A Decline in Timberland Continues for Several Southern Yellow Pines

Abstract

During the last half of the 20th century, southern yellow pine (Pinus subsection Australes) timberland in North America declined by 16 million acres (3.6 million acres per decade). Declines in acreage in the South have continued in the 21st century for five pine forest types. In contrast, increases in timberland (due to tree planting) have occurred for both loblolly pine and longleaf pine. As a result of the practice of artificial regeneration, timberland for southern yellow pines (in the South) increased by more than 7 million acres since 1992. In contrast, relying on natural regeneration has contributed to a decline in natural pine stands for shortleaf pine, Virginia pine, slash pine, pond pine, and pitch pine. The narrative of the decline for these specific forest types is often overlooked when data for loblolly pine are pooled together with those for seven other forest types, and the total is reported as one forest type group. This article provides timberland changes that occurred in the South (1992-2012) for each of the 10 southern yellow pine forest types.Keywords: fire, forest type, natural regeneration, plantations T rees harvested from southern yellow pine (SYP) forests are the source of a multibillion-dollar industry. SYP forest types currently make up about 38% of the growing stock volume in the South (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia). During the second half of the 20th century, the area of natural pine forests in the South declined by 39 million acres or about 53% (Woodbury et al. 2006). However, thanks to foresters, nursery managers, tree planters and landowners, SYP timberland only declined by 20% Buckner 2003, Oswalt et al. 2014). Although the amount of natural pine stands continues to decline, recent tree-planting efforts have reversed the trend for SYP timberland. As a result, the amount of SYP timberland increased about 11% from 1992 to 2012.In the South, more than 98% of southern pine forests are classified by the USDA Forest Service (USDA) Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program (Shaw et al. 2005) as timberland (i.e., land capable of growing at least 20 cu ft of wood per acre per year and not reserved for other uses [Woudenberg et al. 2010]). Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) is the most commonly planted species in the United States, and tree planting is the reason that this forest type increased since 1952. Government cost-share programs influence the demand for seedlings (Kline et al. 2002), and over the past two decades tree-planting incentives have increased the acreage of longleaf pine (Pinus palustrius Mill.). However, declines in timberland have continued for shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana Mill.), slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm., varieties elliottii and densa), pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill.), and pond pine (Pinus serotina Michx.). Numerical declines were also recorded for sand pine (Pinus clausa [Chapm. ex Engelm.] Vasey ex Sar...

Biomass Estimates of Small Diameter Planted and Natural-Origin Loblolly Pines Show Major Departures from the National Biomass Estimator Equations

“…The silviculturally driven loss of natural-origin pine stands is of increasing concern to many agencies and conservation organizations (e.g., South and Harper 2016), prompting some to engage in campaigns to protect remaining areas of this kind of forest. For example, most of the major forest sustainability certification bodies now prohibit or greatly limit a participating landowner's ability to convert naturally regenerated forests into pine plantations (Forest Stewardship Council 2010, Sustainable Forestry Initiative 2015.…”

Thresholds in woody and herbaceous component co‐existence inform the restoration of a fire‐dependent community

“…Fire suppression and exclusion threatens biodiversity globally (O'Connor, Puttick, & Hoffman, ; Kelly & Brotons, ) and has virtually eliminated shortleaf‐bluestem communities east of the Mississippi River in the USA (Anderson et al, ). Development and land conversion have contributed, but succession in the absence of disturbance drives current declines (South & Harper, ). Dense woody canopies and subcanopies suppress herbaceous plants (Feltrin et al, ), including shade‐intolerant C 4 grasses (Peterson, Reich, & Wrage, ).…”

“…Development and land conversion have contributed, but succession in the absence of disturbance drives current declines (South & Harper, 2016). Dense woody canopies and subcanopies suppress herbaceous plants (Feltrin et al, 2016), including shade-intolerant C 4 grasses (Peterson, Reich, & Wrage, 2007).…”

“…Comparatively, little research has occurred in the eastern USA (Jenkins, Klein, & McDaniel, 2011;Elliott, Vose, Knoepp, & Clinton, 2012) where wetter climates, dense hardwood regeneration, longer histories of fire suppression, and relative rarity of mature shortleaf pine complicate restoration. Before accepting the high costs of artificial regeneration (i.e., planting, Elliott et al, 2012;South & Harper, 2016), two understudied options should be evaluated: canopy reductions exceeding 40% and repeated, growing-season fire. Heavy canopy disturbance increases the light available to shade-intolerant community components (Peterson et al, 2007;Kabrick, Knapp, Dey, & Larsen, 2015), and growing-season fire could accelerate restoration relative to the traditional use of dormant-season fire through greater hardwood control (Knapp, Estes, & Skinner, 2009).…”

Reversing Mesophication Effects on Understory Woody Vegetation in Mid-Southern Oak Forests

“…Forest understories are now dominated by shaded, moist, and cool conditions, and species with physical and chemical leaf-litter properties not conducive to fire (Kreye et al 2013, Alexander and Arthur 2014. Economically and ecologically important species like oaks (McShea et al 2007) and shortleaf pine (Masters 2007) routinely fail to regenerate under such conditions (Schuler and Gillespie 2000, Johnson et al 2009, South and Harper 2016. Reduction in future forest biodiversity could increase susceptibility to invasive species and disease, and alter the productivity, sustainability, and function of regional ecosystems (Knops et al 1999).…”