five other Missouri counties

are all introductions on nursery stock. Eradication

efforts have been employed, and no established infections are known. Detection surveys in Arkansas have

not found anthracnose (Drummond 1990, 1992). Similarly, no reports are known from Oklahoma.

Dogwood anthracnose resembles other foliage and

stem diseases of dogwood common in the Assessment

area. Laboratory diagnosis of affected foliage or stems

is necessary to positively identify the presence of the

pathogen. The threat to native dogwoods in the OzarkOuachita Highlands is real nonetheless. An abundance

of dogwoods and favorable environmental conditions

exist there, although elevations are lower than where

the disease has been most severe in the Appalachians

Figure 6.2—Counties with dogwood anthracnose in the Eastern United States, including the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands.

Assessment area

Counties with dogwood anthracnose

Range of flowering dogwood

151
(> 3,000 feet) (Anderson and others 1994). Disease

development and loss of trees could occur in the

Assessment area.

There are few ways to reduce the impact of dogwood anthracnose. Methods that may be effective in

park or urban situations, e.g., fungicide application, are

impractical or too expensive in forest environments.

Current research on prevention and treatment of

dogwood anthracnose is focusing on genetic resistance.

Scientists are evaluating the resistance of surviving

trees in heavily damaged areas (Anderson and others

1994).

Butternut Canker

Butternut, also known as white walnut, is a small to

medium-size tree that grows in scattered locations

throughout the North Central and Northeastern United

States (fig. 6.3). The tree grows best on streambank

sites and on moist, well-drained soils. Butternut is most

valued for its sweet nut, although the wood works,

stains, and finishes well for small furniture and other

wood products (Rink 1990). It is a useful food for

wildlife, but due to its scattered occurrence, its overall

importance is limited (Strode 1977).

Figure 6.3—Counties with butternut canker in the Eastern United States, including the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

Assessment area

Counties with butternut canker

Range of butternut

152
 The first discovery of butternut canker was in

southwestern Wisconsin in 1967 (Renlund 1971). The

disease is now present in various areas throughout the

natural range of the tree (fig. 6.3). In the past 20 to 30

years, this fungus-caused disease has destroyed much

of the butternut resource (Ostry and others 1994).

Although the origin of the disease is unknown, its

severity indicates that native butternut populations have

little natural resistance to the fungus, suggesting it is an

introduced species (Ostry and others 1996).

The butternut canker fungus causes cankers to form

under the tree’s bark, killing the cambium (growing

layer) and inner bark of infected areas. Buds, leaf scars,

insect damage, and other wounds are the main infection

points for the fungus (Ostry and others 1996).

The disease has dramatically affected the butternut

resource. Reductions in forest inventories of butternut,

probably due to the disease, have been dramatic over

the last 10 to 15 years: 58 percent in Wisconsin, 84

percent in Michigan, and 77 percent in North Carolina

and Virginia (Ostry and others 1994).

The disease is scattered over the entire range of

butternut in the Eastern United States (fig. 6.3). Within

the Assessment area, the tree’s range covers much of

southern Missouri and small parts of Arkansas (Rink

1990). The Mark Twain National Forest is within the

tree’s range. Because the trees occur mainly as scattered individuals in mixed forests, they are difficult to

find and surveys may overlook many diseased trees.

The disease occurs in at least nine counties in

Missouri and four in Arkansas. Eight of these counties

are in the Assessment area; seven are in Missouri, and

one is in Arkansas.

Land managers should assume that the disease is

present anywhere butternut exists. The Forest Service

has placed a moratorium on the harvest of healthy

butternuts, but no other protection is known in the

Assessment area. The U.S. Department of Interior Fish

and Wildlife Service has considered listing butternut as a

threatened species under the Federal Endangered

Species Act, but not enough data are available to support

such a decision (Ostry and others 1994).

There is probably little forest managers can do

beyond observing the moratorium on harvesting of

healthy butternuts. Cutting infected or dead butternuts is

permissible and may help reduce local spread of the

disease but is unlikely to have a significant regional

effect. Silvicultural treatments in areas with healthy

butternut should encourage natural regeneration (gaps in

stands up to 2 ac), which will encourage growth and

survival of this intolerant species. Long-term hope for

restoring butternuts to their previous status may only be

realized if genetically resistant individuals can be found

and the resistance exploited. For such a minor forest

component, it is difficult to marshal the needed scientific

and economic forces. However, there is evidence that

resistant trees may exist, and some researchers are

studying these for potential use (Ostry and others 1994).

Dutch Elm Disease

Since 1930, the American elm tree has been devastated by one of the most well-known diseases in the

world, Dutch elm disease (Stipes and Campana 1981).

The fungus that causes the disease is an exotic pest,

introduced to America from Europe around 1930.

The exotic European elm bark beetle is instrumental

in the disease’s spread in the United States, but the

native American elm bark beetle also spreads the

fungus. The disease spread from introduction sites in the

Northeast and by the late 1970’s was present over most

of the United States (Stipes and Campana 1981).

Losses of elms were greatest and most alarming in

cities and towns, where landscapers commonly planted

the American elm as a shade tree in long rows along

streets and in parks. Close-growing elms formed natural

root grafts and the fungus was able to spread efficiently

through the connected root systems as well as by bark

beetles. Losses also occurred in forests, but because

elms are typically scattered individuals in mixed forest

types, they were often overlooked. Discovery of losses

of other, less numerous native elms has also been

overlooked (Stipes and Campana 1981).

Dutch elm disease is a vascular wilt resulting in the

loss of internal water conduction in the stem of the tree,

causing it to wilt and die. Most elm species worldwide

are susceptible, although there is considerable variation

among species.

The fungus usually enters a tree through the feeding

wounds of elm bark beetles on twigs in the upper

crown. It can also enter through root grafts with other

infested trees. Foliage on individual branches often turns

yellow, wilts, and dies, followed by the remainder of the

tree’s crown.

153
The fungus is intimately associated with elm bark

beetles and sporulates in the insects’ breeding galleries

on the main bole of infected trees. Emerging beetles

become contaminated with spores, which are transferred to new feeding wounds on twigs of healthy

trees (Stipes and Campana 1981, Tainter and Baker

1996).

The American elm grows over all of the Eastern

United States and Southern Canada (Bey 1990). It is

present in many types of forests and occurs on a wide

range of soils and sites but is most closely associated

with bottomland soils or streamsides in the uplands.

Dutch elm disease occurs throughout the OzarkOuachita Highlands. Urban areas in the Highlands have

not experienced devastating losses because elms were

not widely planted for shade.

In forests, elm losses have been spotty, mostly

undocumented, and mostly overlooked. This situation is

not likely to change. Elms will gradually become less

frequent in forest stands, but extermination of American

or other elm species is not likely (Stipes and Campana

1981).

Community-wide control programs have had some

success in many cities in the Midwest and East, but no

such programs are known to exist in the Assessment

area, where cities do not have large plantings of elm.

Several elm varieties or hybrids with disease resistance

are now available for urban use. Active management or

control of the disease in forests is impractical.

Chestnut Blight

American chestnut was one of the most prevalent

and useful trees in the Eastern United States until the

introduction of chestnut blight fungus from Asia in 1900.

The disease spread quickly, invading most of the

chestnut range in the Eastern United States by 1940 and

killing most of the trees (Harlow and Harrar 1969,

Tainter and Baker 1996).

Since then, the American chestnut has virtually

disappeared as an overstory forest tree. The American

chestnut does not occur in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, but chestnut blight also affects the Allegheny and

the Ozark chinquapins, species related to American

chestnut that are present in the Assessment area

(Johnson 1988).

Chestnut blight fungus invades the cambium and

inner bark of host trees, causing diffuse cankers that

quickly girdle and kill the affected stems. Rootstocks of

chestnuts are not infected and prolific sprouting occurs

after the stems are killed. Before sprouts become tree

size they are usually infected, too, so withering and

sprouting become a repetitive occurrence. This pattern

can deplete root reserves and eventually kill the tree.

The effects of the blight are similar in chinquapins,

reducing infected individual trees to a clump of sprouts,

although the Allegheny chinquapin is less susceptible and

less seriously damaged than Ozark chinquapin (Johnson

1988). Within the Assessment area, the Allegheny

chinquapin is widespread over central Arkansas. The

Ozark chinquapin occurs almost exclusively in the Ozark

and Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas, and just into

eastern Oklahoma and southern Missouri. The two

species may coexist in central Arkansas (Johnson 1988,

Little 1977). More common within the Assessment area

and more susceptible to the blight is the Ozark chinquapin, a small- to medium-size tree. Ozark chinquapin is

rarely used for wood products, but the nuts are valuable

wildlife food and historically have been eaten by people

(Halls 1977b).

The entire ranges of Allegheny and Ozark chinquapin

are affected by chestnut blight (Johnson 1988). Individual specimens of healthy Ozark chinquapin occur in

some places in the Assessment area; they escaped

infection or perhaps have some genetic resistance,

although the latter seems unlikely given the American

chestnut’s lack of such resistance (Tainter and Baker

1996). The disease has affected the majority of chinquapins in the Assessment area (Johnson 1988).

Continued blighting and withering of sprouts will slowly

reduce the prevalence of chinquapin and debilitate

rootstocks, although extermination of the species is not

likely.

The Southern Region of the Forest Service has listed

Ozark chinquapin as a sensitive plant because of

damage from the blight. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service considered placing it on the list of threatened

and endangered plants, but more data are needed before

making that determination. No protective legal status for

Ozark chinquapin is known at the State level, but the

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission lists it as a

“plant species of special concern” (USDA FS 1989).

154
Of the national forests in the Assessment area, the

disease most heavily affects the Ozark National Forest.

Concern by the Forest Service resulted in the development of a proposed management guide for the Ozark

chinquapin to provide as much protection for the species

as possible while minimizing conflicts with management

of other resources (USDA FS 1989).

The management guide proposed to fully protect

Ozark chinquapins with stems 8 in. or greater in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). In addition, the guide

allows impacts to smaller stump sprouts during normal

forest management activities (e.g., controlled burning or

timber cutting). Although never officially adopted, the

guide serves as a resource for management activities in

the ranger districts.

Native Insect Threats

Data Sources

The information in this section is from published

reports and from the Southern Pine Beetle Information

System database maintained by the Forest Service.

Patterns and Trends

Southern Pine Beetle

The southern pine beetle is one of the most destructive insects in the South, causing the loss of pine trees

over large areas. Since 1948, outbreaks have occurred

in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,

Texas, and Virginia. McAndrews (1926) aptly summed

up the beetle’s existence: “It is either abundant, killing

up to 50 percent of the stands of pine over large areas

and killing out groups of pine here and there throughout

the country, or so rare during the intervening years that

it is difficult even to make collections.”

The first outbreak of southern pine beetle in Arkansas was reported in 1974. Many counties in northern

Arkansas and Oklahoma have never had an outbreak of

southern pine beetles, despite the occurrence of an

excellent host, shortleaf pine. Drought, overstocked

stands, absence of natural enemies, and stand disturbances are among the conditions that appear to be

contributing factors in outbreaks, which are cyclic.

Discoloration of the crowns of trees usually indicates

an outbreak of southern pine beetles. Discoloration

progresses rather rapidly over the whole crown, with

the fading needles soon turning to a reddish brown.

Outbreaks usually affect large groups of trees, seldom

as few as one or two. “Pitch tubes,” small yellowishwhite masses of pitch on the trunks of affected trees,

are the points of beetle attack. In unusually dry weather,

however, there may be no pitch, or only mere traces of

it, under bark scales where the beetle bored into the

tree. In this situation, the only evidence of attack may

be reddish-brown boring dust lodged in bark crevices

and in cobwebs on the trunk or at the base of the tree.

Removal of a piece of bark from an infested pine will

reveal an array of winding galleries on the inner bark

and on the wood surface, a characteristic which clearly

distinguishes the presence of the southern pine beetle

from any other pine bark beetle in the South. If the

attack is recent, there may be some adults in the egg

galleries or very tiny, whitish larvae near the galleries. In

older attacks, most of the brood will be within the bark.

The adult southern pine beetle carries numerous

spores of a bluestain fungus, and when an adult beetle

attacks a tree, the bluestain spores are carried into egg

galleries, where the spores germinate. Blue-stain fungus

colonies grow into the wood of infested pines, stopping

the upward flow of water to the tree crown. Lack of

water causes needles to wilt and die within 2 to 8 weeks,

depending on temperatures (Moser and others 1995).

The southern pine beetle may overwinter in infested

pines as adults, immature adults, pupae or larvae.

Beetles of overwintering broods begin to emerge and

attack trees in April or May, about the time that dogwood is in full bloom. The life cycle from egg to adult

requires 27 to 40+ days, depending upon the weather,

and 4 to 6 generations are produced per year, with

considerable overlapping. Beetle populations and beetle

activity generally reach a peak in midsummer. The

number of beetles may increase as much as tenfold in a

single season. Activity slows as temperatures decrease.

However, beetle flights and attacks do occur in winter

during prolonged warm spells, even at higher elevations

in the mountains.

Successful southern pine beetle attacks are dependent on two factors: the ability to mass attack pine trees,

and the ability to have overlapping (multiple) generations

produced at the same time in an infested stand of pine

trees. Southern pine beetles usually attack the mid-trunk

155
of a tree first, then move upward and downward. While

larger trees are more commonly attacked, trees as small

as 2 in. in diameter also may be infested. Natural

enemies, including insect parasites, predators, diseases,

and woodpeckers, rarely have a notable effect on the

southern pine beetle during severe outbreaks, although

they undoubtedly do exert some degree of control. The

full effect of these biological control factors and the

conditions under which they are most effective are

unknown.

Southern pine beetle mortality has been observed

during severe cold snaps, where temperatures drop

suddenly and remain below freezing for several days.

Mortality has also been observed during hot periods

when temperatures remain above 90 oF for several

weeks. This form of control occurs most commonly at

higher elevations and in the northern part of the insect’s

range (Kowal 1960).

After identifying and monitoring southern pine beetle

outbreaks, land managers can use several techniques to

control the outbreaks, including cutting and removing

affected trees; cutting and leaving affected trees;

cutting, piling, and burning affected trees; and chemical

treatments of individual trees and small groups of trees

in high value settings. The first two treatments are most

commonly used because they disrupt the beetle’s ability

to mass attack. Felling, piling, and burning infested trees

is one of the oldest control methods for southern pine

beetles and can be effective, but the technique is

expensive and includes the risk of the fire escaping

(Swain and Remion 1974, USDA FS 1987).

Figure 6.4 indicates the incidence of southern pine

beetle outbreaks in the Assessment area since 1960.

The most recent outbreak in the Highlands occurred in

1995 and 1996 on the Ouachita National Forest (Haley

and others 1996). In many instances, infestations of pine

Figure 6.4—The incidence of southern pine beetle outbreaks in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands since 1960.

Epidemics since 1960

Infestations since 1960

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

156
engraver beetles and the black turpentine beetle were

associated with these outbreaks.

The southern pine beetle is endemic in southern pine

forests. Outbreaks will continue to occur in the Assessment area, primarily in the Ouachita Mountains section.

It is unknown why southern pine beetle outbreaks fail to

occur in some areas of Arkansas and Oklahoma where

available hosts trees are present.

Research continues into methods to detect, monitor,

and control outbreaks of the southern pine beetle. The

Forest Service and Mississippi State University jointly

obtained a patent for a natural compound, 4-allylanisole

(4-AA), for use as a repellent to the southern pine

beetle. This pheromone has been successful in preventing attacks by the southern pine beetles in urban settings

(Hayes and others 1995). In addition, verbenone, a

primary inhibitory pheromone produced by the southern

pine beetle, is being used effectively to disrupt populations expansion under some conditions (Payne and

Billings 1989). Neither of these compounds is registered

for southern pine beetle control.

Ips Bark Beetles

The name “Ips beetle” refers to a genus of pine bark

beetles. There are three principal species of Ips bark

beetles attacking pine in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands:

the eastern six-spined and five-spined engravers and the

small southern pine engraver.

The only insect to kill more pine trees in the South

than this group of beetles is the southern pine beetle,

which often attacks trees in combination with one or

more of the three Ips species and/or the black turpentine beetle. It is common to find one or more species of

Ips, as well as other pine-infesting beetles inhabiting

various parts of the same tree. At least 16 species of

pines in the United States, including the loblolly and

shortleaf pine, are hosts to one or more of the Ips

species.

Ips beetles usually attack weakened, dying, or

recently-felled trees and fresh logging debris. Large

numbers of Ips may build up when natural disturbances

such as lightning storms, ice storms, tornadoes, wildfires,

and droughts create conditions suitable for breeding.

Ips populations may also build up following forestry

activities, such as prescribed burns that get too hot and

kill or weaken pines and cutting operations that compact

soils, wound trees, and leave large amounts of branches,

cull logs, and stumps for breeding sites.

Like the southern pine beetle, the adult Ips beetle

carries spores of a bluestain fungus. The spores are

transferred into egg galleries, where they germinate.

Blue-stain fungus colonies grow into the wood of

infested pines, stopping the upward flow of water to the

tree crown. Lack of water causes needles to die,

gradually changing their color from green to yellow

green to red brown. These color changes may occur in

2 to 4 weeks during the summer, but may take several

months in the winter.

Several prevention or suppression techniques—

including burning, chipping, debarking or burying infested

portions of trees—can be effective in forested situations. During logging operations, as much of the felled

tree as possible should be used, and no remaining parts

of the infected tree should be left in contact with or

close to other trees. Harvested timber should be removed from the cutting area as soon as possible,

especially during warm weather.

Damaged portions of trees and root injuries, especially during hot, dry weather, attract Ips and black

turpentine beetles. It is important to minimize damage to

remaining trees from logging equipment. Soil compaction and root breakage to remaining trees can be

minimized by using the lightest harvesting equipment

available.

When planting and maintaining pine stands, managers

should use the pine species and spacing interval best

suited to the area, thin stands to maintain health and

vigor, and promptly remove or destroy potential Ips

breeding material. In residential areas, shade tree vigor

can be maintained by watering during drought. When

Ips and black turpentine beetles are associated with

infestations of southern pine beetles, removal of all

infested trees should occur at the same time. (Lanier

1972, Thatcher 1960, Connor and Wilkinson 1979)

Black Turpentine Beetle

The black turpentine beetle has caused extensive

losses throughout the pine belt in the South, from Texas

to Virginia and southward through Florida, although it has

been a less serious threat in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Drought, flooding, and severe stand disturbances

caused by mechanized logging, fire, or other insects,

157
such as the southern pine and Ips beetles, appear to be

contributing factors.

The insect prefers freshly-cut stumps for breeding.

The beetle also prefers weakened trees, such as those

damaged by fire, worked for sap collection, or infested

by other bark beetles. The black turpentine beetle

seldom persists at a high population level for longer than

1 to 2 years. When the beetle’s population is increasing

dramatically, it is capable of attacking healthy trees. The

beetle tends to work slowly and persistently throughout

the year. Rarely do black turpentine beetle populations

increase at rates high enough to be considered an

outbreak.

The beetle confines its attacks to the base of the tree,

with infestations almost always located in the lowest 6

feet (ft). Large pitch tubes on the bark surface are a

mixture of pitch, frass, and bark boring dust; they have a

reddish to white color, which quickly ages to gray.

Heavily-infested trees almost always suffer secondary

attacks by ambrosia beetles. These attacks also are at

the base of the tree and are characterized by a fine

white sawdust, which accumulates around the trunk.

Black turpentine beetle larvae feed gregariously

under the bark and form large fan-shaped galleries,

which may be as large as 12 in. across. The beetle’s life

cycle is 3 to 4 months, depending on temperature.

Although development may be slowed during the cooler

months, it does not go into a dormant stage.

Attacks of black turpentine beetle are usually not

fatal. In trees that are killed, the needles begin to lose

their normal healthy green color and fade, first to a

yellowish green and finally to a reddish brown (Smith

and Lee 1972). Control measures include removal of

infested trees and application of pesticides on high-value

sites or trees (Smith and Lee 1972). (See the previous

section on Ips beetles.)

The most severe infestations in the Assessment area

have been in stands of loblolly and shortleaf pine in the

Ouachita Mountains section.

Walkingsticks

The walkingstick is a defoliator of deciduous trees in

North America. Because of its appearance, this insect’s

common names include stickbug, specter, stick insect,

prairie alligator, devil’s horse, witch’s horse, devil’s

darning needle, thick-thighed walkingstick, giant walkingstick, and northern walkingstick.

Nymphs hatch as early as the first of June in the

southern part of the walkingstick’s range. Nymphs not

succumbing to cold weather move to and feed upon

preferred shrubs on the forest floor until midsummer.

Older nymphs and adults then move into the surrounding host trees. Young nymphs feed on low-growing

plants including beaked hazel, rose, juneberry,

sweetfern, blueberry, and strawberry. Older nymphs

and adults prefer black oaks, basswood, and wild

cherry as hosts. They also feed on hickory, locust,

apple, and chestnut if those trees are in stands with the

preferred hosts.

Walkingsticks reach adulthood in late July or early

August. Mating occurs about 1 week later. Egg-laying

continues until October or the arrival of cold weather.

Each female may lay up to 150 eggs at an average rate

of 3 per day. The eggs fall from trees and overwinter in

leaf litter.

In the southern portion of the insect’s range, most

eggs hatch the following summer, but in the northern

portion, hatch is delayed an additional year. Because the

cycle in the northern portion of the range is 2 years,

even-year and odd-year broods develop.

Because the walkingstick cannot fly, infestations are

local and spread only a few hundred yards during the

season. A stream, road, or other barrier often retards

the spread of the insect. Heavy outbreaks of walkingsticks can completely defoliate large stands, sometimes

twice in a single season. Three or four heavy infestations can kill some branches. At times, the selective

feeding on black oaks by older nymphs and adults may

favor the growth of white oaks or conifers in a stand of

trees (Wilson 1971).

The walkingstick is present throughout the Assessment area. Severe outbreaks rarely occur below a line

from southern Nebraska to Delaware, except in the

Ouachita Mountains section (Wilson 1971). Major

outbreaks were reported in central Missouri in 1995 and

1996. Weather, parasites, predators, and disease generally control walkingstick infestations (Wilson 1971).

158
Native Tree Diseases

Data Sources

Information about native tree diseases is from

published sources and unpublished Forest Service

reports.

Patterns and Trends

Oak Decline

Oak decline is a complex, slow-acting disease

syndrome involving the interaction of (1) predisposing

factors such as climatic trends, poor soil or site quality,

tree age, or tree genetics; (2) inciting factors such as

short-term drought, frost, or insect defoliation; and

(3) contributing factors such as root disease, bark

beetles, or canker or decay fungi (Manion 1981).

Decline and mortality of oaks have been reported in

the Eastern United States since the early 1900’s and in

nearly every decade since (Ammon and others 1989). A

widespread increase in the mortality and decline of oaks

in the Southeast in the 1980’s refocused attention on this

problem (Bassett and others 1982, McGee 1984,

Starkey and others 1989, Stringer and others 1989,

Tainter and others 1984, 1990).

There is no single cause of oak decline, and most

reports mention one or more factors. Besides drought or

frost, the European gypsy moth, the two-lined chestnut

borer, and Armillaria root disease are common factors

(Wargo and others 1983, Starkey and others 1989,

Ammon and others 1989). When mature oaks growing

on average or poor sites experience drought or spring

defoliation, they become weak and vulnerable to attack

by secondary, opportunistic organisms. Progressive

dieback of the crown usually begins and vulnerable

trees may die.

In the South, the greatest influences on tree vulnerability are stand age and site conditions (predisposing

factors); short-term drought or repeated European

gypsy moth defoliation (inciting factors); and the twolined chestnut borer and Armillaria root disease (contributing factors) (Starkey and others 1989). Species in the

red oak group, such as scarlet oak and black oak, are

more likely to die of oak decline, while white oaks are

less likely. Hickories are the only species other than

oaks to show decline symptoms. Patterns in hickory

resemble those seen in the white oaks (Starkey and

others 1989).

An evaluation in 1985 of oak decline in the South

found affected stands in the Assessment area (Starkey

and others 1989). Twenty-six percent of dominant and

codominant trees in those stands were dead and another

4 percent had advanced decline. Oak decline is known

to occur all over the Eastern United States in susceptible oak forest types.

All Southern States had some incidence of oak

decline in upland hardwood forest types in a 1992

analysis of FIA data (Starkey and others 1992). North

Carolina had the highest incidence (19.6 percent) while

Oklahoma had the lowest. Arkansas was intermediate

at 6.4 percent. Unfortunately, Missouri was not similarly analyzed since FIA data for oak decline are not

available for that State. Affected plots in Arkansas

were concentrated in north central and northwest

Arkansas where the upland hardwood host type is most

prevalent. A similar situation probably exists in southern

Missouri.

The Assessment area contains approximately 19.3

million ac of hardwood forest made up of a number of

forest types that could be affected by oak decline (see

Chapter 3). Only a portion of this area is vulnerable to

decline. High risk factors include physiological maturity

(advanced age combined with an average to poor site)

and a large red oak component.

Oak decline will continue to occur at various times

and locations in the Assessment area. The severity and

duration of decline events will vary considerably from

year-to-year and site-to-site depending on climatic and

local conditions. Vulnerability of oak forests will increase as they age and little reproduction cutting is

performed. Oak decline may become more severe

when inciting events such as drought begin the decline

syndrome.

Management responses to the threat of oak decline

depend on the importance of oaks as a component of

particular forest areas and the costs of stand management activities. Choices range from no action to using

silvicultural techniques to promote and maintain a

substantial oak component in stands. Taking no action

will allow decline to run its course in affected areas,

with the result that oak stocking will be reduced and

other species will become more abundant.

159
Alternatively, silvicultural techniques are available to

lessen the effects of decline and maintain the prevalence of oaks. Intermediate stand treatments can be

used to promote and maintain a component of young

oaks, so that when decline begins or stand rotation ages

are reached, reproduction cutting will be successful in

replacing the oak component. (See Chapter 4 for a

discussion of reproduction cutting methods and intermediate treatments.)

Even-aged methods, such as clearcutting and

shelterwood, are potentially the most useful in managing

decline-prone forests since they remove most or all of

the vulnerable, older component of oaks in a single

operation and are generally successful in regenerating

oaks where sufficient advance reproduction exists.

Because this process creates even-aged stands, monitoring the age and condition of overstory oaks (as well

as other stand conditions) and scheduling management

activities accordingly becomes relatively straightforward.

An oak component can be maintained in areas where

a complex age structure (two-aged or uneven-aged) is a

management objective. Advanced recruitment of young

oaks must be secured prior to reproduction cutting.

Oaks in the older age classes of areas managed this

way will be more vulnerable to oak decline.

Oak decline may pose a greater threat on public

lands, where stands tend to be older. Vulnerability to oak

decline is enhanced by reduced cutting on public land,

which lessens the amount of younger age classes in the

landscape.

A hazard rating system that can be used on the

Ozark-St. Francis and Ouachita National Forests utilizes

the Continuous Inventory of Stand Conditions database.

The system can identify stands most likely to be affected by oak decline.

Oak Wilt

Oak wilt is a vascular wilt disease of oaks that

currently is found only in North America. The causal

fungus was first identified in Wisconsin in 1942 and was

fully described by the early 1950’s (MacDonald and

Hindal 1981, Tainter and Baker 1996), but scientists

believe the disease is native to North America and was

present long before 1942.

There was much concern about the disease during the

1950’s and 1960’s. Researchers thoroughly investigated

the disease and developed control strategies, which

have been implemented to various degrees in affected

States (Appel and Billings 1992).

Oak wilt results when a fungus invades the vascular

tissues of oaks, causing trees to wilt rapidly and die. A

wide variety of oaks are susceptible, but species in the

red oak group (northern red oak, scarlet oak, and black

oak) are most readily killed. Oaks in the white oak group

(white, post, and chestnut oaks) are infected but mortality occurs much less frequently and more slowly.

Substances produced by the fungus, as well as the

tree’s own defenses, combine to cause the vascular

tissues to plug up and cease conducting water, resulting

in wilt. Yellowing and wilting usually occur first in a

branch or two and then quickly spread over the entire

crown, eventually resulting in mortality. Infection

“centers” develop when the fungus spreads to adjacent,

susceptible trees through grafted or connected root

systems.

Fungal mats develop under the bark of dead red

oaks, causing a fissure to form in the covering bark. The

sweet, fruity smell of these mats attracts sap-feeding

beetles, which feed there. Upon leaving the mat, beetles

carry spores of the oak wilt fungus. These spores are

transmitted to nearby healthy trees when sap beetles

feed on wounds on twigs, branches, or trunks.

Devastation of oaks in the Eastern United States

never developed as researchers originally feared. This is

due to a combination of stands containing many species

of oaks and soils that are not conducive to multiple root

grafts between susceptible trees. In central Texas,

however, catastrophic losses, primarily in live oaks, have

generated much interest and control efforts since the

1980’s (Appel and Billings 1992). Some of the Lake

States—notably Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin—

have experienced severe losses in urban and suburban

areas and have increased control efforts in the last

decade.

Oak wilt is known to occur in 21 States in the Central

and Eastern United States (Rexrode and Brown 1983).

The disease affects most of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands but has not been devastating; infection centers are

infrequent, usually stay small (0.5 ac or less), and die out

on their own. There have been no active, coordinated

control programs in the Assessment area.

 Serious control efforts been made only in central

Texas, central Minnesota, and a few localities in the

160
Lake States during the past 10 years. Control programs

in most other States have been reduced to very low

levels due to relatively noncatastrophic oak losses

(Appel and Billings 1993).

While small, isolated patches of oaks may be killed in

the Assessment area, the cost of detecting them,

diagnosing the disease, and salvaging small areas of

timber is usually too high to justify these actions. In

addition, spread of the disease is probably little affected

by control efforts. In urban and suburban areas, oak wilt

may occasionally kill some trees with serious, but very

localized, consequences. Here too, organized control

programs are not necessary due to the very infrequent

occurrence of the disease.

Invasive Nonnative Flowering Plants

Ranges of plants and animals change over time.

However, landowners and forest managers are concerned about the effects of rapid invasions of organisms

from other continents. Free from the parasites and

predators that keep them in check in their native

ecosystems, populations of nonnative species may

explode when introduced into new ecosystems. Many of

these alien plants and animals benefit from disturbance,

gaining a toehold and then displacing native organisms,

some of which may already be rare (Gilfillan 1994,

Grazing Lands Forum 1993, Soule 1994, Williams 1994).

Data Sources

General references on invasive nonnative plants

include Campbell (1997), Harty (1986), Hoffman and

Kearns (1997), and the Natural Areas Association

(1992). The information in this report comes largely from

Smith (1993, 1997) and from professional biologists and

botanists with field experience in managing these plants.

Patterns and Trends

The nonnative plants that the Terrestrial Team

assessed typically were introduced to the Highlands for

use as landscaping, wildlife cover and food, or erosion

control. Many of these plants became invasive pests,

since they compete with native species for growing

space.

Federal and State conservation agencies were among

the strongest promoters of some of these plants. For

instance, State nurseries were still growing and distributing autumn olive only a few years ago (Harty 1991).

Today, land managers are increasingly substituting

native species for nonnative species. While intentional

introductions of invasive nonnative species should

decline, the costs of combating invasive plants and

animals will continue.

Multiflora Rose

Formerly promoted as a “living hedge” to prevent soil

erosion and benefit wildlife, this shrub is a classic

example of the danger of using nonnative plants. The

thorny bushes, attaining a height of 10 ft or more, spread

widely by seed, ruining pastures and riparian areas and

reducing land values. Land managers use herbicides,

bush-hogging, grubbing, and bulldozing to control or

eliminate the plant. The State of Missouri declared the

plant a noxious weed in 1983. In recent years, a virus

and a chalcid wasp have killed many plants, supplementing control efforts (Smith 1993).

Autumn Olive

A large shrub growing up to 20 ft tall, autumn olive

has leaves with silvery undersides and produces small

pulpy red fruits. In Missouri, this shrub has spread from

its original conservation plantings and may become as

serious a pest as multiflora rose. Threats to natural

communities now outweigh its benefits to wildlife.

Grubbing and herbicide applications reduce this plant

where it threatens prairies and other open habitats.

Native fruiting trees, including flowering dogwood,

blackhaw, persimmon, and Carolina buckthorn, are

alternatives to autumn olive.

Privet

This hedge-forming ornamental shrub is locally

abundant in bottomland areas on the Ouachita National

Forest and disturbed forest stands and urban parks in

the Ouachita Mountains and Arkansas Valley. A serious

invader in some parts of Missouri, it is not yet a problem

in the Ozarks. Aggressive and difficult to eradicate, it

spreads rapidly, forming thick stands in the woodland

understory.

161
Mimosa

This small ornamental tree has spread to some parts

of the Ouachita National Forest, displacing native fruitbearing trees such as cherry and mast producers such

as oaks and hickories. Mimosas decline and die before

reaching a large size in most of the Assessment area,

but they are prolific reproducers. Mimosa is not a great

problem in northern Arkansas or Missouri.

Tree of Heaven

This tree spreads by seed and by suckering and

invades food plots and other clearings. It is increasingly

prevalent in the Ouachita National Forest and to a lesser

extent in the Ozark National Forest, where it infests

disturbed areas. Tree of Heaven is a common sight at

old house sites in the Missouri Ozarks, but it does not

appear to invade natural areas.

Kudzu

This vine is a serious pest that climbs to the forest

canopy, shading out all other plants and decreasing

forest productivity. It is most severe in the southern part

of the Assessment area, but growing infestations of

several acres in size exist as far north as Pulaski

County, MO. Land managers have used herbicides, fire,

grazing, and mechanical methods to control infestations

in the Ozark National Forest; no treatment has eliminated the vine. Severe winters kill aboveground parts of

the vine in Missouri.

Japanese Honeysuckle

Horticulturists once touted this plant for its berries,

succulent foliage, and cover and food for wildlife, but

Japanese honeysuckle is a serious pest in the eastern

Ouachita Mountains and Arkansas Ozarks. The vine

climbs high into trees, girdles saplings, and tends to

shade out low-growing species. It also acts as a “ladder

fuel,” carrying fires into the crowns of mature trees that

otherwise would not be killed by fire. In riparian areas,

mats of Japanese honeysuckle smother native species,

including orchids and other wildflowers. The semievergreen leaves are able to photosynthesize before and

after most native plants are growing. Early spring

burning and herbicides are somewhat effective for

control (Smith 1993).

Sericea Lespedeza

One of the worst nonnative pests in the Assessment

area, this legume is everywhere, even within federally

designated Wilderness. It invades grazing allotments and

warm-season grass restorations, preventing native plants

from reestablishment. Sericea has washed into streams

from highway embankments and colonized gravel bars

in Missouri. The foliage hardens off very early, so

herbivores only eat early spring shoots. Some farmers

still use the plant as a hay crop, but it requires early

harvest and is subject to leaf shatter. When used for

erosion control, it often prevents native plant establishment. The plant is extremely difficult to control without

herbicides, but it can be shaded out (Smith 1993).

Crown Vetch

This pink-flowered legume is spreading on glades, in

bottomlands, and on Mount Magazine in the Ozark

National Forest. A single plant can cover a large area,

shading out native plants. The national forests in the

Assessment area have phased out its use on new pond

banks and in other erosion control projects, but some

landowners and State highway departments still use this

plant as a ground cover (Smith 1993). Because the vinelike stems intermingle with desirable native vegetation,

herbicide use is difficult. Mechanical removal is the only

option in some areas.

Musk Thistle

This plant invades pastures, fields, and roadsides.

Despite its large, attractive, nodding flower heads,

Missouri and Oklahoma have declared musk thistle a

noxious weed. The Mark Twain National Forest has

applied herbicides directly on individual plants, and has

tried chopping and digging the first-year rosettes as well

as mature plants. Several weevils are available for

biological control of the plants (Smith 1993). Although

not on the Arkansas list of noxious weeds, musk thistle

can be troublesome in improved pasture.

Tall Fescue

Valuable as a cool-season forage grass for livestock,

tall fescue forms dense stands with thick mats of roots

even on poor, acid soils, and it withstands trampling and

162
overgrazing. Unfortunately this grass provides little

benefit to native wildlife species and can threaten

natural areas and warm-season grass restoration

efforts. The national forests are gradually eliminating

the use of fescue for erosion control in undeveloped

areas. Wheat or rye is an alternative on many sites until

native plants establish themselves. Herbicides, early

burning, and overgrazing are control methods for

conversion to warm-season grasses (Smith 1993).

Johnson Grass

Johnson grass is a tough competitor with native

plants in disturbed areas, old fields, and roadsides. A

buildup of prussic acid in its leaves after a frost can

poison livestock. Missouri and Arkansas have labeled

this plant, once used for pasture, a noxious weed.

Control efforts can damage native grasses such as big

bluestem, which Johnson grass superficially resembles

(Smith 1993).

Knapweeds

One of the scourges of western rangelands, knapweeds have been present for several decades on some

roadsides in southern Missouri. They are not yet serious

pests in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. However,

spotted knapweed is invading relatively undisturbed

natural areas as far east as Wisconsin (Hoffman and

Kearns 1997). There are health concerns for humans

and livestock related to this plant. Precautions should be

taken to minimize direct contact with this plant.

Sweet Clover (white and yellow)

White and yellow sweet clover are common and

widespread in the Ozarks, where they invade natural

areas, wilderness trails, warm-season grass restorations,

prairies, and glades. Hand pulling and herbicides are

used for control in particularly sensitive areas (Smith

1993).

Purple Loosestrife

This attractive plant with a wand of rose-colored

flowers is one of the greatest threats to wetlands in the

northern United States. Increasing in northern Missouri,

the plant is the most recent addition to the State’s

official list of noxious weeds. The only known infestation in the Missouri Ozarks, adjacent to a riverbottom

natural area, was treated with herbicide. Purple loosestrife has been present near the Ouachita National

Forest, where a population has expanded along a creek

over the last 3 to 4 years. Land managers hope to spot

and eradicate infestations in the Assessment area

before they spread.

Garlic Mustard

This biennial plant poses a threat to riparian woodlands, where it dominates the ground flora by excluding

other plants. The Nature Conservancy has fought the

plant for several years in its preserves in northern

Missouri (Smith 1993). Garlic mustard has not been

found in the Assessment area, but land managers should

be alert to the possibility of its spread into the area.

Teasels

Two species of nonnative teasels are present on

roadsides and in at least one riparian area in the Missouri Ozarks. This biennial plant, often confused with

thistles, has the tendency to dominate open areas of

forests and savannas. Biologists are concerned that they

may become serious pests. Teasels do not appear to be

strongly competitive in the Arkansas Ozarks or

Ouachita Mountains.

Implications and Opportunities

Invasive, nonnative species present in the Assessment area but not yet widely established, such as purple

loosestrife, garlic mustard, and knapweeds, should be

closely monitored and eradicated as quickly as possible.

In many cases, native plants can provide the same

benefits without the accompanying problems of nonnative species. Virginia creeper serves the same purposes

as Japanese honeysuckle; native warm-season grasses

can serve in place of Sericea, crown vetch, and tall

fescue. The Missouri Department of Conservation

recommends several native species as alternatives to

nonnative plants (Smith 1997).

A new partnership of Federal, State, and local

agencies develops and promotes long-term weed

management projects and provides financial support to

24 local weed management partnerships, which include

163
national forests, State agencies, county and local

agencies, private landowners, and citizen groups.

(See the Web site <http://bluegoose.arw.r9.fws.gov/

FICMNEWfiles/NatlWeedStrategyTOC.html>.)

Invasive Nonnative Vertebrates

Wildlife biologists regard starlings and English or

house sparrows in the same way homeowners think of

Norway rats and house mice. These species, like other

nonnative birds and mammals, create problems in

ecosystems.

Data Sources

The information in this section is from published

sources and from consultations with members of the

Assessment team and other wildlife biologists and

natural resource managers.

Patterns and Trends

Three species of Old World birds cause problems in

towns and farms throughout the Nation. Feral hogs,

feral dogs, and feral cats present other problems.

Starling

The starling is a native of Europe that entered the

United States in 1890, due to the intentional introduction

by a hobbyist whose ambition was to introduce into the

United States every species mentioned in the works of

Shakespeare (Teale 1948). Starlings multiplied rapidly

and spread across the country.

An abundant pest in cities, suburbs, and farmlands,

the starling is a nuisance by virtue of its sheer numbers,

especially where droppings are a health concern as well

as an unsightly mess. Starlings join blackbirds in large

roosting flocks during the winter, especially near agricultural land. Some flocks in Arkansas contain 2 to 5

million birds.

In 1980, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated

that the winter roosting population of starlings and

blackbirds in Arkansas was more than 48 million (James

and Neal 1986). Starlings compete with native birds,

including the eastern bluebird and the purple martin, for

cavity nest sites. Because the starling’s breeding season

is longer than that of some neotropical migratory birds,

this competition has an enormous impact on migratory

bird populations. Control of starlings is limited and

generally ineffective.

English (House) Sparrow

Like the starling, the English sparrow displaces

cavity-nesting native songbirds and crowds residential

bird feeders. This species primarily occupies urban and

farm areas throughout the Assessment area, nesting on

buildings or in nest boxes intended for native songbirds.

Temporary control measures include shooting, poisoning,

trapping, and nest destruction (James and Neal 1986).

Rock Dove (Pigeons)

Another pest of urban areas, rock doves (domestic

pigeons) leave unsightly and unsanitary droppings.

These birds nest and roost in large flocks on bridges and

cliffs along the Buffalo River in Arkansas, disrupting

populations of cliff swallows (James and Neal 1986).

Feral Hog

The feral hogs in the Assessment area are descendants of domestic livestock. Not native to the United

States, hogs were brought to the new world by European explorers and immigrants. Escaped or released to

range freely, hogs reverted to feral status (Sealander

and Heidt 1990). Their rooting habit devastates ecosystems in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, particularly rare

wetlands and springs.

Missouri and Oklahoma recognize hogs as domestic

animals and do not allow legal hunts, yet their appeal as

game animals has led some persons to release feral

hogs in the national forests so they can be hunted. One

such herd of feral hogs was removed from the Irish

Wilderness Area of the Mark Twain National Forest at

great expense; these animals were infected with

pseudorabies.

The McCurtain County Wilderness in Oklahoma also

has experienced hog damage. Hogs in the surrounding

newly acquired Ouachita National Forest lands have

also tested positive for pseudorabies and brucellosis.

A herd in the Arkansas Ozarks wanders from the

Leatherwood Wilderness on the Sylamore Ranger

District (Ozark-St. Francis National Forests) near Big

164
Flat to the Buffalo National River Wilderness and the

Buffalo Ranger District near Jasper.

These hogs have access to a series of unique and

fragile ecosystems. They compete with white-tailed deer

and turkey for acorns and other foods. They root,

trample, and eat their way through the nests of turkey

and other ground-nesting birds. They can easily eradicate

entire populations of sensitive plants. In addition, they

foul water sources, ruin spring and stream structures,

devastate mushroom populations, and tear up rotten logs

that provide habitat for many amphibians and reptiles.

The hogs carry diseases, such as brucellosis and

pseudorabies that can infect wild animals, livestock, and

even humans (Stevens 1997). While there are few

records of their interactions with humans, feral hogs are

a hazard to visitors traveling in infested areas.

Feral Dog

Feral dog packs typically live near human communities in rural areas. These dogs are often responsible for

cattle damage blamed on coyotes (Sealander and Heidt

1990). They tend to run in packs, often chasing or killing

deer, turkey, and rabbit. The packs eat everything they

find, including the eggs and young of ground-nesting

birds, adult birds, fruit, and carrion.

Feral dogs seriously affect turkey and quail populations (Miller and Leopold 1992). These additions to the

environment compete with carrion feeders such as

turkey vultures and carrion beetles (including an endangered species of beetle). They also compete with bears

that depend on the limited supply of fruits available each

year.

Another threat of feral dogs to ecosystems in the

Assessment area is their ability to interbreed with

coyotes. Coyotes were known to interbreed with native

red wolves when red wolves were still common in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Additional degradation of

the gene pool may hamper efforts to reintroduce red

wolves in the area (Sealander and Heidt 1990). Control

measures include informing dog owners of the importance of neutering their animals; legislation to require

control of free-ranging pets, which could join feral dog

packs; and aggressive pursuit of packs.

Feral Cat

Feral cats are a serious threat to birds, especially

ground nesters such as quail and turkey (Miller and

Leopold 1992). These cats also attack shrub-nesting

songbirds, some of which are declining because of other

reasons such as habitat loss and parasitism. Prolific

breeders and extraordinary hunters, feral cats kill the

young of any species they can reach, including opossum,

mice, and rabbits. Control measures for feral cats are

similar to those for feral dogs.

Implications and Opportunities

Part of the challenge of managing nonnative mammals is to inform the public about the consequences of

maintaining free-range domestic animals in forests and

natural areas. In addition to damaging the ecosystems of

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, feral dogs, feral cats,

and feral hogs may transmit rabies, distemper, and other

diseases and parasites to humans, livestock, and pets.

Private landowners and operators of game farms can

stock their property with “wild boar” to serve that

portion of the hunting public that wishes to pursue feral

hogs.

165

References

Abrams, Marc D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests.

Bioscience. 42(5): 346–353.

Albert, Lois E.; Wyckoff, Don G. 1981. Ferndale bog and natural

lake: five thousand years of environmental change in

southeastern Oklahoma. No. 7. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Archeological Survey. 121 p.

Allard, D.J. 1990. Southeastern United States ecological

community classification. Interim report, Version 1.2. Chapel

Hill, NC: The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional

Office. 96 p.

Ammon, Vernon; Nebeker, T. Evan; Filer, Ted H. [and others].

1989. Oak decline. Tech. Bull. 161. Mississippi State, MS:

Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station.

15 p.

Anderson, J.F.; Furniss, W.E. 1983. Epidemic of urticaria

associated with first-instar larvae of the gypsy moth

(Lepidoptera: Lynmantriidae). Journal of Medical Entomology. 20(2): 146–150.

Anderson, R.L. 1988. The butternut: outlook grim. American

Forests. 94(9/10): 49.

Anderson, R.L.; Knighten, J.L; Windham, M. [and others].

1994. Dogwood anthracnose and its spread in the South.

Prot. Rep. R8-PR-26. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 10 p.

Anderson, R.M. 1940. The spread of cottontail rabbits in

Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 54:70–72.

Annand, E.M.; Thompson, F.R., III. 1977. Forest bird response

to regeneration practices in central hardwood forests.

Journal of Wildlife Management. 61: 159–171.

Appel, David N.; Billings, Ronald F. 1992. Oak wilt perspectives. In: Proceedings of the national oak wilt symposium;

1992 June 22–25; Austin, TX. College Station, TX: Texas

Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas Forest Service, Texas

Agricultural Extension Service. 217 p.

Aust, W.M.; Hodges, J.D.; Johnson, R.L. 1985. The origin,

growth and development of natural, pure, even-aged

stands of bottomland oak. In: Shoulders E., ed. Proceedings

of the third biennial southern silvicultural research

conference; 1984 November 7–8; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech.

Rep. SO-54. New Orleans, LA: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station:

163–170.

Averill, Robert D.; Larson, Louise; Saveland, James M. [and

others]. 1994. Disturbance processes and ecosystem

management. [Available on the Internet at <http://

svinet2.fs.fed.us/research/vmpr/disturb.htm>.] Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 33p.

Bailey, Robert G; Avers, Peter E.; King, Thomas; McNab, W.

Henry, eds. 1994. Ecoregions and subregions of the United

States (map). Washington, DC. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Geological Survey. Scale 1:7,500,000.

Baker, J.B. 1992. Natural regeneration of shortleaf pine. In:

Brissette, J.C.; Barnett, J.P., comps. Proceedings of the

shortleaf pine regeneration workshop; 1991 October 29–31;

Little Rock, AR. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-90. New Orleans, LA:

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

Forest Experiment Station: 102–112.

Baker, J.B., tech. comp. 1994. Proceedings of the symposium on

ecosystem management research in the Ouachita Mountains: pretreatment conditions and preliminary findings;

1993 October 26–27; Hot Springs, AR. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO112. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 265 p.

Baker, J.B.; Cain, M.D.; Guldin, J.M. [and others]. 1996.

Uneven-aged silviculture for the loblolly and shortleaf pine

forest cover types. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-118. Asheville, NC:

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

Research Station. 65 p.

Baldwin, F.L.; Boyd, J.W. 1998. Recommended chemicals for

weed and brush control in Arkansas. Misc. Pub. 44. Little

Rock, AR: University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture,

Cooperative Extension Service. 137 p.

Baldwin, Ford L.; Boyd, John W.; Tripp, Timothy. 1988.

Recommended chemicals for weed and brush control. Misc.

Pub. 44. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas, Cooperative Extension Service; Fayetteville, AR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 98 p.

Barnett, J.P. 1992. Production of shortleaf pine seedlings. In:

Brissette, J.C.; Barnett, J.P., comps. Proceedings of the

shortleaf pine regeneration workshop; 1991 October 29–31;

Little Rock, AR. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-90. New Orleans, LA:

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

Forest Experiment Station: 20–31.

Barnett, J.P.; Brissette, J.C.; Carlson, W.C. 1986. Artificial

regeneration of shortleaf pine. In: Murphy, P.A., ed. Proceedings of the symposium on the shortleaf pine ecosystem;

1986 March 31–April 2; Little Rock, AR. Monticello, AR:

University of Arkansas, Department of Forest Resources,

Cooperative Extension Service: 64–88.

167
Barrett, J.W., ed. 1995. Regional silviculture of the United

States. 3d ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 643 p.

Bassett, E.N.; Fenn, P.; Mead, M.A. 1982. Drought-related

mortality and incidence of Hypoxylon canker. Arkansas

Farm Research. 31(1): 8.

Batek, Michael J. 1994. Presettlement vegetation of the Current

River watershed in the Missouri Ozarks. Columbia, MO:

University of Missouri-Columbia. 264 p. M.S. thesis.

Beck, D.E. 1988. Clearcutting and other regeneration options for

upland hardwoods. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth annual

hardwood symposium of the Hardwood Research Council:

hardwood supply—feast and famine; 1988 May 15–18;

Cashiers, NC. Cashiers, NC: Hardwood Research Council:

44–54.

Beck, D.E.; Hooper, R.M. 1986. Development of a southern

Appalachian hardwood stand after clearcutting. Southern

Journal of Applied Forestry. 10: 168–172.

Beilman, A.P.; Brenner, L.G. 1951. The recent intrusion of

forests in the Ozarks. Annals of the Missouri Botanical

Garden. 38: 261–282.

Bey, Calvin F. 1964. Advance oak reproduction grows fast after

clearcutting. Journal of Forestry. 62: 339–340.

Bey, Calvin F. 1990. Ulmus americana L. American elm. In:

Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., tech. coords. Silvics

of North America, Volume 2, Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service: 801–807.

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

east Oklahoma. Resour. Bull. SO-135. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station. 29 p.

Boggs, J.A.; Wittwer, R.F. 1993. Emergence and establishment

of shortleaf pine seeds under various seedbed conditions.

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 17(1): 44–48.

Bradbury, John. 1817. Travels in the interior of North America

in the years 1809, 1810, 1811. London: Smith, Sherwood,

Neely, and Jones. 346 p.

Braun, E. Lucy. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North

America. New York: Hafner. 596 p.

Brawn, J.D.; Robinson, S.K. 1996. Source-sink population

dynamics may complicate the interpretation of long-term

census data. Ecology. 77: 3–12.

Brennan, L.A. 1991. How can we reverse the northern bobwhite

decline? Wildlife Society Bulletin. 19: 544–555.

Brinkman, K.A.; Rogers, N.F. 1967. Timber management guide

for shortleaf pine and oak-pine types in Missouri. Res. Pap.

NC-19. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 15 p.

Brissette, J.C.; Barnett, J.P., comps. 1992. Proceedings of the

shortleaf pine regeneration workshop; 1991 October 29–31;

Little Rock, AR. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-90. New Orleans, LA:

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

Forest Experiment Station. 236 p.

Brissette, J.C.; Carlson, W.C. 1992. Seedling quality and field

performance. In: Brissette, J.C.; Barnett, J.P., comps.

Proceedings of the shortleaf pine regeneration workshop;

1991 October 29–31; Little Rock, AR. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-90.

New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 32–43.

Brown, Michael E. 1997. Developing a funding strategy for

areas without existing gypsy moth populations. In: Proceedings of the 1997 annual gypsy moth review; 1997 Nov. 3–6;

Charleston, WV. Charleston, WV: West Virginia Department

of Agriculture: 114–118.

Bukenhofer, George A.; Hedrick, Larry D. 1997. Shortleaf pine/

bluestem grass ecosystem renewal in the Ouachita Mountains. Transactions of the 62nd North American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conference. 62: 509–515.

Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H. 1990. Silvics of North

America, volume 1, conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

498 p.

Byther, R.S.; Davidson, R.M., Jr. 1979. Dogwood anthracnose.

Ornamental Northwest Newsletter. 3: 20–21.

Campbell, Faith T., ed. 1997. List of invasive exotic/alien/

nonindigenous plant species [data base and printout].

Springfield, VA: National Coalition of Exotic Pest Councils.

25 p.

Carter, M.F.; Barker, K. 1993. An interactive database for setting

conservation priorities for western neotropical migrants. In:

Finch, D.M.; Stangel, P.W., eds. Status and management of

neotropical migratory birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station:

120–127.

Chandler, Craig ; Cheney, Philip; Thomas, Philip [and others].

1983. Forest fire behavior and effects. In: Fire in forestry:

Vol. I. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 450 p.

Christisen, Donald M. 1970. Fox and gray squirrels. In: Nagel,

W.O., ed. Conservation contrasts: three decades of

168
non-political management of wildlife and forests in Missouri. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Conservation: 139–146.

Clark, Alexander, III; Souter, R.A. 1996. Stem cubic-foot volume

tables for tree species in the Arkansas area. Res. Pap. SE297. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station. 70 p.

Clark, F.B. 1970. Measures necessary for natural regeneration of

oaks, yellow-poplar, sweetgum, and black walnut. In: The

silviculture of oaks and associated species. Res. Pap. NE144. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 1–16.

Clark, F.B.; Boyce, S.G. 1964. Yellow-poplar seed remains viable

in the forest litter. Journal of Forestry. 62(8): 564–567.

Clark, Joseph D. 1988. Arkansas status report. In: Smith,

Howard L.; de Almeida, Maria H., eds. Proceedings of the 9th

eastern workshop on black bear research and management

[Draft copy]. 1988 April 5–7; Huntsville, ON, Canada.

Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: 4–7.

[Unpublished copy on file in the office of the Resources

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

Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO.]

Cogbill, Charles V. 1995. Toward an ecological definition of

eastern old growth. [Abstract]. In: Twenty-second annual

natural areas conference, paper and poster abstracts; 1995

October 25–28; Fayetteville, AR. Little Rock, AR: Natural

Areas Association; Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission;

and The Nature Conservancy, Arkansas Field Office: 7.

Colorado Bird Observatory. [Accessed November 1998].

Partners in Flight scores for physiographic region 19.

<http://members.aol.com/CBOPIFDB/index.html>. [Various

pagination.] (This Web site has since moved to <http://

www.cbobirds.org>.)

Conner, Michael D.; Wilkinson, Robert C. 1979. Ips bark beetles

in the South. For. Insect & Dis. Leaf. 129. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 8 p.

Critchfield, W.B.; Little, E.L., Jr. 1966. Geographic distribution of

the pines of the world. Misc. Pub. 991. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 97 p.

Croneis, C. 1930. Geology of the Arkansas Paleozoic era. Bull. 3.

Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Geological Survey. 457 p.

Cutter, B.E.; Guyette, R.P. 1994. Fire frequency on an oakhickory ridgetop in the Missouri Ozarks. American Midland

Naturalist. 132: 393–398.

Dale, M.E.; Sonderman, D.L. 1984. Effect of thinning and

potential quality of young white oak crop trees. Res. Pap.

NE-539. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 11 p.

Daniel, T.W.; Helms, J.A.; Baker, F.S. 1979. Principles of

silviculture. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 500 p.

Daughtrey, M.L.; Hibben, C.R. 1983. Lower branch dieback, a

new disease of northeastern dogwoods. Phytopathology.

73: 365.

deCalesta, D.S.; Stout, S.L. 1997. Relative deer density and

sustainability: a conceptual framework for integrating deer

management with ecosystem management. Wildlife Society

Bulletin. 25(2): 252–258.

Delcourt, H.R.; Delcourt, P.A. 1991. Late-quaternary vegetation

history of the Interior Highlands of Missouri, Arkansas, and

Oklahoma. In: Henderson, Douglas; Hedrick, L.D., eds.

Proceedings of the conference on the restoration of old

growth forests in the Interior Highlands of Arkansas and

Oklahoma; 1991 September 19–20; Morrilton, AR. Hot

Springs, AR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Ouachita National Forest; Morrilton, AR: Winrock Institute

for Agricultural Development: 15-30.

Della-Bianca, L.; Beck, D.E. 1985. Selection management in

southern Appalachian hardwoods. Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry. 9(3): 191–196.

Derr, H.J.; Mann, W.F. 1971. Direct-seeding pines in the South.

Agric. Handb. 391. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p.

Dey, D.C.; Johnson, P.S.; Garrett, H.E. 1996. Modeling the

regeneration of oak stands in the Missouri Ozark Highlands.

Canadian Journal of Forestry Research. 26: 573–583.

Dickson, J.G.; Thompson, F.R., III; Conner, R.N.; Franzreb, K.E.

1995. Silviculture in central and southeastern oak-pine

forests. In: Martin, T.E.; Finch, D.M., eds. Ecology and

management of neotropical migratory birds. New York:

Oxford University Press: 245–268.

Dixon, R.K.; Garrett, H.E.; Cox, G.S. 1979. Containerized

shortleaf pine seedlings show superior growth and

ectomycorrhizal development with mist foliar fertilization.

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 3(4): 154–157.

Doane, Charles C.; McManus, Michael L., eds. 1981. The

gypsy moth: research toward integrated pest management.

Tech. Bull. 1584. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 757 p.

Donovan, T.M.; Thompson, F.R., III; Faaborg, J.; Probst, J.

1995. Reproductive success of migratory birds in habitat

169
sources and sinks. Conservation Biology. 9: 1380–1395.

Dorman, K.W. 1976. The genetics and breeding of southern

pines. Agric. Handb. 471. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 407 p.

Drummond, David B. 1990. [Entomologist, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Forest Health

Protection, Pineville, LA.] Personal communication. Hot

Springs, AR: Ouachita National Forest. [Not paged].

[Unpublished report on file with the Entomologist, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region,

Forest Health Protection. Pineville, LA.]

Drummond, David B. 1992. [Entomologist, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Forest Health

Protection, Pineville, LA.] Personal communication. Hot

Springs, AR: Ozark National Forest. [Not paged]. [Unpublished report on file with the Entomologist, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Forest

Health Protection. Pineville, LA.]

 du Pratz, L.P. 1774. The History of Louisiana. London: T.

Becket. 405 p.

Durham, J.F.; Kurtz, W.B.; Garrett, H.E. 1983. The silvicultural

and economic feasibility of thinning mixed stands of oak on

a site index of 70 in south Missouri. In: Muller, R.N., ed.

Proceedings, fourth central hardwood forest conference;

1982 November 8–10; Lexington, KY. Lexington, KY:

University of Kentucky: 25–31.

Durner, G.M.; Gates, J.E. 1993. Spatial ecology of black rat

snakes on Remington Farms, Maryland. Journal of Wildlife

Management. 57: 812–826.

Dwyer, John P.; Kurtz, William B. 1991. The realities of sustainable management vs. diameter limit harvest. Northern

Journal of Applied Forestry. 8(4): 174–176.

Earles, J.M. 1976. Forest statistics for east Oklahoma counties.

Resour. Bull. SO-62. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 40 p.

Ellison, Lincoln. 1960. Influence of grazing on plant succession

of rangelands. Botanical Review. 26: 1–78.

Essex, Burton L.; Spencer, John S., Jr. 1974. Timber Resources

of Missouri’s eastern Ozarks. Resour. Bull. NC-19. St. Paul,

MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North

Central Forest Experiment Station. 62 p.

Farrar, Robert M. 1981. Regulation of uneven-aged loblollyshortleaf pine forests. In: Barnett, J.P., ed. Proceedings of

the first biennial southern silvicultural research conference;

1980 November 6–7; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-34.

New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 294–304 p.

Featherstonhaugh, G.W. 1835. Geological report of an examination made in 1834 of the elevated country between the

Missouri and Red Rivers. Ex. Doc. No. 151. Washington,

DC: U.S. Congress. 97 p.

Featherstonhaugh, G.W. 1844. Excursion through the slave

States: from Washington on the Potomac, to the frontier of

Mexico; with sketches of popular manners and geological

notices. New York: Harper and Bros. 2 vol.

Fenneman, Nevin M. 1938. Physiography of Eastern United

States. New York: McGraw-Hill. 714 p.

Ferguson, E.R.; Graney, D.L. 1972. Site index table for shortleaf

pine in the Boston Mountains of Arkansas. Res. Note

SO-137. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 4 p.

Ferguson, E.R.; Graney, D.L. 1975. Site index tables for shortleaf

pine in the Ozark Highlands of northern Arkansas and

southern Missouri. Res. Note SO-207. New Orleans, LA:

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

Forest Experiment Station. 5 p.

Finch, D.M. 1991. Population ecology, habitat requirements,

and conservation of neotropical birds. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RM-205. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p.

Finch, D.M.; Stangel, P.W. 1993. Status and management of

neotropical migratory birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

422 p.

Fischer, Burnell C. 1981. Designing forest openings for the

group selection method. In: Barnett, J.P., ed. Proceedings of

the first biennial southern silvicultural research conference;

1980 November 6–7; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-34.

New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 274–277.

Fitzgibbon, Bobbye. 1997. Arkansas gypsy moth project.

Forest Health Protection Update. 1(3): 5–6.

Fletcher, P.W.; McDermott, R.E. 1957. Influence of geologic

parent material and climate on distribution of shortleaf pine

in Missouri. Research Bull. 625. Columbia, MO: University

of Missouri, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment

Station. 43 p.

170
Ford-Robertson, F.C., ed. 1971. Terminology of forest science,

technology practice and products. English language

version. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters.

349 p.

Foti, Thomas L. 1974. Natural divisions of Arkansas. In:

Arkansas Natural Area Plan. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas

Department of Planning: 11–37.

Foti, Thomas L. 1976. Arkansas, its land and people. Little

Rock, AR: Arkansas Department of Education, Environmental and Conservation Office. 71 p.

Foti, Thomas L.; Glenn, Susan M. 1991. The Ouachita Mountain landscape at the time of settlement. In: Henderson,

Douglas; Hedrick, L.D., eds. Proceedings of the conference

on restoration of old growth forests in the Interior Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma; 1991 September 19–20;

Morrilton, AR. Hot Springs, AR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest;

Morrilton, AR: Winrock Institute for Agricultural Development: 49–65.

Foti, T.; Blaney, M.; Li, X.; Smith, K.G. 1994. A classification

system for the natural vegetation of Arkansas. Proceedings

of the Arkansas Academy of Science. 48: 50–62.

Fowells, H.A., comp. 1965. Silvics of forest trees of the United

States. Agric. Handb. 271. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 762 p.

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

Forest statistics for northeast Oklahoma counties—1993.

Resour. Bull. SO-174. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 30 p.

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

Forest statistics for southeast Oklahoma counties—1993.

Resour. Bull. SO-176. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 31 p.

Freemark, K. E.; Dunning, J.B.; Hejl, S.J.; Probst, J.R. 1995. A

landscape ecology perspective for research, conservation,

and management. In: Martin, T.E.; Finch, D.M., eds. Ecology

and management of neotropical migratory birds. New York:

Oxford University Press: 381–427.

Gaines, Glen; Arndt, Paul; Croy, Steve [and others]. 1997.

Guidance for conserving and restoring old-growth forest

communities on national forests in the southern region;

report of the Region 8 Old-Growth Team. For. Rep. R8-FR 62.

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

Southern Region. 122 p.

Gansner, David A. 1966a. Timber resources of Missouri’s

northwestern Ozarks. Bull. B847. Columbia, MO: University

of Missouri, Agricultural Experiment Station, and U. S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 25 p.

Gansner, David A. 1966b. Timber resources of Missouri’s

southwestern Ozarks. Bull. B845. Columbia, MO: University

of Missouri, Agricultural Experiment Station, and U. S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 21 p.

Gardner, J.E.; Gardner, T.L. 1982. An inventory and evaluation

of cave resources of Mark Twain National Forest. [Final

report submitted to the Mark Twain National Forest, USDA,

in compliance with cooperative cave inventory agreement.]

Rolla, MO: Missouri Department of Conservation. 100 p.

Gerstäcker, Friedrich. 1881. Wild sports in the far West. New

York: J.W. Lovell. 409 p.

Gilfillan, Corinna. 1994. Exotic pests: a growing threat to the

environment. Washington, DC: National Audubon Society.

22 p.

Gingrich, S.F. 1967. Measuring and evaluating stocking and

stand density in upland hardwood forests in the Central

States. Forest Science. 13: 38–53.

Gingrich, S.F. 1970. Effects of density, thinning, and species

composition on the growth and yield of eastern hardwoods.

In: The silviculture of oaks and associated species. Res.

Pap. NE-144. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station:

26–35.

Gottschalk, K.W. 1983. Management strategies for successful

regeneration: oak-hickory. In: Proceedings of 1983 Penn

State forestry issues conference—regenerating hardwood

stands; 1983 March 15–16; University Park, PA. University

Park, PA: Penn State University, School of Natural Resources: 190–213.

Gottschalk, K.W. 1985. Effects of shading on growth and

development of northern red oak, black oak, black cherry,

and red maple seedlings: I. Height, diameter, and root/shoot

ratio. In: Dawson, J.O.; Majerus, K.A., eds. Proceedings of

the fifth central hardwood forest conference; 1985 April 15–

17; Urbana, IL. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois,

Department of Forestry: 189–195.

Gottschalk, Kurt W. 1990. Gypsy moth effects on mast protection. In: McGee, Charles E., ed. Proceedings, southern

Appalachian mast management workshop; 1989 August 14–

16; Knoxville, TN. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee:

42–50.

171
Graney, D.L. 1976. Site index relationships for shortleaf pine and

upland oaks in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands of Missouri,

Arkansas and Oklahoma. In: Fralish, J.S.; Weaver, G.T.;

Schlesinger, R.C., eds. Central hardwood forest conference

proceedings; 1976 October 17–19; Carbondale, IL.

Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University: 309–326.

Graney, D.L. 1989. Growth of oak, ash, and cherry reproduction

following overstory thinning and understory control in

upland hardwood stands of northern Arkansas. In: Miller,

J.H., ed. Proceedings of the fifth biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1988 November 1–3; Memphis,

TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-74. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station: 245–252.

Graney, D.L.; Burkhart, H.E. 1973. Polymorphic site index curves

for shortleaf pine in the Ouachita Mountains. Res. Pap. SO85. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 14 p.

Graney, D.L.; Ferguson, E.R. 1972. Shortleaf pine site-index

relationships in the Ozark Highlands. Proceedings of the

Soil Science Society of America. 36(3): 495–500.

Graney, D.L.; Murphy, P.A. 1997. An evaluation of unevenaged cutting methods in even-aged oak-hickory stands in

the Boston Mountains of Arkansas. In: Pallardy, Stephen

G.; Cecich, Robert A.; Garrett, H. Eugene; Johnson, Paul S.,

eds. Proceedings, 11th central hardwood forest conference;

1997 March 23–26; Columbia, MO. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-188.

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

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 130–146.

Graney, D.L.; Rogerson, T.L. 1985. Development of oak, ash and

cherry reproduction following thinning and fertilization of

upland hardwood stands in the Boston Mountains of

Arkansas. In: Shoulders, E., ed. Proceedings of the third

biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1984

November 7–8; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-54. New

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

Southern Forest Experiment Station: 171–177.

Grazing Lands Forum. 1993. An explosion in slow motion:

noxious weeds and invasive alien plants on grazing lands.

Washington, DC: Grazing Lands Forum. 69 p.

Guldin, J. M.; Baker, J.B. 1998. Uneven-aged silviculture,

southern style. Journal of Forestry. 96: 22–26.

Guldin, J.M.; Baker, J.B.; Shelton, M.G. 1994. Pretreatment

conditions in mature pine/hardwood stands on south-facing

slopes of the Ouachita/Ozark National Forests: midstory and

overstory plants. In: Baker, J.B., tech. comp. Proceedings of

the symposium on ecosystem management research in the

Ouachita Mountains: pretreatment conditions and preliminary findings; 1993 October 26–27; Hot Springs, AR. Gen.

Tech. Rep. SO-112. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 264 p.

Guldin, J.M.; Carrillo, F.; Acosta, M.; Guries, R.P. 1998. Marking

to cut versus marking to leave—a comparison of silvicultural tactics. In: Waldrop, T., tech. comp. Proceedings of the

ninth biennial southern silvicultural research conference;

1997 February 25–27; Clemson, SC. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-20.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station. 628 p.

Guldin, J.M.; Shelton, M.G.; Wittwer, R.F. [and others]. 1993.

New perspectives/ecosystem management research on the

Ouachita/Ozark National Forests: phase II—silviculture

research. Study Plan FS-SO-4106-91. Monticello, AR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station. 64 p.

Guyette, Richard P.; Cutter, Bruce E. 1991. Tree ring analysis of

fire history in a post oak savanna in the Missouri Ozarks.

Natural Areas Journal. 11: 93–99.

Guyette, Richard P.; Cutter, Bruce E. 1997. Fire history, population, and calcium cycling in the Current River watershed. In:

Pallardy, Stephen G.; Cecich, Robert A.; Garrett, H. Eugene;

Johnson, Paul S., eds. Proceedings, 11th central hardwood

forest conference; 1997 March 23–26; Columbia, MO. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NC-188. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment

Station: 355–372.

Guyette, Richard P.; McGinnes, E.A. 1982. Fire history of an

Ozark glade in Missouri. Transactions of the Missouri

Academy of Science. 16: 85–93.

Hagan, J.M., III; Johnston, D.W. 1992. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Washington, DC:

Smithsonian Institution Press. 609 p.

Haley, T.J. 1996. [Entomologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Pineville, LA.]

Forest health evaluation of the Ouachita National Forest.

Pineville, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection:

23 p. [Unpublished report on file with the Entomologist, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station, Pineville, LA.]

Hallgren, S.W.; Ferris, D.M. 1995. Benomyl applied to roots

improves second-year survival and growth of shortleaf pine.

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 19(1): 36–41.

172
Hallgren, S.W.; Tauer, C.G. 1989. Root growth potential, firstyear survival, and growth of shortleaf pine seedlings show

effects of lift date, storage, and family. Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry. 13(4): 163–169.

Hallgren, S.W.; Tauer, C.G.; Weeks, D.L. 1993. Cultural, environmental, and genetic factors interact to affect performance of

planted shortleaf pine. Forest Science. 39(3): 478–498.

Halliday, William R. 1982. American caves and caving, techniques, pleasures, and safeguards of modern cave exploration. New York: Barnes and Noble. 348 p.

Halls, Lowell K. 1977a. Flowering dogwood/Cornus florida L.

In: Halls, Lowell K., ed. Southern fruit-producing woody

plants used by wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-16. New Orleans,

LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 33–35.

Halls, Lowell K. 1977b. Chinkapin/Castanea spp. In: Halls,

Lowell, K., ed. Southern fruit-producing woody plants used

by wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-16. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station: 144–145.

Halls, Lowell K. 1984. White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books: 870 p.

Hamel, P.B. 1992. The land manager’s guide to the birds of the

South. Chapel Hill, NC: The Nature Conservancy. 437 p.

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

John F. 1992. The eastwide forest inventory data base:

user’s manual. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-151. St. Paul, MN: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Forest Experiment Station. 48 p.

Harlow, William M.; Harrar, Ellwood S. 1969. Textbook of

dendrology. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill: 285–287.

Harmon, Debbie; Lockhart, Jami J.; Sabo, George, III. 1996.

From surveyor’s chains to satellites: a study of historic

environmental change and land use on the Lee Creek Unit of

the Ozark National Forest, Crawford and Washington

Counties, Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Survey Project

955. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. 56 p.

Harrington, C.A.; Brissette, J.C.; Carlson, W.C. 1989. Root

system structure in planted and seeded loblolly and

shortleaf pine. Forest Science. 35(2): 469–480.

Harty, Francis M. 1991. How Illinois kicked the exotic habit. In:

McKnight, Bill, N., ed. Proceedings of a conference on

biological pollution: the control and impact of invasive

exotic species; 1991 October 25–26; Indianapolis, IN.

Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, IN. 195–209.

Harvey, Michael J.; Redman, Ronald K. 1996. Endangered bats

of Arkansas: distribution, status, and ecology (1995–1996),

annual report to Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Proj.

W-56-R. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 29 p.

Hatcher, Robert D., Jr.; Thomas, William A.; Viele, George W.,

eds. 1990. The Appalachian-Ouachita orogen in the United

States. Boulder, CO: Geologic Society of America. 781 p.

Hawker, Jon L. [n.d.] Missouri landscapes: a tour through time.

Rolla, MO: Missouri Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Geology and Land Survey. 326 p.

Hayes, Jane L.; Strom, B.L.; Roton, L.M.; Ingram, L.L., Jr.,

inventors; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

and Mississippi State University, assignees. 1995. A

repellent of bark beetles. U.S. Patent 5,403,863.

Hazell, Don B. 1967. Effects of grazing intensity on plant

composition, vigor, and production. Journal of Range

Management. 20(4): 249–252.

Heath, Darrel R.; Saugey, D.A.; Heidt, G.A. 1986. Abandoned

mine fauna of the Ouachita mountains, Arkansas: vertebrate

taxa. Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science. 40: 33–36.

Hedlund, Arnold; Earles, J.M. 1970. Forest statistics for

Arkansas counties. Resour. Bull. SO-22. New Orleans, LA:

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

Forest Experiment Station. 52 p.

Henderson, Douglas; Hedrick, Larry D., eds. 1991. Proceedings

of the conference on restoration of old growth forests in the

Interior Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma; 1990

September 19–20; Morrilton, AR. Hot Springs, AR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ouachita

National Forest; Morrilton, AR: Winrock International

Institute for Agricultural Development. 190 p.

Hibben, C.R.; Daughtrey, M.L. 1988. Dogwood anthracnose in

Northeastern United States. Plant Disease. 72: 19–203.

Hines, F. Dee. 1988a. Forest statistics for Arkansas’ Ouachita

counties—1988. Resour. Bull. SO-137. New Orleans, LA:

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

Forest Experiment Station. 28 p.

Hines, F. Dee. 1988b. Forest statistics for Arkansas’ Ozark

counties—1988. Resour. Bull. SO-131. New Orleans, LA:

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

Forest Experiment Station. 39 p.

Hoffman, Randy; Kearns, Kelly. 1997. Wisconsin manual of

control recommendations for ecologically invasive plants.

Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

102 p.

173
Horst, R. Kenneth. 1990. Westcott’s plant disease handbook. 5th

ed. New York: Chapman & Hall. 175.

Houck, Louis. 1908. History of Missouri from the earliest

explorations and settlements until the admission of the State

into the union. Chicago: R.R. Donnelley & Sons. 3 Vols.

Hu, S.; Burns, P.Y. 1987. Shortleaf pine: a bibliography, 1896–

1984. Res. Rep. No. 11, April 1987. Baton Rouge, LA:

Louisiana State University, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, School of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries.

97 p.

Hubbell, Sue. 1993. Broadsides from the other orders: a book of

bugs. New York: Random House. 276 p.

Huebschmann, Michael M.; Lynch, Thomas B.; Murphy,

Paul.A. 1997. Shortleaf pine stand simulator: an even-aged

natural shortleaf pine growth and yield model. Stillwater,

OK: Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma Agricultural

Experiment Station Research Report P-967. 25 p.

Hunter, Malcolm L., Jr. 1996. Fundamentals of conservation

biology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science, Inc. 482 p.

Hunter, W.C.; Carter, M.F.; Pashley, D.N.; Barker, K. 1993. The

Partners in Flight species prioritization scheme. In: Finch,

D. M.; Stangel, P. W., eds. Status and management of

neotropical migratory birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station:

109–119.

Jacobson, Robert B. 1995. Spatial controls on patterns of

landuse induced stream disturbance at the drainage-basin

scale—an example from gravel-bed streams of the Ozark

Plateaus, Missouri. Geomorphology. 89: 219–239.

James, Douglas A.; Neal, Joseph C. 1986. Arkansas birds.

Fayetteville, AR: The University of Arkansas Press.

402 p.

James, E., ed. 1823. An expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky

Mountains. Philadelphia: H.C. Carey. 442 p. + atlas. Vol. 2.

Janzen, G.C.; Hodges, J.D. 1987. Development of advanced oak

regeneration as influenced by removal of midstory and

understory vegetation. In: Phillips, D.R., comp. Proceedings

of the fourth biennial southern silvicultural research

conference; 1986 November 4–6; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech.

Rep. SE-42. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station:

455–461.

Jenkins, Sean E.; Guyette, Richard P.; Rebertus, Alan J. 1997.

Vegetation-site relationships and fire history of a savannaglade-woodland mosaic in the Ozarks. In: Pallardy, Stephen

G.; Cecich, Robert A.; Garrett, H. Eugene; Johnson, Paul S.,

eds. Proceedings, 11th central hardwood forest conference;

1997 March 23–26; Columbia, MO. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-188.

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

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 184–201.

Jensen, Peter N.; Schumacher, C.M. 1969. Changes in prairie

plant composition. Journal of Range Management. 22(1):

57–60.

Johnson, F.L.; Schnell, G.D. 1985. Wildland fire history and the

effects of fire on vegetative communities at Hot Springs

National Park, Arkansas. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Biological

Survey. 49 p.

Johnson, George P. 1988. Revision of Castanea sect.

Balanocastonon (Fagaceae). Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 69: 25–49.

Johnson, P.S. 1977. Predicting oak stump sprouting and sprout

development in the Missouri Ozarks. Res. Pap. NC-149. St.

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

North Central Forest Experiment Station. 11 p.

Johnson, P.S. 1979. Shoot elongation of black oak and white oak

sprouts. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research. 9: 489–494.

Johnson, P.S. 1993. Perspectives on the ecology and silviculture of oak-dominated forests in the Central and Eastern

States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-153. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest

Experiment Station. 28 p.

Johnson, P.S. 1997. The silviculture of upland central hardwoods: 25 years of change. In: Meyer, D.A., ed. Proceedings

of the twenty-fifth annual hardwood symposium: 25 years of

hardwood silviculture: a look back and a look ahead.

Cashiers, NC: Hardwood Research Council: 17–44.

Johnson, P.S.; Jacobs, R.D.; Martin, A.J.; Godel, E.D. 1989.

Regenerating northern red oak: three successful case

histories. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 6(4):

174–178.

Johnson, W.T. 1956. The Asiatic oak weevil and other insects

causing damage to chestnut foliage in Maryland. Journal

Economic Entomology. 49(5): 717–718.

Kessler, Kenneth J., Jr. 1992. Oak decline on public lands in the

central forest region. Res. Note NC-362. St. Paul, MN: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Forest Experiment Station: 1–4.

Keys, James E. Jr.; Carpenter, Constance A.; Hooks, Susan L.

[and others] 1995. Ecological units of the Eastern United

States, first approximation. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 82 p.

174
Kimmins, J.P. 1987. Forest ecology. New York: MacMillan. 531 p.

Kowal, R.J. 1960. Southern pine beetle. [Pest leaflet 49.]

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 7 p.

Kreiter, Scott D. 1995. Dynamics and spatial pattern of a virgin

old-growth hardwood-pine forest in the Ouachita Mountains, Oklahoma, from 1896 to 1994. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma

State University. 141 p. M.S. thesis.

Kress, M.W.; Baker, R.; Ursic, S.J. 1990. Chemistry response of

two forested watersheds to acid atmospheric deposition.

Water Resources Bulletin. 26(5): 747–756.

Kurtz, W.B.; Garrett, H.E.; Williams, R.A. 1981. Young stands of

scarlet oak in Missouri can be thinned profitably. Southern

Journal of Applied Forestry. 5(1): 12–16.

Ladd, Douglas. 1991. Reexamination of the role of fire in

Missouri oak woodlands. In: Proceedings, oak woods

management workshop; October 21–22, 1988. Charleston, IL:

Eastern Illinois University: 76–80.

Ladd, Douglas; Huemann, Blane. 1994. [Director of Science,

Stewardship and Registry, Missouri Field Office, The Nature

Conservancy, St. Louis, MO.] Baseline ecological assessment of selected oak woodlands on the Houston-Rolla

District, Mark Twain National Forest. Rolla, MO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 66 p. [Unpublished report on file at the Supervisor’s Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mark Twain National

Forest, Rolla, MO.]

Lambeth, C.C. 1984. Large-scale planting of North Carolina

loblolly pine in Arkansas and Oklahoma: a case of gain

versus risk. Journal of Forestry 82(12): 736–741.

Lanier, G.N. 1972. Biosystematics of the genus Ips (Coleoptera:

Scolytidae) in North America, Happing’s groups IV and X.

Canadian Journal of Entolomology. 49(5): 717–718.

Larsen, D.R.; Metzger, M.A.; Johnson, P.S. 1997. Oak regeneration and overstory density in the Missouri Ozarks. Canadian

Journal of Forest Research. 27(6): 869–75.

LaVal, R.K.; LaVal, M.L. 1980. Ecological studies and management of Missouri bats, with emphasis on cave-dwelling

species. Terrestrial ser. No. 8. Columbia, MO: Missouri

Department of Conservation. 53 p.

Law, J.R.; Gott, J.D. 1987. Oak mortality in the Missouri Ozarks.

In: Hay, Ronald L.; Woods, Frank W.; DeSelm, Hal, eds.

Proceedings, central hardwood forest conference VI; 1987

February 24–26; Knoxville, TN. Knoxville, TN: University of

Tennessee, Division of Continuing Education: 427–436.

Law, J.R.; Lorimer, C.G. 1989. Managing uneven-aged stands.

In: Clark, F. Bryan; Hutchinson, Jay G., eds. Central hardwood notes. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station:

6.08-1–6.08-6.

Lawson, E.R. 1990. Pinus echinata Mill, shortleaf pine. In:

Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H.; tech. coords. Silvics of North

America: Volume 1, Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Timber Management Research: 316–326.

Lawson, E.R.; Kitchens, R. 1983. Shortleaf pine. In: Burns, R.M.,

tech. comp. Silvicultural systems for the major forest types

of the United States. Agric. Handb. 445. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 157–161.

Laycock, William A. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection

affect sagebrush-grass ranges. Journal of Range Management. 20(4): 206–213.

Leatherberry, Earl C. 1990. Timber resources of Missouri’s

eastern Ozarks. Resour. Bull. NC-115. St. Paul, MN: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Forest Experiment Station. 48 p.

Lee, J. Charles. 1980. Integrated use in the South: a biological

perspective. In: Child, R. Dennis; Byington, Everet, eds.

Proceedings, southern forest range and pasture symposium;

1980 March 13–14; New Orleans, LA. Morrilton, AR:

Winrock International: 51–57.

Leopold, Aldo. 1931. Report on a game survey of North Central

States. Madison, WI: Democrat Printing: 299 p.

Lewis, J.B. 1992. Eastern wild turkey in Midwestern oak-hickory

forest. In: Dickson, James G., ed. The wild turkey: biology

and management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books: 286–305.

Liebhold, A.M.; Halverson, J.A.; Elmes, G.A. 1992. Gypsy moth

invasion in North America: a quantitative analysis. Journal

of Biogeography. 19: 513–520.

Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1977. Atlas of United States trees: minor

eastern hardwoods. Misc. Pub. No. 1342. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 17 p. + 230

maps. Vol. 4.

Lockhart, Jami J.; Hilliard, Jerry E.; Sabo, George, III; Weddle,

Deborah, A. 1995. The evolution of human ecosystems in

the Ozark National Forest, a pilot study of the Lee Creek

Unit. Arkansas Archeological Survey Project 876.

Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. 125 p.

Loewenstein, E.F. 1996. An analysis of the size- and agestructure of an uneven-aged oak forest. Columbia, MO:

University of Missouri. 167 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

175
Loewenstein, E.F.; Garrett, H.E.; Johnson, P.S.; Dwyer, J.P. 1995.

Changes in a Missouri Ozark oak-hickory forest during 40

years of uneven-aged management. In: Gottschalk, K.W.;

Fosbroke, S.L.C., eds. Proceedings, 10th central hardwood

forest conference; 1995 March 5–8; Morgantown, WV. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NE-197. Radnor, PA: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station:

159–164.

Loftis, D.L. 1983. Regenerating red oak on productive sites in

the southern Appalachians: a research approach. In: Jones,

E.P., ed. Proceedings of the second biennial southern

silvicultural research conference; 1982 November 4–5;

Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-24. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern

Forest Experiment Station: 144–150.

Loftis, D.L. 1990. A shelterwood method for regenerating red

oak in the southern Appalachians. Forest Science. 36(4):

917–929.

London, Jack D. 1997. Forest statistics for Arkansas counties—

1995. Resour. Bull. SRS-17. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 86 p.

Lorimer, C.G. 1989. The oak regeneration problem: new evidence

on causes and possible solutions. In: Proceedings, seventeenth annual hardwood symposium of the Hardwood

Research Council; 1989 May 7–10; Merrimac, WI. Cashiers,

NC: Hardwood Research Council: 23–40.

Lorimer, C.G. 1992. Causes of the oak regeneration problem. In:

Oak regeneration: serious problems and practical recommendations. Gen. Tech. Rept. SE-84. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 14–39.

Lynch, T.B.; Murphy, P.A. 1995. A compatible height prediction

and projection system for individual trees in natural, evenaged shortleaf pine stands. Forest Science 41(1): 194–209.

Lynch, T.B.; Murphy, P.A.; Lawson, E.R. 1991. Stand volume

equations for managed natural even-aged shortleaf pine

[Pinus echinata] in eastern Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Res. Rept. P-921. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State

University, Division of Agriculture, Oklahoma Agricultural

Experiment Station. 12 p.

MacDonald, W.L.; Hindal, D.F. 1981. Life cycle and epidemiology of Ceratocystis. In: Mace, Marshall E.; Bell, Alois A.;

Beckman, Carl H., eds. Fungal wilt diseases of plants. New

York: Academic Press: 128–139.

Manion, P.D. 1981. Tree disease concepts. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc: 324–339.

Marini, M.A.; Robinson, S.K.; Heske, E.J. 1995. Edge effects on

nest predation in the Shawnee National Forest, southern

Illinois. Biological Conservation. 74: 203–213.

Marquis, D.A. 1965. Controlling light in small clearcuttings.

Res. Pap. NE-39. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 16 p.

Marquis, D.A. 1978. Application of uneven-aged silviculture on

public and private lands. In: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Uneven-aged silviculture and management in the United

States: combined: Proceedings of two in-service workshops;

1975 July 15–17; Morgantown, WV; 1976 October 19–21;

Redding, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-24. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 25–63.

Marquis, R.J.; Whelan, C.J. 1994. Insectivorous birds increase

growth of white oak through consumption of leaf chewing

insects. Ecology. 75: 2007–2014.

Martin, B.; Kline, D. 1985. Fire management considerations and

fire regimes. Rolla, MO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest. 12 p.

Martin, T.E.; Finch, D.M. 1995. Ecology and management of

neotropical migratory birds. New York: Oxford University

Press. 489 p.

Martin, Paul; Houf, Garry F. 1993. Glade grasslands in southwest Missouri. Rangelands. 15(2): 70–72.

Masters, R.E.; Engle, D.M.; Robinson, R. 1993. Effects of timber

harvest and periodic fire on soil chemical properties in the

Ouachita Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry.

17(3): 139–145.

Masters, R.E.; Skeen, John E.; Whitehead, James. 1995. Preliminary fire history of McCurtain County Wilderness Area and

implications for red-cockaded woodpecker management. In:

Kulhavy, David L.; Hopper, Robert G.; Costa, Ralph, eds.

Red-cockaded woodpecker: species recovery, ecology, and

management. Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin University, Center for Applied Studies: 290–302.

Masters, R.E.; Wilson, C.W.; Bukenhofer, G.A.; Payton, M.E.

1996. Effects of pine-grassland restoration for red-cockaded

woodpeckers on white-tailed deer forage production.

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24(1): 77–84.

Mattoon, W.B. 1915. Life history of shortleaf pine. Bull. 244.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 46 p.

McAndrews, A.H. 1926. The biology of the southern pine

beetle. New York State College of Forestry, Syracuse, NY.

103 p. M.S. Thesis.

176
McGarigal, Kevin; Marks, Barbara J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial

analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR 351. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 122 p.

McGee, C.E. 1984. Heavy mortality and succession in a virgin

mixed mesophytic forest. Res. Pap. SO-209. New Orleans,

LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 9 p.

McGinnes, E.A., Jr. 1982. Fire history of an Ozark glade in

Missouri. Transactions Missouri Academy of Science. 16:

85–93.

McKinley, Daniel. 1962. The history of the black bear in

Missouri. Bluebird. 29(3): 1–15.

McLemore, B.F. 1990. Cornus florida L. Flowering dogwood.

In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., tech. coords.

Silvics of North America: volume 2 hardwoods. Agric.

Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 278–283.

McNab, W.H.; Avers, P.E., comps. 1994. Ecological subregions

of the United States: section descriptions. WO-WSA-5.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. [Not paged].

McQuilkin, R.A. 1975. Growth of four types of white oak

reproduction after clearcutting in the Missouri Ozarks. Res.

Pap. NC-116. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

5 p.

Mendel, Joseph J. 1961.Timber resources of the eastern Ozarks.

Bull. B779. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, Agricultural Experiment Station; in cooperation with the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 27 p.

Merz, R.W.; Boyce, S.G. 1956. Age of oak seedlings. Journal of

Forestry. 54(11): 774–775.

Meyer, John. 1986. Management of old growth forests in

Missouri. Jefferson City, MO: State of Missouri, Conservation Commission. 16 p.

Mielke, Manfred W.; Daughtrey, Margery L. 1991. How to

identify and control dogwood anthracnose [Leaflet]. NAGR-18. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. [Not

paged].

Miles, Patrick D. 1990. Timber resources of Missouri’s southwest Ozarks. Resour. Bull. NC-116. St. Paul, MN: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Forest Experiment Station. 44 p.

Miller, G.W. 1996. Epicormic branching on central Appalachian

hardwoods 10 years after deferment cutting. Res. Pap. NE702. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 9 p.

Miller, James E.; Leopold, Bruce D. 1992. Population influences:

predators. In: James G., ed. The wild turkey: biology and

management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books: 119–128.

Minckler, L.S.; Woerheide, J.D. 1965. Reproduction of hardwoods 10 years after cutting as affected by site and opening

size. Journal of Forestry. 63(2): 103–107.

Mitchell, R.J.; Garrett, H.E.; Cox, G.S. [and others]. 1987. Boron

fertilization, ectomycorrhizal colonization, and growth of

Pinus echinata seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 17(10): 1153–1156.

Monks, William. 1907. History of southern Missouri and

northern Arkansas: being an account of the early settlements, the Civil War, the Ku-Klux, and times of peace. West

Plains, MO: West Plains Journal Company. 247 p.

Moser, John C.; Bridges, J. Robert; Yin, Hui-Fen. 1995.

Ascosporte dispersal of Ceratocystiopsis ranaculosus, a

mycangial fungus of the southern pine beetle. Mycologia.

87(1): 84–86.

Mudd, J.A. 1888. History of Lincoln County, Missouri from the

earliest time to the present. Chicago, IL: Goodspeed. 261 p.

Murphy, P.A. 1982. Sawtimber growth and yield for natural evenaged stands of shortleaf pine in the West Gulf. Res. Pap. SO181. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 13 p.

Murphy, P.A., ed. 1986. Proceedings of symposium on the

shortleaf pine ecosystem; 1986 March 29–April 2; Little

Rock, AR. Monticello, AR: University of Arkansas, Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, Department of Forest

Resources. 272 p.

Murphy, P.A.; Beltz, R.C. 1981. Growth and yield of shortleaf

pine in the West Gulf region. Res. Pap. SO-169. New

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

Southern Forest Experiment Station. 15 p.

Murphy, P.A.; Baker, J.B.; Lawson, E.R. 1991. Selection

management of shortleaf pine in the Ouachita Mountains.

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 15(1): 61–67.

Murphy, P.A.; Lawson, E.R.; Lynch, T.B. 1992. Basal area and

volume development of natural even-aged shortleaf pine

stands in the Ouachita Mountains. Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry. 16(1): 30–34.

Murphy, P.A.; Shelton, M.G.; Graney, D.L. 1993. Group selection—problems and possibilities for the more shade-tolerant

177
species. In: Gillespie A.R.; Parker, G.R.; Pope, P.E.; Rink, G.,

eds. Proceedings, 9th central hardwood forest conference;

Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-161. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment

Station: 229–247.

Mutch, Robert W.; Cook, Wayne A. 1996. Restoring fire to

ecosystems: methods vary with land management goals. In:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The use of

fire in forest restoration. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station:

9–11.

Natural Areas Association. 1992. Compendium on exotic

species. Mukwonago, WI: Natural Areas Association. 174 p.

Nelson, John C. 1997. Presettlement vegetation patterns along

the 5th Principal Meridian, Missouri Territory, 1815. American

Midland Naturalist. 137: 79–94.

Nelson, Paul. 1993. Quantum leap: back to a hidden paradise.

Missouri Resource Review. Spring: 16–21.

Nelson, Paul W. 1985. The terrestrial natural communities of

Missouri. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of

Natural Resources. 197 p.

Nickles, J.K.; Tauer, C.G.; Stritzke, J.F. 1981. Use of prescribed

fire and hexazinone (Velpar) to thin understory shortleaf

pine in an Oklahoma pine-hardwood stand. Southern

Journal of Applied Forestry. 5(3): 124–127.

Nigh, T.A.; Pallardy, S.G.; Garrett, H.E. 1985. Changes in upland

oak-hickory forests of central Missouri: 1968–1982. In:

Dawson, J.O.; Majerus, K.A., eds. Proceedings of the fifth

central hardwood forest conference; 1985 April 15–17;

Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Department of Forestry:

170–177.

Nigh, Timothy A.; Pflieger, William L.; Redfearn, Paul L. Jr. [and

others]. 1992. The biodiversity of Missouri: definition,

status, and recommendations for its conservation. [Report

of the Biodiversity Task Force.] Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Conservation and Mark Twain National

Forest. 53 p.

Noss, Reed F.; LaRoe, Edward T., III; Scott, J. Michael. 1995.

Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary

assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Rep. 28.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Biological Service. 59 p.

Novak, Milan; Baker, James; Obbard, Martyn; Malloch, Bruce,

eds. 1987. Wild furbearer management and conservation in

North America. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources. 1,150 p.

Nowacki, Gregory J.; Trianowsky, Paul A. 1993. Literature on

old-growth forests of Eastern North America. Natural Areas

Journal. 13(2): 87–107.

Nuttall, Thomas. 1837. Collections toward a flora of the territory

of Arkansas. Transactions of the American Philosophical

Society. 2: 139–202.

Nuttall, Thomas. 1966. A journal of travels into the Arkansaw

Territory. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms. 296 p.

Nuttall, Thomas. 1980. A journal of travels into the Arkansaw

Territory during the year 1819. In: Lottinville, Savoie, ed.

The American exploration and travel series. Norman, OK:

University of Oklahoma Press. 361 p. Vol. 66.

Nyland, R.D. 1996. Silviculture concepts and applications. New

York: McGraw-Hill. 633 p.

Oklahoma Biodiversity Task Force (OK BTF). 1996. Oklahoma’s

biodiversity plan: a shared vision for conserving our natural

heritage. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Department of

Wildlife Conservation. 129 p.

Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United

States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 77(1): 118–125.

Ostrom, Arnold J.; Hahn, Jerold T. 1974. Timber resources of

Missouri’s southwestern Ozarks. Resour. Bull. NC-21. St.

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

North Central Forest Experiment Station. 60 p.

Ostry, M.E.; Mielke, M.E.; Anderson, R.L. 1996. How to identify

butternut canker and manage butternut trees. HT-70. St.

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

North Central Forest Experiment Station. [Not paged].

Ostry, M.E.; Mielke, M.E.; Skilling, D.D. 1994. Butternut—

strategies for managing a threatened tree. Gen. Tech. Rep.

NC-165. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.

Packard, S. 1991. Restoring oak ecosystems. Restoration and

Management Notes. 11(1): 5–16.

Pallardy, S.G.; Nigh, T.A.; Garrett, H.E. 1988. Changes in forest

composition in central Missouri: 1968–1982. American

Midland Naturalist. 120(2): 380–390.

Palmer, Ernest J. 1921. The forest of the Ozark region. Journal of

the Arnold Arboretum. 2: 216–232.

Parker, G.R. 1989. Old-growth forests of the central hardwood

region. Natural Areas Journal. 9(1): 5–11.

Paton, P. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how

strong is the evidence? Conservation Biology. 8: 17–26.

178
Payne, T.L.; Billings, Ronald F. 1989. Evaluation of (S)-

verbenone applications for suppressing southern pine

beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infestations. Journal of

Economic Entomology. 82(6): 1702–1708.

Pell, William F. 1983. The natural divisions of Arkansas: a

revised classification and description. Natural Areas

Journal. 3(2): 12–23.

Penfound, William T. 1964. The relation of grazing to plant

succession in the tall grass prairie. Journal of Range

Management. 17(5): 256–260.

Pharris, L.D. 1981. Evaluation of black bear survey data in

Arkansas, 1976–1980. Proceedings of the Southeastern

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 35: 66–70.

Probst, J.R.; Thompson, F.R., III. 1996. A multi-scale assessment

of the geographic and ecological distribution of midwestern

neotropical migratory birds. In: Thompson, F. R., III, ed.

Management of midwestern landscapes for the conservation

of neotropical migratory birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-187. St.

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

North Central Forest Experiment Station: 21–40.

Puckette, W.L. 1974–75. Bear caves. Oklahoma Underground. 7:

15–17.

Pyne, Stephen J. 1982. Fire in America: a cultural history of

wildland and rural fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press. 654 p.

Rafferty, M.D. 1996. Rude pursuits and rugged peaks,

Schoolcraft’s Ozark journal 1818–1819. Fayetteville, AR: The

University of Arkansas Press. 170 p.

Rebertus, A. 1994. A changing view of fire. Missouri Wildlife.

Oct–Nov: 8.

Renlund, D.W., ed. 1971. Forest pest conditions in Wisconsin.

Ann. Rep. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources. 53 p.

Rexrode, Charles O.; Brown, H. Daniel. 1983. Oak wilt. For.

Insect & Dis. Leaf. 29. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 6 p.

Reynolds, R.R. 1969. Twenty-nine years of selection timber

management on the Crossett Experimental Forest. Res. Pap.

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

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 19 p.

Reynolds, R.R.; Baker, J.B.; Ku, T.T. 1984. Four decades of

selection timber management on the Crossett Farm forestry

forties. Bull. 872. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas,

Division of Agriculture, Arkansas Agricultural Experiment

Station. 43 p.

Rink, George. 1990. Juglans cinerea L. Butternut. In: Burns,

Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., tech. coords. Silvics of

North America: volume 2, hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service: 386–390.

Roach, B.A. 1962. Practical silviculture for central hardwood

stands. Southern Lumberman: 34–38.

Roach, B.A.; Gingrich, S.F. 1968. Even-aged silviculture for

upland central hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 355. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 39 p.

Robbins, C. S.; Bystrak, D.; Geissler, P.H. 1986. The breeding

bird survey: its first fifteen years, 1965–1979. Res. Pub. 157.

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 196 p.

Robinson, S.K.; Thompson, F.R., III; Donovan, T.M. [and

others]. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting

success of migratory birds. Science. 26: 1987–1990.

Rodgers, M.J. 1973. Movements and reproductive success of

black bear introduced into Arkansas. Proceedings of the

annual conference of the Southeastern Association of Game

and Fish Commissioners. 27: 307–308.

Roelofs, W. 1873. Curculionides recueillis au Japan par M.G.

Lewis. Annual Society Entomology de Belgique. 16: 168.

Rogers, J.G., Jr.; Dwyer, D.J.; Martin, C. 1993. Partners in flight:

past, present, and future; a Government perspective. In:

Finch, D.M.; Stangel, P.W., eds. Status and management of

neotropical migratory birds. Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-229. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 5–6.

Rosson, James F., Jr.; London, Jack D. 1997. Forest statistics for

Arkansas’ Ozark counties—1995. Resour. Bull. SRS-15.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 45 p.

Rosson, James F., Jr.; London, Jack D. 1997. Forest statistics for

Arkansas’ Ouachita counties—1995. Resour. Bull. SRS-10.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station. 39 p.

Rothstein, S. I.; Verner, J.; Stevens, E. 1984. Radio-tracking

confirms a unique diurnal pattern of spatial occurrence in

the parasitic brown-headed cowbird. Ecology. 65: 77–88.

Rowland, E.R., ed. 1930. Life, letters and papers of William

Dunbar. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Historical Society. 410 p.

Rudis, Victor A.; Tansey, John B. 1995. Regional assessment of

remote forests and black bear habitat from forest resource

surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management. 59(1): 170–180.

179
Runkle, James R. 1991. Natural disturbance regimes and the

maintenance of stable regional floras. In: Henderson,

Douglas; Hedrick, Larry D., eds. Proceedings of the conference on the restoration of old growth forests in the Interior

Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma; 1990 September

19–20; Morrilton, AR. Hot Springs, AR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest;

Morrilton, AR: Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development: 31–48.

Salwasser, H. 1994. Ecosystem management: can it sustain

diversity and productivity? Journal of Forestry. 92: 6–10.

Sander, I.L. 1966. Composition and distribution of hardwood

reproduction after harvest cutting. In: Proceedings, 1966

symposium on hardwoods of the Piedmont and Coastal

Plain. Macon, GA: Georgia Forest Research Council: 30–33.

Sander, I.L. 1971. Height growth of new oak sprouts depends

on size of advance reproduction. Journal of Forestry. 69(11):

809–811.

Sander, I.L. 1977. 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. 35 p.

Sander, I.L.; Clark, F.B. 1971. Reproduction of upland hardwood

forests in the Central States. Agric. Handb. 405. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 25 p.

Sander, I.L.; Graney, D.L. 1993. Regenerating oaks in the Central

States. In: Loftis, D.L.; McGee, C.E., eds. Oak regeneration:

serious problems, practical recommendations. Gen. Tech.

Rep. SE-84. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station:

174–183.

Sander, I.L.; Johnson, P.S.; Rogers, R. 1984. Evaluating oak

advance reproduction in the Missouri Ozarks. Res. Pap. NC251. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 16 p.

Sander, I.L.; Johnson, P.S.; Watt, R.F. 1976. A guide for

evaluating the adequacy of oak advance reproduction. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NC-23. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment

Station. 7 p.

Sander, Ivan L. 1980. Some silvicultural and management

options for upland hardwoods of the Mid-South. In:

Proceedings, Mid-South upland hardwood symposium for

the practicing forester and land manager; 1980 April 30–

May 2; Harrison, AR. Tech. Pub. SA-TP 12. Atlanta, GA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and

Private Forestry, Southeastern Area: 88–96.

Sanders, Darryl. 1991. Bee and wasp pests. Columbia, MO:

University of Missouri-Columbia, University Extension. 4 p.

Sanderson, G.C. 1987. Raccoon. In: Novak, Milan; Baker, James

A.; Obbard, Martyn E.; Malloch, Bruce, eds. Wild furbearer

management and conservation in North America. Toronto,

ON: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: 486-499.

Sauer, J.R.; Hines, J.E.; Gough, G. [and others]. [Accessed

January 1997]. The North American breeding bird survey:

results and analysis. Version 96.3. <http://www.mbr.nbs.gov>.

[Various pagination].

Saugey, David A.; Heidt, Gary A.; Heath, Darrell R. 1988.

Utilization of abandoned mine drifts and fracture caves by

bats and salamanders: unique subterranean habitat in the

Ouachita mountains. In: Proceedings of the symposium on

management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in

North America; 1998 July 19–21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech.

Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station: 64–71.

Saugey, David A.; Heidt, Gary A.; Heath, Darrell R. 1989. Bats

of the Ouachita Mountains. Proceedings of the Arkansas

Academy of Science. 43: 33–36.

Saveland, Jim. 1995. Fire in the forest. In: Eskew, Lane G., comp.

Forest health through silviculture workshop; 1995 May 8–11;

Mescalero, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-267. Fort Collins,

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 14–19.

Schlesinger, R.C. 1978. Increased growth of released white oak

poles continues through two decades. Journal of Forestry.

76(11): 726–727.

Schlesinger, Richard C. 1976. Sixteen years of selection

silviculture in upland hardwood stands. Res. Pap. NC-125.

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

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 6 p.

Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe. 1821. Journal of a tour into the

interior of Missouri and Arkansaw performed in the year

1818 and 1819. London: Richards Phillips and Co. 170 p.

Schroeder, Walter A. 1982. Presettlement prairie of Missouri.

Natural History Series, No. 2. Jefferson City: Missouri

Department of Conservation. 37 p.

Schroeder, Walter; Haithcoat, Tim; Porter, Shannon 1997. Pilot

project proposal, Missouri historic vegetation project.

[Unpublished report on file at the Forest Supervisor’s office,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mark Twain

National Forest, Rolla, MO.]

180
Schruben, P.G.; Arndt, R.E.; Bawiec, W.J.; Ambroziac, R.J. 1994.

Geology of the conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 scale [A

digital representation of the P.B. King and H.M. Beikman

1974 map of geology of the conterminous United States].

U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma City, OK.

Sealander, John A.; Heidt, Gary A. 1990. Arkansas mammals:

their natural history, classification, and distribution.

Fayetteville, AR: The University of Arkansas Press. 308 p.

Shelton, M.G. 1997. Development of understory vegetation in

pine and pine-hardwood shelterwood stands in the

Ouachita Mountains—the first three years. Res. Pap. SRS-8.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station. 18 p.

Shelton, M.G.; Murphy, P.A. 1997. Understory vegetation 3

years after implementing uneven-aged silviculture in a

shortleaf pine-oak stand. Res. Pap. SO-296. Asheville, NC:

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

Research Station. 13 p.

Shelton, M.G.; Wittwer, R.F. 1992. Effects of seedbed condition

on natural shortleaf pine regeneration. In: Brissette, J.C.;

Barnett, J.P., comps. Proceedings of the shortleaf pine

regeneration workshop; 1991 October 29–31; Little Rock,

AR. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-90. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station: 124–139.

Shelton, M.G.; Wittwer, R.F. 1996. Shortleaf pine seed production in natural stands in the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains.

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 20(2): 74–90.

Shores, Elizabeth F. 1994. The red imported fire ant: mythology

and public policy, 1957–1992. Arkansas Historical Quarterly.

53(3): 320–339.

Sims, Daniel H. 1980. An overview of Mid-South upland

hardwood regeneration problems and alternatives. In: MidSouth upland hardwood symposium for the practicing

forester and land manager: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980

April 30–May2; Harrison, AR. Tech. Pub. SA-TP 12. Atlanta,

GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Division

of State and Private Forestry, Southeastern Area: 56–63.

Smith, C.C. 1940. The effect of overgrazing and erosion upon

the biota of the mixed grass prairie of Oklahoma. Ecology.

21: 381–397.

Smith, D.M. 1986. The practice of silviculture. 8th ed. New York:

John Wiley and Sons. 527 p.

Smith, D.M. 1989. Even-aged management: when is it appropriate and what does it reveal about stand development? In:

Martin, C. Wayne; Smith, C. Tattersall; Tritton, Louise M.,

eds. New perspectives on silvicultural management of

northern hardwoods: Proceedings of the 1988 symposium

on the conflicting consequences of practicing northern

hardwood silviculture. 1998 June 9–10; Durham, NH. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NE-124. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment

Station: 17–25.

Smith, Kenneth L. 1986. Sawmill: the story of cutting the last

great virgin forest east of the Rockies. Fayetteville, AR:

University of Arkansas Press. 246 p.

Smith, R.H.; Lee, R.E., III. 1972. Black turpentine beetle. For.

Pest Leaf. 12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 8 p.

Smith, Tim E., ed. 1993. Missouri vegetation management

manual. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of

Conservation. 148 p.

Smith, Tim E. 1997. Exotic plant species. In: Missouri Department of Conservation. Conservation policies and guidelines

for area and resource management. Jefferson City, MO:

Missouri Department of Conservation: VI-74–VI-74c.

Smith, W. Brad. 1990. Timber resources of Missouri’s Northwest Ozarks. Res. Bull. NC-114. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest

Experiment Station. 44 p.

Soulé, Michael E. 1990. The onslaught of alien species, and

other challenges in the coming decades. Conservation

Biology. 4(3): 233–239.

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB).

1996. The southern Appalachian assessment terrestrial

technical report. Report 5 of 5. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 288 p.

Sparks, Jeffrey C.; Masters, Ronald E.; Engle, David M. [and

others]. 1998. Effects of late growing-season and late

dormant-season prescribed fire on herbaceous vegetation in

restored pine-grassland communities. Journal of Vegetation

Science. 9: 133–142.

Spurr, Stephen H.; Barnes, Burton V. 1980. Forest ecology. 3rd

ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 687 p.

Stanford, Jack A. 1970. Bobwhite quail. In: W.O. Nagel, ed.

Conservation contrasts: three decades of non-political

management of wildlife and forests in Missouri. Jefferson

City, MO: Missouri Department of Conservation: 44–71.

Starkey, D.A.; Cost, N.D.; May, D.M. [and others]. 1992. [Plant

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

State & Private Forestry, Pinevile, LA; Project Leader, U.S.

181
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station, Asheville, NC; Research Forester, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station. Forest health monitoring oak decline

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

Forest Service, Southern Region, State and Private Forestry,

Forest Health. 12 p. [Unpublished maps on file at U.S. Forest

Service, Southern Region, State and Private Forestry, Forest

Health, Asheville, NC.]

Starkey, D.A.; Oak, S.W.; Ryan, G.W. [and others]. 1989.

Evaluation of oak decline areas in the South. Protection

Report R8-PR-17. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Southern

Region. 36 p.

Sternitzke, Herbert S. 1960. Arkansas forests. Forest Surv. Rel.

84. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 58 p.

Sternitzke, Herbert S.; Van Sickle, Charles C. 1968. East Oklahoma forests. Resource Bull. SO-14. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station. 32 p.

Stevens, Russell L. 1997. The feral hog in Oklahoma. Ardmore,

OK: Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. 20 p.

Steyermark, J.A. 1959. Vegetational history of the Ozark forest.

Columbia, MO: The University of Missouri. 138 p.

Stipes, R. Jay; Campana, Richard J., eds. 1981. Compendium of

elm diseases. St. Paul, MN: The American Phytopathological Society. 96 p.

Stout, B.B.; Deschenes, J.M.; Ohmann, L.F. 1975. Multi-species

model of a deciduous forest. Ecology. 56: 226–231.

Strausberg, Stephen; Hough, Walter A. 1997. The Ouachita and

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests: a history of the lands

and the USDA Forest Service tenure. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO121. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station. 45 p.

Stringer, J.W.; Kimmerer, T.W.; Overstreet, J.C.; Dunn, J.P. 1989.

Oak mortality in eastern Kentucky. Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry. 13(2): 86–91.

Strode, Donald D. 1977. Butternut/Juglans cinerea L. In: Halls,

Lowell K., ed. Southern fruit-producing woody plants used

by wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-16. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station: 149–150.

Svejcar, Tony; Christiansen, Tony. 1987. Grazing effects on

water relations of Caucasian bluestem. Journal of Range

Management. 40(1): 15–18.

Swain, Kenneth M., Sr.; Remion, Michael C. 1974. Direct control

methods for the southern pine beetle. USDA Handb. No.

575. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 15 p.

Tainter, F.H.; Baker, F.A. 1996. Principles of forest pathology.

New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: 571–582, 646–665.

Tainter, F.H.; Fraedrich, S.W.; Benson, J.D. 1984. The effect of

climate on growth, decline, and death of northern red oaks

in the western North Carolina Nantahala Mountains.

Castanea. 49(3): 127–137.

Tainter, F.H.; Retzlaff, W.A.; Starkey, D.A.; Oak, S.W. 1990.

Decline of radial growth in oaks is associated with shortterm changes in climate. European Journal of Forest

Pathology. 20: 95–105.

Teale, Edwin Way. 1948. Days without time. In: Krutch, Joseph

Wood; Eriksson, Paul S. A treasury of birdlore. New York:

Joseph Wood Krutch and Paul S. Eriksson: 377–381.

Terborgh, J. 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press. 207 p.

Thatcher, R.C.; 1960. Bark beetles affecting southern pines: a

review of current knowledge. Occ. Pap. 180. New Orleans,

LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 25 p.

Thatcher, R.C.; Barry, P.J. 1982. Southern pine beetle. For. Insect

& Dis. Leaf. 49. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 7 p.

Thatcher, R.C.; Searcy, J.L.; Coster, J.E.; Hertel, G.D., eds. 1980.

The southern pine beetle. Tech. Bull. 1631. Pineville, LA:

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

Southern Pine Beetle Research and Applications Program.

266 p.

Thill, Ronald E. 1984. Deer and cattle diets on Louisiana pinehardwood sites. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48(3): 788–

798.

Thompson, F. R., III. 1994. Temporal and spatial patterns of

breeding brown-headed cowbirds in the Midwestern United

States. The Auk. 111: 979–990.

Thompson, F. R., III. 1995. Management of midwestern landscapes for the conservation of neotropical migratory birds.

Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-187. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 208 p.

Thompson, F. R., III.; Lewis, S.J.; Green, J.; Ewert, D. 1993.

Status of neotropical landbirds in the Midwest: Identifying

species of management concern. In: Finch, D. M.; Stangel, P.

W., eds. Status and management of neotropical migratory

182
birds. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 145–158.

Thompson, F. R., III.; Probst, J.R.; Raphael, M.G. 1995. Impacts

of silviculture: overview and management recommendations.

In: Martin, T. E.; Finch, D. M., eds. Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds. New York: Oxford

University Press: 201–219.

Thompson, F. R., III.; Robinson, S.K.; Donovan, T.M. [and

others]. [In press]. Biogeographic, landscape, and local

factors affecting cowbird abundance and host parasitism

levels. In: Cook, T.; Robinson, S.K.; Rothstein, S.I.; Sealy,

S.G., eds. The ecology and management of cowbirds.

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Thompson, F. R., III.; Robinson, S.K.; Whitehead, D.R.; Brawn,

J.D. 1996. Management of central hardwood landscapes for

the conservation of migratory birds. In: Thompson, F. R., III,

ed. Management of midwestern landscapes for the conservation of neotropical migratory birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC187. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service: 117–143.

Thornbury, William D. 1965. Regional geomorphology of the

United States. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 609 pages.

Tigner, Tim. 1992. Gypsy moth impact on Virginia’s hardwood

forests and forest industry. Charlottesville, VA: Virginia

Department of Forestry. 35 p.

Trimble, G.R., Jr. 1970. 20 years of intensive uneven-aged

management: effect on growth, yield, and species composition in two hardwood stands in West Virginia. Res. Pap. NE154. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 12 p.

Trimble, G.R., Jr. 1973. The regeneration of Central Appalachian

hardwoods with emphasis on the effects of site quality and

harvesting practice. Res. Pap. NE-282. Upper Darby, PA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 14 p.

Triplehorn, Charles A. 1955. The Asiatic oak weevil in Delaware. Journal of Economic Entomology. 48(3): 289–293.

Tryon, E.H.; Powell, D.S. 1984. Root ages of advance hardwood

reproduction. Forest Ecology Management. 8: 293–298.

Tyrrell, Lucy E.; Nowacki, Gregory J.; Crow, Thomas R. [and

others]. 1998. Information about old growth for selected

forest type groups in the Eastern United States. Gen. Tech.

Rep. NC-197. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

507 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1986. Land and resource management plan, Mark Twain

National Forest. Milwaukee, WI: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Region. 252 p. +

appendices.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1987. Final environmental impact statement for the suppression of the southern pine beetle—southern region. Manage.

Bull. R8-MB2. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Region. 1,627 p. Vol. I–III.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1989. Interim management guide for Ozark chinquapin

(Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis). U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Ozark National Forest. 32 p.

[Unpublished document on file at the Supervisor’s office,

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

National Forest, Russellville, AR.]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1990. Record of decision, final environmental impact

statement, vegetation management in the Ozark/Ouachita

Mountains, March 5, 1990. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 17 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1995a. Course to the future: positioning fire and aviation

management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management. 30 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1995b. Gypsy moth management in the United States: a

cooperative approach: final Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 704 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1996. Environmental impact statement for the renewal of the

shortleaf pine/bluestem grass ecosystem and recovery of

the red-cockaded woodpecker. Hot Springs, AR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 48 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

[Accessed October 1997]. Fire effects information. <http://

www.fs.fed.us/database/feis> Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1999a. Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment: aquatic

conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-33. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station. 318 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1999b. Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment: social and

183
economic conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-34. Asheville,

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 300 p.

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

Forest Experiment Station (USDA FS SFES). 1956. Forests of

east Oklahoma, 1955–56. Forest Surv. Rel. 79. New Orleans,

LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 34 p.

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

Forest Experiment Station (USDA FS SFES). 1979. Forest

statistics for Arkansas counties. Resour. Bull. SO-76. New

Orleans, LA: Southern Forest Experiment Station. 77 p.

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

Forest Experiment Station (USDA FS SFES). 1992. Forest

maps of the United States. 1993 RPA Program, compact disc.

Starkville, MS: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station, Forest Inventory and

Analysis. [Not paged].

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

Research Station (USDA FS SRS). [Accessed February

1997]. Forest inventory and analysis data base retrieval

system. <http://www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/scripts/

ew.htm>. Starkville, MS: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Forest Inventory

and Analysis.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 1997. National Resource

Inventory (NRI). Hot Springs, AR: Ouachita National Forest.

16 p. [Unpublished data summary on file at the Forest

Supervisor’s Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Van Lear, D.; Watt, J.M. 1992. The role of fire in oak regeneration. In: Loftis, D.L.; McGee, C.E., eds. Oak regeneration:

serious problems and practical recommendations. Gen. Tech.

Rept. SE-84. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 66–78.

Vasilevsky, Alexander; Essex, Burton L. 1974. Timber resources

of Missouri’s northwestern Ozarks. Resour. Bull. NC-22. St.

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

North Central Forest Experiment Station. 59 p.

Venator, C.R. 1985. Survival of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata

Mill.) seedlings as influenced by nursery handling and

storage. Tree Planters’ Notes. 36(4): 17–19.

Walker, W.D. 1992. Historical perspectives on regeneration in

the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains—the Ouachita National

Forest. In: Brissette, J.C.; Barnett, J.P., comps. Proceedings

of the shortleaf pine regeneration workshop; 1991 October

29–31; Little Rock, AR. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-90. New Orleans,

LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 12–17.

Ward, W.W. 1966. Oak-hardwood reproduction in central

Pennsylvania. Journal of Forestry. 64(11): 744–749.

Wargo, P.M.; Houston, D.R.; LaMadeleine, L.A. 1983. Oak

decline [Leaflet]. For. Insect & Dis. Leaf. 165. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 8 p.

Weakley, Alan; Patterson, K.D.; Landaal, S., Pyne; M. 1996.

International classification of ecological communities:

terrestrial vegetation of the Southeastern United States.

Chapel Hill, NC: The Nature Conservancy, Southeast

Regional Office, Southern Conservation Science Department, Community Ecology Group. 374 p.

Weakley, Alan; Patterson, K.D.; Landaal, Pyne, M. 1997.

International classification of ecological communities:

terrestrial vegetation of the Southeastern United States.

Ozark Mountains/Ouachita Mountains—draft subset

(alliance level). Chapel Hill, NC: The Nature Conservancy,

Southeast Regional Office, Southern Conservation Science

Department, Community Ecology Group. 113 p.

Weaver, Dwight H. 1992. The wilderness underground, caves of

the Ozark plateau. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri

Press. 113 p.

Weitzman, S.; Trimble, G.R., Jr. 1957. Some natural factors that

govern the management of oaks. Stn. Pap. No. 88. Upper

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

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 40 p.

Wells, O.O. 1969. Results of the southwide seed source study

through 1968–1969. Proceedings of the tenth southern

conference on forest tree improvement. 1969 June 17–19;

Houston, TX. College Station, TX, Texas Forest Service:

117–129.

Wescott, C. 1964. The gardener’s bug book. New York:

Doubleday. 625 p.

White, P.H. 1979. Pattern, process, and natural disturbance in

vegetation. The Botanical Review. 45: 229–299.

Williams, G.W. 1994. [Sociologist and Social Historian, USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR]

References on the American Indian use of fire in ecosystems. Portland, OR: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 24 p. [Unpublished report on file at

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

OR.]

184
Williams, Jerry. 1993. Fire related considerations and strategies

in support of ecosystem management. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fire and

Aviation Management [Staff paper]. 30 p.

Williams, Ted. 1994. Invasion of the aliens. Audubon. (Sept.–

Oct.): 24–32.

Wilson, Christopher W.; Masters, Ronald E.; Bukenhofer,

George A. 1995. Breeding bird response to pine-grassland

community restoration for red-cockaded woodpeckers. The

Journal of Wildlife Management. 59(1): 56–67.

Wilson, Louis F. 1971. Walkingstick. Forest Pest Leaf. 82.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 4 p.

Winkel, Von K.; Roundy, Bruce A. 1991. Effects of cattle

trampling and mechanical seedbed preparation on grass

seedling emergence. Journal of Range Management. 44(2):

176–178.

Winters, R.K.; Roberts, E.V. 1948a. Forest resources of the

eastern Ozark region in Missouri. Forest Surv. Rel. No. 1.

Columbus, OH: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Central States Forest Experiment Station. 21 p.

Winters, R.K.; Roberts, E.V. 1948b. Forest resources of the

northwest Ozark region in Missouri. Forest Surv. Rel. No. 3.

Columbus, OH: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Central States Forest Experiment Station. 19 p.

Winters, R.K.; Roberts, E.V. 1948c. Forest resources of the

southwestern Ozark region in Missouri. Forest Surv. Rel.

No. 2. Columbus, OH: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Central States Forest Experiment Station.

21 p.

Wittwer, R.F.; Dougherty, P.M.; Cosby, D. 1986. Effects of

ripping and herbicide site preparation treatments on loblolly

pine seedling growth and survival. Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry. 10(4): 253–257.

Wittwer, R.F.; Lynch, T.B.; Huebschmann, M.M. 1996. Thinning

improves growth of crop trees in natural shortleaf pine

stands. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 20(4): 182–

187.

Wojcik, D.P.; Buren, W.F.; Grissell, E.E.; Cardysle, T. 1976. The

fire ants (Solenopsis) of Florida (Hymenoptera:

Formicidae). Entomolog. Circ. No. 173. Florida Department

of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 4 p.

Woods, E.D.; Wittwer, R.F.; Dougherty, P.M. [and others]. 1988.

Influence of site factors on growth of loblolly and shortleaf

pine in Oklahoma. Research Report No. P-900. Stillwater, OK:

Oklahoma State University, Division of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station. 25 p.

Yeiser, J.L. 1986. Tree injection for early pine seedling release in

the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas. Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry. 10(4): 249–251.

Yeiser, J.L.; Barnett, J.P. 1991. Growth and physiological

response of four shortleaf pine families to herbicidal control

of herbaceous competition. Southern Journal of Applied

Forestry. 15 (4): 199–208.

Yeiser, J.L.; Cobb, S.W. 1988. Herbicides for releasing pine

seedlings in the Arkansas Ozarks. Bull. No. 911. Fayetteville,

AR: University of Arkansas, Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station. 13 p.

Yeiser, J.L.; Sundell, E.S.; Boyd, J.W. 1987. Preplant and

postplant treatments for weed control in newly planted pine.

Bull. No. 902. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas,

Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station. 10 p.

Yocom, H.A. 1971. Shortleaf pine seed dispersal. Journal of

Forestry. 66(5): 422.

Yocom, H.A. 1972. Burning to reduce understory hardwoods in

the Arkansas mountains. Res. Note SO-145. New Orleans,

LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 3 p.

Yocom, H.A.; Lawson, E.R. 1977. Tree percent from naturally

regenerated shortleaf pine. Southern Journal of Applied

Forestry. 1(2): 10–11.

Young, J.A.; Young, C.G. 1992. Seeds of woody plants in North

America. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Dioscoridies Press. 407 p.

185
Glossary of Terms

abiotic: nonliving.

advance reproduction: the young trees in the understory of a

forest stand that will sprout and grow when the overstory

trees are cut and removed.

alluvial: composed of material—such as soils and gravels—

deposited by running water.

animal unit month (AUM): The unit of measurement for the

amount of forage that a cow-calf pair will consume in one

month.

anthracnose: a disease causing large, irregular dead areas on

leaf tissues and often cankers on twigs or stems.

areal: of, relating to, or involving an area.

artificial regeneration: planting seedlings to regenerate a

forest stand.

assessment: the act of estimating or determining the significance, importance, or value of something.

average annual mortality: average annual volume of trees 5.0

in. d.b.h. and larger that died from natural causes during the

intersurvey period.

average annual removals: average annual volume of trees 5.0

in. d.b.h. and larger removed from the inventory by harvesting, cultural operations (such as timber-stand improvement),

land clearing, or changes in land use during the intersurvey

period.

average net annual growth: average annual net change in

volume of trees 5.0 in. d.b.h. and larger in the absence of

cutting (gross growth minus mortality) during the

intersurvey period.

basal area: the area in square feet of the cross section at breast

height of a single tree, a group of trees, or all of the trees in

a stand, usually expressed in square feet per acre.

basin: the entire tract of land drained by a river and its

tributaries.

biotic: living or biological.

blow down: tree that has been blown down and lies on the

ground.

board foot: unit of measure for timber equal to a board 1 foot

square and 1 inch thick.

bole: that portion of a tree between a 1-ft stump and a 4-in. top

diameter outside bark in trees 5.0 in. d.b.h. and larger.

bract: a modified or reduced leaf-like structure.

cambium: dividing tissue that produces secondary tissues

(inner bark and wood).

canker: a visible dead area, usually of limited extent, in the

cortex or bark or a plant.

chain: 66 feet.

chlorosis: yellowing of plant foliage.

clearcutting: the removal of all the trees on a site for the

purpose of utilization and to provide for regeneration of an

even-aged stand of trees, usually of a species requiring full

sunlight for proper development and growth.

commercial species: tree species currently or potentially

suitable for industrial wood products.

community: an assemblage of organisms interacting in an

environment where they form a distinct living system with

its own composition, structure, environmental relations,

development, and functions.

conservation: the controlled use and systematic protection of

natural resources, such as forests and waterways.

d.b.h.: diameter at breast height, usually assumed to be 4.5 ft.

diameter class: a classification of trees based on tree d.b.h.

Two-inch diameter classes are commonly used by Forest

Inventory and Analysis, with the even inch as the approximate midpoint for a class. For example, the 6-in. class

includes trees 5.0 through 6.9 in. d.b.h.

dicennial: happening every 10 years.

dieback: dying back of twigs and branches from the terminal

portions downward.

disturbance factor: any physical or biological factor responsible for change in an ecosystem.

drought: abnormal dryness, most often recognized during

seasons when substantial precipitation is expected but fails

to occur. Drought is associated with higher than normal

surface temperatures and drier than normal atmospheric

moistures.

ecological section: an area or region of land designated for

study purposes that has distinct geology, landforms, soils,

flora, and fauna that set it apart from surrounding geographic areas.

186
ecology: the branch of biology that deals with relationships

between living organisms and their environment.

ecoregion: a region with distinctive, identifiable ecological

attributes.

ecosystem management: an ecological approach to natural

resource management to assure productive, healthy

ecosystems by blending social, economic, physical, and

biological needs and values.

endangered species: a species or subspecies in danger of

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,

as rated and listed by USDI FWS.

endemic (endemism): species restricted to a particular

geographic area.

epicormic: a shoot arising spontaneously from a dormant bud

on the branch or stem of a woody plant.

escarpment: a steep slope or cliff formed by erosion or faulting.

even-aged management: timber management methods that

result in the creation of forest stands in which all trees are

essentially the same age.

exotic species: a species of plant, animal, or other organism

that is not native to the locale.

extant: currently in existence.

extirpation: the loss of a species from a specific area.

Federal status: category assigned to plant and animal species

by the USDI FWS: threatened, endangered, potentially

endangered, or candidate. Candidate species are those for

which the USDI FWS has sufficient information to initiate

listing under the Endangered Species Act.

fen: a nonalluvial wetland fed by water seepage and generally

characterized by the absence of an overstory canopy.

feral: having escaped from domestication and become wild.

fire-dependent: the characteristic of requiring periodic fire as

part of the ecosystem.

fire-tolerant: the characteristic of tolerating periodic fire in the

ecosystem but not requiring fire as part of the ecosystem.

floodplain: low, relatively flat land adjoining inland and/or

coastal waters that is subject to periodic flooding.

forb: an herbaceous plant other than grass.

forest fragmentation: the breaking up of large, contiguous

forested tracts into smaller or less contiguous tracts.

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA): a USDA Forest Service

research program that periodically conducts a forest

inventory for each State. See the following Web site for

more information: <http://www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/wo/

wofia.htm>.

forest land: land at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of

any size, or formerly having had such tree cover, and not

currently developed for nonforest use. The minimum area

considered for classification is 1 acre. Forested strips must

be at least 120 ft wide.

forest type: a classification of forest land based on the species

forming a plurality of live-tree stocking. Major eastern

forest-type groups are:

white-red-jack pine—forests in which eastern white pine,

red pine, or jack pine, singly or in combination, constitute a

plurality of the stocking. (Common associates include

hemlock, birch, and maple.)

spruce-fir—forests in which spruce or true firs, singly or in

combination, constitute a plurality of the stocking. (Common associates include maple, birch, and hemlock.)

longleaf-slash pine—forests in which longleaf or slash pine,

singly or in combination, constitute a plurality of the

stocking. (Common associates include oak, hickory, and

gum).

loblolly-shortleaf pine—forests in which loblolly pine,

shortleaf pine, or other southern yellow pines, except

longleaf or slash pine, singly or in combination, constitute a

plurality of the stocking. (Common associates include oak,

hickory, and gum.)

oak-pine—forests in which hardwoods (usually upland

oaks) constitute a plurality of the stocking but in which

pines account for 25 to 50 percent of the stocking. (Common

associates include gum, hickory, and yellow-poplar.)

oak-hickory—forests in which upland oaks or hickory,

singly or in combination, constitute a plurality of the

stocking, except where pines account for 25 to 50 percent, in

which case the stand would be classified oak-pine. (Common associates include yellow-poplar, elm, maple, and black

walnut.)

oak-gum-cypress—bottomland forests in which tupelo,

blackgum, sweetgum, oaks, or southern cypress, singly or in

combination, constitute a plurality of the stocking, except

where pines account for 25 to 50 percent, in which case the

stand would be classified oak-pine. (Common associates

include cottonwood, willow, ash, elm, hackberry, and maple.)

elm-ash-cottonwood—forests in which elm, ash, or cottonwood, singly or in combination, constitute a plurality of the

stocking. (Common associates include willow, sycamore,

beech, and maple.)

187
maple-beech-birch—forests in which maple, beech, or

yellow birch, singly or in combination, constitute a plurality

of the stocking. (Common associates include hemlock, elm,

basswood, and white pine.)

nonstocked stands—stands less than 10 percent stocked

with live trees.

game species: those species that are hunted.

gap-phase dynamics: the process by which single overstory

trees or small groups of trees in a mature forest are gradually

replaced by seedlings and saplings in the understory.

glade: an opening in the forest canopy characterized by

herbaceous vegetation.

global ranks: ranks assigned to plant and animal species by

The Nature Conservancy and State heritage programs based

on the number of occurrences of each species and denoted

by “G” and a number (1-5) or a letter code: G?, G_Q_,

G_T_, G1, G2, G3, G4, and G5. Two G, T, or S rankings

together (e.g., G2G3) indicate the range in uncertainty about

the status of the taxa. Also see State ranks and Chapter 5

of this report.

gross growth: annual increase in volume of trees 5.0 in. d.b.h.

and larger in the absence of cutting and mortality.

ground water: generally, all subsurface water (as distinct from

surface water); specifically, that part of the subsurface water

in the saturated zone (a zone in which all voids are filled

with water) where the water is under pressure greater than

atmospheric.

group selection: an uneven-aged harvest and regeneration

system that periodically removes small groups or clusters of

trees from several small portions of the stand.

growing season: the portion of the year when soil temperatures

19.7 in. below the soil surface are higher than biologic zero

(5 °C). For ease of determination, this period can be approximated by the number of frost-free days.

growing stock: the volume of sound wood in cubic feet in trees

that are at least 5.0 in. in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.),

from a 1-ft stump to a minimum 4.0 ft in top diameter (outside

bark) of the central stem or to the point where the central

stem breaks into limbs.

growing-stock volume: the cubic-foot volume of sound wood

in growing-stock trees at least 5.0 in. d.b.h. from a 1-ft stump

to a minimum 4.0-in. top diameter outside bark of the central

stem.

hardwoods: dicotyledonous trees, usually broadleaf and

deciduous.

soft hardwoods—hardwood species with an average

specific gravity of 0.50 or less, such as gums, yellow-poplar,

cottonwoods, red maple, basswoods, and willows.

hard hardwoods—hardwood species with an average

specific gravity greater than 0.50, such as oaks, hard maples,

hickories, and beech.

herbicides: chemicals used to kill unwanted plant pests.

hibernaculum (plural: hibernacula): any structure that

protects an organism during winter; in this volume, the term

refers to caves in which bats and other animals spend the

winter months.

historic: relating to or existing in times of written history;

within the Assessment area, the historic period is considered to begin with the expedition of Hernando de Soto in the

1540’s.

improvement cutting: treatment applied to stands past the

sapling stage to remove trees of undesired or inferior

species, quality, or condition that are competing with

desired trees.

indicator species: a species of plant or animal whose presence

or absence indicates the general health of the community

upon which the species is most dependent.

Interior Highlands: that region of the South-Central United

States that contains the Ozarks Plateaus Province and

Ouachita Province; more or less equivalent to the OzarkOuachita Highlands.

intermediate treatments: the set of treatments applied to stands

where the desired species are larger than saplings but not

old enough for reproduction cutting. Intermediate treatments

include: thinning, release, improvement cutting, salvage

cutting, prescribed burning, fertilization, and pruning.

introduced species: species that has been intentionally or

accidentally released in a locale by humans.

isopod: an aquatic crustacean with a flat, oval body having

seven pairs of walking legs.

land area: the area of dry land and land temporarily or partly

covered by water, such as marshes, swamps, and river

floodplains (omitting tidal flats below mean high tide),

streams, sloughs, estuaries, and canals less than 200 ft wide,

and lakes, reservoirs, and ponds less than 4.5 acres in area.

land cover type: descriptive term for the dominant vegetation

(e.g., oak-hickory forest) or other predominant land cover

(e.g., water or urban/developed) of a given area.

land use: particular function to which a region is being put,

e.g., agricultural or forested.

188
live trees: all living trees. All size classes, all tree classes, and

both commercial and noncommercial species are included.

mast: the fruit of flowering trees used by wildlife for food (e.g.,

acorns).

mesic: describing sites with a moderate amount of moisture.

National Resources Inventory (NRI): a statistically based,

nationwide inventory of land uses and natural resource

conditions and trends (e.g., erosion potential) on rural, nonFederal lands.

native species: species that is within its known historical range

and for which there is no evidence of humans having

artificially introduced it.

natural regeneration: the naturally occurring processes in

trees that result in new seedlings and sprouts.

necrosis: death of host tissue.

neotropical migratory birds: birds that migrate to the

neotropics (South and Central America and the Caribbean)

during the winter but breed and nest in North America.

nest predation: the placement by a female bird of one or more

eggs in the nest of another bird species, which then hatches

and (typically) feeds the chick of the “nest predator.” The

“victim” expends energy raising the young of another

species.

nonforest land: land that has never supported forests and land

formerly forested where timber production is precluded by

development for other uses.

North American Breeding Bird Survey: annual survey of

breeding birds coordinated by the National Audubon

Society.

old-growth stand: a stand of trees characterized by a diversity

of tree species in several size classes, advanced age,

downed logs and snags, large canopy trees, tree fall gaps,

undisturbed soils, and other plants and animals that prefer

old growth.

other forest land: forest land other than timberland and

productive reserved forest land. It includes available and

reserved forest land that is incapable of producing annually

20 cubic feet per acre of industrial wood under natural

conditions because of adverse site conditions such as

sterile soils, dry climate, poor drainage, high elevation,

steepness, or rockiness.

outbreak: explosive growth of an insect population or disease

organism, typically resulting in damage to or death of a large

number of trees and/or other organisms.

ownership: the property owned by one ownership unit,

including all parcels of land in the United States.

national forest land—federal land that has been legally

designated as national forests or purchase units and other

land under the administration of the USDS Forest Service,

including experimental areas and Bankhead-Jones Title III

land.

forest industry land—land owned by companies or individuals operating primary wood-using plants.

nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land—privately owned

land excluding forest industry land or forest industry-leased

land.

corporate—owned by corporations, including incorporated farm ownerships.

individual—all lands owned by individuals, including

farm operators.

other public—an ownership class that includes all public

lands except national forests.

miscellaneous Federal land—Federal land other than

national forests.

State, county, and municipal land—land owned by

States, counties, and local public agencies or municipalities or land leased to these governmental units for 50

years or more.

Paleozoic age: the second era of geologic time (Cambrian

Period through Permian Period) that began approximately

545 million years B.P. and ended 248 million years B.P.

Partners in Flight (PIF): a collection of government agencies

and nongovernment organizations working to conserve

birds.

pathogen: a parasite that causes disease.

pheromone: chemical attractant used by an animal.

physiography: the study of the surface features of the land.

PIF list: list of bird species identified as conservation priorities

by Partners in Flight.

PIF priority species: bird species identified as conservation

priorities by Partners in Flight. Species are classified as

priorities if they meet one or more of seven criteria.

pixel: the basic unit or picture element that makes up a digital

image.

poletimber: trees 5.0 to 8.9 in. d.b.h. for softwoods and 5.0 to

10.9 in. for hardwoods.

189
population density: the number of individuals of a species per

unit area.

prehistoric: relating to or existing in times predating written

history. This term generally refers to those North American

cultures in existence prior to A.D. 1540.

prescribed burning: the use of fire to achieve forest or land

management objectives.

province: in the context used in the report, a geographic area

having particular geologic and landform characteristics.

pruning: the removal of lower branches of young trees to

develop stems free of knots.

pulpwood: trees in the poletimber size class that are harvested

for use.

P-value: probability.

rare: a classification reflecting a species’ scarcity in a given

area. Rare plants and animals (and eventually communities)

are assigned rarity ranks according to The Nature

Conservancy’s global ranking system.

regeneration cutting: a cutting that provides conditions

necessary for the establishment of a new stand of forest

trees.

release treatments: treatments that free desired trees from

competing vegetation in stands not yet past the sapling

stage. Release treatments include chemical applications,

mechanical methods, and prescribed burning.

removals: the net volume of growing stock trees removed from

the inventory by harvesting or cultural operations such as

timber stand improvement (e.g., thinning), land clearing, or

change in land use.

reproduction cutting: cutting treatment that imitates a natural

disturbance and is designed to promote regeneration of

young trees.

restoration: the process of reintroducing the natural actions

(e.g., periodic fire) required by a community in order to

reestablish critical components of the community.

riparian: describing lands adjacent to streams and lakes.

rotation age: the age at which an even-aged stand of trees is

scheduled for harvest or regeneration cutting (the actual

age depends on management objectives, the tree species

involved, and local site conditions).

rotten trees: live trees of commercial species not containing at

least one 12-ft saw log or two noncontiguous saw logs,

each 8 ft or longer, now or prospectively, primarily because

of rot or missing sections, and with less than one-third of

the gross board foot tree volume in sound material.

rough trees: live trees of commercial species not containing at

least one 12-ft saw log or two noncontiguous saw logs,

each 8 ft or longer, now or prospectively, primarily because

of roughness, poor form, splits, and cracks, and with less

than one-third of the gross board foot tree volume in sound

material; and live trees of noncommercial species.

salvage cutting: removal of trees that have succumbed, or are

in danger of succumbing, to the actions of disturbance.

saplings: live trees 1.0 to 5.0 in. d.b.h.

savanna: an assemblage of woody vegetation having a

scattered distribution with an understory dominated by

grasses and forbs maintained by recurring fire; height and

diameter growth of canopy-layer trees may be stunted by

environmental factors (i.e., weather, shallow soils) or within

established averages for the species.

saw log: a log meeting minimum standards of diameter, length,

and defect, including logs at least 8 ft long, sound and

straight, with a minimum diameter inside bark for softwoods

of 6 in. (8 in. for hardwoods).

sawtimber: trees with a 9 in. d.b.h. and larger for softwoods

and 11 in. d.b.h. and larger for hardwoods.

sawtimber volume: growing-stock volume in the saw-log

portion of sawtimber-size trees in board feet (International

1⁄4-inch rule).

secondary forest succession: the normal growth and development of a forest stand that begins immediately after a

disturbance when new trees and other plants begin to grow

or older ones resprout.

seedlings: trees less than 1.0 in. d.b.h. and greater than 1 ft tall

for hardwoods and greater than 6 in. tall for softwoods.

seedtree: an even-aged silvicultural harvest and regeneration

system that removes most of the mature stems. A number of

trees (generally, 4 to 10 per acre, singly or in groups) are

retained to provide seeds to establish the new stand.

seep: a place where groundwater oozes slowly to the surface,

often forming a pool; a small spring.

shelterwood: an even-aged silvicultural harvest and regeneration system that gradually removes most or all trees in a

series of partial cuttings, which resemble heavy thinning.

Regeneration establishes under the protection of partial

canopy cover.

silvics: the study of forests, especially the ecological relationships that govern particular tree species.

silvicultural: of or relating to the culture of trees or forests.

190
silviculture: the element of forestry that deals with the

establishment, development, reproduction, and care of

forest trees.

single-tree selection: an uneven-aged silvicultural harvest

system that removes selected trees to create canopy gaps.

Trees selected for removal may be healthy or diseased,

depending on the goals of the landowner.

softwoods: coniferous trees, usually evergreen, having leaves

that are needles or scalelike.

yellow pines—loblolly, longleaf, slash, pond, shortleaf,

pitch, Virginia, sand, spruce, and Table Mountain pines.

other softwoods—cypress, eastern redcedar, white-cedar,

eastern white pine, eastern hemlock, spruce, and fir.

source-sink status: description of the reproductive status of a

species that it is reproducing successfully enough in some

portions of the landscape to serve as the “source” of new

individuals for other portions in which reproduction is poor

or entirely lacking (“sink”). For example, the reproductive

rates of birds can be so low in fragmented landscapes that

these populations are “sinks” that cannot sustain themselves without immigration from more productive “source”

populations.

special concern: a term used by some States for certain native

species determined to require monitoring and/or special

management.

sporulate: to form spores.

springtail: small, wingless insect with strong leaping abilities.

State ranks: ranks assigned to the species by State heritage

programs based on number of known occurrences of each

species in the State. The ranks (S1 through S5) are the same

as global ranks, which are described in detail in Chapter 5

of this report.

S1: Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled species in a State

because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s)

making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the State.

Typically, there are five or fewer occurrences of a critically

imperiled species or there are very few remaining individuals

or acres in which they occur.

S2: Imperiled—Imperiled species in a State because of rarity or

because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to

extirpation from the State. Typically, there are 6 to 20

occurrences of an imperiled species or there are few

remaining individuals or acres in which they occur.

S3: Vulnerable—Vulnerable species in a State because it is rare

or uncommon. Typically, 21 to 100 occurrences of the

species are found only in a restricted range (even if abundant at some locations); or because of other factors making

the species vulnerable to extirpation.

SH: Historical—Element occurred historically in the State (with

an expectation that it may be rediscovered), perhaps having

not been verified in the past 20 years, and is suspected to

be present still. Naturally, an element would be SH without

such a 20-year delay if the only known occurrences in a

State were destroyed or if it had been extensively and

unsuccessfully looked for. The SH rank should be reserved

for elements for which some effort has been made to

relocate occurrences, rather than simply ranking all elements

not known from verified extant occurrences with this rank.

SX: Extirpated—Element is believed to be extirpated from the

State (or province or other subnational unit).

stocking: the degree of occupancy of land by trees, measured

by basal area or the number of trees in a stand and spacing

in the stand, compared with a minimum standard, depending

on tree size, required to fully utilize the growth potential of

the land.

talus: a sloping mass of rocky fragments, usually with little or

no vegetation.

taxa: two or more taxonomic groups or entities.

taxon: a taxonomic group or entity; the name applied to a

taxonomic group in a formal system of nomenclature.

taxonomy: classification of organisms into categories according

to their natural relationships.

thinning: the harvesting of some immature trees of desired

species so that other immature trees with better developmental potential might thrive.

threatened species: a species or subspecies that is likely to

become endangered throughout all or a significant portion

of its range and listed as such by the USDI FWS.

timberland: forested land that is capable of producing crops of

industrial wood at a rate of at least 20 cubic feet/acre per

year and has not been withdrawn from timber production.

(Some forest lands are not classified by the FIA as timberland because they are unproductive and some—such as

national parks and wildernesses—because, by law, they are

off limits to harvesting.)

tolerance: the ability of a species to develop and attain

maturity under the influence of various degrees of shading.

Trees said to be shade-tolerant do well in shady environments. Shade-intolerant species require a minimum solar

exposure to robustly mature.

191
topography: the configuration of a surface (usually the Earth’s

surface) including its relief and the position of its natural

and artificial features.

township: federally mandated division of land encompassing 36

square mi and consisting of 36 sections.

tree: woody plants having one erect perennial stem or trunk at

least 3 in. d.b.h., a more or less definitely formed crown of

foliage, and a height of at least 13 ft (at maturity).

uneven-aged management: timber management method that

results in forest stands characterized by trees of many ages

or sizes intermingled singly or in groups.

vascular: relating to tissues within a tree that carry water,

carbohydrates, and minerals up and down the tree.

watershed: the area of land above a given point on a stream

that contributes water to the volume of a body of surface

water; also referred to as hydrologic unit or drainage basin.

wetlands: those areas that are inundated or saturated by

surface or ground water at a frequency and duration

sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances

do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for

life in saturated soil conditions (U.S. ACE 1987). Wetlands

generally include (1) swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar

areas; and (2) lands that are transitional between terrestrial

and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or

near the surface of the land and is covered by shallow water.

For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one

or more of the following attributes: (1) at least periodically,

the land predominantly supports hydrophytes (plants

dependent on saturated soils or a water medium); (2) the

substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and

(3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or

covered by shallow water at some time during the growing

season of each year.

wilderness: a Congressionally-designated area that provides

opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined

recreational experiences. There are no constructed facilities

such as campgrounds, picnic areas, or interpretive sites, and

motorized and mechanized vehicles are prohibited. See

Wilderness Act.

Wilderness Act: The Federal Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System,

declared it the policy of the United States to “secure . . . the

benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness” and

provided guidelines for managing wilderness areas. The

Wilderness Act prohibits motorized and mechanized vehicles

as well as recreation facilities such as campgrounds, picnic

areas, and interpretive sites in wilderness areas.

wildfire: any fire that is not burning for a prescribed management purpose or being managed as a prescribed fire.

wind-throw: the toppling of live trees by strong winds.

woodland: an assemblage of woody vegetation having a

scattered distribution more dense than savanna and less

dense than forest; height and diameter growth of canopylayer trees may be stunted or within established averages

for the species.

xeric: describing sites without significant moisture, very dry

sites.

192
Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ac: acre(s)

A.D.: (anno Domini) refers to the number of years after the birth

of Christ

AUM: animal unit month

AVHRR: Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer

B.P.: years before the present date

d.b.h.: a measurement of the diameter of a tree at breast height

(4.5 ft from the groung)

FIA: Forest Inventory and Analysis

FS: Forest Service

ft: foot or feet

GAP: Gap Analysis Project

GIS: Geographic Information System

GLO: General Land Office

in: inch(es)

NIPF: nonindustrial private forest

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRI: National Resources Inventory

OK BTF: Oklahoma Biodiversity Task Force

PIF: Partners in Flight

P.L.: Public Law (Federal)

P-value: probability

RCW: red-cockaded woodpecker

TNC: The Nature Conservancy

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture

USDA FS: USDA Forest Service

USDA FS SFES: USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station

USDA FS SRS: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research

Station

USDA NRCS: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

USDI: United States Department of the Interior

USDI FWS: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

USDI GS BRD: USDI Geological Survey, Biological Resources

Division

USGS: USDI Geological Survey

193
List of Tables

Page

Table 2.1—Wildfires, including number of lightning-caused ignitions and acres burned, on the Highlands’

national forests, 1981 through 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 2.2—Lightning-caused and human-caused fires on State and private lands from 1981 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 2.3—Animal Unit Months (AUM’s) and number of grazing permittees on national forests of the

Highlands in 1987 and 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 3.1—Land cover statistics for the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, surrounding ecological provinces,

and the Eastern United States, based on AVHRR data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 3.2—FIA survey regions, survey years, and measurement intervals used for analysis of general trends

in forest cover of the Assessment area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 3.3—Average per-acre volumes (live tree, growing stock, sawtimber) of conifers and hardwoods in

Assessment area timberlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 3.4—Distribution of live-tree and sawtimber volume among major tree species in the Assessment area . . . 29

Table 3.5—Percent of live trees that qualify as growing-stock trees by size category and species group . . . . . . . 32

Table 3.6—Total land area, forested land area, and timberland area by ecological section and subsection

in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands (FIA data) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 3.7—Total area, forest area, and percent of area forested by subsection, based on AVHRR and FIA data

and showing the different results obtained from the two sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 3.8—Vegetation cover of the Assessment area (based on AVHRR data), showing thousands of acres

and percent representation in each subsection of five forest cover types, nonforested land, and water . . . . . . . . 53

Table 3.9—Forest area, mean forest patch size, variation in patch size, and mean distance between

forest patches, for each subsection, based on AVHRR data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 3.10—Acreage and types of designated old-growth areas in the national forests of the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Table 3.11—Percent of existing forest cover in seven potential old-growth cover types, by national forest

(excluding wilderness) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table 3.12—Number of potential old-growth stands in the three national forests of the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands by forest type and stand size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table 3.13—Types of rare communities in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, with TNC and State nomenclature,

global ranking, States of occurrence, and reason for rarity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table 5.1— Species with viability concerns in selected habitat associations of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands . . 104

Table 5.2—Number of terrestrial species with viability concerns in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands found

within various land ownership categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Table 5.3—Ecological subsections in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands where species with viability

concerns occur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Table 5.4— Imperiled and critically imperiled terrestrial plant and animal species (including amphibians)

in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

194
Page

Table 5.5—Imperiled and critically imperiled terrestrial plant and animal species in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands, sorted by categories of land ownership where the species are known to occur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Table 5.6—Summary of conservation status and conservation trend for imperiled and critically imperiled

species in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Table 5.7—Number of occurrences of endangered and threatened species in the four ecological sections

of the Assessment area, their global ranks, and estimated population trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Table 5.8—Density classes for selected game species found in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Table 5.9—Bird species of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands on various lists of species with management

concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Table 5.10—Abundance of neotropical migratory birds in oak-hickory and loblolly-shortleaf pine

forest habitats in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Table 5.11—Threatened and endangered cave-dwelling species in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

by national forest, global and State rank, and Federal and State status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Appendix Tables (at end of Chapter 5)

Appendix Table 5.1—Assessment area terrestrial plant and animal species, the viability of which is of

concern to scientists, the global and State ranks of these species, and their known habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Appendix Table 5.2—Assessment area terrestrial plant and animal species with global viability concerns,

showing their global ranks and known habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Appendix Table 5.3—Critically-imperiled and imperiled terrestrial plant and animal species in the OzarkOuachita Highlands, by habitat association, with rank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Appendix Table 5.4—Conservation status for imperiled and critically imperiled terrestrial species in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, with global and State ranks and conservation trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Appendix Table 5.5—Breeding birds and their conservation scores from Partners in Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Appendix Table 5.6—Population trends and relative abundance of birds breeding in the Ozark-Ouachita

Plateaus, as determined by the North American Breeding Bird Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

195
List of Figures

Page

Figure 1.1—Ecological sections and subsections of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment area

(sections and subsections modified from Keys and others 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

Figure 3.1—Provinces included in the comparison of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment area to

other portions of the Humid Temperate Domain (the combination of all provinces shown; provinces from

McNab and Avers 1994). Shaded areas represent forest; unshaded areas are nonforest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 3.2—Generalized land cover of the Assessment area based on Advanced Very High Resolution

Radiometer (AVHRR) data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 3.3—FIA regions lying wholly or partially within the Assessment area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 3.4—Distribution of land cover in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 3.5—Ownership of timberland in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands (NIPF = nonindustrial private forest). . . . 28

Figure 3.6—Representation of major forest types on timberland in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 3.7—Area of timberland in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands in five site productivity classes. . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 3.8—Area of timberland in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands in five stocking classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 3.9—Distribution of (A) growing-stock volume and (B) sawtimber volume in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands by species group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 3.10—Distribution of growing-stock volume and timberland in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

in stands of various stocking levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 3.11—Ownership of forest stands in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands with (A) greater than and

(B) less than 1,000 cubic feet of growing-stock volume per acre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 3.12—Size-class distribution of oak and pine trees per acre on timberland in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 3.13—Growing-stock volume, rough tree volume, and rotten tree volume in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands by species group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 3.14—Average net annual growth, average annual removals, and growth minus removals

for the average timberland acre in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 3.15—Distribution of (A) total land area and (B) forested land area in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

by ecological section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 3.16—Distribution of total land area in the ecological sections of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

by land category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 3.17—Distribution of timberland in the ecological sections of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

by ownership category.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 3.18—Distribution of timberland in the ecological sections of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

by forest type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 3.19—Distribution of timberland in the ecological sections of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

by site quality (productivity) class. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

196
Page

Figure 3.20—Distribution of timberland in the ecological sections of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

by stocking class. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 3.21—Distribution of forested land and total land area of the Ozark-Highlands section

by ecological subsection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 3.22—Distribution of total timberland and nonindustrial private forest in the Ozark Highlands section

by ecological subsection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 3.23—Distribution of timberland in public ownership and national forest ownership in the

Ozark Highlands by ecological subsection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 3.24—Distribution of timberland in the Ozark Highlands by forest type and ecological subsection. . . . . . 37

Figure 3.25—Distribution of timberland in the Ozark Highlands by stocking level and ownership category. . . . . 38

Figure 3.26—Distribution of growing-stock volume on public timberland and nonindustrial private forest land

in the Ozark Highlands section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 3.27—Growth, removals, and growth minus removals of growing-stock volume in the Ozark

Highlands section by species group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 3.28—Distribution of timberland, other forest land, and nonforest land in the Boston Mountains

section by ecological subsection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 3.29—Distribution of nonforest land, timberland, and other forest land by ownership category

in the Boston Mountains by ecological subsection. (NIPF = Nonindustrial private forest) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 3.30—Distribution of timberland in the Boston Mountains by forest type and ecological subsection. . . . 40

Figure 3.31—Distribution of growing-stock volume in the Boston Mountains by species group and ecological

subsection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 3.32—Distribution of sawtimber volume in the Boston Mountains by species group and ecological

subsection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 3.33—Distribution of timberland in the Boston Mountains by stocking class and ownership category. . . 42

Figure 3.34—Growth, removals, and growth minus removals of growing-stock volume in the Boston

Mountains by species group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 3.35—Distribution of timberland, other forest land, and nonforest land in the Arkansas Valley

section by ecological subsection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 3.36—Distribution of timberland in the Arkansas Valley section by ownership category and

ecological subsection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 3.37—Distribution of timberland in the Arkansas Valley section by forest type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 3.38—Distribution of growing-stock volume in the Arkansas Valley section by species group. . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 3.39—Distribution of sawtimber volume in the Arkansas Valley section by species group. . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 3.40—Distribution of timberland in the Arkansas Valley section by stocking class and ownership

category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 3.41—Growth, removals, and growth minus removals of growing-stock volume in the Arkansas

Valley section by species group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 3.42—Distribution of nonforest land, timberland, and other forest land in the Ouachita Mountains

section by ecological subsection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

197
Page

Figure 3.43—Distribution of timberland in the Ouachita Mountains by ecological subsection

and ownership category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 3.44—Distribution of timberland in the Ouachita Mountains by forest type and ecological subsection. . . 47

Figure 3.45—Growing-stock volume in the Ouachita Mountains by species group and ecological subsection. . . 47

Figure 3.46—Sawtimber volume in the Ouachita Mountains by species group and ecological subsection. . . . . . 47

Figure 3.47—Distribution of timberland in the Ouachita Mountains by stocking class and ownership category. . 48

Figure 3.48—Growing-stock volume in the Ouachita Mountains by species group and ecological subsection. . . 48

Figure 3.49—Sawtimber volume per acre in the Ouachita Mountains by species group and ecological subsection. 48

Figure 3.50—Growth, removals, and growth minus removals of growing-stock volume in the Ouachita

Mountains by species group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 3.51—Total land area by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 3.52—Total forest area by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 3.53—Total public forest area by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 3.54—Total private forest area by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 3.55—Commercial forest area occupied by sawtimber stands by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 3.56—Percentage of commercial forest land area occupied by sawtimber stands by FIA region,

1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 3.57—Distribution of commercial forest land area in the Assessment area by stand size class

for the 1950’s, 1970’s, and 1980’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 3.58—Commercial forest land area in the loblolly-shortleaf pine type by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . 59

Figure 3.59—Commercial forest land area in the oak-pine type by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 3.60—Commercial forest land area in the oak-hickory type by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 3.61—Percentage of commercial forest land area occupied by the oak-hickory type by FIA region,

1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 3.62—Growing-stock volume of all species on commercial forest land by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . 61

Figure 3.63—Growing-stock volume of the pine species group on commercial forest land by FIA region,

1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 3.64—Growing-stock volume of the hard-hardwoods species group on commercial forest and

by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 3.65—Sawtimber volume of all species on commercial forest land by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . 62

Figure 3.66—Sawtimber volume of the pine species group on commercial forest land by FIA region,

1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 3.67—Sawtimber volume of the other softwoods species group on commercial forest land by FIA

region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 3.68—Sawtimber volume of the soft-hardwoods species group on commercial forest land by FIA region,

1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

198
Page

Figure 3.69—Sawtimber volume of the hard-hardwoods species group on commercial forest land by

FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure 3.70—Red oak growing-stock volume as a percentage of all oak growing-stock volume

on commercial forest land by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure 3.71—Oak growing-stock volume as a percentage of all species growing-stock volume

on commercial forest land by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Figure 3.72—Oak sawtimber volume as a percentage of all species sawtimber volume on commercial

forest land by FIA region, 1940’s to 1990’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Figure 4.1—Timber volume offered (Ouachita National Forest) or offered and sold (Ozark-St. Francis and

Mark Twain National Forests) on the national forests in the Assessment area, 1986 through 1997. (Comparable

data were not available for all forests; volume offered and volume offered and sold in a given year tend to be

nearly identical, however.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Figure 4.2—Timber volume cut on the three national forests in the Assessment area, 1986 through 1997. . . . . . . 95

Figure 4.3—Timber volume offered (Ouachita National Forest) or offered and sold (Ozark-St. Francis and

Mark Twain National Forests) and volume cut on the national forests in the Assessment area, 1986 through

1997. (Comparable data were not available for all forests; volume offered and volume offered and sold in a

given year tend to be nearly identical, however.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 4.4—Area harvested using the even-aged clearcutting reproduction cutting method on the national

forests in the Assessment area, 1986 through 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 4.5—Area harvested using the even-aged seed-tree reproduction cutting method on the national

forests in the Assessment area, 1986 through 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 4.6—Area harvested using the even-aged shelterwood reproduction cutting method on the national

forests in the Assessment area, 1986 through 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 4.7—Area harvested using the uneven-aged group selection reproduction cutting method on the

Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, 1986 through 1995. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 4.8—Area harvested using the uneven-aged single-tree selection reproduction cutting method on the

Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, 1986 through 1995. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure 4.9—Area harvested using all even-aged methods, all uneven-aged methods, and total area

harvested using all reproduction cutting methods on the national forests in the Assessment area,

1988 through 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure 4.10—Area subject to reforestation on the national forests in the Assessment area,

1986 through 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure 4.11—Area subject to reforestation by planting pine, natural regeneration of pine, natural regeneration

of hardwoods, and planting hardwoods on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, 1986 through 1997. . . . . . . . . 98

Figure 4.12—Area subject to reforestation of pine by planting and natural regeneration on the Ouachita

National Forest, 1986 through 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure 4.13—Area subject to site preparation on the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests,

1988 through 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 4.14—Area subject to site preparation by either herbicide application through individual stems

or prescribed burning on the Ouachita National Forest, 1988 through 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

199
Page

Figure 4.15—Area subject to site preparation by either herbicide application through individual stems or

manual felling on the Ozark-St Francis National Forests, 1988 through 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 4.16—Area subject to release treatments on the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests,

1988 through 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure 4.17—Area subject to release treatments by either herbicide application through individual stems or

manual felling on the Ouachita National Forest, 1988 through 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure 4.18—Area subject to release treatments by either herbicide application through individual stems or

manual felling on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, 1988 through 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure 4.19—Area subject to intermediate treatments, for each of three national forests and the total

for all three national forests in the Assessment area, 1988 through 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 4.20—Area subject to intermediate treatments by either precommercial thinning, commercial thinning,

prescribed burning, or midstory removal on the Ouachita National Forest, 1988 to 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 4.21—Area subject to intermediate treatments by either precommercial thinning or commercial thinning

on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, 1988 to 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Figure 4.22—Area subject to intermediate treatments by wildlife habitat improvement, commercial thinning,

or timber stand improvement on the Mark Twain National Forest, 1988 to 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Figure 5.1—Relative deer abundance in Assessment area counties, 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Figure 5.2—Relative deer abundance in Assessment area counties, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Figure 5.3—Relative eastern wild turkey abundance in Assessment area counties, 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Figure 5.4—Relative eastern wild turkey abundance Assessment area counties, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Figure 5.5—Relative black bear abundance in Assessment area counties, 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Figure 5.6—Relative black bear abundance in Assessment area counties, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Figure 5.7—Relative gray squirrel abundance in Assessment area counties of Missouri, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Figure 5.8—Relative fox squirrel abundance in Assessment area counties of Missouri, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Figure 5.9—Relative ruffed grouse abundance in Assessment area counties, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Figure 5.10—Relative bobwhite abundance in Assessment area counties, 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Figure 5.11—Relative bobwhite abundance in Assessment area counties, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Figure 5.12—Relative rabbit abundance in Assessment area counties of Missouri, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Figure 5.13—Relative raccoon abundance in Assessment area counties, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Figure 5.14—A comparison of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment area and the boundaries of the

Ozark-Ouachita Plateau physiographic region used by the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and

the Partner’s in Flight Landbird Database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Figure 5.15—Distribution by (A) primary breeding habitat of all birds, (B) species of management concern

derived from the Partners in Flight Landbird Database (PIF priorities), and (C) species with significant

population declines based on the North American Breeding Bird Survey for the Ozark-Ouachita Plateau

physiographic region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Figure 5.16—Relative abundance of breeding songbirds in habitats managed by various silvicultural practices

in oak and oak-pine forests in the Missouri Ozarks (reprinted from Annand and Thompson 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 124

200
Page

Figure 6.1—Counties with historic European gypsy moth infestations in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. . . . . . . 148

Figure 6.2—Counties with dogwood anthracnose in the Eastern United States, including the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Figure 6.3—Counties with butternut canker in Eastern United States, including the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. . 152

Figure 6.4—The incidence of southern pine beetle outbreaks in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands since 1960. . . . . 156

201
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Assessment: terrestrial vegetation and wildlife. Report 5 of 5. Gen. Tech. Rep.

SRS-35. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station. 201 p.

This publication provides citizens, private and public organizations, scientists, and

others with information about terrestrial animals, plants, and biological communities

in and near the national forests in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands: the Mark Twain in

Missouri, the Ouachita in Arkansas and Oklahoma, and the Ozark-St. Francis

National Forests in Arkansas. The document examines the status and trends of

vegetation, plant and animal populations, forest management, and biological threats

to forest resources in the Highlands.

Keywords: Biological threats, ecological classification, forest management, plant and

animal populations, silviculture, vegetation cover.
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, provides leadership in the

management, protection, and use of the Nation’s forests and rangelands. The Agency

takes an ecological approach to the implementation of multiple-use management,

providing sustained yields of renewable resources such as water, forage, wildlife,

wood, and recreation. The Forest Service has embraced ecosystem management as its operating

philosophy and is committed to the preservation of wilderness, biodiversity, and landscape beauty

as well as the protection of the basic resources of soil, water, and air quality.

The Forest Service is responsible for the 191.8-million-acre National Forest System, with its 155

national forests and 20 grasslands in 44 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In addition, the

Agency works with State land management organizations to help private landowners apply good

natural resource management practices on their lands. The International Program of the Forest

Service enables the Agency to share its technical expertise and managerial skills with other nations.

The Research and Development Program of the Forest Service conducts extensive research to

enhance and protect productivity on all of America’s forests and rangelands, with special attention

to long-term natural resource issues of national and international scope.

The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs,

sexual orientation, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250, or call 202-720-5964

(voice or TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider and employer.
This report is one of five that documents the results of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Assessment. Three of the remaining reports examine Air Quality, Aquatic Conditions, and

Social and Economic Conditions, respectively, and the fourth provides an overall summary.

Air Quality

REPORT

2

OF 5

Highlands Assessment

Ozark-Ouachita

General Technical

Report SRS-32

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Summary Report

REPORT

1

OF 5

Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands Assessment

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

General Technical

Report SRS-31

Aquatic Conditions

REPORT

3

OF 5

Highlands Assessment

Ozark-Ouachita

General

Technical Report

SRS-33

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

REPORT

4

OF 5

Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands Assessment

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

General Technical

Report SRS-34 Social and Economic Conditions