Comparing 16-year-old shortleaf and loblolly pine growth and yield on a north Mississippi afforested site
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.14.02.97Keywords:
Pinus echinata, Pinus taeda, wildlife habitatAbstract
This analysis compares the growth and yield of 16-year-old shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) planted on retired fields near Holly Springs in north Mississippi. The 1-0 bareroot shortleaf seedlings were planted in early March of 2005, while bareroot 1-0 loblolly pine 2nd-generation seedlings were planted during the third week of March in 2005. For both species, the site was subsoiled. Within the plantations of each species, four plots were established for each species and total height and diameter at breast height (dbh) were measured. Volumes were then estimated using appropriate combined-variable volume equations. Loblolly pine had substantially greater growth rates relative to shortleaf pine, producing on average across the four plots (n = 4) 48.4 m-2 of basal area ha-1. This basal area was 42.6% greater than the 34.0 m-2 of basal area ha-1 observed within the shortleaf pine. For merchantable volume, defined as all trees with a dbh of 10.16 cm and greater up to a diameter-outside bark (dob) of 5.08 cm, the loblolly pine m-3 volume ha-1 of 424 was 2.36 times greater than that of shortleaf pine. Merchantable volumes were converted to tons and a revenue of $3.61 was assumed per ton of pulpwood. A theoretical 3rd row thinning with no logger select of the remaining rows was conducted – hence the thinning was assumed to remove 33% of the standing merchantable yield. Loblolly pine had a stumpage value of $97.39 ha-1 which was 136% greater than the shortleaf pine economic value of $41.23 ha-1.
Downloads
References
Arnold LE (1978) Gross Yields of Rough Wood Products From a 25-year-old Loblolly and Shortleaf Pine Spacing Study. Department of Forestry Research Report 78-7. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station. 4 p.
Arnold LE (1981) Gross Yields of Rough Wood Products From a 31-year-old Loblolly and Shortleaf Pine Spacing Study. Department of Forestry Research Report 81-1. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station. 4 p.
Bashore HW, Marler RL (1955) A Comparison of Tree Growth and Development Between a Shortleaf and Loblolly Pine Plantation Growing on Nason Soil in Orange County, Virginia. Occasional Report No. 1. Virginia Division of Forestry, Department of Conservation and Development. 5 p.
Bragg DC, Shelton MG, Zeide B (2003) Impacts and management implications of ice storms on forests in the southern United States. Forest Ecol Manag 186: 99-123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00230-5
Branan JR, Porterfield EJ (1971) A comparison of six species of southern pines planted in the Piedmont of South Carolina. Res. Note SE-171. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 3 p.
Clabo DC, Clatterbuck W (2005, Revised 2015) Establishment and management of shortleaf and other pines. The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service. PB1751. 52 p.
Clark III A, Daniels RF, Borders BE (2006) Effect of rotation age and physiographic region on weight per cubic foot of planted loblolly pine. In: Proceedings of the 13th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. USDS, Forest Service, Southern Research Station Asheville, NC. pp. 344-346
Dipesh KC, Will RE, Lynch TB, Heinemann R, Holeman R (2015) Comparison of loblolly, shortleaf and pitch x loblolly pine plantations growing in Oklahoma. Forest Sci 61:540 -547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.14-004
Fox, TR, Jokela, EJ, Allen, HL (2007) The development of pine plantation silviculture in the southern United States. J Forest 105: 337-347.
Guldin JM (2019) Restoration of native fire-adapted southern pine-dominated forest ecosystems: diversifying the tools in the silvicultural toolbox. Forest Sci 65(4): 508-518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxz005
Halverson HG, Guldin JM (1995) Effects of a severe ice storm on mature loblolly pine stands in north Mississippi. In: Edward MB (Comp.), Proceedings of the Eighth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. General Technical Report SRS-1. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 147-153.
Harrington TB, Harrington CA, DeBell DS (2009) Effects of planting spacing and site quality on 25-year growth and mortality relationships of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsugamenziesii var. menziesii). Forest Ecol Manag 258: 18-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.039
Hooker JM, Oswald BP, Stovall JP, Williams HM, Weng Y (2020) Assessing the establishment, growth, and survival of West Gulf Coast southern pines in east Texas. In: Bragg, DC, Koerth, NE, Holley, AG (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. e–Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–253. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 258-264.
Hooker JM, Oswald BP, Stovall JP, Weng Y, Williams HM, Grogan J (2021) Third year survival, growth, and water relations of West Gulf Coastal Plain pines in East Texas. Forest Sci 67: 347-355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxab005
Huckenpahler BJ (1950) Development of 19-year-old southern pine plantations in Tennessee. J Forest 48: 722-723.
Kushla JD (2009) Afforestation in north Mississippi on retired farmland using Pinus echinata: first-year results. South J Appl For 33(3): 142-144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sjaf/33.3.142
Kushla JD (2010) Evaluating subsoiling and herbaceous weed control on shortleaf pine planted in retired farm land. In: Stanturf John A(ed.) Proceedings of the 14th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–121. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 147-149.
Little EL (1971) Atlas of United States trees. Vol. 1. Conifers and important hardwoods. Miscellaneous Publication 1146. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. 320 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.130546
Lynch TB, Saud P, Dipesh KC, Will RE (2016) Plantation site index comparisons for shortleaf pine and loblolly pine in Oklahoma, USA. Forest Sci 62(5):546-552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.15-140
Marler RL (1963) Tree Planting Survival: A 3 Year Study. Occasional Report No. 19. Virginia Division of Forestry, Department of Conservation and Economic Development. 8 p.
Measells M (2022) Mississippi Timber Price Report, 1st quarter 2022. Mississippi State University Extension. 4 p.
Rink G, Wells OO (1988) Productivity comparison of 37-Year-Old loblolly-shortleaf pine seed sources in southern Illinois. North J Appl For 5: 155-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/njaf/5.2.155
Schnake DK, Roberts SD, Willis JL, Kushla JD, Munn IA (2021) Overstory retention and stock type impact survival and growth of underplanted shortleaf pine beneath a hardwood canopy. Forest Sci 67: 219-230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxaa046
Schubert MR, Rennie JC, Schlarbaum SE (2004) Four pine species grown at four spacings on the Eastern Highland Rim, Tennessee, after 30 years. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–71. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. pp. 433-436.
Smalley GW (1986) Stand dynamics of unthinned and thinned shortleaf pine plantations. In: Murphy Paul A(ed.) Proceedings of symposium on the shortleaf pine ecosystem; 1986 March 31-April 2; Little Rock, AR. Monticello, AR: Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service: 114-134.
Smalley GW, Bower DR (1968a) Volume tables and point-sampling factors for shortleaf pines in plantations on abandoned fields in Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia highlands. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. SO-39, 13 p. South For Exp Stn, New Orleans, La.
Smalley, GW, Bower, DR (1968b) Volume tables and point-sampling factors for loblolly pines in plantations on abandoned fields in Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia highlands. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. SO-32, 13 p. South For ExpStn, New Orleans, La.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2022. Web Soil Survey. Available online at the following link: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed [10/17/2022].
Ting JC, Chang M (1985) Soil-moisture depletion under three southern pine plantations in East Texas. Forest Ecol Manag. 12: 179-193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(85)90090-8
USDA Soil Conservation Service (1972) Soil Survey of Marshall County, Mississippi. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 155 p.
USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, Wed, 27 Jul (2022) 18:34:55 GMT. Forest Inventory EVALIDator web-application Version 1.8.0.01. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. [Available only on internet: http://apps.fs.usda.gov/Evalidator/evalidator.jsp]
Valinger E, Fridman J (1997) Modelling probability of snow and wind damage in Scots pinestands using tree characteristics. Forest Ecol Manag 97: 215-222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00062-5
Wakeley PC (1969) Results of southern pine planting experiments established in the middle twenties. J Forest 67: 237-241.
Watson WJ, Garin GI, Devall WB (1973) Growth of Four Pine Species in Wilcox County, Alabama. Progress Report Series No. 104. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station. 2 p.
Wigley TB (1986) Wildlife and shortleaf pine management. In: Murphy Paul A (ed.) Proceedings of symposium on the shortleaf pine ecosystem; 1986 March 31-April 2; Little Rock, AR. Monticello, AR: Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service: 222-234.
Will R, Stewart J, Lynch T, Turton D, Maggard A, Lilly C, Atkinson K (2013) Strategic assessment for shortleaf pine. Oklahoma State University Extension and Oklahoma Forestry Services. 60 p. https://ag.ok.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/OK-Forests-Shortleaf_Pine_Strategic_Assessment_May_2014.pdf
Williston HL (1958) Shortleaf pine versus loblolly pine in north Mississippi. J Forest 56: 761-768.
Williston HL (1959) Growth of four southern pines in West Tennessee. J Forest 57: 661-662.
Williston HL (1963) Early yield of erosion - control plantations in north Mississippi. USDA Forest Service Res. Note SO-1, 7 pp.
Williston HL (1985) Growth and yield of planted loblolly and shortleaf pines in a north Mississippi creek bottom. South J Appl For 9: 247-249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sjaf/9.4.247
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Curtis VanderSchaaf, John D Kushla
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License CCBY that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
