United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report SRS–166

History and Current Condition 

of Longleaf Pine in the Southern 

United States

Christopher M. Oswalt, Jason A. Cooper, Dale G. Brockway, 

Horace W. Brooks, Joan L. Walker, Kristina F. Connor, 

Sonja N. Oswalt, and Roger C. Conner
Cover photos: top left, a longleaf pine forest in Louisiana treated with 

the shelterwood method (residual basal area 25–30 square feet per acre). 

(photo by Bill Boyer, U.S. Forest Service); top right, foliage and cones 

of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). (photo by Erich G. Vallery, U.S. Forest 

Service); bottom, Pinus palustris regeneration, Wambaw Ranger District, 

Francis Marion National Forest, North Carolina. (photo by Bill Lea).

November 2012

Southern Research Station

200 W.T. Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28804

Christopher M. Oswalt, Research Forester, and Jason A. Cooper, Forester, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis, Knoxville, 

TN 37919; Dale G. Brockway, Research Ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station, Restoring and Managing Longleaf Pine Ecosystems, Auburn, AL 36849; 

Horace W. Brooks, Forestry Technician, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis, Knoxville, TN 37919; Joan L. Walker, Research 

Plant Ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 

Restoring and Managing Longleaf Pine Ecosystems, Clemson, SC 29634; Kristina F. Connor, 

Project Leader, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 

Restoring and Managing Longleaf Pine Ecosystems, Auburn, AL 36849; Sonja N. Oswalt, 

Forester, and Roger C. Conner, Research Forester (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis, Knoxville, TN 37919.

Authors

www.srs.fs.usda.gov

Product Disclaimer

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for 

reader information and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.
History and Current Condition of Longleaf Pine 

in the Southern United States

Christopher M. Oswalt, Jason A. Cooper, Dale G. Brockway, Horace W. Brooks, 

Joan L. Walker, Kristina F. Connor, Sonja N. Oswalt, and Roger C. Conner

Mature open stand of Pinus palustris, Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge, Chesterfield County, South Carolina. (photo by 

Jack Culpepper, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

iii

Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Ecology of Longleaf Pine Forest Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

History of Longleaf Pine in the South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Objectives of this Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

The Forest Inventory and Analysis Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Extent of Longleaf Pine Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Recent Changes in Longleaf Pine Extent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Characteristics of Remaining Longleaf Pine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Longleaf Pine Population Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Productive Capacity of Longleaf Pine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Disturbances and Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Future Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Classification and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Social Science and Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Understory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Sample Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Changes in Plot Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Determining Forest Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Estimating Forest Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
iv

Author Contributions

Christopher M. Oswalt as primary author, contributed all analyses, text, tables, and figures not 

attributed to another author, provided initial edits, facilitated external reviews, and provided two 

revisions of the report. 

Jason A. Cooper contributed analysis, text, tables, and figures for the Productive Capacity of 

Longleaf Pine section and aided editing and revisions. 

Dale G. Brockway contributed the History of Longleaf Pine in the South section and provided 

considerable editing support. 

Horace W. Brooks contributed all mapped products not attributed to another author and acted as 

the primary map builder for this project. 

Joan L. Walker contributed the Ecology of Longleaf Pine Forest Communities section. 

Kristina F. Connor provided the Future Research Needs section.

Sonja N. Oswalt contributed text, tables, and figures covering the distribution of invasive plants.

Roger C. Conner (retired) contributed the Methods section.
History and Current Condition of Longleaf Pine 

in the Southern United States

Christopher M. Oswalt, Jason A. Cooper, Dale G. Brockway, Horace W. Brooks, 

Joan L. Walker, Kristina F. Connor, Sonja N. Oswalt, and Roger C. Conner

Introduction

Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) was once one of the 

most ecologically important tree species in the Southern 

United States. Longleaf pine and its accompanying forest 

ecosystems covered vast swaths of the Southern United 

States, spanning an estimated 60–90 million acres. One 

estimate places the historical extent of longleaf pine forests 

at 92 million acres (Frost 2006). Although once one of the 

most extensive forest ecosystems in North America, only a 

fraction of these longleaf pine forests remain today. 

It is imperative that longleaf pine, a high-priority 

conservation species and forest ecosystem, receive 

continuous focused monitoring. The Forest Inventory 

and Analysis (FIA) program of the Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, is the only program 

currently positioned to provide continuous and unbiased 

range-wide (large-scale) monitoring of this important 

resource. The remaining longleaf pines are scarce when 

compared to their historical extent, and are spread among 

eight Southern States in largely fragmented stands (longleaf 

pine is known to historically and currently occur in 

southeastern Virginia, however does not currently occur 

in the FIA sample used for this report). Much of this 

remaining acreage is thought by scientists, conservationists, 

and land managers to be in poor condition. Numerous 

large-scale conservation efforts are currently underway 

(e.g., see America’s Longleaf—www.americaslongleaf.org) 

with the goal of conserving and improving existing stands, 

and increasing the extent of longleaf pine forests across the 

South. This report can help establish a baseline that may 

be used to better understand and evaluate the impact and/

or effectiveness of large-scale (range-wide) conservation 

efforts. 

Here we present a brief description of longleaf pine 

ecosystems and their constituent parts, a history of longleaf 

pine in the South, and the recent historical and current 

status of longleaf pine forests as sampled by the FIA 

program. We also discuss changes to the longleaf pine 

forests, implications for conservation of the species, and 

suggestions for future research.

Abstract

Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) was once one of the most 

ecologically important tree species in the Southern United States. 

Longleaf pine and its accompanying forest ecosystems covered vast 

swaths of the Southern United States, spanning an estimated 92 million 

acres. Although once one of the most extensive forest ecosystems in 

North America, only a fraction of these longleaf pine forests remain 

today. Here we present a brief description of longleaf pine ecosystems 

and their constituent parts, a history of longleaf pine in the South, and 

the recent historical and current status of longleaf pine forests as sampled 

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

and Analysis program. We present estimated changes to the longleaf pine 

forests, implications for conservation of the species, and suggestions for 

future research. While longleaf pine dominated forests have received 

considerable attention and land managers and conservation professionals 

are working to maintain and improve these important systems, longleaf 

pine forests currently only occupy a minor portion of the southern 

landscape. There are positive signs in this report, however, that point 

toward potential improvements. For example, the number of longleaf pine 

saplings has been increasing, the longleaf pine/oak acreage represents 

a considerable opportunity for restoration to longleaf pine forests, and 

in some areas of the longleaf pine range young stands are developing to 

aid replacement of those lost. Significant challenges to expanding the 

coverage of longleaf pine dominated forests do exist. However, with 

targeted research and conservation efforts, longleaf pine forests can thrive 

once again across the South.

Keywords: FIA, forest inventory, longleaf pine, pine conservation, Pinus 

palustris, southern pines.

Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) at Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne. 

(photo by Peter Halasz)
2

Ecology of Longleaf Pine Forest Communities 

High quality longleaf pine systems, throughout their 

range, are generally described as containing widely spaced 

overstory longleaf pines over a predominantly herbaceous 

ground layer dominated by grasses and a diverse mixture of 

showy forbs. Woody species, if present in the ground layer, 

are short and inconspicuous. At a glance, this ecosystem 

appears to be simple—pines over grasses. This simplified 

picture, however, belies the remarkable botanical diversity 

within the longleaf pine ecosystem. Some longleaf pine 

woodlands, ranking among the most diverse in North 

America, contain >40 vascular plant species in 1 m2

(Walker and Peet 1983) or 170 per 1,000 m2 (Peet and others 

2006, Carr and others 2010). The diversity of this once 

extensive ecosystem is also represented in the many types of 

longleaf-dominated communities that have been described. 

Peet (2006) recognized 135 longleaf pine vegetation 

associations. 

The canopy dominance of longleaf pine and the importance 

of fire are unifying characteristics of diverse longleaf pine 

ecosystems. Frequent, low intensity surface fires are critical 

for maintaining a vigorous ground layer. Grasses, legumes, 

and composites are the most common plant families in 

these fire-dependent habitats (Harcombe and others 1993, 

Peet and Allard 1993, Drew and others 1998). Most of the 

common species are sun-loving perennials with the ability 

to resprout after fire. Fire typically stimulates the flowering 

and seed production of many characteristic species, and 

there are apt to be species flowering at most any time 

during the growing season. Over time, the reduction of fire 

disturbance on the landscape has contributed to the reduced 

extent and altered conditions of longleaf pine ecosystems 

across the region. 

Despite these commonalities, there is considerable variation 

from one part of the region to another. Most herbaceous 

species have smaller geographic ranges than longleaf pine. 

Species with restricted geographic ranges are referred to 

as endemic, and the longleaf pine ecosystem has many 

subregional and local endemic species (Estill and Cruzan 

2001, LeBlond 2001, Sorrie and Weakley 2006). As the 

geographic limit of a species’ range is reached, it drops out 

of the local flora but may be replaced by an ecologically 

similar species. The result is an altered species composition 

in the ground layer. Species with very small geographic 

distributions (narrow endemics) are prone to extinction and 

include some of ground layer species that are federally listed 

as threatened or endangered (Walker 1999). 

Overall, longleaf pine ecosystems consist of sparse to open 

canopies dominated by longleaf pine, occasionally mixed 

A surface fire moving through a longleaf pine/wiregrass understory in southern Georgia. Prescribed fire is an essential 

ecological process for restoration and maintenance of longleaf pine ecosystems. (photo by Ron Masters, Tall Timbers 

Station, Florida)
3

with shortleaf (P. echinata), slash (P. elliottii), or pond 

pine (P. serotina). Tree boles typically appear blackened 

by fire activity, and there is usually little forest floor or 

litter accumulation (a consequence of frequent burning). 

The high open canopy and shallow litter and duff layers 

provide conditions needed to support vigorous ground layer 

vegetation. In frequently burned sites there is normally 

no midstory, so sufficient light reaches the understory to 

support a prairie-like herbaceous ground layer. In some 

circumstances, the ground layer may contain varying 

amounts of low woody vegetation including hardwood 

seedlings and shrubs. 

The most recent comprehensive description of longleaf 

pine vegetation recognizes six general types based on 

soil moisture and texture as described below. These types 

represent generalized communities with variations of 

each found in most parts of the longleaf pine range. The 

following descriptions are based on the best remaining 

examples of the types, sites presumably burned frequently 

in recent decades and without a history of intensive 

agriculture, along with some historical references (Peet 

2006).

Xeric sand barrens and uplands—Vegetation on the 

driest, deepest sands consists of scattered pines with a 

scrubby oak understory. Turkey oak (Quercus laevis) is 

the most common oak on xeric sites through most of the 

longleaf pine range. The ground layer may have patches 

of small shrubs and mats of lichens, but grass and forb 

cover is sparse. Bare sand is common. Fires would have 

occurred infrequently because fuels are discontinuous and 

slow to accumulate between fires. With fire exclusion, oaks 

increase, shading the sparse grasses.

Subxeric sandy uplands—Subxeric sites hold enough 

moisture to support a wider variety of upland oaks, as well 

as a continuous grassy ground layer. Oaks may include 

turkey oak, but also bluejack oak (Q. incana), sand post 

oak (Q. margarettiae), sand live oak (Q. geminate), and 

dwarf live oak (Q. minima). Wiregrasses (Aristida stricta

or A. beyrichiana) dominate within their ranges and 

bluestems (Andropogon spp. and Schizachyrium spp.) 

elsewhere. Subxeric types occur in the fall-line sandhills, as 

well as in the outer coastal plain sometimes described as dry 

flatwoods. These sites may support a variety of grasses in 

addition to wiregrass, and in some areas unique forbs.

Silty uplands—Longleaf pine on silty uplands is rare, as 

these sites were choice agricultural sites for early settlers. 

Based on historical accounts and remnant fragments, 

these woodlands were rich in species, especially legumes 

and composites, and little bluestem was ubiquitous. The 

productive soils yielded lush and continuous herbaceous 

cover.

An uneven-aged longleaf pine forest growing on a xeric sandhill in northern Florida that has been well maintained by 

frequent fire. (photo by Dale Brockway, U.S. Forest Service)
4

Clayey and rock uplands—Longleaf pine-type vegetation 

occurred on a variety of clayey and rocky substrates 

ranging from thin sands over ironstone or on exposed 

marine shrink-swell clay soils. Characteristic oaks include 

blackjack (Q. marilandica) and post oaks (Q. stellata), 

more characteristic of Piedmont forests. Piedmont and 

montane longleaf pine occurs mostly on exposed ridges 

and south-facing slopes, similar to surrounding upland 

forests. Longleaf pine occurs with shortleaf pines, oaks, 

and other upland hardwoods. The herbaceous layer is 

dominated by wiregrass and includes some species such as 

creeping blueberry (Vaccinium crassifolium) and pixie moss 

(V. crassifolium) usually associated with clay soils, as well 

as species common to surrounding sandy sites.

Flatwoods—Longleaf pine clearly dominates these sites on 

the Atlantic coastal plain, but can be mixed with slash pine 

in the southern range. Generally speaking, flatwoods do not 

have significant oak components except for running oaks 

(Q. pumila and Q. minima). The abundance of palmetto 

(Serenoa repens) and its codominance with wiregrass, 

bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum var. pseudocaudatum), 

and runner oaks, contribute to the distinctive appearance 

of flatwoods vegetation. Some drier sites may include 

additional scrub oaks in the understory or shrub layer 

where they may mix with shrubs such as gallberry (Ilex 

glabra), dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia dumosa), and wax 

myrtle (Morella pumila). The forb component of southern 

flatwoods is diverse, but legumes are uncommon.

Savannas, seeps, and prairies—These types occur on 

wet, fine-textured (silty) soils through the longleaf pine 

range. The pine canopy is very open and may include slash 

and pond pines along with longleaf pine. They are widely 

recognized for high levels of species richness. The herb 

layer is rich in grasses and sedges, and is well-known for 

the diversity of orchids, carnivorous plants, and other showy 

species. Legumes, however, are conspicuously scarce. The 

sites are typically wet and can occur as large broad expanses 

in the outer coastal plain and as small patches associated 

with stream heads in the fall-line sandhills. 

History of Longleaf Pine in the South

During the most recent Ice Age [≅40,000 to 12,000 years 

before present (BP)], forests in the southern region consisted 

of boreal elements (Picea, Pinus) and temperate species 

(Carya, Castanea, Ostrya, Quercus) intermixed in a pattern 

that varied both spatially and temporally with the ebb and 

flow of the vast ice sheet farther to the north (Watts 1970, 

Delcourt 1980, Watts and others 1992). As the continental 

glacier retreated (after 12,000 years BP), southern forests 

became dominated by oaks and a diverse array of deciduous 

hardwoods (Watts 1971, Watts and Hansen 1988, Watts 

and others 1992). Longleaf pine expanded northward and 

eastward from its Ice Age refuge in southern Texas and 

northern Mexico (Schmidtling and Hipkins 1998) and 

became established in the lower coastal plain about 8,000 

years ago (Watts and others 1992). During the ensuing 

4,000 years, longleaf pine continued to spread throughout 

the Southeast (Delcourt and Delcourt 1987). 

This several thousand years, pre-Columbian time period 

coincides with the interval during which populations of 

Native Americans flourished throughout the region, and 

their use of fire is thought to be related to the development 

and maintenance of longleaf pine forest ecosystems 

(Schwartz 1994, Pyne 1997, Landers and Boyer 1999). 

Because of these natural and anthropogenic interactions, 

longleaf pine forests became one of the most extensive 

ecosystems in North America (Landers and others 1995), 

occupying about 92 million acres in the Southeastern 

United States (Frost 2006). The native range of longleaf 

pine extended along the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains 

from Texas to Virginia, and well into central Florida and 

the piedmont and mountains of northern Alabama and 

northwestern Georgia, from sea level to elevations around 

2,000 feet (Boyer 1990, Stout and Marion 1993, Stowe and 

others 2002). Travelers in this region during the 18th and 

19th centuries noted vast areas where longleaf pine covered 

>90 percent of the landscape (Bartram 1791, Williams 

1837).
5

Native Americans frequently used fire to manipulate their 

environment (Robbins and Myers 1992, Anderson 1996, 

Carroll and others 2002, Stanturf and others 2002, Frost 

2006), and early settlers adopted the practice of periodically 

burning nearby forests and woodlands to improve forage 

quality for cattle grazing and discourage the encroachment 

of woody undergrowth. Although well adapted to surface 

fires at a naturally-occurring frequency of 2–3 years 

(Brockway and Lewis 1997), longleaf pine was not well 

adapted to other disturbances introduced by early settlers. 

The cumulative impacts of three centuries of changing 

land use resulted in the dramatic decline of longleaf pine 

forests, and they have become one of the most endangered 

ecosystems in the United States (Noss and others 1995). 

Habitat loss principally resulted from conversion of longleaf 

pine forests to other uses (i.e., agriculture, industrial 

pine plantations, and urban development), landscape 

fragmentation, and interruption of natural fire regimes 

(Landers and others 1995, Wear and Greis 2002). English 

colonization of the longleaf pine range began during 

the 17th century, with concerted immigration efforts to 

settle and commercially develop lands along the Atlantic 

Coastal Plain from Virginia to Georgia and subsequently 

the Piedmont. Beginning in the 16th century, Spanish 

domination of the area from Florida to Texas largely 

blocked settlement of the gulf coast interior, leaving many 

of the region’s longleaf pine forests in pristine condition well 

into the 19th century, when the area was incorporated into 

the United States (Frost 2006). Although the Spanish did 

not encourage immigration to and settlement of this region, 

Americans, modeling their development pattern after the 

commercial ventures of the English, widely settled these 

lands (Frost 2006). Dependence on water for travel and 

trade limited early settlements to coastal areas and lands 

along rivers and streams (Hart 1979). Without machinery, 

timber was commercially worth little, except for use in local 

construction. Therefore, the effects of settlement on longleaf 

pine forests were initially minor, with harvesting limited 

to areas near early towns and villages where log structures 

were constructed (Croker 1987). Later, lumber was cut 

from longleaf pine logs using hand-powered pitsaws, which 

yielded only a few rough boards per day (Hindle 1975). 

Longleaf pine in Ocala National Forest, Florida. (photo by Bill Lea)
6

By the mid-1700s, water-powered sawmills became 

common but log transportation was inefficient and still 

largely confined to water courses (Frost 1993), with logging 

conducted on 3-mile-wide strips along rivers where logs 

could be dragged by oxen or horses and floated to the mill 

(Croker 1987). This limited harvesting so much that by 

1800 most longleaf pine forests remained intact. After 1830, 

removal of longleaf pine accelerated significantly with the 

arrival of steam railroads, which were soon followed by 

the use of steam skidders. By 1880, most of the longleaf 

pine along streams and railroads had been harvested (Frost 

2006). During the next 40 years, the great forests of yellow 

pine were harvested, with temporary railroad spur lines laid 

down every quarter mile (Croker 1987). Skidders dragged 

logs to these spur lines, often destroying all trees too small 

to harvest, and left a scarred and mostly barren landscape. 

Longleaf pine forests were harvested from Virginia and the 

Carolinas, south to Georgia and Florida, then west through 

Alabama and Mississippi, into Louisiana, and finally Texas. 

During 1896, 392 million cubic feet of yellow pine timber 

was cut and shipped to the Northern United States and 

overseas markets (Mohr 1897). Timber extraction peaked in 

1907, when 1.4 billion cubic feet were removed (Wahlenberg 

1946). By 1930, nearly all old-growth longleaf pine was 

harvested and lumber companies migrated west.

Extraction of naval stores (i.e., tar, pitch, rosin, and 

turpentine derived from pine resin) by cutting wound faces 

in the bark of longleaf pine trees began in 1608 with the first 

European settlements in Virginia (Frost 2006). Although 

substitutes eventually became available in the mid-19th 

century, naval stores extraction in the South continued until 

the 20th century, when it was finally supplanted by the 

petroleum industry (Frost 1993). Because the pitch-soaked 

faces on these trees would readily ignite, many forests 

where extraction occurred in this manner were destroyed 

by wildfire following abandonment. About two-thirds 

of the sites where longleaf pine was harvested or burned 

by wildfires following naval stores extraction were later 

colonized by other tree species. Loblolly pine (P. taeda), a 

prolific seed producer, captured mesic coastal plain sites; 

slash pine invaded wetter flatwoods areas; and shortleaf 

pine and hardwoods became dominant on upland sites. 

Irregular seed production, with good seed years occurring at 

intervals of 5 years or more (Boyer 1990), impaired longleaf 

pine recovery and contributed to these losses. Even where 

longleaf pine seedlings survived logging, they were often 

consumed by introduced feral hogs (Sus scrofa), causing 

many areas of potential longleaf pine forests to be lost 

(Schwarz 1907). Large areas of longleaf pine forests were 

also converted to agriculture, beginning with early settlers 

who, like the Native American farmers before them, began 

by girdling trees and planting crops between dead standing 

snags. The settlers later burned the snags and burned or 

dug out the stumps. Annual burning to improve forage for 

livestock grazing frequently eliminated newly germinated 

longleaf pine seedlings. Between 1750 and 1850, most of 

the more fertile longleaf pine sites were converted to fields 

or pastures (Williams 1989), thereby removing longleaf 

pine from the best upland areas. Many of these lands 

were plowed and became cotton plantations (Frost 2006). 

Although most of the sandhills, flatwoods, and mountain 

soils are poorly suited for agriculture, some were converted 

to pasture (Landers and others 1990). Florida was an 

exception, where sandhill sites are well suited for citrus fruit 

production (Mohr 1897).

By the late 19th century, it became apparent that longleaf 

pine was not successfully regenerating on most cutover 

lands (Mohr 1897). These lands were instead becoming 

occupied by less-desirable second-growth tree species 

and, in some cases, remaining open and nearly treeless 

(Frost 2006). By 1900, logging, harvest of naval stores, and 

agriculture had reduced the area dominated by longleaf 

pine by more than one-half (Frost 1993). Logging continued 

until only fragments of the original longleaf pine forests 

remained in 1935. Second-growth longleaf pine stands 

became established on only one-third of the sites previously 

occupied (Wahlenberg 1946). 

Harvesting second-growth longleaf pine became an 

established practice during the 1940s and continued through 

the 1980s (Kelly and Bechtold 1990). The construction of 

pulpmills during the 1950s created an increased demand for 

smaller trees. These developments accelerated conversion of 

naturally-regenerated longleaf pine forests into plantations 

of species that grow more rapidly in the short term. Because 

of its slower early growth and lower survival rate, longleaf 

pine was seldom selected to reforest harvested lands. Thus, 

many second-growth longleaf pine stands on public land 

and private industrial lands were clearcut, mechanically 

site prepared, and planted with loblolly pine or slash pine 
7

(Schultz 1997). Nonindustrial private landowners often 

relied on natural regeneration following harvest and, 

because of insufficient longleaf pine seed, many of these 

sites regenerated into loblolly pine or slash pine forests. 

Old fields were also planted with these more rapidly 

growing species or colonized by them through seeding 

from adjacent areas. This resulted in a continuing decline 

in the area occupied by longleaf pine ecosystems through 

the 1990s, when they occupied <5 percent of their original 

range (Outcalt and Sheffield 1996). Substantial future 

losses on private lands remain possible, since most of the 

current longleaf pine stands consist of trees in the valuable 

sawtimber and pole size-classes. 

Reduction in the frequency of fire further contributed to 

conversion of longleaf pine lands to other species. Extensive 

logging during the late 19th and early 20th centuries created 

very heavy loads of downed fuel, and this fuel supported 

numerous large wildfires that caused many areas to be 

devoid of trees. Foresters then began to advocate excluding 

all fire from the woods to protect young trees and allow for 

reestablishment of the forest. Although some individuals 

recognized the natural and essential role of fire in longleaf 

pine ecosystems (Harper 1913), most people viewed fire as 

harmful. Since fire control practices aided in establishment 

of new forests, even though they were usually loblolly pine 

or slash pine, these procedures were adopted as “good 

forestry practices” throughout the region (Frost 1993). 

Young hardwoods are quite susceptible to mortality from 

fire, and frequent fires typically limit hardwoods to a small 

stature in longleaf pine stands (Landers and others 1990, 

Brockway and Lewis 1997). Occasionally, random variation 

in fires or protective microsite conditions allowed hardwood 

stems to survive several fires and become large enough 

to resist future surface fires (Rebertus and others 1993). 

Thus, scattered hardwood trees occurred in the canopy or 

subcanopy of longleaf-dominated forests (Greenberg and 

Simons 1999). However, in the absence of fire, hardwoods 

are able to quickly emerge from the understory and form 

a dense midstory that shades out herbaceous species and 

longleaf pine seedlings (Brockway and Outcalt 2000, 

Brockway and others 2009). Without frequent fire, 

hardwoods will ascend to eventually dominate the overstory, 

degrading sites not captured by other pines (Outcalt and 

Brockway 2010). Although the importance of fire in 

A second-growth, even-aged longleaf pine forest in southern Alabama on forest industry land. (photo by Bill Boyer, 

U.S. Forest Service)
8

maintaining a healthy longleaf pine ecosystem is now 

widely recognized, many forests on private lands are still 

not burned regularly. Recent burning rates on private lands 

range from a high of 48 percent in Georgia to a low of only 

15 percent in North Carolina (Outcalt 2000). Some stands 

are difficult to burn because they are close to urban areas 

and highways. Smoke from fires in such locations can have 

costly offsite effects. This problem is likely to grow worse 

as population growth creates more wildland-urban interface 

(WUI) zones, or the zones of transition between unoccupied 

land and human development. Also, longleaf pine stands on 

private lands are sometimes small, and this makes burning 

them more expensive. Because of infrequent burning, many 

private lands containing longleaf pine are likely to suffer 

further habitat degradation. A major threat to the remaining 

longleaf pine is the absence of frequent fire, which results 

in encroachment by fire-intolerant pines, hardwoods, 

saw-palmetto (Serenoa repens) and other understory shrub 

species.

Since the arrival of early settlers, lands supporting longleaf 

pine have also been lost to urban and residential uses. From 

1987 to 1995, conversion of longleaf pine land in Florida 

to other uses resulted in loss of 92,000 acres of these 

ecosystems. During this 8-year period, about 7,400 acres 

per year were converted from longleaf pine to urban uses 

and 3,700 acres per year were lost to agriculture (Outcalt 

1998). Similar losses occurred in Georgia, while losses in 

North Carolina and South Carolina were about one-half this 

rate. Future growth of the regional population and expected 

expansion of industrial plantations will likely result in a 

continuing decline of longleaf pine ecosystems on private 

lands. 

Longleaf pine ecosystems have been very important in the 

Southern United States, by providing an environmental 

setting and raw materials for social and economic 

development in this region. Wild game, forage grasses, 

wood, and naval stores were the principal products of these 

forests (Franklin 1997). During the early 20th century, 

affluent landowners, recognizing the value of longleaf pine 

forests as habitat for bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) 

and whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), acquired large 

tracts to serve as hunting plantations. Many large areas of 

longleaf pine forests exist today because of the opportunities 

for hunting and timber harvesting provided on such lands. 

Although longleaf pine forests were valued by society, 

human activities played a major role in their decline, with 

economic exploitation continuing until the future of these 

ecosystems appeared quite bleak. 

Recently, a combination of developments provides new 

hope that the negative trend for longleaf pine forests can 

be reversed. Public policy has changed to more strongly 

support implementation of cooperative efforts for achieving 

the restoration and sustainable management of longleaf 

pine forests (U.S. Department of Agriculture and others 

2010). Conversion of longleaf pine to other tree species 

has slowed as numerous Federal and State agencies have 

begun regenerating longleaf pine on their lands following 

harvest. The presence of longleaf pine on public lands 

has begun to increase as a result of concerted efforts to 

establish new stands and restore degraded longleaf pine 

forests with prescribed fire, midstory thinning, and other 

appropriate techniques (Hilliard 1998, McMahon and others 

1998, Brockway and Outcalt 2000, Provencher and others 

2001, Brockway and others 2009). Interest in longleaf pine 

reforestation on private lands has surged recently because of 

financial incentives to private landowners provided by the 

Federal Government. The southern forestry community has 

also gained an improved understanding of the ecological 

value of longleaf pine ecosystems and come to appreciate 

the natural heritage that will be lost if restoration of these 

ecosystems is not undertaken (Darden and others 2009, 

Diop and others 2009). 

Objectives of this Report

The objectives of this report are:

1. To provide a comprehensive assessment of the status of 

longleaf pine forests in the Southeastern United States,

2. To outline historical and recent changes to the longleaf 

pine resource, and

3. To provide a solid baseline of information in which future 

comparisons can be made in order to assess the impact of 

ongoing rangewide longleaf pine forest restoration activities.
9

Methods

The Forest Inventory and Analysis Inventory

Historical and contemporary data from the national FIA 

program of the U.S. Forest Service (Frayer and Furnival 

2000, Bechtold and Patterson 2005) was examined. The 

FIA program is the primary source for information about 

the extent, condition, status, and trends of forest resources 

across all ownerships in the United States (Smith and 

others 2001). Today, FIA applies a nationally consistent 

sampling protocol using a quasi-systematic design covering 

all ownerships in the entire Nation (Bechtold and Patterson 

2005). FIA operates a multiphase inventory based on an 

array of hexagons assigned to separate interpenetrating, 

nonoverlapping annual sampling panels (Bechtold and 

Patterson 2005). In phase 1, land area is stratified using 

aerial photography or classified satellite imagery to increase 

the precision of estimates using stratified estimation. In 

phase 2, one permanent fixed-area plot is installed in each 

hexagon that contains accessible forest land and meets FIA 

specifications. Data is collected for >300 variables across 

multiple scales (e.g., plot, subplot, condition, and tree) 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2008). Plot 

intensity for phase 2 measurements is about one plot for 

every 6,000 acres of land (roughly 125,000 plots nationally). 

The plot design for FIA inventory plots consists of four 

24.0 feet fixed-radius subplots spaced 120 feet apart in a 

triangular arrangement with one subplot in the center. All 

trees, with a diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of at least 

5 inches, are inventoried on forested subplots. Within each 

subplot, a 6.8-feet radius microplot offset 12 feet from 

subplot center is established. Within each microplot, all-live 

tree seedlings are tallied according to species. Additionally, 

all trees with a d.b.h. between 1.0 and 5.0 inches are 

inventoried. Conifer seedlings must be at least 6 inches 

in height with a root collar diameter <1 inch. Hardwood 

seedlings must be at least 12 inches in height with a root 

collar diameter <1 inch. 

Data

All inventory data are made publicly accessible through 

the FIA database (FIADB). Data for this report were taken 

from the FIADB (Woudenberg and others 2010). Data were 

available and compiled for four points in time—1970s, 

1980s, 1990s, and current (2010)—and consisted of variable 

inventory dates (table 1). Data collected prior to 1999 were 

collected under the periodic inventory design while data 

collected from 1999 to the present have been collected using 

the annual inventory design (see Bechtold and Patterson 

2005). (Note: for a detailed description of current and past 

data collection and estimate derivation procedures see the 

appendix.)

Longleaf pine is prevalent in two FIA-defined forest-type 

groups, loblolly-shortleaf pine and oak-pine as the longleaf 

pine and longleaf pine/oak forest types, respectively. These 

forest-type groups and individual forest types are defined 

by the proportion of total stocking represented by various 

pine species and their associates. The longleaf pine type 

is defined as forests in which pines account for at least 

50 percent of the stocking of all-live trees, with longleaf 

pine the most common pine. The mixed longleaf pine/oak 

forest type are those plots in which pine species account 

for 25 to 50 percent of total stocking and longleaf pine is 

the dominant pine species. For the purposes of this report, 

longleaf pine dominated forests are defined as forests 

belonging to both the longleaf pine and longleaf pine/oak 

forest types. References to specific forest types, such as the 

longleaf pine forest type, will always be explicit.

Summarized estimates are presented for both timberland 

(forested land available for timber production) and forest 

land. Timberland estimates were used for analyzing longterm trends due to the historical availability of estimates 

and the relative stability of the FIA definition of timberland. 

Forest land estimates (all forest-covered lands according 

to the FIA definition, (Woudenberg and others 2010) were 

used to assess current condition and recent changes (for 

example, estimates of growth, removals, and mortality). 

Table 1—Periodic and annual inventory 

dates labeled by State and decade

State

Decade

1970 1980 1990 2010

- - - periodic - - - annual 

Alabama 1972 1982 1990 2010

Florida 1970 1980 1995 2010

Georgia 1972 1982 1997 2010

Louisiana 1974 1984 1991 2009

Mississippi 1977 1987 1994 2010

North Carolina 1974 1984 1990 2010

South Carolina 1978 1986 1993 2010

East Texas 1975 1986 1992 2010
10

Findings

Extent of Longleaf Pine Forests

According to data collected by the FIA program from 

the 1970s to current (2010), the population of longleaf 

pine trees in the Southern United States is still declining. 

During the 1970s the geographic extent of longleaf pine (or 

“footprint” of longleaf pine) sampled by the FIA program 

closely resembled that of the range documented by Little 

(1971) (fig. 1). Data collected just a decade later indicated 

that longleaf pine loss was occurring and that the longleaf 

pine footprint in the South continued to shrink (fig. 2). A 

comparison of data collected during the 1970s with that of 

data collected during the 1990s illustrates further loss of 

longleaf pine (fig. 3). Loss of areal extent appeared to be 

focused largely in the northern reaches of the East Coastal 

Plain in North Carolina and the western reaches of the 

Piedmont in northern Alabama. The most current FIA data 

collected illustrates continued contraction of the geographic 

extent of longleaf pine in the South (fig. 4). With few 

exceptions, the footprint of longleaf pine sampled by FIA is 

apparently contracting along the borders of the entire range. 

The most recent data indicates a much smaller geographic 

extent for longleaf pine than even as recently as the 1970s 

(fig. 5). Currently, longleaf pine, while still found in eight 

Southern States, covers far less acreage than it once did. 

According to Frost (2006), excluding recently established 

plantations; longleaf pine had been extirpated from all but 

2.6 million acres or about 2.2 percent of its original range by 

2005. 

Inventory data indicate the current extent of longleaf 

dominated forests (longleaf pine and longleaf pine/

oak forest types combined) in the South is an estimated 

4.3 million acres (table 2) and was observed in Alabama, 

Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Texas (fig. 6). Of the 216 million acres 

of total forest land area in the South, the longleaf pine 

forest type makes up only 3.3 million acres, or 1.5 percent 

* Plot locations are approximate.

** Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 1—Approximate location of longleaf pine sampled by the Forest Inventory and Analysis program 1970–78 as 

compared to the documented longleaf pine range (Little 1971).

Longleaf pine 1970–78*

Little’s longleaf range

SFFP subregions**

State borders

Coastal Plain

(east)

Piedmont

Appalachian, 

Cumberland

Coastal Plain

(west) Mississippi

Alluvial Valley

Midsouth
11

1980–87

1970–78

SFFP subregions*

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 2—Geographic extent of longleaf pine sampled by the Forest Inventory and Analysis program 

1980–87 as compared to 1970–78.

1990–97

1970–78

SFFP subregions*

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 3—Geographic extent of longleaf pine sampled by the Forest Inventory and Analysis program 

1990–97 as compared to 1970–78.
12

2005–10

1970–78

SFFP subregions*

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 4—Geographic extent of longleaf pine sampled by the Forest Inventory and Analysis program 

2005–10 as compared to 1970–78.

2010

SFFP subregions*

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 5—Geographic extent of longleaf pine in the South as sampled by the Forest Inventory and Analysis 

program, 2010.
13

Table 2—Area of all forest land within each forest-type group by subregion, 2010

Forest-type group Total

Subregion

AppalachianCumberland

Coastal

plain

(east)

Coastal

plain

(west) Midsouth

Mississippi 

Alluvial

Valley Piedmont

acres

White-red-jack pine 497,300 442,416 3,067 0 0 0 51,817

Spruce-fir 29,506 29,506 0 0 0 0 0

Longleaf-slash pine

Longleaf pine 3,300,717 0 2,938,157 258,872 0 0 103,688

Slash pine 9,915,283 0 9,204,172 703,632 6,065 0 1,415

Loblolly-shortleaf pine 55,857,335 1,318,526 28,618,105 12,079,298 3,130,471 630,523 10,080,413

Other eastern softwood 1,888,150 555,702 167,665 19,491 1,051,937 15,363 77,993

Oak-pine

Longleaf pine-oak 984,637 0 857,401 39,357 0 0 87,879

All others 21,569,389 2,470,857 9,483,959 3,162,600 2,191,970 117,505 4,142,497

Oak-hickory 81,500,242 27,250,265 20,137,118 4,983,012 13,779,799 947,874 14,402,175

Oak-gum-cypress 23,631,606 268,686 15,711,146 3,324,936 658,189 3,059,516 609,133

Elm-ash-cottonwood 9,965,585 1,073,456 3,069,227 736,947 2,118,644 1,953,142 1,014,168

Maple-beech-birch 1,895,897 1,870,861 25,036 0 0 0 0

Ash-birch 11,797 10,160 0 0 0 0 1,638

Other hardwood 902,603 254,659 91,033 23,866 478,551 19,081 35,414

Tropical hardwood 720,067 0 720,067 0 0 0 0

Exotic hardwood 934,083 95,973 251,699 383,550 75,784 73,480 53,597

Nonstocked 2,723,166 116,281 1,545,834 264,648 376,788 222,388 197,227

Total 216,327,364 35,757,348 92,823,686 25,980,207 23,868,198 7,038,873 30,859,052

(table 3). Currently southern forests are dominated by 

oak-hickory forest types that cover an estimated 81.5 million 

acres or 38 percent of southern forest land. The longleaf 

pine/oak forest type accounts for an estimated 984,000 

acres across the South, or about 0.5 percent of southern 

forest land.

The current estimate of 3.3 million acres of the longleaf 

pine forest type represents a decline of nearly 88 million 

acres from historical estimates of longleaf pine forest 

coverage in the Southern United States. About 3 percent 

of the original longleaf pine forests found in the Southern 

United States currently remain. The vast majority, about 

89 percent, or 2.9 million acres of the total longleaf pine 

forest type occurs in the East Coastal Plain with large 

concentrations located in the panhandle of Florida and 

southern Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi (fig. 6). 

In order to provide a comparison of the current area 

occupied by longleaf pine forests to the historic coverage of 

longleaf pine, timberland (forest land available for timber 

production) area occupied by the longleaf pine forest type 

was estimated for each decade beginning with the 1970s. 

Absolute and relative change in timberland area occupied 

by the longleaf pine forest type was calculated for each 

county in the South by comparing the 1970s estimate 

to the estimate for 2010. The largest absolute changes 

in longleaf pine forest-type timberland area occurred in 

western Louisiana and along the coast in Mississippi, 

Alabama, and Florida, along with portions of North 

Carolina (fig. 7). Gains within the longleaf pine type from 

1970 to 2010 were experienced throughout the South. The 

largest concentrations of counties with estimated gains 

were located along the fall-line between the Piedmont and 

the East Coastal Plain. Relative to the area the longleaf 

pine type occupied in 1970, the most concentrated severe 

losses occurred in the Atlantic region of the East Coastal 

Plain (fig. 8). Two hundred fifty-five counties are estimated 

to have had timberland area identified as belonging to the 

longleaf pine type in either 1970, in 2010, or in both 1970 

and 2010. Greater than 70 percent losses occurred in a total 

of 89 counties (32 percent of counties) while a 100-percent 

loss of longleaf pine forests was estimated in 62 counties 

(23 percent of counties) across the South. About 30 percent 

(84 counties) experienced some gain in longleaf pine foresttype acreage over the same period. A similar analysis of 

the longleaf pine/oak forest type indicated gains in the 

Southeastern United States while losses were concentrated 

in the West Coastal Plain and the gulf coast of Alabama and 

Mississippi (fig. 9). 
14

Table 3—Percent of forest land classified as longleaf pine 

forest type by subregion, 2010

Subregion

Forest type

Total

Longleaf 

pine

Longleaf

pine/oak

percent

Appalachian, 

Cumberland 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coastal plain, (east) 3.17 0.92 4.09

Coastal plain, (west) 1.00 0.15 1.15

Midsouth 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley 0.00 0.00 0.00

Piedmont 0.34 0.28 0.62

Total 1.53 0.46 1.98

0.0 = no sample for the cell or a value of >0.0 but <0.05.

Recent Changes in Longleaf Pine Extent 

Forest communities are dynamic. As time elapses, 

management regimes change, and natural and anthropogenic 

disturbances occur on the landscape. Forests are altered 

to reflect both autogenic and allogenic forces. To better 

understand the changes occurring in longleaf pine 

dominated forests in the South, we compared the current 

and previous forest-type classification for remeasured 

plots designated as longleaf pine forest type in either the 

current or the previous inventory. Results indicate that the 

largest percentage of longleaf pine acreage is being lost 

to the loblolly pine (5.60 percent) and longleaf pine/oak 

(5.32 percent) forest types (table 4). About 56 percent of the 

acreage lost to the loblolly pine forest type is a result of a 

change to planted loblolly pine. This suggests that losses to 

planted loblolly pine account for a considerable proportion 

of the overall loss of longleaf pine acreage to other forest 

types. Losses to the mixed longleaf pine/oak forest type 

suggests encroachment of hardwood stems within a longleaf 

pine stand possibly due to the lack of fire in the system. 

SFFP subregions**

State borders

Longleaf pine*

Longleaf pine/oak*

* Plot locations are approximate.

** Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 6—Approximate location of the longleaf pine and longleaf pine/oak forest types as sampled by the 

Southern Research Station Forest Inventory and Analysis unit, 2010.
15

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 7—Absolute change in area of timberland occupied by the longleaf pine forest type, 1970–2010.

Change in timberland 

area, 1970–2010

(acres)

-70,3079– -21,431

-21,430–0

1–15,702

15,703–63,303

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 8—Relative change in area of timberland occupied by the longleaf pine forest type, 1970–2010.

Change in timberland 

area, 1970–2010

(percent)

-1.00– -0.75

> -0.75–0.00

> 0.00–0.50

> 0.50–8.00

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders
16

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 9—Absolute change in area of timberland occupied by the longleaf pine/oak forest type, 1970–2010.

Change in timberland 

area, 1970–2010

(acres)

-59,176– -15,573

-15,572–0

1–16,156

16,157–51,639

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

While some longleaf pine acreage is being lost to other 

forest types, gains are occurring as well. The largest gains 

(10.32 percent) in longleaf pine acreage are a result of 

changes within stands classified as longleaf pine/oak during 

the previous inventory (table 4). In addition, some gains 

(3.20 percent) in longleaf pine forest acreage are being 

realized from changes to previously classified loblolly pine 

stands.

Characteristics of Remaining Longleaf Pine

Sixty-two percent of the existing longleaf pine dominated 

forests are owned by nonindustrial private landowners 

and the remaining 38 percent by public land management 

agencies (table 5). Although public lands only constitute 

about 10 percent of all forest land in this region, they 

support a larger percentage of the area in longleaf pine. 

Ownership stability over the long term and public agency 

ecosystem management programs that do not exclusively 

emphasize commodity production provide a more secure 

environment for this long-lived tree species that can be 

sustained by less intensive management practices. Public 

lands more often exist as larger, less fragmented tracts 

with linkages that provide ecological connections among 

otherwise isolated longleaf pine forest “islands.” The many Foliage and cones of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). (photo 

by Erich G. Vallery, U.S. Forest Service)
17

Table 4—Estimate of losses and gains to the longleaf 

pine forest type as compared to previous inventories, 

2010

Forest type Lossesa Gainsb

percent

Slash pine 2.26 1.05

Loblolly pine 5.60 3.20

Shortleaf pine 0.38 —

Pond pine 0.51 0.02

Longleaf pine/oak 5.32 10.32

Virginia pine/southern red oak 0.04 —

Loblolly pine 0.71 1.26

Slash pine — 0.31

Other pine — 0.01

Post oak/blackjack oak 0.00 —

White oak/red oak/hickory — 0.71

Northern red oak — 0.09

Sassafras/persimmon 0.59 0.43

Sweetgum/yellow-poplar — 0.95

Scrub oak 0.45 0.13

Cherry/white ash/yellow-poplar 0.38 0.18

Red maple/oak 0.10 0.18

Mixed upland hardwoods 1.82 1.56

Sweetgum/nuttall oak/willow oak — 0.01

Bald cypress/water tupelo — 0.01

Sweetbay/swamp tupelo/red maple 0.12 0.01

Unknown 0.19 1.12

No designation 1.81 8.32

— = negligible. 

a Percent of longleaf pine acreage of previous inventory lost to 

each forest type.

b Percent of longleaf pine acreage of current inventory gained from 

each forest type.

resource values and desirable ecological attributes of 

longleaf pine forests also complement the land management 

mission of most public agencies.

The longleaf pine/oak forest type was slightly more heavily 

concentrated on private land. About 70 percent of all 

acreage of the longleaf pine/oak type was in private hands 

while an estimated 60 percent of the longleaf pine foresttype acreage is privately owned. The ownership patterns 

of the West Coastal Plain differed from the others in that 

48 and 40 percent of the longleaf pine and longleaf pine/

oak acreage, respectively, were privately held (table 5). 

The ownership pattern of the East Coastal Plain and the 

Piedmont matched that of the regionwide averages.

Many public land agencies such as the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service National Forest System, the 

Department of Defense, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

have dedicated considerable resources to inventorying and 

monitoring the longleaf pine resources located within their 

respective boundaries. Excellent fine-scale (stand) data 

exist within these land management agencies. Readers 

should be cautious when comparing stand-level data from 

public land agencies with sample estimates provided here 

by FIA. Estimates provided by FIA are based on sampling 

a systematic grid across the United States with plots 

representing a total of about 6,000 acres. Often, fine-scale 

data collected by public land management agencies can 

represent a true inventory or multiple resource plots within 

a given stand. While the broadscale inventory estimates 

provided by FIA may not match precisely with fine-scale 

information, the estimates derived from fine-scale data 

collection should fall with the bounds of the sampling error 

associated with the broadscale FIA estimate. Readers should 

use each estimate to answer resource questions at the scale 

that matches the scale of data collection. 

Combined, the longleaf pine and longleaf pine/oak forest 

types are primarily represented by stands with an age of 

≤50 years (table 6). Fifty-nine percent of all stands are in 

age classes of ≤41 to 50 years. On the other hand, only 

18 percent of all longleaf pine dominated forests are in 

stands with ages between 0 to 10 years (fig. 10a). Viewed 

separately, both the longleaf pine and longleaf pine/oak 

forest types have similar age class distributions with the 

longleaf pine/oak forest type having about one-third of the 

area of the longleaf pine forest type in most age classes.

Fifty-eight percent of the longleaf pine forest-type acres 

support stands ≤50 years old (fig. 10b). Stands older 

than 80 years makeup just 7 percent of the longleaf pine 

acreage (table 6). None of the stands in the West Coastal 

Plain are older than 90 years. The longleaf pine forests 

in the East Coastal Plain and the Piedmont both exhibit a 

bimodal-age class structure with peaks in the 61–70-year 

age class and the 0–10-year age class. Similarly, the longleaf 

pine/oak forest type exhibits a peak in the 0–10-year age 

class (fig. 10c). While only a small proportion of longleaf 

pine dominated forests are within the older age classes, 

a bimodal distribution indicates that younger cohorts are 

developing. These younger cohorts are valuable for the 

long-term sustainability of the species and ecosystem. 

One difference may be the somewhat disjunct population 

of longleaf pine dominated forests in the West Coastal 

Plain. The area of the longleaf pine forest type in this 

region exhibits a peak in the 41–50-year age class. Unlike 

the longleaf pine type of the East Coastal Plain and the 

Piedmont, this type in the West Coastal Plain does not 

appear to be developing a younger cohort (0–10- and 11–20-

year age classes). While not alarming, this does warrant 

further investigation and could be indicative of issues such 

as limited planting or inadequate regeneration. Additionally, 
18

Table 5—Area of forest land by longleaf pine forest type, region, and ownership class, 2010

Forest type

and region

All

ownership

Ownership class

U.S. Forest 

Service

U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife 

Service

Department 

of Defense

Other

Federal State

County and 

municipal Private

thousand acres

Longleaf

Coastal plain (east) 2,938,157.47 453,374.34 53,395.47 254,127.26 53,694.76 329,051.18 28,542.17 1,765,972.29

Coastal plain (west) 258,872.30 116,927.80 0.00 10,662.13 0.00 0.00 6,092.65 125,189.73

Piedmont 103,687.66 23,689.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,090.85 0.00 73,907.73

Total 3,300,717.43 593,991.22 53,395.47 264,789.39 53,694.76 335,142.03 34,634.81 1,965,069.75

Longleaf-oak

Coastal plain (east) 857,401.14 61,905.71 6,522.80 45,484.02 19,106.23 109,091.63 4,691.47 610,599.28

Coastal plain (west) 39,357.08 17,482.63 0.00 6,092.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,781.81

Piedmont 87,878.57 13,167.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,313.29 0.00 63,398.08

Total 984,636.79 92,555.54 6,522.80 51,576.67 19,106.23 120,404.92 4,691.47 689,779.17

Combined longleaf

Coastal plain (east) 3,795,558.61 515,280.05 59,918.27 299,611.28 72,800.98 438,142.81 33,233.64 2,376,571.58

Coastal plain (west) 298,229.38 134,410.43 0.00 16,754.78 0.00 0.00 6,092.65 140,971.54

Piedmont 191,566.23 36,856.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,404.14 0.00 137,305.81

Total 4,285,354.23 686,546.76 59,918.27 316,366.05 72,800.98 455,546.95 39,326.28 2,654,848.93

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

0.0 = no sample for the cell or a value of >0.0 but <0.05.

Table 6—Area of forest land by longleaf forest type, region, and stand-age class, 2010

Forest type 

and region

All

classes

Stand-age class (years)

0–

10

11–

20

21–

30

31–

40

41–

50

51–

60

61–

70

71–

80

81–

90

91–

100 100+

acres

Longleaf pine

Coastal plain (east) 2,938,157 523,467 331,929 277,135 316,814 296,992 314,262 343,312 331,588 140,302 50,605 11,752

Coastal plain (west) 258,872 18,359 7,024 32,764 0 65,756 52,962 54,158 21,974 5,875 0 0

Piedmont 103,688 37,581 3,164 6,091 6,383 6,091 10,659 16,969 6,091 6,091 0 4,568

Total 3,300,717 579,406 342,117 315,989 323,197 368,839 377,883 414,438 359,653 152,269 50,605 16,320

Longleaf pine/oak

Coastal plain (east) 857,401 138,426 71,085 83,453 98,414 110,924 133,128 134,892 45,551 29,878 11,650 0

Coastal plain (west) 39,357 18,015 0 0 0 9,773 11,569 0 0 0 0 0

Piedmont 87,879 22,616 1,523 6,083 1,166 21,913 5,554 12,182 12,274 4,568 0 0

Total 984,637 179,058 72,608 89,536 99,580 142,610 150,250 147,074 57,825 34,446 11,650 0

Combined longleaf

Coastal plain (east) 3,795,559 661,893 403,014 360,588 415,228 407,916 447,390 478,204 377,139 170,181 62,255 11,752

Coastal plain (west) 298,229 36,373 7,024 32,764 0 75,529 64,531 54,158 21,974 5,875 0 0

Piedmont 191,566 60,197 4,687 12,174 7,549 28,004 16,213 29,151 18,365 10,659 0 4,568

Total 4,285,354 758,463 414,726 405,525 422,777 511,449 528,133 561,512 417,478 186,715 62,255 16,320

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
19

Figure 10—Area of longleaf pine and longleaf pine/oak forest types on 

forest land by stand-age class (A) Total, (B) Longleaf pine by region, and 

(C) Longleaf pine/oak by region, 2010.

Stand-age class

Area (thousand acres)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Longleaf pine 

Longleaf pine/oak 

(A) Total

0–10

11–20

21–30

31–40

41–50

51–60

61–70

71–80

81–90

91–100

100+

Stand-age class

Area (thousand acres)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Coastal Plain (east)

Coastal Plain (west)

Piedmont 

(B) Longleaf pine by region

0–10

11–20

21–30

31–40

41–50

51–60

61–70

71–80

81–90

91–100

100+

Stand-age class

Area (thousand acres)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

(C) Longleaf pine/oak by region

0–10

11–20

21–30

31–40

41–50

51–60

61–70

71–80

81–90

91–100

100+

Coastal Plain (east)

Coastal Plain (west)

Piedmont 

FIA stand-age estimation procedures are biased toward 

representation of stand age as if all stands were of an evenaged structure. FIA procedures provides the age of the 

larger overstory trees within the stand. Longleaf pine is not 

locked into the even-aged model and in fact is often found 

in multiaged stands. Therefore, some of the stands sampled 

in the older age classes potentially have adequate advance 

regeneration due the complex uneven-aged structure 

common in longleaf pine dominated systems across the 

South. 

Across the South, an estimated 1.1 million acres (27 percent) 

of longleaf pine and longleaf pine/oak forest types have 

been planted. An estimated 2.3 million acres (71 percent) of 

all longleaf pine dominated forests originated from natural 

regeneration (fig. 11). Some 967,000 acres of the longleaf 

pine forest type have been planted throughout the South. 

While some of the planted acreage was first established 

primarily with another species of pine, the vast majority 

(92 percent) was planted primarily with longleaf pine 

(table 7). An estimated 869,000 acres have been planted 

in the East Coastal Plain that are now classified as the 

longleaf pine forest type. Planted longleaf pine forest-type 

acreage represents a roughly similar proportion (28, 27, and 

30 percent in the Piedmont, West, and East Coastal Plains, 

respectively) in each of the three regions in the South where 

longleaf pine forests are currently found. Similarly, planted 

longleaf pine that is classified as longleaf pine/oak is similar 

across the South. Planted longleaf pine dominated forests 

(longleaf pine and longleaf pine/oak forest types) comprise 

the largest proportion of the younger stands (fig. 12). In fact, 

of the 1.1 million acres of planted longleaf pine dominated 

forests, about 84 percent were ≤25 years old, while only 13 

percent of natural stands were ≤25 years old.

The greatest concentrations of longleaf pine trees are 

located in the East Coastal Plain, particularly in the 

panhandle of Florida and southern Alabama and Mississippi 

(fig. 13). Additional concentrations exist near the border 

with the Piedmont region in central South Carolina. 

Interestingly, while the total number of planted longleaf 

pine trees (fig. 14) exhibits a similar spatial pattern of 

concentration as all longleaf pine trees (fig. 13), when 

planted longleaf pine is displayed as a percentage of all 

longleaf pine trees within a given county, the spatial pattern 

of concentration appears to reflect the opposite (fig. 15). 

This may suggest that in areas where longleaf pine is limited 

it is more heavily represented by planted trees.
20

* Thousand acres.

Figure 11—Area of forest land classified as (A) Longleaf pine and (B) Longleaf pine/oak forest types by region and stand origin, 2010.

Coastal Plain (east)

2,069.5* Natural

70%

868.7*

Planted

30%

Coastal Plain (west)

188.9* Natural

73%

69.9*

Planted

27%

(A) Longleaf pine

Piedmont

75.8* Natural

73%

Planted

27% 27.9*

(B) Longleaf pine/oak

Coastal Plain (east)

710.4* Natural

83%

Planted

17%

147.0*

Coastal Plain (west)

27.4* Natural

70%

Planted

30% 12.0*

Piedmont

74.8*

Natural

85%

Planted

15% 13.0*

Table 7—Area of planted longleaf pine forest type by 

primary planted tree species, 2010

Forest type

Planted tree species

All

forests

Longleaf

pine

Longleaf

pine-oak

thousand acres

Slash pine 49.9 10.3 60.2

Longleaf pine 882.2 159.5 1,041.7

Loblolly pine 14.1 0.0 14.1

Papershell pinyon pine 1.5 0.0 1.5

No species listed 18.8 2.2 21.0

0.0 = no sample for the cell or a value of >0.0 but <0.05.

Figure 12—Area of forest land by 5-year age class and stand origin for 

longleaf pine and longleaf pine/oak forest types, southern region, 2010.

Age class (years)

0–5

6–10

11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30

31–35

36–4041–4546–50 51–55 56–60 61–6566–7071–75 76–8081–8586–90 91–95

96–100100+

Area (thousand acres)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Total longleaf pine

and longleaf pine/oak

Longleaf pine 

Longleaf pine/oak 

Natural

Total longleaf pine

and longleaf pine/oak

Longleaf pine 

Longleaf pine/oak 

Planted
21

Number of trees

34,042–2,759,803

2,759,804–7,709,158

7,709,159–16,597,056

16,597,057–38,442,342

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 13—Estimated number of longleaf pine trees on forest land by county, 2010.

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

Number of trees

0–1,076,766

1,076,767–3,386,472

3,386,473–8,329,835

8,329,836–20,394,287

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 14—Estimated number of longleaf pine trees located within stands of planted origin, 2010.
22

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 15—Percent of total longleaf pine trees within stands of planted origin, 2010. (Note: longleaf pine stems may occur 

as volunteers in stands planted with other species.)

Percent planted

1–20

21–47

48–77

78–100

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

Stand-size class is often used as an indication of the 

developmental stage of a particular stand or forest. These 

classes are broken into large-, medium-, and smalldiameter classes. The large-diameter class contains all trees 

≥9 inches in diameter. The medium-diameter class contains 

trees 5–8.9 inches and the small-diameter class contains 

trees <5 inches in diameter. In 2010, 49 percent of longleaf 

pine dominated forest land acreage was classified as large 

diameter according to FIA stand-size class definitions 

(fig. 16, table 8). While many of the longleaf pine/oak 

stands are classified as small-diameter stands, those 

stands have a large proportion of small hardwood stems 

(fig. 17) that contribute to the stand-size classification. The 

existing mixed longleaf pine/oak stands may be primarily 

longleaf pine stands with an abundance of hardwood stems 

occupying the midstory. These stands may represent stands 

that could easily be restored to a functioning longleaf pine 

system with minimal management intervention. Counties 

with the largest area of longleaf pine forests were heavily 

concentrated in southern Alabama and the panhandle of 

Florida where Eglin Air Force Base is located (fig. 18). 

The spatial distribution of longleaf pine forests differed 

Stand-size class

Large diameter Medium diameter Small diameter

Area (thousand acres)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500 Total

Longleaf pine 

Longleaf pine/oak

Figure 16—Area of forest land classified as the longleaf forest type by 

stand-size class, 2010.
23

Table 8—Area of forest land classified as longleaf pine and longleaf pine/oak forest types by 

State and stand-size class, 2010

State

Stand-size class

Large Medium Small

percent

Alabama 48 18 34

Florida 48 21 31

Georgia 41 14 45

Louisiana 71 12 17

Mississippi 66 14 20

North Carolina 51 26 23

South Carolina 42 22 36

East Texas 62 0 38

Total 49 18 33 Diameter class (inches) Number of trees (percent)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Longleaf pine 

Other softwoods 

Hardwoods 

1.0–2.9

3.0–4.9

5.0–6.9

7.0–8.9

9.0–10.9

11.0–12.9

13.0–14.9

15.0–16.9

17.0–18.9

19.0–20.9

21.0–22.9

23.0–24.9

25.0–26.9

29.0–30.9

29.0–40.9

Figure 17—Number of longleaf pine, other softwood, and hardwood trees 

in stands classified as longleaf pine/oak forest type, 2010.

slightly among each stand-size class collected by the FIA 

program. Small-diameter longleaf pine forests were heavily 

concentrated in southern Alabama and the panhandle of 

Florida (fig. 19). Concentrations of medium-diameter forests 

were more widely distributed across the longleaf pine range 

and included areas in central Florida, Florida’s panhandle, 

southern Alabama, south-central South Carolina, and 

portions of coastal North Carolina (fig. 20). Counties with 

large areas of longleaf pine forests comprised mostly of 

large-diameter stems were located in southern Alabama, 

the panhandle of Florida, western Louisiana, and east Texas 

(fig. 21). Using stand-size class as a proxy for developmental 

stage (Trani and others 2001, Franzreb and others 2011), 

the implication is that there appears to be a dearth of early 

successional longleaf pine dominated forests across the 

South, with the exception of in southern Alabama and the 

panhandle of Florida. The stand-size class distribution of 

Western Coastal Plain is particularly concerning due to the 

uniqueness of the longleaf pine forests in the area (Outcalt 

1997). Very few early- and mid-successional longleaf pine 

forests exist in Louisiana (table 8) where most stands are 

much further along in development. 

Pinus palustris regeneration, Wambaw Ranger District, Francis Marion National Forest, North 

Carolina. (photo by Bill Lea)
24

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 18—Area of forest land classified as belonging to the (A) Longleaf pine and (B) Longleaf pine/oak forest 

types by county, 2010.

Forest land area (acres)

284–3,751

3,752–8,964

8,965–20,583

20,584–51,639

(B) Longleaf pine/oak

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

Forest land area (acres)

40–14,138

14,139–32,890

32,891–68,038

68,039–116,147

(A) Longleaf pine

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders
25

Forest land area (acres)

0–3,739

3,740–8,938

8,939–18,405

18,406–64,858

(A) Longleaf pine

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

Forest land area (acres)

0–2,233

2,234–5,433

5,434–12,270

12,271–23,761

(B) Longleaf pine/oak

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 19—Area of forest land classified as belonging to the (A) Longleaf pine and (B) Longleaf pine/oak forest types, 

and small diameter class by county, 2010.
26

Forest land area (acres)

284–3,265

3,266–7,382

7,383–10,524

10,525–18,077

(B) Longleaf pine/oak

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

Forest land area (acres)

51–3,170

3,171–8,610

8,611–13,841

13,842–30,844

(A) Longleaf pine

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 20—Area of forest land classified as belonging to the (A) Longleaf pine, (B) Longleaf pine/oak forest types, and 

medium diameter stand-size class by county, 2010.
27

Forest land area (acres)

139–5,012

5,013–14,257

14,258–38,802

38,803–66,403

(A) Longleaf pine

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

Forest land area (acres)

1,166−3,232

3,233–5,407

5,408–8,964

8,965–20,583

(B) Longleaf pine/oak

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 21—Area of forest land classified as belonging to the (A) Longleaf pine, (B) Longleaf pine/oak forest types, and 

large diameter stand-size class by county, 2010.
28

Longleaf Pine Population Dynamics

The long-term decline in the population (number of trees) 

of longleaf pines has been a topic of discussion for many 

years. Several groups and organizations have worked to 

ensure this important pine species continues to occupy 

forests throughout the South. However, longleaf pine 

trees have vanished from numerous locations over the last 

approximately 40 years (fig. 22). This suggests that a pattern 

of long-term population declines may still be occurring. 

Essentially, FIA is finding longleaf pine in fewer places and 

on fewer plots. 

In order to provide a comparison of current population 

levels to historic populations of longleaf pine, estimates of 

live trees on timberland (forest land available for timber 

production) were compiled for each decade beginning with 

the 1970s. For the decades of data compiled, the 1970s had 

the highest (>1.25 billion) total number of longleaf pine 

trees (table 9). From that peak, the number of trees fell to 

a low of just over 795 million trees by the 1990s. Recent 

estimates show that the population has increased to >910 

million trees, yet remains 27 percent below population levels 

estimated for the 1970s (table 9). The total longleaf pine 

population on all forest land in the South is estimated to be 

slightly higher, about 914 million trees in 2010 (table 10). 

Recent increases appear to be concentrated in the smalldiameter classes (table 9) and may be indicative of positive 

signs for the future of the species.

The majority (77 percent or 705 million trees) of the 

longleaf pine population is located within forests classified 

as the longleaf pine-slash pine forest-type group (table 10). 

* Plot locations are approximate.

** Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 22—Approximate location of longleaf pine sampled by the Forest Inventory and Analysis program for (A) 1970−78, (B) 1980−87, (C) 1990−97, and 

(D) 2005−10 as compared to the documented longleaf pine range (Little 1972).

(A) 1970−78 (B) 1980−87

(D) 2005−10

SFFP subregions**

State borders

County borders

Longleaf pine*

Little’s longleaf range

SFFP subregions**

State borders

County borders

Longleaf pine*

Little’s longleaf range

(C) 1990−97

SFFP subregions**

State borders

County borders

Longleaf pine*

Little’s longleaf range

SFFP subregions**

State borders

County borders

Longleaf pine*

Little’s longleaf range
29

The second largest population (an estimated 102 million 

live trees) is found within forests classified as the oak-pine 

forest-type group. Not surprisingly, the longleaf pine forest 

type (a subset of the longleaf pine-slash pine forest-type 

group) contains the largest population of longleaf pine trees 

(table 11). Seventy-four percent or an estimated 672 million 

longleaf pine trees occupy forests classified as the longleaf 

pine forest type. Other forest types with large populations of 

longleaf pine trees are the longleaf pine/oak, loblolly pine, 

slash pine, and southern scrub oak forest-type communities. 

Just over 1 percent (9.1 million) longleaf pine trees are lost 

to mortality annually (table 12). Most (89 percent) of the 

loss occurred in the East Coastal Plain where annual losses 

amounted to 8.1 million trees. Trees die for a variety of 

reasons, but weather is the major cause of death according 

to latest FIA estimates. Other research has shown that 

Table 10—Number of live longleaf pine trees on forest land by forest-type group and diameter class, 2010

Forest-type group

All 

classes

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

1.0–

2.9

3.0–

4.9

5.0–

6.9

7.0–

8.9

9.0–

10.9

11.0–

12.9

13.0–

14.9

15.0–

16.9

17.0–

18.9

19.0–

20.9

21.0–

22.9

23.0–

24.9

25.0–

26.9

27.0–

28.9

million trees

Longleaf-slash pine 704.79 287.25 178.49 81.03 45.19 33.08 31.44 24.75 14.10 6.46 2.32 0.43 0.19 0.04 0.04

Loblolly-shortleaf pine 77.27 28.48 16.91 10.81 6.14 4.55 3.14 3.40 1.88 1.17 0.43 0.18 0.14 0.04 0.00

Oak-pine 102.32 45.50 24.36 9.70 6.86 4.97 3.90 3.06 2.43 0.72 0.43 0.21 0.07 0.10 0.00

Oak hickory 26.57 8.40 3.44 5.13 3.10 2.35 1.45 1.16 0.88 0.37 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00

Oak-gum-cypress 1.72 0.43 0.43 0.25 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tropical hardwoods 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nonstocked 1.56 0.90 0.00 0.26 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 914.36 370.97 223.62 107.28 61.51 45.19 40.15 32.63 19.39 8.71 3.39 0.86 0.45 0.18 0.04

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

0.0 = no sample for the cell or a value of >0.0 but <0.05.

Table 9—Number of live longleaf pine trees on timberland by year and diameter, 1970–2010

Year

All 

classes

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

1.0–

2.9

3.0–

4.9

5.0–

6.9

7.0–

8.9

9.0–

10.9

11.0–

12.9

13.0–

14.9

15.0–

16.9

17.0–

18.9

19.0–

20.9

21.0–

22.9

23.0–

24.9

25.0–

26.9

27.0–

28.9

29.0–

30.9

31.0–

32.9

million trees

1970 1,250.76 375.81 285.59 185.95 144.51 115.24 81.31 39.69 15.30 5.19 1.60 0.35 0.15 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00

1980 961.65 281.82 200.55 135.73 108.65 95.75 69.72 40.51 19.05 6.98 1.94 0.59 0.23 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.01

1990 795.27 285.60 166.94 94.34 71.14 61.85 51.49 35.46 18.10 6.65 2.32 0.87 0.36 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00

2010 910.30 370.53 222.26 106.75 60.96 44.87 39.87 32.49 19.25 8.57 3.24 0.86 0.45 0.18 0.04 0.00 0.00

0.0 = no sample for the cell or a value of >0.0 but <0.05.

Table 11—Number of live longleaf pine trees 

on forest land by forest type for the five forest 

types with the largest estimated populations of 

the longleaf pine species, 2010

Forest type Live longleaf pine trees

- - number - - percent

Longleaf pine 672,458,552 73.5

Longleaf pine/oak 91,027,445 10.0

Loblolly pine 68,246,947 7.5

Slash pine 32,334,892 3.5

Southern scrub oak 11,948,753 1.3
30

windthrow from hurricanes and tornadoes have felled large 

numbers of longleaf pine (Croker 1987, Palik and Pederson 

1996, Brockway and others 2005). In addition, lightning has 

played a role in the mortality of individual longleaf pines 

and groups of trees (Komarek 1968, Palik and Pederson 

1996). Nearly 22 percent of all mortality took place in the 

5.0–16.9-inch diameter range, and virtually all of that loss 

occurred in the East Coastal Plain (table 12). Over three 

quarters (77 percent) of the annual mortality for longleaf 

pine appeared in saplings (trees <5 inches in diameter). 

Only 1.4 percent of all longleaf pine mortality occurred in 

trees ≥17 inches in diameter.

 Productive Capacity of Longleaf Pine 

Longleaf pine is an extremely valuable species from both 

an ecological and economic perspective. Longleaf pine has 

many unique wood properties and biological characteristics 

that make it economically competitive with other timber 

species. For example, longleaf pine grows straighter and 

produces a stronger wood than the commercially dominant 

loblolly pine. It is relatively resistant to disease, and is 

somewhat less susceptible than other southern pine species 

to mainstem breakage and windthrow from events such as 

hurricanes that impact the vast majority of the longleaf pine 

range. As a result, it is important to assess the longleaf pine 

resource in volumetric terms.

Longleaf pine volume amounted to 4.7 billion cubic feet 

(table 13), or 2 percent of the 225 billion cubic feet of total 

volume on timberland across the South. When examining 

the volume for longleaf pine, the 11.0–16.9-inch diameter 

range has the greatest portion of the volume attributed to 

this species. The volume in this range of tree diameters 

accounts for about 56 percent or 2.6 billion cubic feet of the 

total volume in longleaf pine species. The 1.0 billion cubic 

Table 12—Annual mortality on forest land for longleaf pine species by region and diameter class, 2010

Region

All 

classes

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

1.0–

2.9

3.0–

4.9

5.0–

6.9

7.0–

8.9

9.0–

10.9

11.0–

12.9

13.0–

14.9

15.0–

16.9

17.0–

18.9

19.0–

20.9

21.0–

22.9

23.0–

24.9

25.0–

26.9

million trees

Coastal plain (east) 8,145.7 4,449.0 1,859.9 577.2 350.4 249.7 252.7 160.5 157.1 37.5 35.0 5.5 8.8 2.4

Coastal plain (west) 586.9 249.8 187.3 7.7 6.8 23.2 37.0 1.3 32.6 31.7 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Piedmont 369.4 164.8 82.4 47.5 38.5 30.1 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 9,102.0 4,863.6 2,129.6 632.4 395.7 303.0 295.7 161.8 189.7 69.1 44.6 5.5 8.8 2.4

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

0.0 = no sample for the cell or a value of >0.0 but <0.05.

feet in the 13.0–14.9-inch diameter class is 20 percent of 

the total volume. Less than 3 percent is in trees >20 inches 

d.b.h.

Similar to the distribution of longleaf pine acres, the 

majority of the volume in longleaf pine species is privately 

owned. Nearly 2.6 billion cubic feet (55 percent) of all the 

volume of longleaf pine was on privately owned acres. 

Local, State, and Federal Government ownership accounted 

for the remaining volume, including 1.1 billion cubic feet 

of the longleaf pine resource found on U.S. Forest Service 

lands (table 14). While the majority of the longleaf pine 

volume is estimated to be within private landholdings, 

public lands carried greater than average volume per acre 

of forest land while private lands carried lower than average 

volume per acre. More than likely, this is an artifact of 

the differing management strategies employed by the two 

ownership groups. Additionally, the longleaf pine forests 

of the West Coastal Plain consistently carried some of the 

largest volume per-acre estimates with the exception of State 

owned land in the Piedmont. High per-acre values in the 

West Coastal Plain are consistent with the stand-size class 

distribution of the region being skewed to large diameter 

stands. 

Private holdings of longleaf pine forests account for greater 

acreage in each basal area class (fig. 23). However, like 

per-acre volume estimates, area estimates within each 

basal-area class relative to the total area in broad ownership 

categories (private vs. public) indicate some divergence in 

management strategies between private and public land 

owners. A greater proportion of private longleaf pine forest 

acreage was found to carry per-acre basal area of ≤40 

square feet (36 percent) than did public acreage (26 percent). 

Yet, longleaf pine forest-type stands with >120 square 

feet per acre were equally rare for both public and private 

landholdings.
31

Table 13—All-live volume of longleaf pine species on forest land by region and diameter class, 2010Region

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

Total

5.0–

6.9

7.0–

8.9

9.0–10.9

11.0–

12.9

13.0–

14.9

15.0–

16.9

17.0–

18.9

19.0–

20.9

21.0–

22.9

23.0–

24.9

25.0–

26.9

27.0–

28.9

cubic feet

Coastal plain (east) 237,312,089 368,681,853 508,063,395 734,225,906 824,504,153 688,291,449 360,005,675 176,413,216 51,129,272 29,113,000 12,972,174 0 3,990,712,182

Coastal plain (west) 13,596,644 25,028,152 41,584,384 84,185,509 121,690,342 97,822,650 83,004,250 34,775,472 13,467,286 10,019,055 9,247,360 3,961,087 538,382,191Piedmont 6,990,437 12,402,526 19,923,804 24,156,968 58,129,305 28,921,123 25,541,938 9,496,620 3,265,093 4,280,521 0 0 193,108,335

Total 257,899,170 406,112,531 569,571,583 842,568,383 1,004,323,800 815,035,222 468,551,863 220,685,308 67,861,651 43,412,576 22,219,534 3,961,087 4,722,202,708

Disturbances and Threats

Each field-visited plot, FIA survey crews note any recent disturbances, 

natural and anthropogenic (viewed as treatments), that have occurred 

since the sample location was last visited, or in the past 5 years. An 

assessment of the disturbances that occur in longleaf pine communities 

and the extent of those events create a better understanding of how 

longleaf pine forests are being utilized and the exogenous pressures 

common to these forests.

Disturbances and treatments are expressed as the average annual area 

or volume impacted. Current estimates indicate that only 5 percent 

of the longleaf pine dominated forests in the Southern United States 

is disturbed annually (table 15). The Piedmont exhibited the lowest 

estimate of area disturbed annually (3 percent) while the West Coastal 

Plain experienced the highest rate of disturbance (6-percent disturbed 

annually on average). Of the 200,000 acres where a disturbance was 

recorded, fire was the most common and occurred on almost 166,000 

acres. Fire has the most influence on the longleaf pine ecosystem, and it 

is often used as a management tool. 

Silvicultural activities such as planting, thinning, or fertilization 

observed on and/or around the plot are noted as treatments by field 

crews. Ninety-five percent of longleaf pine dominated forests showed 

no signs of any treatment (table 16) during the most recent field visit. 

Some type of treatment is estimated to have occurred for about 225,000 

acres. Cutting was the leading treatment recorded on longleaf pine 

dominated acres, and it occurred on an average of 91,000 acres annually, 

or 40 percent of the total area where any treatment was recorded. 

Longleaf pine harvests (average annual cubic feet) on timberland were 

greatest in and around the areas in which the greatest area of longleaf 

pine forests were located (fig. 24). Average annual harvests on private 

timberland (fig. 25) mimicked the pattern found on all timberland 

(fig. 23). Limited harvests occurred in longleaf pine forests on publicly 

owned and managed timberland (fig. 26).

Invasive plants were detected on 148 longleaf pine plots in 6 Southern 

States, or 21 percent of all longleaf pine plots measured (fig. 27). 

Louisiana and Alabama had the highest proportion of invaded plots with 

35 and 32 percent, respectively, while eastern Texas and Florida had the 

lowest percentage of invaded plots (0 and 6 percent, respectively, though 

the small sample size in eastern Texas should be taken into consideration 

when evaluating the proportions, (table 17).

Twenty-one invasive species from a predetermined list of 33 (53 in 

Florida) were recorded on longleaf pine plots. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) was the most frequently detected nonnative species 

on longleaf pine plots in all States (table 18). The common invasive 

vine was found on 11 percent of all longleaf pine plots surveyed, and 

52 percent of all longleaf pine plots containing an invasive species. 
32

Table 14—All-live volume of longleaf pine species on forest land by region and ownership class, 2010

Region

Ownership class

Total

National

Forest

System

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service

Department 

of Defense

Other 

Federal State

County 

and

municipal Private

cubic feet

Coastal plain (east) 778,570,874 85,267,714 412,411,833 69,063,200 358,660,183 33,795,382 2,252,942,995 3,990,712,181

Coastal plain (west) 277,583,753 0 30,470,435 169,478 0 12,501,250 217,657,275 538,382,192

Piedmont 55,502,672 0 1,119,737 2,613,303 22,261,559 0 111,611,063 193,108,335

Total 1,111,657,300 85,267,714 444,002,005 71,845,982 380,921,742 46,296,633 2,582,211,333 4,722,202,708

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

0.0 = no sample for the cell or a value of >0.0 but <0.05.

(A) Actual area

Basal area class

0−40 41−80 81−120 120+

Area (thousand acres)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Public

Private 

(B) Proportion of ownership

Basal area class

Area (percent)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0−40 41−80 81−120 120+

Public

Private 

Figure 23—Forest land area by basal area class and ownership category (A) Actual area and (B) Proportion of ownership, 2010.

On average, Japanese honeysuckle foliage had an aerial 

coverage of 15 percent on the longleaf pine subplots 

on which it was found. Chinese and European privets 

(Ligustrum sinense Lour. and L. vulgare L.) were the second 

most commonly detected invasive plants, with 39 plot 

detections (table 18). 

Tallowtree (Triadica sebifera) and mimosa (Albizia 

julibrissin) were the most common invasive trees found on 

longleaf pine plots throughout the South, with 15 and 13 

detections, respectively. Tallowtree was found primarily 

in Louisiana and Alabama (17 and 5 percent of longleaf 

pine plots, respectively), and on one longleaf pine plot 

in Mississippi. Mimosa was found primarily in Georgia 

and Alabama (4 and 3 percent of longleaf pine plots, 

respectively).

Chinese/European privet was the only shrub detected on 

more than two longleaf pine plots in any State (table 18). 

The species was noted on 15 percent of longleaf pine plots 

in Georgia, 8 percent of longleaf pine plots in Alabama, 

7 percent in Louisiana and North Carolina, 6 percent of 

longleaf pine plots in Mississippi, and 1 percent of plots in 

Florida and South Carolina. The only State where Chinese/

European privet was not detected on at least one longleaf 

pine plot was Texas.

Japanese honeysuckle was the only invasive vine noted on 

more than two longleaf pine plots in any State (table 18). 

The vine was found on 20 percent of longleaf pine plots in 

Alabama, 15 percent in Georgia, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina, 12 percent in Mississippi, 7 percent in Louisiana, 

and 2 percent in Florida.
33

Table 15—Area of forest land by longleaf pine forest type, region, and disturbance class, 2010

Forest type

and region Total

Disturbance class

Insects Disease Weather Fire

Domestic 

animals

Wild

animals Human

Other 

natural

thousand acres

Longleaf

Coastal plain (east) 131.9 0.5 1.0 13.2 110.9 0.5 0.0 5.9 0.0

Coastal plain (west) 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0

Piedmont 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 151.5 0.5 1.0 13.2 129.9 0.5 0.0 6.4 0.0

Longleaf-oak

Coastal plain (east) 39.0 0.0 1.4 0.8 32.3 0.4 0.0 3.3 0.9

Coastal plain (west) 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Piedmont 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0

Total 43.7 0.0 1.4 0.8 35.6 0.4 0.0 4.6 0.9

Combined longleaf

Coastal plain (east) 170.9 0.5 2.3 14.0 143.2 0.9 0.0 9.1 0.9

Coastal plain (west) 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0

Piedmont 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0

Total 195.2 0.5 2.3 14.0 165.6 0.9 0.0 11.1 0.9

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

0.0 = no sample for the cell or a value of >0.0 but <0.05.

Table 16—Area of forest land by longleaf pine forest type, region, and treatment class, 2010

Forest type

and region Total

Treatment class

Final

harvest

Partial 

harvest

Seedtree/ 

shelterwood 

harvest

Commercial 

thinning

Timber

stand 

improvementSalvage 

cutting

Site 

preparation

Artificial 

regeneration

Natural 

regeneration

Other 

silvicultural

thousand acres

Longleaf

Coastal plain (east) 148.9 16.3 9.3 0.9 23.5 9.0 0.0 20.7 37.4 1.8 30.0

Coastal plain (west) 15.0 3.2 0.8 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 3.3

Piedmont 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.4 0.0 0.0

Total 172.5 19.4 10.0 0.9 30.3 9.0 0.0 24.2 43.4 1.8 33.3

Longleaf-oak

Coastal plain (east) 43.6 7.5 5.1 1.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 9.2 10.6 1.6 3.9

Coastal plain (west) 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0

Piedmont 7.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.2 1.0 0.0

Total 52.3 9.9 5.1 1.0 4.7 0.5 0.0 11.4 12.7 3.0 3.9

Combined longleaf

Coastal plain (east) 192.5 23.8 14.4 1.9 28.3 9.0 0.0 29.9 48.0 3.4 33.9

Coastal plain (west) 16.4 3.6 0.8 0.0 2.2 0.5 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.4 3.3

Piedmont 15.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 3.7 4.6 1.0 0.0

Total 224.7 29.4 15.1 1.9 35.1 9.4 0.0 35.6 56.1 4.8 37.2

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

0.0 = no sample for the cell or a value of >0.0 but <0.05.
34

10,951−980,714

980,715−2,858,372

2,858,373−7,389,359

7,389,360−13,936,390

Removals (cubic feet)

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 24—Average annual harvest removals of longleaf pine on all timberland, 2010.

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 25—Average annual harvest removals of longleaf pine on private timberland, 2010.

10,951−514,787

514,788−1,409,912

1,409,913−2,858,372

2,858,373−9,138,822

Removals (cubic feet)

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders
35

* Southern Forests Futures Project delineations (Wear and others 2009).

Figure 26—Average annual harvest removals of longleaf pine on public timberland, 2010.

68,281−593,435

593,436−1,683,867

1,683,868−3,726,218

3,726,219−13,936,390

Removals (cubic feet)

SFFP subregions*

State borders

County borders

Figure 27—Presence or absence of invasive plant species on longleaf pine plots, 2010.

≥ 1

0

Number of detections

State borders
36

Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrical) was the only invasive 

grass noted on more than one longleaf pine plot in any State, 

and it was only found on more than one plot in Alabama. 

There, it was noted on 8 percent of longleaf pine plots. 

Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum) was the 

only fern noted on any longleaf pine plot. It was noted on 

20 percent of longleaf pine plots in Louisiana, 14 percent in 

Mississippi, 7 percent in Alabama, and 4 and 2 percent in 

Georgia and Florida, respectively.

The only forb found on >3 percent of longleaf pine plots 

in any given State was Chinese lespedeza (Lespedeza 

cuneata), which was detected on 12 percent of longleaf pine 

plots in North Carolina, and 8 percent of longleaf plots in 

South Carolina. It was found on ≤2 percent of longleaf pine 

plots in the other States where it was observed (table 18).

Table 17—Number and percent of longleaf pine plots with 

one or more invasive plant species detection by State, 2010

State

Longleaf pine 

plots with 

one or more 

invasive species

Longleaf

pine 

plots

Longleaf pine 

plots with 

one or more 

invasives

- - - - - - - number - - - - - - - - - percent - -

Alabama 43 133 32

Florida 12 194 6

Georgia 29 109 27

Louisiana 16 46 35

Mississippi 13 50 26

North Carolina 13 60 22

South Carolina 21 89 24

East Texas 0 8 0

Total 148 689 21

Numbers in columns may not sum to toals due to rounding.

Bolting longleaf pine seedlings clustered in a forest canopy gap in South Carolina. (photo by Bill Boyer, U.S. Forest 

Service)
37

Table 18—Invasive species detected on longleaf pine plots by State with frequency of plot detections and mean percent subplot 

cover, 2010 

Species

State

Alabama Florida Georgia Louisiana Mississippi Total

North 

Carolina

South 

Carolina

n mean 

percent

n mean 

percent

n mean 

percent

n mean 

percent

n mean 

percent

n mean 

percent

n mean 

percent

n mean 

percent

Trees

Tree-of-heaven 1 <1 — — — — — — 1 <1

Silktree, mimosa 4 29 3 5 4 9 — 1 5 — 1 <1 13 14

Chinaberry 1 <1 — 4 17 — — — — 5 13

Tallowtree, popcorntree 6 4 — — 8 4 1 <1 — — 15 4

Brazilian peppera — 1 <1 — — — — — 1 <1

Shrubs

Chinese/European privet 10 21 2 15 16 7 3 7 3 4 4 15 1 3 39 12

Japanese/glossy privet 2 18 — — 1 <1 1 30 — — 4 17

Bush honeysuckles — — — 1 <1 — — — 1 <1

Sacred bamboo, nandina — — — 2 2 — — — 2 <1

Nonnative roses — — 1 5 — — 1 5 — 2 5

Vines

Nonnative climbing yams/

air yam/Chinese yam 1 <1 — — — — — — 1 <1

English ivy — — 1 <1 — — — 2 63 3 42

Japanese honeysuckle 26 19 4 20 16 9 3 2 6 1 9 10 13 24 77 15

Chinese/Japanese wisteria — 1 5 — — — — — 1 5

Grasses

Cogongrass 10 22 1 <1 — — 1 5 — — 12 19

Nepalese browntop — — 1 <1 — 1 30 — — 2 15

Ferns

Japanese climbing fern 9 8 4 9 4 <1 9 3 7 8 — — 33 6

Forbs

Garlic mustard — — — — — 1 <1 — 1 <1

Shrubby lespedeza 3 2 — 2 1 — 1 <1 — 2 18 8 6

Chinese lespedeza 1 5 1 5 2 <1 — 1 5 7 11 7 10 19 9

Tropical soda apple — — 3 4 — — — 1 5 4 4

a Collected only in Florida.

n = frequency of plot detections.
38

Future Research Needs 

The vast longleaf pine forests of the South were under 

intense pressure from logging and were well on their way to 

extirpation just as the U.S. Forest Service began establishing 

research centers throughout the country. Seven centers built 

between 1934 and 1947 were located within the native range 

of longleaf pine, and research on the species was conducted 

at four of them. Work at the Alexandria, Louisiana center 

focused on artificial reforestation techniques, growth 

and yield of planted pines, and range research, while at 

Gulfport, Mississippi, scientists studied fire behavior and 

initiated seed source studies. Research at Brewton, Alabama 

examined natural regeneration of longleaf pine, the 

silvicultural techniques needed to manage natural stands, 

and the management problems of small landowners. Studies 

on the use of longleaf pine for naval stores began in Stark, 

Florida and continued into the 1970s at Lake City, Florida 

when the effort at Stark, Florida ended.1 Work on longleaf 

pine tree improvement and genetics was also performed at 

Lake City, Florida. 

While most of the information produced from these basic 

studies is still applicable to the management of longleaf 

pine forests, the needs of today’s landowners are much 

broader, and research must focus on a wider range of topics 

(Brockway and others 2005). These were summarized in 

a general manner in the rangewide conservation plan for 

longleaf pine (Darden and others 2009). The plan was a 

collaborative effort in which >20 organizations and agencies 

participated. Its intent was to coordinate longleaf pine 

conservation efforts and to spark partnership formation 

among participants. Toward that end, the U.S. Departments 

of Agriculture, Defense, and the Interior signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding in 2010 that would promote 

the rangewide plan’s objective of establishing an additional 

5 million acres of longleaf pine forests in the next 15 years. 

With >80 percent of the forested land in the longleaf pine 

range in private hands, this is an ambitious goal. What 

follows is a research synopsis developed in late 2010 by a 

Forest Service working group in response to the rangewide 

plan.

Classification and Assessment

Establishing a monitoring strategy and a system to 

categorize longleaf pine restoration accomplishments are 

necessary first steps for such efforts. Standards that classify 

longleaf pine stands in varying stages of development and 

that accurately depict conditions in the field will facilitate 

tracking of restoration activities. This would be followed 

by an inventory of longleaf pine stands throughout the 

range of the species, including a catalog of existing longleaf 

pine demonstration areas on both public and private land. 

Development of an online tool to distribute information 

about the demonstration sites that would also allow Web 

visitors to take virtual tours of the areas could promote 

restoration efforts. If historical photographs or records 

of the areas exist that show them prior to application of 

silvicultural prescriptions, visitors would be able to visualize 

the effects of treatments and their impact if applied under 

varying management intensities. The monitoring system 

could also include forest health metrics. This would enable 

scientists to monitor existing or potential threats to the 

longleaf pine ecosystems, including invasive species, 

fragmentation, and land conversion. This could also be 

used as a predictive tool to identify future threats to these 

ecosystems.

Social Science and Marketing 

Societal perceptions of the Nation’s forests change as 

values and demographics shift. A strong case for restoration 

and conservation of longleaf pine ecosystems includes 

an explanation of what makes longleaf pine forests 

different from other forested areas and why it is in the 

best interests of society to maintain these ecosystems. The 

more information that can be gathered on public decisionmaking practices as they pertain to forestry issues, the 

better a case can be made for marketing longleaf pine 

restoration as worthy of taxpayer investment. A list of the 

services and products longleaf pine ecosystems offer that 

focuses exclusively on timber industry may not garner the 

necessary public support for restoration efforts. Additional 

market data and development of new markets for nontimber 

products [pine straw, seed collection (pines, herbaceous 

species), agroforestry opportunities, biomass/biofuels 

(market analyses), carbon credits, wildlife viewing, water, 

hunting] would demonstrate the value of stacked services 

and products from managed longleaf pine forests and make 

a strong case for restoration. 

Demographic information on the longleaf pine region most 

often focuses on landowners, but it is misleading to consider 

the region from this aspect alone. The target audience for 

education may be residents of the area who do not own 

forested tracts but who may be negatively affected by active 

management activities (i.e., fire and the resulting smoke 

management issues). If stand management and the results 

thereof are perceived as threats, restoration activities may be 

1Personal communication. 2011. J.P. Barnett, Emeritus Scientist, Southern 

Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, 2500 Shreveport Highway, Pineville, 

LA 71360.
39

severely curtailed. The more that is known about residents 

of the area, the better researchers can focus on developing 

management tools that will be accepted by them. In 

addition, no matter how sophisticated the management tool, 

if it is not accessible and easy to use it may be of minimal 

value. Demographic information could aid in development 

of tools that have utility for the majority of the region’s 

residents. 

Models

Landowners and managers require tools that accurately 

predict longleaf pine stand behavior and production. In 

order to manage for the future, proponents of longleaf pine 

restoration need various models to demonstrate the species’ 

competitive long-term productivity and that advocate its 

active management. Growth and mortality models for both 

artificially and naturally regenerated longleaf pine are vital 

to restoration efforts, as is the updating of these models with 

continuous remeasurement data from established studies to 

at least a rotation age of 120 years (as specified for national 

forests).

Assumptions have been made that longleaf pine will 

survive changing climatic conditions, either maintaining 

or expanding its current range. Testing the validity of 

these assumptions will enable researchers to accurately 

predict longleaf pine’s adaptability to future conditions. 

Additionally, models of how carbon is stored above- and 

below-ground in longleaf pine ecosystems will facilitate 

assessment of the carbon sequestration potential of longleaf 

pine forests, including carbon budgets and the financial 

dimensions of longleaf pine productivity relative to 

economic analyses of product valuation. A fully developed 

model will couple biological, ecological, and economic 

aspects of longleaf pine restoration and management.

Risk assessment models with actuarial analysis of risk 

avoidance could be used to analyze forest threats, such 

as wildfire, insects, diseases, and wind events as well as 

examine alternative silvicultural treatments for mitigating or 

avoiding these problems. If fire is a necessary component of 

the system, the development of accessible and user-friendly 

models dealing with the complexities of smoke management 

will be needed. Such models may also demonstrate tradeoffs 

of alternative management strategies in the WUI.

Management

Information on seed production, seed collection, and 

nursery production is essential if the goal of planting 

millions of acres in longleaf pine is to be met. To this end, 

longleaf pine genetic variation needs to be examined. 

Researchers have not determined if there is a genetic 

A longleaf pine forest in Louisiana treated with the shelterwood method (residual basal area 25–30 square feet per acre). (photo by 

Bill Boyer, U.S. Forest Service)
40

component to cone production in longleaf pine, nor is 

it known if tree provenance relates to cone and seed 

production. Currently, longleaf pine seed transfer is based 

on provenance and progeny tests conducted decades ago. 

A new comprehensive provenance and progeny project 

has been initiated, and these efforts need to be supported. 

Along these lines, the species should be studied for genetic 

benchmarks that relate to short- and long-term field 

performance.

Best nursery guidelines and protocols for increased 

production of high quality longleaf pine seedlings and 

for maximizing the early field performance of planted 

seedlings on a variety of soils and sites should be developed 

and disseminated. Test sites evaluating stock quality and 

early field performance of container-grown and bareroot 

longleaf pine seedlings from across the South should be 

established, as should studies of different longleaf pine 

planting stock in areas that are hurricane prone versus safer 

zones. Knowledge of the physiological and morphological 

responses of young longleaf pine to climate change may be 

essential to restoration efforts.

The debate on the necessity of fire in management of 

longleaf pine stands continues and could be resolved by 

formation of a decision support system on whether or not 

to burn, and under what conditions. A rangewide system 

could contain updated recommendations on season of 

burn to minimize negative effects on longleaf pine growth 

and assessments of fuel bed and fire intensity interactions 

on tree growth and survival. Such a tool would enable 

managers to tailor the season of prescribed fire to their site 

conditions for sustained longleaf pine carbon sequestration. 

Methods for restoring fire to long-unburned longleaf pine 

stands on varying sites should also be addressed. 

The list of basic practical research needs is extensive and 

includes issues that range from controlling native and exotic 

weeds in longleaf pine stands during early establishment 

and new studies for uneven-aged/alternative management 

techniques for longleaf pine stands to red-cockaded 

woodpecker and herpetology management guidelines. 

Included in this mix of topics are: 

• Assessment of the current state of the longleaf pine 

resource and of longleaf pine forests of the United States 

and trends in pine productivity in the Southeast since 1970.

• Guidelines for longleaf pine stand establishment on wet 

sites, silvopasture holdings, and sites with soil resource 

limitations.

• Silvicultural guidance for forest managers to achieve 

sustainable even- and uneven-aged longleaf pine stands and 

to determine if the benefits of high quality systems versus 

altered conditions offset management’s costs.

• Recommendations for gradual conversion of loblolly pine 

stands to longleaf pine stands. 

• Evaluation of mature longleaf pine wood quality in 

response to stand density management. 

• Identification of the overlap between strategic longleaf 

pine restoration areas and strategic bioenergy areas.

• Evaluation of longleaf pine’s physiological response to 

seasonal prescribed burning and to climate change factors.

Understory

The richly diverse fire-dependent understory communities 

in longleaf pine ecosystems carry fire through the system 

and provide essential habitat for fauna. Because fire use 

has been infrequent and other management practices were 

not favorable to understory vegetation, it is suspected that 

ground layer communities are in poor condition throughout 

much of the longleaf pine range, yet the practical tools for 

their restoration are undeveloped. Their formation is key for 

meeting agency goals and objectives. 

Seed transfer zones for longleaf pine herbaceous ground 

layer associates have been tentatively mapped (Walker 

and Hernández 2010), but their precise delineation 

awaits results from common garden studies and direct 

genetic assessments. Guidelines for managing ground 

layer vegetation in natural systems for reliable grass seed 

production await development as do seed germination and 

storage protocols, seed collection guidelines for public 

lands, provisional seed handling/transfer guidelines, and 

plans for seed marketing. 

The influence of silvicultural treatments on understory 

plants could be exemplified by a network of sites 

demonstrating restoration protocols for existing longleaf 

pine plantations. This would enable researchers to display 

various methods for establishing ground layer vegetation 

in stands of varying age with different establishment 

and management history, management objectives, and 

environmental conditions. Evaluations of herbicide effects 

on desirable nontarget herbaceous species of the longleaf 

pine ground layer community could be included in these 

demonstration plots.
41

Conclusions

Longleaf pine was once one of the most ecologically 

important tree species, if not the most ecologically 

important tree species, in the Southern United States. That, 

of course, is not the case today. Longleaf pine, and its 

associated longleaf pine forest ecosystems, are now scarce 

across the southern forest landscape. Today, only 4.3 million 

acres of longleaf pine dominated forests remain in a region 

where these forests once covered nearly 92 million acres. 

While longleaf pine dominated forests have received 

considerable attention and land managers and conservation 

professionals are working to maintain and improve these 

important systems, longleaf pine forests currently only 

occupy a minor portion of the southern landscape. That 

said, there are positive signs in this report that point 

toward potential improvements. For example, the number 

of longleaf pine saplings has been increasing, the longleaf 

pine/oak acreage represents a considerable opportunity 

for restoration to longleaf pine forests, and in some areas 

of the longleaf pine range young stands are developing 

to aid replacement of those lost. Significant challenges to 

expanding the coverage of longleaf pine dominated forests 

do exist. However, with targeted research and conservation 

efforts, longleaf pine forests can thrive once again across the 

South.

Literature Cited

Anderson, M.K. 1996. Tending the wilderness. Restoration and 

Management Notes. 14: 154–166.

Bartram, W. 1791. Travel through North and South Carolina, Georgia and 

East and West Florida. New York: Dover Publishers. 414 p.

Bechtold, W.A.; Patterson, P.L., eds. 2005. The enhanced forest inventory 

and analysis program—national sampling design and estimation 

procedures. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–80. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 85 p.

Beers, T.W.; Miller, C.I. 1964. Point sampling: research results, theory 

and applications. Res. Bull. 786. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University 

Agricultural Experiment Station. 55 p. 

Boyer, W.D. 1990. Pinus palustris Mill. longleaf pine. In: Burns, R.M.; 

Honkala, B.H., tech. coord. Silvics of North America. Vol. 1, Conifers. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service: 

405–412.

Brockway, D.G.; Lewis, C.E. 1997. Long-term effects of dormant-season 

prescribed fire on plant community diversity, structure and productivity 

in a longleaf pine wiregrass ecosystem. Forest Ecology and Management. 

96(1, 2): 167–183.

Brockway, D.G.; Outcalt, K.W. 2000. Restoring longleaf pine wiregrass 

ecosystems: hexazinone application enhances effects of prescribed fire. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 137(1–3): 121–138.

A longleaf pine stand on a flatwoods site in Florida treated by single-tree selection using the Pro-B Method. (photo by 

Dale Brockway, U.S. Forest Service)
42

Brockway, D.G.; Outcalt, K.W.; Estes, B.L.; Rummer, R.B. 2009. 

Vegetation response to midstorey mulching and prescribed burning 

for wildfire hazard reduction and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) 

ecosystem restoration. Forestry. 82(3): 299–314.

Brockway, D.G.; Outcalt, K.W.; Tomczak, D.J.; Johnson, E.E. 2005. 

Restoration of longleaf pine ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–83. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 34 p. 

Carr, S.C.; Robertson, K.M.; Peet, R.K. 2010. A vegetation classification of 

fire-dependent pinelands of Florida. Castanea. 75(2): 153–189.

Carroll, W.D.; Kapeluck, P.R.; Harper, R.A.; Van Lear, D.H. 2002. 

Historical overview of the southern forest landscape and associated 

resources. In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. The southern forest resource 

assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 583–605.

Croker, T.C. 1987. Longleaf pine: a history of man and a forest. Forestry 

Rep. R8–FR7. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Region. 37 p.

Darden, T.; Case, D.; Hayes, L. [and others]. 2009. Range-wide 

conservation plan for longleaf pine. Regional working group for longleaf 

pine. America’s longleaf, a restoration initiative for the southern longleaf 

pine forest. 42 p. http://www.flyways.us/sites/default/files/uploads/

conservation_plan.pdf. [Date accessed unknown].

Delcourt, P.A. 1980. Goshen Springs: late quaternary vegetation record for 

southern Alabama. Ecology. 61(2): 372–386.

Delcourt, P.A.; Delcourt, H.R. 1987. Long-term forest dynamics of the 

temperate zone. New York: Springer-Verlag. 439 p.

Diop, A.; Palola, E.; Staudt, A.; Stein, B. 2009. Standing tall: how restoring 

longleaf pine can help prepare the Southeast for global warming. Reston, 

VA: National Wildlife Federation. 21 p.

Drew M.B.; Kirkman, L.K.; Gholson, A.K. 1998. The vascular flora of 

Ichauway, Baker County, Georgia: a remnant longleaf pine/wiregrass 

ecosystem. Castanea. 63: 1–24.

Estill, J.C.; Cruzan, M. 2001. Phytogeography of rare plant species endemic 

to the Southeastern United States. Castanea. 66(1–2): 3–23.

Franklin, R.M. 1997. Stewardship of longleaf pine forests: a guide for 

landowners. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 2. Andalusia, AL: Solon 

Dixon Forestry Education Center. 44 p.

Franzreb, K.E.; Oswalt, S.N.; Buehler, D.A. 2011. Population trends for 

eastern scrub-shrub birds related to availability of small-diameter upland 

hardwood forests. In: Greenberg, C.; Collins, B.; Thompson, F., eds. 

Ecology and management of early successional habitats in the central 

hardwood region, USA series: managing forest ecosystems, Vol. 21. 1st 

ed. New York: Springer: 143–166. 

Frayer, W.E.; Furnival, G.M. 2000. History of forest survey sampling 

designs in the United States. In: Hansen, M.; Burk, T., eds. Integrated 

tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st century. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NC–212. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service, 

North Central Forest Experiment Station: 42–49.

Frost, C.C. 1993. Four centuries of changing landscape patterns in the 

longleaf pine ecosystem. In: Hermann, S.M., ed. Proceedings of the 

18th Tall Timbers fire ecology conference: the longleaf pine ecosystem: 

ecology, restoration and management. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers 

Research Station: 17–43.

Frost, C. 2006. History and future of the longleaf pine ecosystem. In: Jose, 

S.; Jokela, E.J.; Miller, D.L., eds. The longleaf ecosystem: ecology, 

silviculture and restoration. New York: Springer Science: 9–48.

Greenberg, C.H.; Simons, R.W. 1999. Age, composition and stand structure 

of old-growth oak sites in the Florida high pine landscape: implications 

for ecosystem management and restoration. Natural Areas Journal. 19(1): 

30–40.

Grosenbaugh, L.R. 1952. Plotless timber estimates—new, fast, easy. Journal 

of Forestry. 50: 32–37.

Harcombe, P.A.; Glitzenstein, J.S.; Knox, R.G. [and others]. 1993. 

Vegetation of the longleaf pine region of the west gulf coast plain. In: 

Hermann, S.M., ed. Proceedings of the 18th Tall Timbers fire ecology 

conference: the longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, restoration and 

management. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 83–104.

Harper, W.M. 1913. A defense of forest fires. Literary Digest. 47: 208.

Hart, J.F. 1979. The role of the plantation in southern agriculture. 

In: Proceedings of the 16th Tall Timbers fire ecology conference. 

Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 1–19.

Hilliard, T. 1998. Longleaf-wiregrass restoration at Fort Stewart, Georgia: 

the military’s role in restoration. In: Kush, J.S., comp. ed. Ecological 

restoration and regional conservation strategies. Longleaf Alliance Rep. 

No. 3. Andalusia, AL: Solon Dixon Forestry Education Center. 32 p.

Hindle, B. 1975. America’s wooden age: aspects of its early technology. 

Tarrytown, NY: Sleepy Hollow Restorations. 218 p. 

Kelly, J.F.; Bechtold, W.A. 1990. The longleaf pine resource. In: Farrar, 

R.M., ed. Management of longleaf pine. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO–75. New 

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

Experiment Station: 11–22.

Komarek, E.V. 1968. Lightning and lightning fires as ecological forces. In: 

Proceedings, 8th Tall Timbers ecology conference. Tallahassee, FL: Tall 

Timbers Research Station: 169–197.

Landers, J.L.; Boyer, W.D. 1999. An old-growth definition for upland 

longleaf and south Florida slash pine forests, woodlands and savannas. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–29. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 15 p.

Landers, J.L.; Byrd, N.A.; Komarek, R. 1990. A holistic approach to 

managing longleaf pine communities. In: Farrar, R.M., ed. Management 

of longleaf pine. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO–75. New Orleans: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 

135–167.

Landers, J.L.; Van Lear, D.H.; Boyer, W.D. 1995. The longleaf pine forests 

of the Southeast: requiem or renaissance? Journal of Forestry. 93(11): 

39–44.
43

LeBlond, R.J. 2001. Endemic plants of the Cape Fear Arch region. 

Castanea. 66(1–2): 83–97.

Little, E.L., Jr. 1971. Atlas of United States trees. Volume 1. Conifers 

and important hardwoods. Misc. Publ. 1146. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 9 p. 200 maps.

McMahon, C.K.; Tomczak, D.J.; Jeffers, R.M. 1998. Longleaf pine 

ecosystem restoration: the role of the USDA Forest Service. In: Kush, 

J.S., comp. ed. Ecological restoration and regional conservation 

strategies. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 3. Andalusia, AL: Solon Dixon 

Forestry Education Center: 20–31.

Mohr, C.T. 1897. The timber pines of the southern United States. Bull. 

No. 13. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Division of 

Forestry. 176 p.

Noss, R.F.; LaRoe, E.T.; Scott, J.M. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of 

the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. 

Biological Rep. 28. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, 

National Biological Service. 59 p.

Outcalt, K.W. 1997. Status of the longleaf pine forests of the West Gulf 

Coastal Plain. Texas Journal of Science. 49(3) Supplement: 5–12.

Outcalt, K.W. 1998. Needs and opportunities for longleaf pine ecosystem 

restoration in Florida. In: Kush, J.S., comp. ed. Ecological restoration 

and regional conservation strategies. Longleaf Alliance Rep. No. 3. 

Andalusia, AL: Solon Dixon Forestry Education Center: 38–43.

Outcalt, K.W. 2000. Occurrence of fire in longleaf pine stands in 

the southeastern United States. In: Moser, W.K.; Moser, C.F., eds. 

Proceedings of the 21st Tall Timbers fire ecology conference: fire and 

forest ecology: innovative silviculture and vegetation management. 

Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 178–182.

Outcalt, K.W.; Brockway, D.G. 2010. Structure and composition changes 

following restoration treatments of longleaf pine forests on the Gulf 

Coastal Plain of Alabama. Forest Ecology and Management. 259: 

1615–1623.

Outcalt, K.W.; Sheffield, R.M. 1996. The longleaf pine forest: trends and 

current conditions. Resour. Bull. SRS–9. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 23 p.

Palik, B.J.; Pederson, N. 1996. Overstory mortality and canopy disturbances 

in longleaf pine ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 26: 

2035–2047.

Peet, R.K. 2006. Ecological classification of the longleaf pine woodlands. 

In: Jose, S.; Jokela, E.J.; Miller, D.L., eds. The longleaf pine ecosystem: 

ecology, silviculture, and restoration. New York: Springer: 51–94.

Peet, R.K.; Allard, D.J. 1993. Longleaf pine vegetation of the southern 

Atlantic and eastern Gulf Coast regions: a preliminary classification. In: 

Hermann, S.M., ed. Proceedings of the 18th Tall Timbers fire ecology 

conference: the longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, restoration and 

management. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 45–81.

Peet, R.K.; Carr, S.; Gramling, J. 2006. Fire-adapted pineland vegetation 

of northern and central Florida: a framework for inventory, management, 

and restoration. Final Report. Project NG 98–016. Tallahassee, FL: 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. [Number of pages unknown].

Provencher, L.; Litt, A.R.; Galley, K.E.M. [and others]. 2001. Restoration 

of fire suppressed longleaf pine sandhills at Eglin Air Force Base, 

Niceville, Florida. Gainesville, FL: The Nature Conservancy, Science 

Division. 294 p.

Pyne, S.J. 1997. Fire in America: a cultural history of wildland and rural 

fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 654 p.

Reams, G.A.; Smith, W.D.; Hansen, M.H. [and others]. 2005. The forest 

inventory and analysis sampling frame. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–80. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station: 21–36.

Rebertus, A.J.; Williamson, G.B.; Platt, W.J. 1993. The impact of temporal 

variation in fire regime on savanna oaks and pines. In: Hermann, S.M., 

ed. Proceedings of the 18th Tall Timbers fire ecology conference: 

the longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, restoration and management. 

Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 215–225.

Robbins, L.E.; Myers, R.L. 1992. Seasonal effects of prescribed burning 

in Florida: a review. Misc. Publ. No. 8. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers 

Research Station. 96 p.

Schmidtling, R.C.; Hipkins, V. 1998. Genetic diversity in longleaf pine 

(Pinus palustris): influence of historical and prehistorical events. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 28: 1135–1145.

Schultz, R.P. 1997. The ecology and culture of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda

L.). Agric. Handb. No. 713. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service. 493 p.

Schwartz, M.W. 1994. Natural distribution and abundance of forest species 

and communities in northern Florida. Ecology. 75(3): 687–705.

Schwarz, G.F. 1907. The longleaf pine virgin forest: a silvical study. New 

York: John Wiley. 135 p.

Smith, W.B.; Vissage, J.S.; Darr, D.R.; Sheffield, R.M. 2001. Forest 

resources of the United States, 1997. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC–219. St. Paul, 

MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station. 190 p.

Sorrie, B.A.; Weakley, A.S. 2006. Conservation of the endangered Pinus 

palustris ecosystem based on coastal plain centres of plant endemism. 

Applied Vegetation Science. 9: 59–66.

Stanturf, J.A.; Wade, D.D.; Waldrop, T.A. [and others]. 2002. Fire in 

southern landscapes. In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. The southern forest 

resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–53. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 

607–630.

Stout, I.J.; Marion, W.R. 1993. Pine flatwoods and xeric pine forests 

of the southern (lower) coastal plain. In: Martin, W.H.; Boyce, S.G.; 

Echternacht, A.C., eds. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: 

lowland terrestrial communities. New York: John Wiley: 373–446.

Stowe, J.P.; Varner, J.M.; McGuire, J.P. 2002. Montane longleaf pinelands. 

Tipularia. 17: 9–14. 

Trani, M.K.; Brooks, R.T.; Schmidt, T.L. [and others]. 2001. Patterns and 

trends of early successional forests in the Eastern United States. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin. 29(2): 413–424.
44

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service; U.S. Department 

of Defense; U.S. Department of Interior. 2010. Memorandum of 

understanding: establish a framework to provide federal leadership to 

achieve the goals of the America’s longleaf initiative as described in the 

conservation plan for longleaf pine. Washington, DC. 6 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2008. Forest inventory and 

analysis national core field guide: field data collection procedures for 

phase 2 plots. Version 4.0. Volume 1. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. 203 

p. www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/fieldguides-methods-proc. [Date accessed 

unknown].

Van Deusen, P.C.; Dell, T.R.; Thomas, C.E. 1986. Volume growth 

estimation from permanent horizontal points. Forest Science. 32: 415–

422.

Wahlenberg, W.G. 1946. Longleaf pine: its use, ecology, regeneration, 

protection, growth, and management. Washington, DC: C.L. Pack 

Forestry Foundation; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 

429 p.

Walker, J.L. 1999. Longleaf pine forests and woodlands: old growth under 

fire! In: Miller, G.L., ed. The value of old growth forest ecosystems 

of the Eastern United States: conference proceedings. Asheville, NC: 

University of North Carolina: 33–40

Walker, J.; Hernández, G. 2010. Using endemicity, floristics and ecoregions 

to establish seed zones for longleaf understory restoration. [Poster]. In: 

Kush, J.S., comp. Longleaf through time: yesterday, today, tomorrow. 

Proceedings of the eighth longleaf alliance regional conference. Longleaf 

Alliance Rep. No. 16. http://www.lpsdl.auburn.edu/pdfs/8thProceedings.

pdf. [Date accessed unknown].

Walker, J.; Peet, R.K. 1983. Composition and species diversity of pinewiregrass savannas of the Green Swamp, North Carolina. Vegetatio. 55: 

163–179.

Watts, W.A. 1970. The full-glacial vegetation of northwestern Georgia. 

Ecology. 51(1): 17–33.

Watts, W.A. 1971. Postglacial and interglacial vegetation history of 

southern Georgia and central Florida. Ecology. 52(4): 676–690.

Watts, W.A.; Hansen, B.C.S. 1988. Environments of Florida in the late 

Wisconsin and Holocene. In: Purdy, B.A., ed. Wet site archeology. 

Caldwell, NJ: Telford Press: 307–323.

Watts, W.A.; Hansen, B.C.S.; Grimm, E.C. 1992. Camel Lake: a 40,000-yr 

record of vegetational and forest history from north Florida. Ecology. 

73(3): 1056–1066.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002. Summary report. In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., 

eds. The southern forest resources assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–53. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 114 p.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G.; Walters, N. 2009. The southern forest futures 

project: using public input to define the issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–

115. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 17 p.

Williams, J.L. 1837. The territory of Florida. 1962 ed. Gainesville, FL: 

University of Florida Press. 304 p.

Williams, M. 1989. Americans and their forests: a historical geography. 

New York: Cambridge University Press. 541 p.

Woudenberg, S.W.; Conkling, B.L.; O’Connell, B.M. [and others]. 2010. 

The forest inventory and analysis database: database description and 

users manual version 4.0 for phase 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS–GTR–245. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 336 p.
Appendix

47

Procedures

A State-by-State inventory of the Nation’s forest land began 

in the mid-1930s. These early surveys were primarily 

designed and conducted to provide estimates of forest area; 

wood volume; and growth, removals, and mortality. 

Throughout the years, national concerns over perceived 

and real trends in forest resource conditions, and numerous 

technical innovations have led to an array of improvements 

(Reams and others 2005). The primary purpose for 

conducting forest inventories has remained largely 

unchanged, but the methods have undergone substantial 

change.

Prior to 1995, the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) 

Program of the Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, conducted surveys using a prism sampling 

technique for large trees, and fixed-radius subplots for 

smaller trees. The basic sample design was implemented 

nationally, but regional differences in methods and 

techniques existed. In 1995, the FIA program began 

implementing a standardized inventory design to be used 

nationally.

The longleaf pine resource estimates provided in this report 

include estimates from both periodic and annual inventories 

conducted between 1970 and 2010 (table 1).

The following is a general description of the current sample 

design and the procedures used to collect forest resource 

data and derive resource estimates for each State in the 

southern FIA region.

A brief discussion of past sample designs and procedures 

are included to alert users to substantive changes. Detailed 

information describing past inventory procedures for a 

particular State and survey year can be found in analytical 

reports published for each Southern State (www.srs.fs.usda.

gov/pubs).

Sample Design

Current annual fixed-area inventory system—Beginning in 1995, the FIA program began implementing a 

standardized inventory design to be used nationally. The 

current FIA inventory is a three-phase survey conducted on 

an annual basis. Phase 1 (P1) procedures produce estimates 

of forest and nonforest area based on national land cover 

data.

Phase 2 (P2) procedures involve annual field visits to a 

portion of the fixed-radius ground sample locations (plots). 

At each location sampling forest land, field crews collect 

tree and site data used to derive estimates of forest area, 

wood volume, tree growth, removals, mortality, and other 

attributes.

A restored longleaf pine site in southern Alabama following thinning and fire. (photo by Dale Brockway, U.S. 

Forest Service)
48

All sample locations visited in a particular year are 

collectively referred to as a panel. Depending upon the 

State, a complete measurement cycle is composed of 5, 7, or 

10 panels of data.

Phase 3 (P3) procedures involve sampling on a subset 

(1/16th) of the P2 sample locations. P3 measurements are 

combined with P2 measurements to assess the overall health 

of forested ecosystems within each State.

Previous periodic, variable-radius, and fixed-radius 

inventory systems—Previously, the FIA program 

conducted surveys one State at a time. Each statewide 

inventory required 1 to 3 years to complete. These 

“periodic” inventories were designed to provide updated 

forest resource estimates for all States every 7 to 10 years.

Data collection was based on a 10-point prism sampling 

(variable-radius) technique (Grosenbaugh 1952) for large 

trees, and fixed-radius (6.8 feet) subplots for smaller trees.

The basic configuration of the cluster of points varied 

among States and, in some cases, points were relocated to 

ensure that all points sampled the same forest condition. The 

following section offers a more detailed discussion of the 

changes in plot design and layout of the plot cluster.

Changes in Plot Design

Current plot design—The current annual survey design 

(fig. A.1) employs a cluster of four 24-foot (1/24 of an acre) 

fixed-radius subplots with centers spaced 120 feet apart 

(Bechtold and Patterson 2005). The cumulative sample 

area of these four subplots is one-sixth of an acre. Trees 

≥5 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) are measured on 

each subplot. Trees ≥1.0 to 4.9 inches d.b.h. and seedlings 

(<1.0-inch d.b.h.) are measured on a microplot (1/300 of an 

acre; 6.8-foot radius), offset 12 feet at 90 degrees from the 

subplot centers.

Unique land use and forest conditions encountered on the 

cluster of four subplots are delineated or “mapped” in order 

to isolate landscape features into homogeneous units. Forest 

and nonforest boundaries on the plot are mapped first. 

Figure A.1—Current FIA plot design.

1

2

3 4

Four, 1

⁄

24-acre subplots are 

established relative to the center

of subplot one. The 24-foot radius

plots are located 120 feet from 

the center of subplot one at 360o

, 

120o

, and 240o

. Each subplot 

contains a microplot with a 

6.8-foot radius, 12 feet, at 90o

from each subplot center.

Then forested portions of the plot are mapped if differences 

in forest type, stand size, ownership, stand density, 

regeneration status, and reserved status can be discerned.

Previous plot design—Prior to 1995, FIA surveys used a 

prism sampling technique for large trees and fixed-radius 

subplots for smaller trees. At each forested location, survey 

crews installed a cluster of 10 satellite points (subplots) 

spaced 66 feet apart, distributed over an area about one acre.

At each subplot sampling forest, sample trees ≥5.0 inches 

d.b.h. were selected using a 37.5 basal-area factor (BAF) 

prism. Trees 1.0 to 4.9 inches d.b.h. and seedlings (<1.0-inch 

d.b.h.) were tallied (depending on the State being surveyed) 

on a 7.1-foot radius (1/275-acre) or 6.8-foot radius (1/300 

acre) fixed plot that was located at the center of the three or 

more satellite points.

The land use sampled at plot center (subplot 1) was used to 

classify the entire subplot cluster. There was no mapping 

of forest-nonforest boundaries or delineation of forest 

conditions. With few exceptions, when subplot 1 sampled 

forest, all remaining subplots were moved or “rotated” 

into the same forest condition. This was done according 

to a predefined protocol designed to maintain the 66-foot 

minimum distance between sample points.
49

Figure A.2—Example of 3-phase hexagonal grid for FIA sampling.

Phase 3 hex

Phase 2 hex

Phase 1 hex

Determining Forest Resource

Statistics—Changes in sample design and plot 

configuration changed the derivation of basic resource 

statistics, e.g., forest area, stocking, growth, removals, and 

mortality.

The following section briefly describes the methods and 

processes used and explains how they have changed with the 

transition from the previous to the current inventory system.

Estimating Forest Area

Annual inventory system—FIA bases the three phases 

of the current sampling method on a hexagonal grid (hex) 

design (fig. A.2) with each successive phase sampled with 

less intensity (Bechtold and Patterson 2005). There are 

16 P2 hexes for every P3 hex, and 27 P1 hexes for every 

P2 hex. P1 hexes represent about 222 acres, while P2 

and P3 hexes represent roughly 6,000 and 96,000 acres, 

respectively.

Phase 1 (P1) involves assigning a single plot to the P1 

hexes on digital imagery—currently FIA uses the national 

land cover database (NLCD). Each hex point, or “dot,” is 

classified as either forest or nonforest, and a percentage 

for each class is derived for the entire State. The P1 point 

classifications are then checked at permanent ground sample 

locations that makeup the P2 sample.

Two correction factors are created by comparing the forest 

and nonforest classifications on the digital imagery to the 

classifications of the same points made at ground sample 

locations. These correction factors are used to adjust the 

percent forest derived from the original (P1) estimate. The 

correction factors also adjust for possible misclassifications 

in the NLCD, and for change on the ground that occurred 

since the date of the digital imagery used for land cover 

classification.
50

Periodic inventory system—Ground sample locations 

were placed at the intersection of lines on a 3-mile grid lain 

over each State. Depending upon the survey unit sampling 

intensity adopted by each State, each plot represented from 

2,500 acres to nearly 5,800 acres of forest land.

Area estimation was based on photointerpreting the ground 

use of each sample location and 25 photo sample points 

around each plot. The ratio of forest-to-nonforest dots 

provided the percent forest for each county. Field crew 

personnel determined the actual ground use of the plot at 

the time it was sampled. Percent forest for each county was 

calculated using the same methods and procedures used for 

the current survey.

Sampling intensity for some Southern States was increased 

by adding a 6-mile grid overlain on the 3-mile grid. The 

plot centers and 25 associated sample points of these plots 

were photointerpreted and verified by the field crews. No 

additional information was gathered from these locations. 

These plots were referred to as “supplemental” plots and 

their sole purpose was to strengthen the area estimation 

sample.

Estimating stocking, forest type, and stand-product 

class—FIA now uses new procedures for associating 

forest-type and stand-product (formerly referred to as 

stand-size) classes with each condition observed on a plot. 

The procedures, definitions, and associated algorithms are 

designed by FIA nationally to provide consistency among 

States.

The list of recognized forest types, groupings of these forest 

types for reporting purposes, models used to assign stocking 

values to individual trees, and names given to the forest 

types have changed over time.

Stocking (the density value assigned to a sampled live tree 

expressed as a percentage of the total tree density required 

to fully utilize the growth potential of the land) is the basis 

for calculating stand size and forest type. Procedures used 

to assign stocking to individual trees differ with changes 

in survey designs. Following is a brief summary of recent 

past and current methods used to calculate stocking and to 

estimate forest-type and stand-product (stand-size) classes.

Current fixed-radius tree tally—Currently, stand-product 

and forest-type classifications are based on a computation of 

stocking from tallied trees by forest condition. Observations 

recorded include a seedling (<1.0-inch d.b.h.) count, a tally 

of all-live trees 1.0 to 4.9 inches d.b.h. on a 6.8-foot radius 

microplot, and a tally of all-live trees ≥5.0 inches d.b.h. for 

each 24-foot radius plot.

Previous variable and fixed-radius tree tally—FIA surveys 

conducted from the 1970s to the mid-1990s based foresttype and stand-product (stand-size) classifications on a 

computation of stocking for tallied trees from a maximum 

of 10 sample points per forest land location. Trees 1.0 to 

4.9 inches d.b.h. were tallied on a 6.8-foot radius microplot. 

Trees ≥5.0 inches d.b.h. were selected with a 37.5-BAF 

prism sample. Seedlings (<1.0-inch d.b.h.) were tallied only 

if no larger trees were present.

Forest type—Forest type is based upon and named for the 

tree species that forms the plurality of live-tree stocking if at 

least 10 percent is stocked with live trees.

Hardwoods and softwoods are first aggregated to determine 

the predominant group, and forest type is selected from 

the predominant group. Eastern softwood groups have 

≥50-percent softwood stocking and contain the named 

species that constitute a plurality of the stocking; the 

oak-pine group and hardwood groups have <50-percent 

softwood stocking. The nonstocked group includes stands 

<10-percent stocked with live trees.

The current fixed-radius inventory design identifies a forest 

type for each forest condition. Under the previous variableradius sample design, forest type was assigned to the entire 

plot.

Stand-product (size) class—Stand-product class is a 

computed classification of forest land based on the diameter 

class distribution of live trees in the stand. The current 

fixed-radius inventory design assigns a stand-product class 

for each forested condition. The previous variable-radius 

sample design assigned a single stand-product class for the 

entire plot.
51

Estimating volume—Currently, FIA computes tree volume 

using a simple linear regression model (D2H) that predicts 

gross cubic-foot volume inside bark from a 1-foot stump to 

a 4-inch upper diameter outside bark for each sample tree 

based on d.b.h. (D) and total height (H). Separate equation 

coefficients for southern tree species or species groupings, 

developed from standing and felled-tree volume studies 

conducted across several Southern States, are used. Volume 

in forks or limbs outside of the main bole is excluded.

FIA derives net cubic-foot volume by subtracting a 

field crew estimate of rotten or missing wood for each 

sample tree. Volume of the saw-log portion (expressed 

in International 1⁄4-inch board feet and in cubic feet) of 

sample trees is computed using board foot/cubic foot ratio 

equations.

Previous inventory methods used to estimate tree volumes 

differed from those described above. FIA derived tree 

volume from several measurements on each tree tallied on 

forested sample plots. These measurements included d.b.h., 

bark thickness, total height, bole length, log length, and 

(depending upon the State being inventoried) up to four 

upper-stem diameters that defined pole top, pole mid, saw 

top, and saw mid.

Gross tree volumes (cubic- and board-foot values) were 

determined by applying the formula for a conic frustum to 

sections of the bole. The volumes of the sections were then 

added together to produce a total stem volume.

 Obtaining net cubic-foot volume involved subtracting a 

field crew estimate of rotten or missing wood for each 

sample tree. Merchantable volume was calculated from 

measurements of the bole from a 1-foot stump to an 

upper-stem stopping point determined by merchantability 

standards. The upper-stem diameter at this point could be 

as low as 4 inches, but often was larger depending upon 

the perceived condition and product merchantability of the 

upper tree bole.

Because of these differences in volume computation and 

merchantability standards, previously reported volumes 

are not directly comparable to those reported in the 

current inventory. Previous tree volumes were recomputed 

using current equations for comparison. On average, the 

recomputed values were higher than the original volumes 

for both softwood and hardwood species. The revisions are 

greater for hardwood species than softwoods and greater for 

large diameter trees.

Estimating growth, removals, and mortality—One of 

the primary reasons for conducting forest inventories is 

to determine how much wood volume currently resides in 

southern forest stands, and to identify how and why it is 

changing. Estimates of growth, removals, and mortality 

provide some of the information needed to understand 

changes in volume.

Volume change components are derived from data collected 

during the remeasurement of sample plots established in 

the previous inventory. For previous inventories (plot design 

based on a cluster of 10 prism points established at intervals 

of 66 feet), trees ≥5.0 inches d.b.h. at each prism point were 

selected with a 37.5-BAF prism. Trees <5.0 inches d.b.h. but 

≥1.0-inch d.b.h. were tallied on three or more circular fixed 

plots, each of which was centered at one of the prism points. 

The center of prism point one and the center of subplot one 

in the new plot design are the same point.

Although the current and earlier plot designs may be judged 

statistically valid, the naturally occurring noise in the data 

hinders confident and rigorous trend assessments over time. 

When a design changes or plots are not remeasured, the true 

impact of such a change on trend analysis is unknown.

Growth estimation—Depending upon the State being 

inventoried, growth components were previously estimated 

using a Beers and Miller (1964) approach, or Beers and 

Miller as modified by Van Deusen and others (1986).

The two procedures differ in whether “ongrowth” trees on 

the prism plots are part of the growth components, and in 

how trees per acre are calculated. Both methods are known 

to be unbiased, but the inclusion of “ongrowth” trees can 

affect how growth is distributed among product classes that 

are defined in terms of tree size.

For the current inventories, the Beers and Miller method is 

used to estimate growth for all Southern States.

Oswalt, Christopher M.; Cooper, Jason A.; Brockway, Dale G. [and others]. 2012. History and current 

condition of longleaf pine in the Southern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–166. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 51 p.

Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) was once one of the most ecologically important tree species in 

the Southern United States. Longleaf pine and its accompanying forest ecosystems covered vast swaths 

of the Southern United States, spanning an estimated 92 million acres. Although once one of the most 

extensive forest ecosystems in North America, only a fraction of these longleaf pine forests remain today. 

Here we present a brief description of longleaf pine ecosystems and their constituent parts, a history of 

longleaf pine in the South, and the recent historical and current status of longleaf pine forests as sampled 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis program. We 

present estimated changes to the longleaf pine forests, implications for conservation of the species, and 

suggestions for future research. While longleaf pine dominated forests have received considerable attention 

and land managers and conservation professionals are working to maintain and improve these important 

systems, longleaf pine forests currently only occupy a minor portion of the southern landscape. There are 

positive signs in this report, however, that point toward potential improvements. For example, the number 

of longleaf pine saplings has been increasing, the longleaf pine/oak acreage represents a considerable 

opportunity for restoration to longleaf pine forests, and in some areas of the longleaf pine range young 

stands are developing to aid replacement of those lost. Significant challenges to expanding the coverage 

of longleaf pine dominated forests do exist. However, with targeted research and conservation efforts, 

longleaf pine forests can thrive once again across the South.

Keywords: FIA, forest inventory, longleaf pine, pine conservation, Pinus palustris, southern pines.

How do you rate this publication?

Scan this code to submit your feedback or 

go to www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubeval 

You may request additional copies of this publication by email at pubrequest@fs.fed.us
The Forest Service, United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest 

resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, 

wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation 

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the 

National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed 

by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing 

Nation.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, 

religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived 

from any public assistance program. (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 to USDA, Director, 

Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 

(TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.