Comparison of Loblolly, Shortleaf, and Pitch X Loblolly Pine Plantations Growing in Oklahoma

Dipesh, K.C.; Will, Rodney E.; Lynch, Thomas B.; Heinemann, Robert; Holeman, Randal

doi:10.5849/forsci.14-004

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, shortleaf pine survival was similar to survival of seedlings planted into mine spoil seeded with groundcover species (56%) [47], and greater than survival of shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) reported in the same study (24%) [47]. In contrast to relatively low shortleaf pine survival, loblolly pine survival (85%) was greater than first-year loblolly pine survival reported in Oklahoma by Dipesh et al (2015) (76%) [48] and fourth-year survival of another loblolly pine planting near Robinson Forest (77%) [13]. While first-year survival of shortleaf pine was relatively low, this planting could still be successful if ongoing mortality rates are low; subsequent surveys will be necessary to evaluate long-term suitability of shortleaf pine on these sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 44%

Establishing Pine Monocultures and Mixed Pine-Hardwood Stands on Reclaimed Surface Mined Land in Eastern Kentucky: Implications for Forest Resilience in a Changing Climate

Bell

Sena

Barton

et al. 2017

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surface mining and mine reclamation practices have caused significant forest loss and forest fragmentation in Appalachia. Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) is threatened by a variety of stresses, including diseases, pests, poor management, altered fire regimes, and climate change, and the species is the subject of a widescale restoration effort. Surface mines may present opportunity for shortleaf pine restoration; however, the survival and growth of shortleaf pine on these harsh sites has not been critically evaluated. This paper presents first-year survival and growth of native shortleaf pine planted on a reclaimed surface mine, compared to non-native loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), which has been highly successful in previous mined land reclamation plantings. Pine monoculture plots are also compared to pine-hardwood polyculture plots to evaluate effects of planting mix on tree growth and survival, as well as soil health. Initial survival of shortleaf pine is low (42%), but height growth is similar to that of loblolly pine. No differences in survival or growth were observed between monoculture and polyculture treatments. Additional surveys in coming years will address longer-term growth and survival patterns of these species, as well as changes to relevant soil health endpoints, such as soil carbon.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 44%

Establishing Pine Monocultures and Mixed Pine-Hardwood Stands on Reclaimed Surface Mined Land in Eastern Kentucky: Implications for Forest Resilience in a Changing Climate

Bell

Sena

Barton

et al. 2017

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two other variables capturing ownership motivations were maintaining forestland as an investment of assets (INV) and expecting highest financial return from forestland (FIN). As landowners having such management motivations would prefer to plant loblolly pine Dipesh et al [34] optimize economic benefits from their forestland, we expected positive relationship of these attributes with both dependent variables. Among sociodemographic variables, INCOME, measured on categorical scale, was expressed as a "1" for landowners having annual family income of 50,000 and above and "0" for all others.…”

Section: Model and Variable Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Issues concerning Landowner Management Plan Adoption Decisions: A Recursive Bivariate Probit Approach

Joshi¹,

Grebner

Munn

et al. 2015

International Journal of Forestry Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the likely benefits of having a written forest management plan, a small number of landowners in the United States have the one. A recursive bivariate probit model was used to identify the possible relationship between landowners' decision to obtain a management plan and their interest in future timber harvesting. Our study results based on recursive bivariate model suggest that landowners having larger land ownerships, longer forest ownership tenure, and higher education were more likely to have a forest management plan and future timber harvesting interest. While the landowners having interest for wildlife management were also interested to have a written management plan, they did not prefer to harvest in future. Study results indicate that written management plan means more than a timber harvesting strategy to landowners in general. Many elderly landowners with a low level of income and less formal education and those having small or medium sized tracts of forestland are less likely to own a written management plan. Therefore, this group requires special attention in various government sponsored forest management related extension activities. Future research on understanding landowner perception behind written management plan is recommended.

show abstract

“…Primarily because of a favorable growth rate and cold tolerance Trew 1979, Burner 2013), this hybrid has been planted in West Virginia, Ohio, Illinois, and several other northern states. However, in southeastern Oklahoma, the growth rate of the hybrid was less than that for loblolly pine (Dipesh et al 2015). Recently, seedling production of the hybrid was about five times greater than for pitch pine (Table 3).…”

Section: Pitch Pinementioning

confidence: 99%

A Decline in Timberland Continues for Several Southern Yellow Pines

South

Harper

2016

Journal of Forestry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Comparison of Loblolly, Shortleaf, and Pitch X Loblolly Pine Plantations Growing in Oklahoma

Cited by 18 publications

References 35 publications

Establishing Pine Monocultures and Mixed Pine-Hardwood Stands on Reclaimed Surface Mined Land in Eastern Kentucky: Implications for Forest Resilience in a Changing Climate

Establishing Pine Monocultures and Mixed Pine-Hardwood Stands on Reclaimed Surface Mined Land in Eastern Kentucky: Implications for Forest Resilience in a Changing Climate

Issues concerning Landowner Management Plan Adoption Decisions: A Recursive Bivariate Probit Approach

A Decline in Timberland Continues for Several Southern Yellow Pines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About