Issue image

More articles from Volume 7, Issue 2, 2022

Potential of new planting container in Quercus robur seedlings production – first report

Comparing 16-year-old shortleaf and loblolly pine growth and yield on a north Mississippi afforested site

Provenances vs. microhabitat influence on field performance of Quercus robur seedlings

The bigger the tree the better the seed – effect of Sessile oak tree diameter on acorn size, insect predation, and germination

Net benefits of silky oak (Grevillea robusta) for small farmers in Musanze District, Rwanda

Citations

Crossref Logo

2

Crossref Logo

Johnny Boggs, Ge Sun, Jean‐Christophe Domec, Steve McNulty

(2024)

Water use of co‐occurring loblolly (Pinus taeda) and shortleaf (Pinus echinata) in a loblolly pine plantation in the Piedmont

JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 60(4)

10.1111/1752-1688.13218

Crossref Logo

Tej Raj Oli, Pradip Saud, Michael A. Blazier, Marco Yáñez, Matthew Pelkki

(2026)

Long-term stand growth and survival of loblolly pine open-pollinated families and clonal varieties in the West Gulf Coastal Plain

Forest Ecology and Management, 603()

10.1016/j.foreco.2025.123491

Comparing 16-year-old shortleaf and loblolly pine growth and yield on a north Mississippi afforested site

Curtis VanderSchaaf ,
Curtis VanderSchaaf
John D Kushla
John D Kushla

Published: 19.12.2022.

Volume 7, Issue 2 (2022)

pp. 9-18;

https://doi.org/10.21750/refor.14.02.97

Abstract

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.

Keywords

References

Arnold, L. E. (1978). Gross Yields of Rough Wood Products From a 25-year-old Loblolly and Shortleaf Pine Spacing Study (p. 4).
Arnold, L. E. (1981). Gross Yields of Rough Wood Products From a 31-year-old Loblolly and Shortleaf Pine Spacing Study (p. 4).
Bashore, H. W., & Marler, R. L. (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, 5(1).
Bragg, D. C., Shelton, M. G., & Zeide, B. (2003). Impacts and management implications of ice storms on forests in the southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 186(1–3), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00230-5
Branan, P., & E.J. (1971). A comparison of six species of southern pines planted in the Piedmont of South Carolina. In Res. Note SE-171 (p. 3).
Clabo, D. C., & Clatterbuck, W. (2005). Revised 2015) Establishment and management of shortleaf and other pines. The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service, PB1751, 52.
Dipesh, K. C., Will, R. E., Lynch, T. B., Heinemann, R., & Holeman, R. (2015). Comparison of Loblolly, Shortleaf, and Pitch X Loblolly Pine Plantations Growing in Oklahoma. Forest Science, 61(3), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.14-004
Fox, T. R., Jokela, E. J., & Allen, H. L. (2007). The Development of Pine Plantation Silviculture in the Southern United States. Journal of Forestry, 105(7), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/105.7.337
Guldin, J. M. (n.d.). Restoration of Native Fire-Adapted Southern Pine-Dominated Forest Ecosystems: Diversifying the Tools in the Silvicultural Toolbox. Forest Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxz005
Halverson, H. G., & Guldin, J. M. (1995). Effects of a severe ice storm on mature loblolly pine stands in north Mississippi. Edward MB (Comp.), Proceedings of the Eighth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. General Technical Report SRS-1, 147–153.
Harrington, T. B., Harrington, C. A., & DeBell, D. S. (2009). Effects of planting spacing and site quality on 25-year growth and mortality relationships of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii). Forest Ecology and Management, 258(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.039
Hooker, J. M., Oswald, B. P., Stovall, J. P., Weng, Y., Williams, H. M., & Grogan, J. (2021). Third Year Survival, Growth, and Water Relations of West Gulf Coastal Plain Pines in East Texas. Forest Science, 67(3), 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxab005
Hooker, J. M., Oswald, B. P., Stovall, J. P., Williams, H. M., & Weng, Y. (2020). Assessing the establishment, growth, and survival of West Gulf Coast southern pines in east Texas. Proceedings of the 20th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference.
Huckenpahler, B. J. (1950). Development of 19-year-old southern pine plantations in Tennessee. J Forest, 48, 722–723.
Kushla, J. D. (2009). Technical Note: Afforestation in North Mississippi on Retired Farmland Using Pinus echinata: First-Year Results. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 33(3), 142–144. https://doi.org/10.1093/sjaf/33.3.142
Kushla, J. D. (2010). Evaluating subsoiling and herbaceous weed control on shortleaf pine planted in retired farm land. Stanturf John A(Ed.) Proceedings of the 14th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, 147–149.
Little, E. L. (1971). Atlas of United States trees. volume 1, Conifers and important hardwoods. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.130546
Lynch, T. B., Saud, P., Dipesh, K. C., & Will, R. E. (2016). Plantation Site Index Comparisons for Shortleaf Pine and Loblolly Pine in Oklahoma, USA. Forest Science, 62(5), 546–552. https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.15-140
Marler, R. L. (1963). Tree Planting Survival: A 3 Year Study. Division of Forestry, Department of Conservation and Economic Development, 19, 8.
Measells, M. (2022). Mississippi Timber Price Report, 1st quarter 2022. Mississippi State University Extension, 4.
Rink, G., & Wells, O. O. (1988). Productivity Comparison of 37-Year-Old Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine Seed Sources in Southern Illinois. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 5(2), 155–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/njaf/5.2.155
Schnake, D. K., Roberts, S. D., Willis, J. L., Kushla, J. D., & Munn, I. A. (2021). Overstory Retention and Stock Type Impact Survival and Growth of Underplanted Shortleaf Pine Beneath a Hardwood Canopy. Forest Science, 67(2), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxaa046
Schubert, M. R., Rennie, J. C., & Schlarbaum, S. E. (2004). Four pine species grown at four spacings on the Eastern Highland Rim, Tennessee, after 30 years (pp. 433–436).
Service, U. S. D. A. F., Inventory, F., Program, A., & Wed. (2022). 18:34:55 GMT. Forest Inventory EVALIDator web-application Version 1.8.0.01. St.
Service, U. S. D. A. S. C. (1972). Soil Survey of Marshall County (p. 155).
Smalley, G. W. (1986). Stand dynamics of unthinned and thinned shortleaf pine plantations. Murphy Paul A(Ed.) Proceedings of Symposium on the Shortleaf Pine Ecosystem, 114–134.
Smalley, G. W., & Bower, D. R. (1968a). 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.
Smalley, G. W., & Bower, D. R. (1968b). 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.
Staff, S. S. (2022). Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Ting, J. C., & Chang, M. (1985). Soil-moisture depletion under three southern pine plantations in East Texas. Forest Ecology and Management, 12(3–4), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(85)90090-8
Valinger, E., & Fridman, J. (1997). Modelling probability of snow and wind damage in Scots pine stands using tree characteristics. Forest Ecology and Management, 97(3), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00062-5
Wakeley, P. C. (1969). Results of southern pine planting experiments established in the middle twenties. J Forest, 67, 237–241.
Watson, W. J., Garin, G. I., & Devall, W. B. (1973). Growth of Four Pine Species in Wilcox County, Alabama. Progress Report Series, 104, 2.
Wigley, T. B. (1986). Wildlife and shortleaf pine management. Proceedings of Symposium on the Shortleaf Pine Ecosystem, 222–234.
Will, R., Stewart, J., Lynch, T., Turton, D., Maggard, A., Lilly, C., & Atkinson, K. (2013). Strategic assessment for shortleaf pine (p. 60).
Williston, H. L. (1958). Shortleaf pine versus loblolly pine in north Mississippi. J Forest, 56, 761–768.
Williston, H. L. (1959). Growth of four southern pines in West Tennessee. J Forest, 57, 661–662.
Williston, H. L. (1963). Early yield of erosion - control plantations in north Mississippi. USDA Forest Service Res. Note SO-1, 7.
Williston, H. L. (1985). Growth and Yield of Planted Loblolly and Shortleaf Pines in a North Mississippi Creek Bottom. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 9(4), 247–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/sjaf/9.4.247
(2006). Effect of rotation age and physiographic region on weight per cubic foot of planted loblolly pine. Proceedings of the 13th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, 344–346.

Citation

Copyright

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles