United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

MiscellaneousPublication No. 1462

March 1989

* HR. Josephson is a former director of theDivision of Forest Economics and MarketingResearch of the USDA Forest Service in Washing-ton, DC.

The great progress in south-ern forestry during the pasthalf century must be attribut-ed in part to research scien-tists who provided scientificknowledge and practicaltechnology for forest protec-tion, management, andutilization. Research haspointed the way to bettercontrol and use of fire andto more effective methodsfor regenerating desirabletree species. Improved meth-ods for managing forestlands for timber and otheruses, better techniques forcontrolling insects and dis-eases, and improved waysof producing and using forestproducts also have stemmedfrom a wide variety of re-search investigations.

The combination of researchand action programs ofFederal, State, and industrialforestry organizations hasbeen a major factor in improv-ing the South’s timber supplysituation. Timber growth andinventories have shownimpressive gains over recentdecades. Pulp and paperand other forest industrieshave expanded steadily.Forest uses for livestock,wildlife, and recreation havebeen improved. Through

such developments, forestrycontinues as the keystone ofthe economy in many partsof the South.

Many scientists and practicalforest managers have con-tributed to the growth offorestry knowledge and newtechnology. In earlier years,most forest researchers inthe South were employed atthe Southern and Southeast-ern Forest Experiment Sta-tions of the USDA ForestService. But in recentdecades, expanding staffs offorestry schools and otherresearch organizations in theregion have also madesubstantial contributions toforestry knowledge.

Developing successfulforestry practices is typicallythe result of integrating bitsof knowledge contributed bymany different people,through formal research,observation, and empiricaltesting of new ideas. Becausethe historical literature onsouthern forestry is extensiveand varied, giving appropriatecredit to individuals is difficultif not impossible. The magni-tude of the task of citing allcontributors may be illustrat-ed by the fact that in the

preparation of certain majorpublications mentioned later,authors reviewed and ab-stracted as many as athousand reports and articlesfor each.

The scope of this documentis necessarily limited, and Iregret that recognition couldnot be given to many whohave added to the fund ofknowledge relating to south-ern forestry.

study” being conducted bythe USDA Forest Service incooperation with Stateforestry agencies, universi-ties, and forest industrygroups in the South. Anearlier draft of this reportwas reviewed by researchscientists and others familiarwith conditions and historicalevents in the South. Theirvery useful comments andsuggestions are gratefullyacknowledged.

This brief history was pre-pared as part of a compre-hensive “southern timber

iii

PageGrowth of Forestry Research ..................................... 1Research in Fire Management ................................... 8

Research in Forest Regeneration .............................. 16

Research in Forest Genetics ...................................... 21Research in Management of Timber Stands ........... .25

Research on Forest Insects and Diseases ............... 35Resource Surveys and Analyses ............................... 40Economic Investigations ............................................. 45Research in Timber Utilization ................................... 48Research on Use of Forest Land by Livestock ........ 55Research in Wildlife Habitat Management ................ 57Research in Watershed Management ....................... 60Summary ...................................................................... .62Literature Cited ............................................................. 63Literature Cited- Unpublished ................................... 78

i v

Formal research in forestryin the South may be saidto have begun about 1921,when the USDA ForestService established theSouthern Forest ExperimentStation in New Orleans,LA.2 A visitor to the stationat this time would havefound a director, R.D.Forbes - a Yale forestrygraduate and former StateForester of Louisiana- plusa staff of four professionallytrained foresters and oneclerk. This group was giventhe responsibility for forestryresearch in southern pinetypes extending from Texasthrough South Carolina.

Also in 1921, the Appalachi-an Forest Experiment Sta-tion was established at

2 A fascinating account of the earlyyears of the Southern Station iscontained in “A Biased History ofthe Southern Forest ExperimentStation Through Fiscal Year 1933,”by Philip C. Wakeley (Wakeley1964 unpubl.). Additional recollec-tions appeared in the Journal ofForest History in April 1976. Overthe years, annual reports onresearch accomplishments, plusoccasional bibliographies, haveprovided a picture of the continuinggrowth in investigations ahd re-search findings of the experimentstations.

Asheville, NC, under directorE.H. Frothingham, with aneven smaller staff of threetechnical foresters and aclerk. Originally assignedresponsibility for researchin the hardwood forests ofthe southern Appalachians,after World War II this stationwas renamed the Southeast-ern Forest ExperimentStation and given researchresponsibilities in both pineand hardwood types fromFlorida through Virginia.

Prior to the establishmentof these experiment stations,some l imited researchpertaining to southernforestry had been conduct-ed by the U.S. Bureau ofForestry (later the ForestService) and by some Stateagencies, but funds forsuch work were very limited.Some early studies dealingwith lumber seasoning andpreservatives for railwayties, for example, applied tosouthern pine species. Andother national studies offorest resources and a fewlocal reports on the timberand naval-stores industriesprovided some generalknowledge of southernforest conditions and prob-lems.

1

The early research effortsof the Forest Service wereaimed primarily at improvingconditions on privatelyowned forest lands. Al-though Federal and Statelands were of limited signifi-cance in the South, initialresearch was, nevertheless,closely linked to the adminis-trative arm of the ForestService. In 1915, the Serviceestablished separate statusfor research, centered in anew branch of research,with field stations reportingdirectly to the head ofresearch in Washington,But policy and scientificdifferences between admin-istrations and researcherscontinued for some time inthe case of fire management(Schiff 1962).

The initial program ofresearch at the SouthernStation was ambitious for asmall staff. One of the keyassignments involved stud-ies of growth and yield insecond-growth stands ofthe four major southernpines, conducted under thetechnical guidance of Don-ald Bruce in the WashingtonOffice. This work led toMiscellaneous Publication50, containing “normal”yield tables for unmanaged

2

pine stands (U.S. ForestService 1929). Althoughthese yield tables weremodified by later studies,this publication undoubtedlycontributed greatly to widerunderstanding of southernpine growth potentials andforestry opportunities.

Early studies of harvestingand reproduction of longleafpine were begun inLouisiana under E.W.Hadley. At McNeill, MS,studies by W.G. Wahlenbergand coworkers determinedthe interacting influence ofcattle grazing and fire ontree regeneration and foragefor livestock. At Starke, FL,empirical studies by LenthalWyman searched for bettermethods of producing navalstores. Research on effectsof thinning in even-agedstands of loblolly andshortleaf pine was startedat Urania, LA, under W.R.Hine. General studies of“forestation” and fire impactsby Phil Wakeley were alsoincluded in the Stationprogram. The ExperimentStation at Asheville waslargely concerned withstudies of mountain hard-woods, but L.I. Barrett and

ighter conducted somethinning studies in loblolly

and shortleaf pine standsin the Piedmont.

The 1920’s saw a steadyexpansion of these smallstation staffs. By 1927, theSouthern Station roster hadgrown to 23 employees.Passage of theMcSweeney - McNary For-est Research Act of 1928gave further impetus toresearch in southern forestrythrough expanded fundingand staffing. New programsin the New Deal period ofthe 1930’s brought addition-al finances to support agrowing research staff anda broadened variety ofstudies. In this period, theCivilian Conservation Corpsalso made valuable contri-butions by building accessroads to experimentalforests, constructing head-quarters buildings, andfurnishing labor for installingexperimental plots.

The new recruits who joinedsouthern forest researchorganizations in this periodcame from several forestryschools, “bringing newinterests, specialties, tech-niques, and enthusiasmsthat helped create a stimu-lating intellectual climate”(Wakeley 1964 unpubl.).

Continuing growth broughtthe budget of the twosouthern forest experimentstations to nearly $350,000by the outbreak of WorldWar Il.

During the war years of the1940’s, available researchpersonnel were largelyoccupied with emergencyprojects designed to provideinformation and other assis-tance to wartime agencies.Monthly surveys of lumberproduction and specialstudies of equipment andmaterial needs of the forest-products industries fur-nished essential data fordefense programs. Utiliza-tion specialists suppliedtechnical information tologgers, millmen, and othersin the forest industries.These specialists subse-quently staffed the postwar“Forest Utilization Service”at both southern forestexperiment stations as partof a nationwide effort torelate utilization researchlike that conducted at theForest Products Laboratoryat Madison, WI, more closelyto the needs of forestindustries. In the late 1960’s,these programs of “technol-ogy transfer” from researchto field applications were

3

shifted to the State andPrivate Forestry branch ofthe Forest Service.

Following the end of WorldWar II, the Forest FarmersAssociation Cooperative,then located at Valdosta,GA, spearheaded a drivefor more adequate pro-grams of forestry researchto meet the growing de-mands for information onuse and management ofsouthern forests. The result-ing expansion of researchby the Forest Service in theSouth was conducted to alarge extent through about20 research centers, withinvestigations generallyoriented to local or subre-gional forest types andproblems. With the aid oflocal advisory committeesand cooperators from forestindustry, forestry schools,and other groups, thesecenters became majorforces in the technicaladvance of forestry in theSouth.

In the 1950’s emphasisshifted from such geograph-ic orientation to a morefunctional approach, withresearch in depth on prob-lems that could have broadregional relevance. Also

beginning in this period,scientists were providedwith modern laboratoryfacilities and support staffsat a number of experimentalforests and other locations,such as the SouthernInstitute of Forest Geneticsat Gulfport, MS, and theforest fire laboratory atMacon, GA. With increasingfrequency, Forest Serviceresearchers were located atuniversities to foster closercooperation with universityscientists,

As part of a reorganizationof the U.S. Department ofAgriculture in the 1950’s,research on forest insectswas transferred from theBureau of Entomology andPlant Quarantine to theForest Service, and researchon forest diseases wasmoved from the Bureau ofPlant Industry, Soils andEngineering to the ForestService. Researchers fromthese agencies had longcooperated with experimentstation scientists and readilybecame part of the ForestService organization.

Since the mid-1960’s theexperiment stations of theForest Service have beenadministered under a sys-

4

tern using assistant stationdirectors, each responsiblefor a portion of the totalresearch program or forinvestigations in specificgeographic areas, TheSoutheastern Station orga-nized its research in some23 “work units” at 12 sepa-rate locations, plus otherstaffing including researchand development programs,pioineering units, andspecial research units(Southeastern Forest Exper-iment Station 1983). TheSouthern Station designat-ed 21 similar work units tocarry out its research.

Research work units haveresponsibility for solvingspecified problems, select-ed with the assistance ofland managers, publicagencies, environmentalgroups, and other researchorganizations. Many ofthese research units arelocated on university cam-puses, where there areopportunities to work withfaculty from forestry schoolsand other departments.

Funding for research at thetwo Forest Service forestexperiment stations in theSouth reached a total ofabout $25 million in fiscal

year 1981. In the following3 years, funding in constantdollars dropped somewhatmore than 10 percent.Staffing in 1980 totaled 244scientist years (USDA ForestService 1982b). More thanhalf of these scientistsworked primarily with thesouthern pines, while theremainder dealt mainly withproblems relating to hard-woods, particularly in bot-tomland areas.

Forestry schools in theSouth also began studiesof forest and range prob-lems in the 1930’s, supple-menting a very limitedprogram of forestry-relatedresearch at State agricultur-al experiment stations. Inthe years after World WarII, university research pro-grams expanded greatly,both at the 14 schools ordepartments in the Southand in other departments.University research pro-grams have been supportedprimarily by State funds,although significant assis-tance also has been provid-ed through theMclnt ire-Stennis ForestryResearch Act of 1962, whichauthorized Federal grantsfor forestry research byState universities. Coopera-

5

tive aid grants from theForest Service also helpedin educating graduatestudents as well as support-ing faculty research. Thetotal funds available foruniversity research in 1980amounted to about $24.7million, according to unpub-lished data from the USDACooperative State ResearchService, and staffing in1980 totaled 187 scientistyears.

Among other organizationscontributing to forestryresearch was the GeorgiaForest Research Council,which, under the leadershipof R.E. Ruark, acted as acatalyst for many investiga-tions. It also constructedthe forest fire laboratory atMacon, GA, for use by theForest Service in carryingout fire studies. The TallTimbers Research Stationin Florida became wellknown for studies in fireecology and for sponsoringmany symposia on variousforestry problems, TheTennessee Valley Author&ypublished many studiesdealing with such topics asindustrial development andmanagement of forests andrelated resources.

Forest industries also mademajor investments in forestryresearch. For example, inthe 1950’s, the InternationalPaper Company establisheda research center at Bain-bridge, GA, where scientistscarried out cooperativestudies of forest diseases,prescribed burning, andstand improvement underthe direction of CharlesDriver and C.J. Perkins.Research staffs of othercompanies such as Weyer-haeuser, Union Bag [nowCamp], and West VirginiaPulp and Paper [nowWestvaco] likewise conduct-ed many studies of forestryproblems. Forest industriesplayed a leading role incooperation with equipmentmanufacturers in developingand testing logging andprocessing equipment andtechnology.

In the South, the forestindustries also have fre-quently provided funds forsuch Federal and Stateresearch as the forest surveyand furnished experimentalforest areas for studies intimber management. Indus-try members of advisorycommittees helped developand guide research pro-grams of public agencies.

And industrial forestersdeserve much credit for thepractical testing of newideas and alternative tech-niques for protection, man-agement, and utilization ofsouthern forests.

With the substantial growthin numbers of researchscientists and publicationsover the past severaldecades, the need forcoordination in researchplanning and disseminationof research findings hasgrown accordingly (e.g.,USDA Forest Service1982b). Both the ForestService and other agencieshave issued a wide varietyof research publicationsranging from brief notes tocomprehensive handbooksand monographs. Manyscientists have published

extensively in specializedtechnical journals, Andnumerous f indings havebeen reported in suchpublications as the SouthernLumberman, the ForestFarmer, the Journal ofForestry, and the SouthernJournal of Applied Forestry.Another response to thegrowth in programs andpublications has been theincreasing use of symposia,workshops, conferences,and working groups asmeans of coordinatingresearch planning andintegrating the findings ofscientists in different organi-zations. Participation ofmembers of action agenciesin these sessions has alsoprovided an effective meansof getting research resultsinto practice with minimumdelays.

The selection of researchstudies at the newly estab-lished forest experimentstations in the South to alarge extent reflected thecondition of forest andrange lands in the regionand the related problems offorest owners and timberoperators. By the end ofWorld War I, many peopleconsidered southern forestto be near extinction (White1961). Lumbering had takena heavy toll on the vastareas of State and Federaltimberlands released forunrestricted sale and lum-bering in the 1800’s. Theend of the virgin forest wasat hand, with much of thedeforested land burnedover and nonstocked withtimber trees. Many ruralresidents believed thatannual woods burning wasnecessary to improve live-stock grazing and eliminatepests. Their self-prescribedfires effectively preventedreestablishment of pines onmany cutover areas South-wide. Both the attitudes ofsoutherners toward fire andflammability of the luxuriant“rough” of ground vegetationoffered major challenges topioneers in fire control.

With the rise of the conserva-tion movement in the earlyyears of this century, fireexclusion on southern pineforests became the policyof most foresters andconservationists, Publica-tions dealing with fire in theSouth were largely preoccu-pied with the evils of wide-spread and uncontrolledfire, as in the writings ofPinchot and others. Butbecause such “educationalefforts were not very suc-cessful, the Forest Serviceand State forestry organiza-tions came to rely on legalprohibitions as the onlyfeasible way to controlwildfire. Forest fuels builtup in the absence of fre-quent burning, and theresult was many damagingwildfires and intensifiedconflicts with local residents.

In this early period, ob-servers such as H.H. Chap-man of Yale University andAustin Carey of the USDAForest Service aroused theforestry profession byeloquent and persistentarguments that intentionalburning of the woods atproper intervals would be abetter solution to the fireproblem. As early as 1911,

a forest administrator inFlorida, I.F. Eldridge, alsobroke with convention byusing fire to reduceharzardous fuels in longleafpine stands. Roland Hayes,a botanist at AlabamaPolytechnic Institute, ob-served that selective period-ic fire served to forestallhardwood succession. Andin Louisiana, lumbermanHenry Hardtner began touse what he called con-trolled burning in the regen-eration and management oflongleaf pine.3

The issue of fire exclusionversus control led burningin southern forests neces-sarily became a subject forforest researchers as wellas forest administrators.Fire was a central problemin the regeneration of

3 The differing viewpoints andextensive conflicts over use of firein southern forests have beendescribed in considerable detail(Pyne 1982).

4 These have been enumerated inan unusually interesting bibliogra-phy and commentary on fireecology and fire use in the pineforests of the South by A. BiglerCrow (1982). Another bibliographyby Cushwa (1968) also coveredthe period 1920 - 66.

cut-over stands, in protec-tion of plantations andyoung natural stands, andin control of unwantedvegetation, as well as ameans of enhancing live-stock grazing and wildlifehabitat. In the past five orsix decades, a large numberof studies of different as-pects of wildlife and pre-scribed burning conse-quently were undertakenthrough the South.4

Early studies by H.H. Chap-man in the 1920’s andsubsequently by ForestService researchers suchas Phil Wakeley, PaulSiggers, and W.G. Wahlen-berg demonstrated that inlongleaf pine forests, con-trolled fires not only helpavoid destructive wildfiresbut also retard thebrownspot needle disease.Trees in burned areasshowed earlier heightgrowth and better standdevelopment than trees inunburned stands. Fungici-dal control of brownspotalso was found to beeffective but has beenconsidered useful primarilyin tree nurseries. Studiesby Heyward and Barrette(1934) determined thatprescribed fires do not

9

adversely affect soil chem-istry or soil fauna. In lateryears, other evaluations ofimpacts of fire on nutrientcycling (e.g., McKee andLewis 1982a and b) gavesimilar reassurance toadvocates of controlled fire.

Another early observer ofthe role of fire in manage-ment of livestock was S.W.Greene, a range specialistin the Bureau of AnimalHusbandry, who urgedjudicious use of fire forrange improvement. Hisstudies showed that burningincreases the palatabilityand nutritive value of south-ern rangelands, and thatcattle gain more weight inannually burned rangesthan on unburned areas(Greene 1931). Also in1931, H.L. Stoddard, work-ing with the U.S. BiologicalSurvey, published a notablestudy on the bobwhitequail that showed the valueof controlled fire in quailhabitat management.

In 1933, the Southern ForestExperiment Station summa-rized a number of investiga-tions in a review of thehighly controversial issue ofprescribed burning versusfire exclusion. This “fire

statement,” covering thepros and cons of fire effects,came out firmly on the sideof judicious use of fire forboth silvicultural and otherforest management purpos-es (Crow 1982).

In subsequent years, E.L.Demmon and others provid-ed much additional informa-tion on the occurrence andsilvicultural impacts of fire.H.H. Chapman’s work withloblolly pine in Arkansasand Louisiana (1942) paral-leled his earlier informativestudies of fire in longleafpine management. Studiesby Wahlenberg and cowork-ers at McNeill, MS, con-firmed the earlier studiesby Greene on benefits ofprescribed fire on forestranges. Other investigatorssuch as C.E. Bickford, J.W.Squires, and RD. McCulleydeveloped further recom-mendations for protectiveburning in longleaf andslash pine forests, L.E.Chaiken and LT. Haigdetermined that fire couldbe used effectively in otherpine types to control un-wanted hardwoods. Effectsof fire on oleoresin yields oflongleaf and slash pineswere described by V.L.

Wahlenberg’s definitivework on longleaf pine (1948)cited many research find-ings on the beneficial roleof fire for silvicultural purpos-es.

Since the 1940’s, dozens ofscientists have issuedreports on various aspectsof prescribed burning (Crow1982). Research by E.R.Ferguson, R.W. Cooper,E.V. Brender, T. Lotti, andothers demonstrated that inpine types other thanlongleaf, and in pine-hardwood forests, pre-scribed burning is some-what less effective andmore difficult than in longleafforests but still helps sup-press unwanted vegetationand improves grazing andwildfire habitat. In hardwoodtypes, on the other hand,studies revealed seriousproblems of decay in treesdamaged by fire (e.g.,Hepting 1935).

Continued concern overeffects of repeated fires onsoil productivity was an-swered by studies thatrevealed little or no adverseimpacts on fertility or soilmovement (e.g., McKeeand Lewis 1982a and b).On the Francis Marion

National Forest in SouthCarolina, for example,organic matter in surfacesoils and growth rates oftrees both increased slightlyfol lowing well-conductedburning (Cooper 1973).Prescribed burning forseedbed preparation, fol-lowed by clearcutting, alsoresulted in less runoff andstreamflows than reportedfor mechanical means ofsite preparation (Douglasand others 1982).

The value of prescribed firefor improving forage forlivestock in the coastalplain of the South has beensupported by many obser-vations and studies follow-ing the early work at McNeill,MS (Wahlenberg and Reed1939). In a series of studiesin Georgia, H.H. Biswelland coworkers demonstrat-ed that fire was a necessityfor improvement of forestranges and beef cattleproduction. The benefits ofprescribed burning forlivestock production inother parts of the Southwere subsequently de-scribed by other well-knownrange scientists such asR.S. Campbell, J.T. Cassidy,L.K. Halls, B.L. Bouthwell,and W.O. Shepherd. Other

11

studies evaluated the effectsof different seasons andfrequencies of burning onherbage production andtree growth (e.g., Grelen1983). The early work ofH.L. Stoddard with thebobwhite quail indicatedhow fire can be used toperpetuate one of theSouth’s premier gamespecies. In more recentyears the accumulatingknowledge of beneficialeffects of fire on wildlifehabitat has been summa-rized in various publicationsand symposia (e.g., Wood1981 and Kormarek 1981).

Fire research efforts ofagencies other than theForest Service have notablyincluded work by the TallTimbers Research Stationat Tallahasee, FL. Underthe leadership of E.V.Kormarek, Sr., this organiza-tion conducted numeroussymposia on the complexinfluences of fire on plantand animal environmentsand the use of fire in landmanagement. Fire ecologyconferences starting in1962, and published pro-ceedings resulting there-from have provided muchknowledge on the ecology

of prescribed burning andits impacts on wildlife.

Much of the accumulatinginformation on prescribedburning was summarized ina notable symposium con-ducted in Charleston, SC,in 1971 (USDA ForestService 1971). Anothertreatise on prescribedburning was issued in anEnvironmental ProtectionAgency source document(Chi and others 1979).Major textbooks on fire,including an initial work byA.D. Folweiler and A.A.Brown in 1939 and adefinitive text (*Forest FireControl and Use”) publishedby K.P. Davis in 1959,contained considerableinformation on prescribedburning. Many local how-to-do-it manuals, with specificguidelines, also have beenissued by different agenciesand industry organizations.

With the accumulation ofresearch findings andempirical evidence of favor-able effects of prescribedburning, particularly in thecoastal plain region andlower Piedmont, the ForestService and State forestryagencies in the early 1940’sreversed a long-standing

1 2

policy of fire exclusion and,along with many landown-ers, adopted prescribedburning programs. In themid-l 970’s, for example,controlled burning wascarried out on more than 2million acres annually onindustrial, public, and otherownerships in the South(Johansen and McNab1982)

Today, prescribed burningis recognized as an essen-tial, relatively inexpensive,and effective tool of man-agement in the pine forestsof the South, with benefitsincluding fire-hazard reduc-tion, site preparation forforest regeneration, controlof undesirable vegetation,and improvement of habitatfor wildlife and livestock.Nevertheless, members ofthe public and environmen-tal groups express consider-able concern that smokefrom woods fires contributesseriously to air pollution.Public pressure and legisla-tion threaten to curtail oreliminate intentional woodsburning, particularly nearhighways, airports, andpopulation centers.

Research conducted inresponse to such concerns

has indicated that smokefrom prescribed woodsburning does not producehighly damaging sulfuroxides, and nitrogen oxidesare produced only withhigh fire temperatures(Cooper 1973). Also, byreducing the incidence ofwildfires, total emissionsfrom forest burning may bereduced.

Scientists at the fire labora-tory in Macon, GA, haveidentified ways to minimizesmoke impacts from pre-scribed burning and haveissued recommendationsfor actions to ensure thatsmoke does not reachsensitive areas (SouthernForest Fire Laboratory1976). Prescriptions, basedon indepth treatment ofsmoke, fuels, emissions,smoke transport, and dis-persion, outline a systemfor predicting and modifyingsmoke concentrations fromprescribed fire. As an aid instarting prescribed burnswhen conditions are mostfavorable, methods havealso been developed fordropping jellied fuels ofpotassium permanganatefrom aircraft.

1 3

Because of factors such ascost and concern over airpollution, prescribed burn-ing is not universally prac-ticed throughout the South,and control of wildfireremains a serious problem.In 1978, for example, morethan 130,000 wildfiresburned some 3.2 millionacres of forest land in the11 Southern States.

A continuing program ofresearch aimed at controlof wildfire has, therefore,long been consideredessential, and this researchhas led to significant im-provements in preventionand suppression of wildfire.Early research by G.M.Jemison, R.M. Nelson, andT.T. Keetch at the South-eastern Station, for example,helped develop improvedsystems of fire-dangerrating, a matter of greatimportance to forest admin-istrators. Improved under-standing of fire behaviorand damage stemmed fromthe work of G.M. Byramand coworkers in studiesinvolving physics, chemistry,meteorology, and new formsof operations research.Other investigations at thesouthern fire laboratory inMacon, GA, have included

mathematical and physicalmodels of free-burning firesand techniques of simula-tion that provide an im-proved basis for fire plan-ning.

Studies of fire retardantsand aerial bombing tech-niques using air tankers todrop water and chemicalson fires have helped improvefire control. Developmentand widespread use offireplows in constructingfirelines for control of bothwildfire and prescribedburns, pioneered by suchmen as Art Shepherd, havebeen of tremendous valueto firefighters in the relativelyflat terrain of the South.Scientists have also devel-oped better techniques forlocal fire-weather forecasts(e.g., Paul and Clayton1978) useful both for timingof prescribed fires and forpresuppression activities, In1979, a national fire effectsworkshop (USDA ForestServ ice 1978a) broughttogether much of the avail-able information on theeffects of fire on fuels, soils,air, water, and fauna andflora.

In the area of fire prevention,studies have developed a

better understanding ofattitudes of different groupstoward fire and possibleways to modify the behaviorof fire setters. Psychologicalstudies provided informationon the many and variedreasons why rural residentspractice woods burning(Shea 1940, Dunkelbergerand Altobellis 1975). Re-searchers at universities inLouisiana and Mississippi,including A.W Baird, A.L.Bertrand, BE. Griessman,T. Hansborough, and H.F.Kaufman, together withW.L. Doolittle and others inthe Forest Service, conduct-ed a series of studies offire-prevention factors andtechniques (e.g., Bertrandand Baird 1975). Recom-mendations flowing fromthese studies have stressed,for example, the importanceof personal contact incommunicating fire-prevention messages (e.g.,Doolittle and Welch 1974).

It seems clear that thedevelopment and applica-tion of knowledge regardingfire impacts, control, preven-tion, and prescribed useshave had major effects onthe forest situation in theSouth. Fire agencies havebeen able to reduce acreageburned and damages fromwildfire while saving onfire-control costs. Losses oftimber and other resourceshave been greatly reduced,with consequent increasesin timber growth and en-couragement of investmentsin timber growing. Standcomposit ion in southernforests has been widelymodified through prescribedburning to favor pine overunwanted hardwoods. Andvalues of wildlife, livestockproduction, and recreationundoubtedly have alsobeen enhanced throughimproved fire management.

15

Along with the need forprotection of southernforests from fire, the problemof restocking cutover andburned pine lands waslikewise of critical impor-tance for forest recovery.But natural regenerationwas hindered by the lack ofseed sources in many areas,by competition from hard-woods, and in the case oflongleaf pine by free-roaming hogs that de-stroyed most seedlings. Inproducing seedlings forplantations, foresters facedmany questions of seedsource, nursery practice,and ways of controllingdiseases such as brownspotin longleaf pine and fusiformrust in slash and loblollypines.

Early studies on regenera-tion of southern pines,conducted by Phil Wakeleyand L.J. Pessin and cowork-ers, were aimed at establish-ing guides for selection ofnursery stock to be plantedin the field. Development ofproductive tree nurseries,tests of planting methods,spacing studies, and deter-mination of causes ofseedling mortality rounded

out these early investiga-tions.

These initial reforestationstudies conducted byresearchers were overshad-owed, according to Wakeley(1964 unpubl.), by thepractical observations andpractices of F.O. Bateman,chief ranger of the GreatSouthern Lumber Companyat Bogalusa, IA, whodeveloped and directed acompany program of treeplanting and natural regen-eration that proved to beone of the most comprehen-sive and successful refor-estation programs of alltime. Also in Louisiana,Henry Hardtner, presidentof the Urania Lumber Com-pany, pioneered practicalnatural reforestation by thesimple yet effective steps ofprotecting forests fromwildfire and by fencingcompany lands against theomnipresent razorbackhog, a scourge that out-ranked fire in its ability todestroy seedlings of longleafpine. Among other compa-nies starting regenerationprograms in the earlieryears of this century werethe Crossett Lumber Com-pany in Arkansas and the

Chesapeake Corporation ofWest Point, VA (Clepper1971).

Information gained fromearly regeneration studiesand the extensive plantingtrials at Bogalusa, IA, wassummarized in a technicalbulletin on artificial regener-ation in the southern pineregion (Wakeley 1935)issued just in time to guidethe widespread tree-planting efforts of the youngmen in the Civilian Conser-vation Corps camps estab-lished Southwide in the1930’s. Planting guidelinesthus made availablestressed the importance ofproper geographic seedsource, the need to considersoil type and characteristicsin selecting species forplanting, criteria for seedlingselection and plantingmethods, and fencingrequirements.

Continuing studies of pineregeneration led in lateryears to issuance of othermajor publications on plant-ing the southern pines(Wakeley 1951 and 1954).In 1965, the Georgia ForestResearch Council alsopublished the 360-pagebook “A Guide to Loblolly

and Slash Pine PlantationManagement in the South-eastern United States,” withcontributions from some 24researchers (Wahlenberg1965). Such documentswere widely used by forestryorganizations to guidereforestation efforts duringthe postwar tree-plantingboom in the South.

Many other research contri-butions have enhanced theeffectiveness and efficiencyof regeneration practices,The need to protectseedlings in nurseries fromdiseases such as fusiformrust quickly led to a searchfor control methods. As aresult of work by scientistssuch A.A. Foster (1961)and S.J. Rowan (1979)chemicals like ferbam,applied under specif icschedules, were found tobe effective in protectingnursery seedlings. Otherstudies found that applyingbenomyl, a systemic fungi-cide, to the roots of pineseedlings before plantingreduced brownspot disease,increased survival, andstimulated early heightgrowth. Tests of variousfumigants showed thatethylene dibromide couldprovide practical control of

1 7

the black root rot, withdramatic increases in pro-duction of nursery stock.Guides for nursery manage-ment based on suchresearch have been summa-rized in a southern pinenursery handbook (USDAForest Service 1984a).

Scientists have also knownfor some time that treeroots and certain fungi forma sybiotic association calledmycorrhizae. Studies byD.H. Marx, J.L. Ruhle, andtheir associates demonstrat-ed that some fungi aremore beneficial than othersin improving seedling sur-vival and growth. As afollowup to this research,cooperative work withAbbott Laboratories andparticipating nurserymenled to development ofeffective techniques forlarge-scale production anduse of preferred inoculumin commercial productionof container-grown andother seedlings (Marx andothers 1982).

The search for improvedmethods of obtaining desir-able forest regenerationalso included the directseeding of pine in lieu ofnursery production and

field planting of seedlings.Effective procedures includ-ing use of bird and animalrepellents, seedbed prepa-ration, and timing of seedingwere developed, notably atthe Alexandria, LA, researchcenter in cooperation withthe U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (e.g., Mann andDerr 1964). Control ofstocking has been some-what difficult with directseeding, however, and useof repellent chemicals hasheen challenged on environ-mental grounds. Forestershave also pointed out thatgenetically improved seedmay be used more efficientlyin producing nursery stock.

Container-grown seedlingsalso have been used effec-tively in the South (e.g.,Barnett and McGilvray1981). Studies have shownthat costs of producingcontainer stock are relativelylow, and site requirementsfor producing container-grown seedlings are minimal(Guldin 1983). Containerseedlings also can beplanted over a longerseason, survival rates arerelatively high, and man-agers can make efficientuse of geneticalseed. Getting su

1

results into use in theproduction of seedlingshas been facilitated throughissuance of handbooks andthrough southern nurseryconferences (e.g., Lantz1984) and a southerncontainerized forest treeseedling conference (e.g.,Guldin and Barnett 1981).

Research on reforestationhas undoubtedly contribut-ed greatly to the extensivetree-planting programscarried out in the South. By1979, some 20 million acresof southern pine plantationshad been established, withnew plantings coveringmore than 1.5 million acresannually.

Forest researchers alsohave given considerableattention to methods forobtaining natural regenera-tion of the southern pines.Findings indicate that sever-al practical methods areavailable (e.g., Lawson1979). A 36-year study offour silvicultural methods inloblolly and shortleaf pinestands showed that ade-quate and low-cost regener-ation can be obtained withseed-tree, clearcutting,selection, and diameter-limitcutting. Difficulties in regen-

erating longleaf pine ledmany foresters in the 1950’sand 1960’s to plant alterna-tive species such as slashpine. However, researchdeveloped new guidelinesfor use of the shelterwoodsystem, and longleaf hasregained an important rolein pine management (Crokerand Boyer 1975).

Management guidelinesbased on the findings ofsuch research have beenwidely used both by industri-al foresters and by publicservice foresters in providingtechnical assistance tolandowners who are reluc-tant or unable to invest insystems of clearcutting andplanting. Natural regenera-tion is a low-cost methodbut provides limited controlof stocking, takes moretime, and provides lessopportunity for geneticimprovement than plantingselected seedlings.

In the case of southernhardwoods, considerableresearch also has beenconducted both on ways ofobtaining natural regenera-tion of preferred hardwoodsand on establishment ofplantations, particularly ofcottonwood in the Delta

1 9

area. The work of L.C.Maisenhelder, J.S.McKnight, F. Bonner, R.L.Johnson, and E.C. McGee,for example, has providedguidelines for obtainingregeneration of desirablespecies, through bothappropriate cutting prac-tices and establishment ofplantations of selectedspecies.

Underlying the many practi-cal recommendations thathave been developed forregenerating both pinesand hardwoods in. southern

forests are additional stud-ies by many different re-searchers. These havecovered various aspects ofseed collection, seed germi-nation, nursery practices,insect and disease control,care of planting stock, sitepreparation, and field plant-ing procedures. And muchinformation on forest regen-eration also has beenobtained as pan of researchon the genetic selectionand improvement of foresttrees and management offorest stands.

Two major aspects ofregeneration research aretree and seed selectionand the longer term task ofbreeding superior trees.Over the past severaldecades, genetic improve-ment of the southern pineshas evolved from an idea inthe minds of farsightedscientists to an integral partof forest management.

As early as the 1920’s, P.C.Wakeley and others under-took research to determinethe comparative survivaland growth of southernpines originating fromdifferent places and parentlines. These and manysubsequent studies soondemonstrated the impor-tance of genetic selectionto obtain seed from appro-priate areas and parenttrees, and to select high-quality nursery stock forfield planting. Selections oflongleaf pines for example,turned up individual treesof high resistance to thebrownspot needle disease.These trees have yieldedopen-pollinated progenywith considerable resistanceto brownspot, and inter-crosses have yielded highly

resistant offspring (Snyderand Derr 1972).

Other progeny tests ofselected superior trees oflongleaf pine confirmedobservations that treesfrom gulf coast sourceswere superior in survivaland growth to trees fromelsewhere (Bey and Snyder1978). Family variationwithin a region proved tobe large enough to permitadditional genetic gains.And progeny of crosses ofelite trees showed highersurvival, less brownspot,and more wood volumethan average trees.

Tree-improvement workwith slash pine began asearly as 1941 at Olustee,FL, with the aim of develop-ing trees with high gumyields for the ailing gumnaval stores industry. Thefinding that individual treesvaried greatly in gum-yielding ability was a majorstimulus to efforts to selectand breed superior trees.Ensuing research by H.L.Mitchell, CR Gansel, andothers led to establishmentof “turpentine” seed or-chards consisting of strainsof pines with high gum

2 1

yields. The best of suchtrees have produced abouttwice as much gum asaverage trees and signifi-cantly more wood volumethan woods-run trees.

Other research with slashpine, conducted by R.J.Dinus, F.F. Jewell, H.R.Powers, P.V. Siggers, G.A.Snow, P.C. Wakeley, and0.0. Wells, for example,found signif icant geneticvariation in resistance tofusiform rust related togeographic origin and treeparents. Field tests showedthe feasibility of sizableimprovements in survivaland growth by selection ofseed from the more resistantparents.

Because of its many desir-able properties for woodproducts and oleoresin,slash pine became thepopular choice in manytree-planting programs.Some of the widespreadplantings failed, however,and this fact stimulatedinvestigations relating tosite relationships, fertiliza-tion, drainage, and seedsources. Based on resultsof studies of such factors,foresters can now makeintelligent decisions as to

where slash pine can bestbe established.

Studies of the genetics ofloblolly pine also showedmuch genetic variation ingrowth and resistance todisease, both by geographicarea and by individual trees(Sluder 1980). These genet-ic studies have notablyinvolved a Southwide seed-source study, begun in1951 under the sponsoringof a committee on southernforest tree improvement.Committee work, such ascone and seed testingservices and publication ofproceedings of confer-ences, has provided muchguidance and stimulationboth to genetics researchand to reforestation pro-grams of southern forestryagencies (e.g., University ofGeorgia 1983).

Several industry - universitycooperative tree-improvement programsalso have been developedin the South, at NorthCarolina State University,the University of Florida,and at Texas A. and M.University. Loblolly pineseed orchards established

rth Carolina State

show crop gains on 25-yearrotations that are estimatedto be as high as 12 percentin cubic volume and 32percent in harvest values(Zobel and Talbert 1984).Rates of return on invest-ments in these seed or-chards appear to be ashigh as 17 to 19 percentafter taxes. Yields fromfirst-generation orchardsare not great enough toallow most members tomeet regeneration needswith improved stock.

As a result of work by theseand other scientists, treeimprovement is a realitytoday, and a major phaseof forestry in the South isthe production and use ofseed from pine trees thatshow superior growth, form,and resistance to disease(e.g., Powers and others1979). It is estimated thatby the early 1980’s some10,600 acres of seed or-chards had been estab-lished over the South. Theseinclude orchards for produc-tion of genotypes resistantto fusiform rust, althoughonly limited quantities ofseed from such sourcesare as yet available (Powersand others 1979).

Seed orchard managementalso has been the focus ofrelated studies that showthat proper spacing andfertilization can significantlyincrease yields of seed.Research in crossbreedingpines has produced avariety of hybrids, includingcrosses of shortleaf andslash pines, for example,that outperform the parents(Wells and others 1978).Research relating to hard-woods has included devel-opment of clones ofcottonwoods and hybridpoplars that grow considera-bly faster than averagetrees (e.g., Randall 1973).

Much of the informationdeveloped on the geneticsand breeding of southernpines has been summarizedin Agriculture Handbook471 (Dorman 1976). Thismajor compilation includesmaterial from more than athousand references onfactors affecting floweringand seed production; geo-graphic, racial, stand, andtree variation in geneticcharacteristics; techniquesfor enhancing production ofsuperior seed; methods ofvegetative propagation;and techniques for breedingnew strains of southern

2 3

pines. Agriculture Hand-book 587, on pollen man-agement, covers the coilec-tion, processing, storage,and use of pollen fromsuperior trees and providesa synthesis of research andpractical experience as tothe best methods andequipment for handling treepollen of southern pines

and hardwoods (Franklin1981). In 1984, Bruce Zobeland John Talbert summa-rized many years of researchon the genetics of southernpines in their major book“Applied Forest Tree Im-provement:

2 4

Management of forests fortimber products has longbeen the subject of a majorpart of the work of forestscientists in the South.Once forests are regenerat-ed, many closely relatedquestions remain. Whatgrowth and yields can beexpected from natural andfrom planted stands? Howcan undesirable hardwoodsand other unwanted vegeta-tion be controlled? Willfertilization be effective andeconomic? Should harvest-ing be by seed-tree,clearcutting, selection cut-ting, or other methods?Such questions faced forestmanagers for a wide varietyof types, sites, and standand ownership conditionsthrough the extensive andwidely varying southernregion.

Early studies of southernpine management conduct-ed in the early 1920’s byRD. Forbes and his smallstaff at the Southern ForestExperiment Station wereaimed largely at determiningdesirable cutting practicesin longleaf and other south-ern pines. Another taskwas to develop “normalyield tables for unmanaged

pine stands. In this earlyperiod, informal studies ofso-called practical forestrywere also undertaken by anumber of southern forestlandowners through thecrusading efforts of suchmen as Austin Carey (White1961). In the 1930’s, anexpanding program ofstudies included work byH. Bull, A.L. McKinney, andothers to evaluate thinning,pruning, and improvementcutting in loblolly andlongleaf pines. Scientistssuch as W.F. Bond andRR. Reynolds issued thefirst in a long series ofpublications on both silvicul-tural and financial aspectsof southern pine manage-ment.

The period prior to WorldWar II also saw the begin-ning of research on manage-ment of bottomland in theSouth by G.H. Lentz, J.A.Putnam, H. Bull, and others,This work usually featureddestructives studies ofimportant timber species toprovide an understandingof such attributes as treecharactistics, distribution,and relation to site factors.A 207-page report on treesof the Mississippi bottom-

2 5

lands, prepared in 1932 byPutnam and Bull, won theadmiration of an influentialaudience and its subse-quent support for theestablishment of a researchcenter and hardwood labo-ratory at Stoneville, MS.

The postwar period after1945 saw a major expansionof forest managementresearch in both pine andhardwood types with awide variety of investigationsby many scientists. Thiswork has provided thebasis for guidelines that arenow available for culturaland hatvestig practices forall the major species in allimportant forest types inthe South. Since themid-l 940’s more than 190scientists at the SouthernForest Experiment Stationpublished papers andarticles dealing with theculture of timber stands,including silvicultural prac-tices, basic physiology,control of unwantedvegetation, soils and fertil-ization, and nutrient cycling.At the Southeastern ForestExperiment Station, hun-dreds of publications onforest management alsowere issued during these

years by more than 200scientists.

At schools of forestrythroughout the South, otherresearch scientists, such asT.S. Coile at North CarolinaState University and J.L.Clutter at the University ofGeorgia, likewise producedmuch useful information ontimber growth and yieldsand other aspects of forestmanagement. Researchstaffs of pulp and papercompanies conducted andcooperated in many studiesof thinning, hardwoodcontrol, harvest cutting,forest regeneration, andtimber harvesting equip-ment and methods.

The classification of “timberculture” is necessarily some-what arbitrary, however,and many other studiesrelating to fire, regeneration,genetics, or economicsalso included aspects ofcultural practices. Scientistsworking in different areas ofresearch, as cited else-where, have also madesignificant contributions inthe broadly defined field oftimber management.

Much of the research inforest management con-

2 6

ducted by the Forest Serviceexperiment stations hasbeen carried out at researchcenters located in more orless distinct forest types orsubregions of the South,and with investigationscentered in associatedexperimental forests.

Thus at Crossett, AR, theSouthern Station and theCrossett Lumber Companyentered into a cooperativeagreement in the 1930’sthat made possible a worldfamous series of studies onthe Crossett ExperimentalForest, an area of loblollyand hardwoods with someshortleaf pine. Other impor-tant studies of timber man-agement have been con-ducted over the years inmany parts of the South,but the work at Crossettwas among the earliest andproduced a great deal oftechnical knowledge aboutforest management poten-tials.

Under the long-term leader-ship of RR. Reynolds, aseries of treatments underall-aged or “selection” sys-tems of silviculture werestarted (Reynolds 1980).An initial study of selectivelogging produced much

valuable information oncosts, grades, and valuesof lumber manufacturedfrom second-growth trees.Such findings were of greatinterest to foresters and totimberland owners lookingfor guidance in retainingand managing cutoverforest lands.

The studies at Crossettdemonstrated rapid growthand prompt restocking ofresidual stands, undermanagement that featuredfrequent light cuttings tofavor the better trees. Testsof truck logging showedthat selection managementwas feasible in the typicalimmature and understockedstands of the area andcould replace conventionalbut unprofitable railroadlogging of such stands.Investigations of controlledburning contributed to thedevelopment of local tech-niques for this importantmanagement tool.

The studies at Crossett,demonstrating impressiverates of growth in volunteerstands of second-growthsouthern pines, greatlypromoted the adoption offorest-management prac-tices in many parts of the

2 7

South. As a demonstrationarea, the Crossett Foresthad no peer. Thousands ofvisitors from the UnitedStates and abroad, includ-ing many owners of small,nonindustrial properties,have been impressed bythe annual harvests oftimber from so-called “farmforties,” as well as by otherdemonstrations of highlevels of timber growth andprofitable forestry practices.

Research on even-agedmanagement was laterincluded in the program atCrossett. C.F. Grano andassociates provided com-parisons with the demon-strably effective selectionmethods of managementthat had long been underintensive study at Crossett.Research has documentedadvantages of even-agedsystems of timber manage-ment that are now practicallyuniversal on the extensiveholdings of pulp and papercompanies and other largeownerships in the South.

Studies similar those atCrossett have been under-taken at other researchcenters and experimentalforests in major subregionsthroughout the South.

Examples include the re-search center at Alexandria,LA, long under the directionof W.F. Mann, Jr., whichconcentrated on problemsof management in thelongleaf and loblolly -shortleaf pine types. Heresuch practices as directseeding, thinning, andplantation managementreceived special attention.

A research center at Nacog-doches, TX, emphasizedresearch on techniques ofprescribed burning andmanagement of wildlifehabitat. On the HitchitiExperimental Forest nearMacon, GA, studies weremainly directed towardmanagement of loblollypine in the Georgia Pied-mont (e.g., Brender 1973).Scientists at Cordele, GA,and Olustee, FL, working incooperation with universityresearchers, developedguidelines for managementof slash pine in the coastalplain region (e.g., Baileyand others 1982). At theseand other research centers,the research and demon-strations of forestry prac-tices provided fundamentalknowledge on the silvicul-ture of all the major southernpine types- information of

2 8

immense practical value toboth private and publiclandowners.

One of the major activitiesin the field of timber man-agement has been thedevelopment of growth andyield tables, both for naturalstands and managed plan-tations. The initial set ofyield tables in MiscellaneousPublication 50 (1929) wassupplemented by Schu-macher and Coile’s 1960publication “Growth andYield of Natural Stands ofthe Southern Pines” and bya subsequent work describ-ing soil-site relationshipsand yields of slash andloblolly pines (Coile andSchumacher 1964). Thecomprehensive informationon growth and yields devel-oped by researchers hasbeen summarized in anannotated bibliography(Williston 1975) and ingeneral reviews by Farrar(1979) and Burkhart (1979).

Many scientists have con-tributed to this wealth ofknowledge. J.L. Clutter andassociates at the Universityof Georgia (1984), in cooper-ation with Forest Servicescientists, developed dataon stand structure and

yields of loblolly pine planta-tions in the lower coastalplain of the Southeast.Growth and yield data forloblolly and shortleaf pinein the west gulf coastalplain were published byBurton (1980). Similarfindings have been madeavailable for essentially allmajor forest types andconditions in the South.

In this research on timberyields, cooperation withforest industry groups anduniversities has been animportant factor, as in thecase of a plantation man-agement research coopera-tive at the University ofGeorgia and cooperativeslash pine density studiesat Cordele, GA. The growthand yield data thus devel-oped have proved to beessential for analyses ofthinning and other manage-ment alternatives and forevaluation of attainableyields.

Research and experiencein timber harvesting haveled most large landownersin the southern pine regionto opt for clearcutting andplanting or seeding of pinestands. These practiceshave proved to be most

2 9

compatible with use of fireand machines to controlcompeting vegetation.Comprehensive guides forsuch management havebeen issued by the GeorgiaForest Research Council(Wahlenberg 1965) and byLangdon and Bennett(1976) among others.Research has also shownthat for landowners wishingto retain a natural forest, oravoid the costs of sitepreparation and planting,forests can be managed ona selection system. Theshelterwood system alsohas proved to be a low-costand reliable system in thecase of longleaf and short-leaf pine (e.g., Lawson1979).

In essentially all pine man-agement programs, controlof hardwoods and otherundesirable vegetation isessential for satisfactoryregeneration, survival, andgrowth of the preferredpines. This fact is, of course,a major argument for pre-scribed burning. Earlystudies indicated that hard-woods could also be con-trolled by injecting unwant-ed trees with chemicalssuch as sodium arsenate.Subsequently, sprays of

2,4,5-T, picloram, andglyphosate were found tobe effective (e.g., Peevy1976). More recent studiesshowed promise for forestryapplications of newer herbi-cides (Mann and Hayes1978). Also worthy of noteis a lengthy AgricultureHandbook called *PesticideBackground Statements,”prepared by the MitreCorporation (USDA ForestService 1984b). The detaileddata contained therein areessential in the preparationof environmental impactstatements for projectsinvolving the application ofherbicides.

Use of herbicides has savedlandowners mil l ions ofdollars in site preparationand timber-stand improve-ment and greatly increasedgrowth of the more valuablepines. Intensified concernover environmental impactsfrom use of herbicides,however, and regulatoryrestrictions make future useof such chemical controlssomewhat uncertain andsuggest the need for contin-uing improvements in tech-nology.

Research in use of fertilizershas demonstrated that

significant increases intimber yields often can beachieved by application ofnitrogen, phosphorus,potassium, or trace ele-ments, and that yields offorage for livestock andwildlife can be similarlyenhanced. Related researchon use of sewage sludgefor fertilization of forestsshowed this to be effectivein increasing growth ofloblolly and Virginia pineson depleted soils such asmine banks (e.g., Berry andMarx 1977). Criteria havebeen developed, as in thecase of slash pine, forevaluating potential re-sponses from use of differ-ent fertilizers, along withrecommendations for ratesand timing of applications(Stone 1983, p. 86).

Nutrient cycling has likewisereceived considerable atten-tion from forest scientists.This has been due in panto increased interest inmaking use of forestbiomass for energy as wellas conventional logs andboltwood, with consequentquestions of nutrient deple-tion (e.g., Wells 1977).Studies have shown, forexample, that normal har-vesting of tree boles results

in nutrient losses thatapproximate nutrient inputs;but with harvesting on veryshort rotations and totaluse of biomass, nutrientlosses may exceed thenatural supply. Better under-standing of the physicaland chemical properties offorest soils also has resultedfrom the work of scientistssuch as W.F. Miller atMississippi State University(1976).

The profitability of forestfertilization has been amatter of much uncertainty,in large part because ofwide variations in forestconditions and responsesto fertilization. Nevertheless,studies of slash pine standsin the Southeast (e.g., Fightand Dutrow 1981) haveindicated that proper appli-cation of fertilizers at theright time could yield returnsas high as 27 percent oninvestments in this practice.

Hardwood managementhas also been of muchsignificance in the South.Hardwood types covermore than half the forestarea of the region, includingbottomlands with manyvaluable species and high-producing sites. The upland

3 1

hardwoods, which so oftencompete with pines, alsoproduce useful timberproducts as well as foodand habitat for wildlife, andrecreation opportunities.Logging practices in south-ern hardwood forests havegenerally involved theremoval of only the higherquality trees, thus greatlyreducing the quality andproductivity of residualstands. Cutting also hasoften favored developmentof undesirable shade-tolerant species, which nowdominate many highlyproductive hardwood sites.

The research and demon-stration efforts of J.A.Putman, L.C. Maisenhelder,4.S. f’vlcKnight, andcoworkers provided valu-able guidelines for theregeneration and culture ofimportant bottomland hard-woods in both naturalstands and in plantations(e.g., Putnam ‘I 951). Studiesof cutting methods inbottomland forests havepointed to clearcutting asthe best practice if theobjective is timber ption (e.g., Johnson 1summary of information onhardwood si~vic~ltur~ indi-cates that optimum species

mix, high growth rates, anddesirable tree form occur infull sunlight, with reproduc-tion from advance growth,sprouts, and new seedlings(Prewitt 1982). Thinningstands helps concentrategrowth on selected treesand permits some controlof species composit ion, buteven-aged managementwithout thinning has beenshown to offer advantagesin avoidance of soil damage,epicormic branching, anddamage to crop trees. Muchinformation on the silvicul-ture of upland hardwoodsalso has been developedthrough studies in Texas(e.g., Walker 1972) andelsewhere (USDAService 4 980a).

have shown much promisein many areas. Researchershave provided valuableinformation on effects ofsite and spacing on treegrowth, as well as the

ante of fertilization,

1960). Although the totalarea of hardwood planta-tions is still limited, in 1979some 16 companies werereported as having hard-wood planting programs,mainly for cottonwoods(Prewitt 1982). Studieshave also revealed poten-tials for growing eucalyptsin Florida for use in pulpand paper and possiblyother products (Geary andothers 1983).

Extensive cooperationbetween researchers andindustrial and other groupsconcerned with the manage-ment of southern hard-woods has been an impor-tant factor in southernforestry research. A south-ern hardwood forestrygroup, for example, orga-nized in 1951, held regularfield meetings to studyhardwood management,sponsored classes in logand lumber grading, estab-lished long-term timbergrowth studies, and assistedin other research programs.A hardwood research coop-erative in North Carolinainvolved industry and univer-sity participants in a seriesof growth and yield studies.

In the area of forest mensu-ration and biometrics,recruitment of Roy Chap-man in the early 1930’sadded the first in a seriesof specialists who havecontributed statistical ex-pertise to a wide variety ofresearch investigations. Inlater years other scientists,including J.G. Osborne,C.A. Bickford, T.C. Evans,Frank Freese, and H.T.Schreuder, provided similarassistance to improvesampling design and otherstatistical techniques inmany research projects.L.R. Grosenbaugh led inthe development of proce-dures for variable radiusplot sampling and othertechniques that helpedincrease efficiency in timberinventories and manage-ment planning (Grosen-baugh 1958). Cooperativeefforts with F.X. Schumach-er, of Duke University,included publication of anearly text on samplingmethods in forestry andrange management (Schu-macher and Chapman1942). Scientists at theUniversity of Alabamaprovided an understandingof relationships such asthat between point densitymeasurements and subse-

3 3

quent timber growth (e.g.,Johnson 1973).

The rapid expansion inavailability and use ofcomputers and computerspecialists in recentdecades greatly increasedefficiency in many researchprojects. These have includ-ed timber inventories, pre-dicting furture stand devel-opment with alternativemanagement practices,estimating allowable cuts,and identifying optimumrotation ages for specifiedtimber-management objec-tives.

The information obtainedfrom the many studiesconducted by forest scien-tists on the various aspectsof southern forest manage-ment has been broughttogether from time to timein major publications. Knowl-edge relating to longleafpine was summarized by

W.G. Wahlenberg in 1946in a lengthy monograph. In1960, he published a similarcomprehensive treatise onloblolly pine, covering itsecology, regeneration,protection, growth, andother aspects of manage-ment. This book was basedon the author’s personalexperience plus reviews ofnearly 1,500 articles byother researchers. Thecomprehensive “SiliviculturalSystems for the Major ForestTypes in the United States”has provided guidelines formanagement of all theimportant pine and hard-wood types in the South(Burns 1983). Symposiaand conferences for bothpracticing foresters andresearchers have alsoprovided summaries of newinformation for both pinesand hardwoods, togetherwith recommendations formanagement of variousspecies (e.g., Barnett 1981).

3 4

As interest in forestry spreadacross the South, it soonbecame evident that insectsand diseases seriously limityields of timber and causemajor losses of structuresbuilt of wood. Cone andseed insects reduce seedproduction. Nursery dis-eases diminish output ofquality planting stock. Tipmoths, sawflies, webworms,weevils, bark beetles, rusts,root rots, canker rots,parasitic nematodes, andother pests take their toll oftimber in established stands.Termites, wood borers,stains, and wood rootscause enormous losses inbuildings and other struc-tures.

An early example of suc-cessful research was thework of Ralph M. Lindgren,A.D. Chapman, and T.C.Scheffer in devising meansof chemical control of sapstain in southern pinelumber.5 This was achieved

5 Much information on pathologyresearch by Federal and universityresearch scientists is contained ina ‘History of Forest PathologyResearch in the South and South-east” (Verrall 1982).

through use of fungicidaldips, effective proceduresfor chemical application,and proper handling ofwood during harvesting,milling, and seasoning(Scheffer and Lindgren1940). Results of this workwere of enormous economicimportance to the southernpine lumber industry and toall owners and users ofsouthern pine timber. Suc-cess in producing newknowledge of such greatpractical importance to thesouthern economy alsobrought recognition to theyoung Southern ForestExperiment Station andgreatly strengthened sup-port for the new field offorestry research (Wakeley1964 unpubl.).

In many research effortsinvolving insects and dis-ease, a logical and oftentime-consuming procedurewas the initial step: learningthe life history of forestpests and their relationshipsto the natural habitat.Applied studies of chemicalcontrols and integratedpest management subse-quently added to the baseof scientific knowledge and

3 5

guidelines for forest protec-tion. Such research hasbeen supplemented byannual surveys of insectand disease conditionsconducted cooperatively byadministrative and researchagencies (e.g., USDA ForestService 1980b).

Among the many scientistsmaking major contributionsto knowledge of forestdiseases was GeorgeHepting, author of the 1971volume *Diseases of Forestand Shade Trees,” animportant fundamentalwork for American forestpathologists. Scientists inthe Bureau of Plant Industryand in the Forest Serviceafter 1954 dominated forestdisease research in theSouth for many years, butafter 1960 universitiesbegan adding pathologiststo their staffs. Many of theseresearchers transferredafter long experience inFederal service, includingJ.S. Boyce, Jr., E.F. Jewell,E.P. Van Arsdell, E.R. Toole,and A.F. Verrall.

One of the more seriousdiseases in the South, thebrownspot needle diseaseof longleaf pine, was thesubject of early investiga-

tions by H.H. Chapman, ofYale University, during the1920’s. His work, followedby the studies of PaulSiggers and other patholo-gists during the 1930’s and1940’s, demonstrated meth-ods of control throughprescibed burning duringthe seedling stage of treedevelopment (e.g., Siggers1944). The fungicidesBordeaux mixture andbenomyl were found to beeffective in protecting plant-ing stock in tree nurseries.

Fusiform rust, another highlydestructive disease ofsouthern pines, particularlyslash and loblolly, also hasbeen the subject of muchresearch by both patholo-gists and geneticists, Care-ful selection of seed frommore-resistant sources hasbeen the principal way ofdealing with this disease,and spraying with ferbamhas helped provide control(Mexal and Snow 1978).Much of the accumulatedknowledge of this diseasehas been summarized inproceedings of a sympo-sium on management offusiform rust in southernpines (Dinus and others1977).

3 6

A mysterious disease ofloblolly and shortleaf pines,designated initially as “little-leaf disease,” likewise hasbeen of much concern toforest pathologists andforest managers. Studiesby W.A. Campbell, O.L.Copeland, B. Zak, andcoworkers led to the identifi-cation of a fungus, Phyfoph-thora cinnamomi, as thecausal factor (e.g., Campbelland Copeland 1954). Thesymptoms of littleleaf dis-ease proved to be anexpression of nitrogenstarvation resulting fromthe killing of feeder rootsby this fungus in heavysoils with poor drainageand aeration. Managementguidelines developed fromthis research includeddirections for handlingdiseased plants, breedingfor resistance, and favoringsoil-building hardwoods.

Annosus root rot has beenanother cause of signicantmortality of southern pines,especially in thinned stands.Research by scientistssuch as R.C. Froelich, C.S.Hodges, E.G. Ruhlman,and E.W. Ross identifiedmethods of preventing orreducing losses from thisdisease by silvicultural

practices that include ratinghazard by soil characteris-tics, summer thinning, andprescribed burning; selec-tion of less susceptiblespecies in planting pro-grams; and direct controlthrough application of boraxon freshly cut stumps (e.g.,Kuhlman and others 1976and Froehlich and others1977).

Among the numerous insectpests in southern forests,the southern pine beetleand the black turpentinebeetle have been particular-ly destructive of standingtrees. Major outbreaks ofthe southern pine beetlehave occurred periodically,as in the late 1970’s. Anextensive program of re-search on this pest hasbeen carried out in recentyears, particularly througha Combined Forest PestResearch, Development,and Applications Programcentered at Pineville, LA.This program combined theefforts of Federal, university,industry, and other organi-zations both in cooperativestudies and in test applica-tions of findings on anoperational scale. In thesearch for effective controls,much information has been

37

acquired and summarizedin technical publicationsand symposium proceed-ings (e.g., Coster andSearcy 1979, Hastings andCoster 1981, Thatcher andothers 1980, and USDA1981).

Researchers have alsodeveloped hazard-ratingsystems that relate foreststand conditions to potentialbeetle infestation and appro-priate control measures(Belanger and others 1981).Numerous insecticidessuch as chlorpyrifos havebeen identified and tested.Possible use of predators,such as the clerid beetles,has been studied, alongwith pheromones and otherchemical attractants andinhibitors, Basic studieshave evaluated enzyme-,protein-, and hormone-related factors in pine beetlepopulation growth. Stillother experiments havedetermined the effects ofcultural practices such asthinnings to favor moreresistant tree species.Systems for modeling pinebeetle population have also

been developed (Stephenand others 1980). Throughsuch investigations, anumber of recommenda-tions have been developedthat may prevent or reduceoutbreaks of the southernpine beetle (Swaine andRemion 1981).

Research on the blackturpentine beetle revealedthat infestations in thinnedloblolly pine plantations, forexample, can be limited byminimizing injury to residualtrees, avoiding harvestingon waterlogged soils, andapplying lindane to dam-aged or infected trees(Feduccia and Mann 1976).Damage from cone andseed insects in seed or-chards can be limitedthrough use of carbofuran(e.g., DeBarr 1978). Thepales weevil, a pest causinghigh losses on some recent-ly cutover and planted pinelands, can be suppressedby chlorpyrifos and otherinsecticides (Nord andothers 1978). Tests of the amicrobial insecticide Ba-cillus thuringiensis, haveshown much promise in

protecting trees fromdefoliation.6

Much research also hasbeen conducted on waysof protecting wood productsfrom subterranean termitesand other wood-destroyinginsects and fungi. In thelate 1930’s, T.E. Snyderinitiated work on termites,and MB. Christian soughtways of controlling powder-post beetles in hardwoodlumber. Starting in the1940’s, H.R. Johnson andcoworkers identified pesti-cides and procedures forprotecting wood in houses

* The great variety and importanceof forest insect pests have beendescribed in “Eastern Forest In-sects” by Whiteford Baker (1972).In 1985 the Forest Service pub-lished an update of this book,*Insects of Eastern Forests,”Miscellaneous Publication 1426.

and other structures fromattack by termites and otherinsects. Related researchdeveloped ways of protect-ing wood structures fromdecay associated with rainseepage and condensationin air-cooled buildings byuse of nonpressure preserv-ative treatment (Verrall1982).

Results of these studies,together with work on woodpreservatives at such loca-tions as the Forest ProductsLaboratory at Madison, WI,and Mississippi State Uni-versity, have benefitedconsumers through greatlyimproved performance ofwood in many uses. FederalHousing Administrationstandards, for example,and military manuals forprevention of insect anddisease attack in structuresare based on findings ofthis research.

3 9

Another early venture ofthe southern forest experi-ment stations was a regionalsurvey of timber resources,conducted under authoriza-tions in the McSweeney-f&Nary Forest ResearchAct of 1928. The southernforest survey was part of anationwide effort designedto provide an inventory andappraisal of both currentand prospective timberresources and timber re-quirements in the UnitedStates, an essential basisfor evaluating the timbersituation and outlook.

The forest survey represent-ed, in effect, a major intensi-fication of forest resourceanalyses contained in seriesof national publicationsdating back to the period1878 - 82, when Franklin B.Hough issued a surprisinglycomprehensive “ReportUpon Forestry.” This wasfollowed by other timberresource reports, notably aBureau of CorporationsReport of 1911 and theCopeland Report of 1933,as well as more recenttimber resource studies,including Timber Reviewsof 1952 and 1970 andculminating in *An Analysisof the Timber Situation in

the United States,1952 - 2030” (USDA ForestService 1982a). The earlierresource studies containedgeneralized and necessarilylimited information on timberresources. The more recentnational reports have includ-ed considerable data byStates and increasing detailon the changing forestsituation.

Some early reports on forestand range resources wereissued in the South, as inthe case of the Bureau ofEconomic and BusinessResearch in Florida, whichpublished studies dealingwith t imber resources andindustries and the navalstores industry in that State(Campbell and McCracken1932). In the 1930’s and1940’s, the Florida Agricul-tural Experiment Stationalso issued reports onforest pastures and condi-tions of vegetation on rurallands.

In 1931, the southern forestsurvey staff, under theleadership of G.H. Lentz,followed by lnman (“Cap”)Eldridge, undertook themajor task of obtainingdetailed information onforest areas throughout the

South: the volume, size,and ownership of the timberresources thereon, and thegrowth, mortality, andutilization of timber. Informa-tion on the gum naval storesindustry also was includedin recognition of the signifi-cance in earlier years ofthat southern forest-basedindustry.

Survey reports issued inthe 1930’s soon revealed asurprising recovery ofsouthern pine forests,despite the extensive log-ging and widespread firescharacteristic throughoutthe South. Improving forestconditions reflected bettercontrol of wildfires and thenatural ability of southernpines to restock cutoverand burned areas. Naturalseeding of abandonedcroplands during the 1920’s,the depression years of the1930’s, and the period afterWorld War II also was ofconsiderable importance.Establishment of pineplantations by the CivilianConservation Corps in the1930’s and by many industri-al and other landownersafter World War II also addedto the pine timber resourcebase.

The survey reports thatcame from the printersbeginning in ‘1934 were ofspecial interest to the pulpand paper industry, thenon the threshold of aspectacular expansionthroughout the South.Information on the increas-ing availability of pinepulpwood supplies un-doubtedly helped stimulateconstruction of more andlarger mills, even in thedepressed years of the1930’s. Pulping capacity atsouthern pulp mills, amount-ing to about 3,000 tons perday in 1930, nearly quadru-pled by 1940, while thenumber of mills rose about25 percent (from 40 to 49)in this period. Continuedexpansion in the years afterWorld War II raised pulpingcapacity in the South tosome 110,000 tons per dayby 1979, or about 65 percentof the Nation’s total pulpingcapacity.

The 1960’s and 1970’s alsosaw the rapid developmentof a major southern pineplywood industry, as wellas marked resurgence ofthe southern pine lumberindustry, all guided in partby resource data from theforest survey. Increasingly

detailed resource data alsohelped guide investmentsin acquisition of timberlandsand forest management tosupport long-range industri-al expansion.

By the early 1940’s, thesouthern forest survey hadcovered most of the Southwith a grid of lines andplots established by fieldcrews who traveled on footthrough thousands of milesof forested areas, swamps,coastal plains, and moun-tains. The timber inventoryinformation collected in thisfield work was summarizedin some 53 reports, whichprovided the first set ofcomprehensive and statisti-cally valid data on the variedtimber resources of theSouth. Prominent amongthe analysts and authors ofthese reports in this prewarera were A.R. Spillers, S.B.Hutchinson, RX. Winters,and F.A. Ineson.

In 1946, after the return ofpersonnel from wartimeduties and increases inapropriations, resurvey ofsouthern forests was begun,followed by subsequentresurveys at approximately1 O-year intervals. Thesemore recent resource inven-

tories utilized new tech-niques involving land classi-f ication throughinterpretation of aerialphotographs, measure-ments of timber on prese-lected variable-radius fieldplots, and use of computersfor rapid and detailedcompilat ions of resourcedata.

Many members of the ForestService and cooperatingagencies made signif icantcontributions in this workunder such survey leadersas P.A. Wheeler, J.F.Christopher, J.W. Cruik-shank, J.F. McCormack,and J. McClure. More than40 other authors alsoprepared publications ontimber resources, industrialuse of timber products,trends in timber growth,and related information.

Other specialists is statisticsand biometry helped devel-op improved methodologythat materially improved theefficiency and usefulness ofthe forest survey. Theseimprovements related tosampling methods, use ofvariable plots, and bettermethods of projectingtimber growth and invento-

ifferent manage-

ment alternatives (e.g.,Larson and Goforth 1974).C. Mesavage and J.W.Girard (1946) developedvolume tables for estimatingthe board foot and cubicfoot contents of standingtimber. Many other perma-nent and temporary surveystaff members contributedby interpreting aerial photos,measuring field plots, com-piling inventory growth andutilization data, and publish-ing reports.

Cooperators in Stateforestry agencies and inforest industries likewisemade very substantialcontributions of money,field crews, or other assis-tance to speed up andintensify the survey pro-gram. The major studyentitled “The South’s ThirdForest” (Southern ForestResource Analysis Commit-tee 1969), prepared by P.A.Wheeler under industrysponsorship, also illustratedthe value of survey data forevaluation and developmentof forestry programs, Thisanalysis traced the develop-ment of forestry practicesin the South and identifiedmeasures needed to assureadequate timber supplies

for the expanding woodindustries in the region.

During the Korean War ofthe early 1950’s, specialanalyses of timber resourcedata for different parts ofthe South helped determinethe adequacy of timbersupplies for new industrialplant capacity, particularlyfor expanded pulp andpaper production. Othersurveys of equipment re-quirements of the forestindustries provided essen-tial data for defense plan-ning. Also in the 1950’s,cooperative surveys withthe Forest Products Labora-tory provided informationon the range in specificgravity of wood in southernpine trees. Subsequently,inventories to determineweights and volumes ofboth timber and othervegetat ion furnished ameasure of the potentialavailability of biomass forenergy production.

Significant progress alsohas been made in broaden-ing surveys to encompassnontimber resources anduses (USDA Forest Service1978b). As early as 1959,studies were undertaken toobtain data on range owner-

4 3

ship and utilization in sur-veys of the Arkansas Ozarks.in the early 1960’s,procedures forincorporating evaluations ofdeer habitat were tested ina resurvey of north Georgia.A cooperative survey oftimber and range resourcesin Louisiana in 1973 includ-ed evaluations of forageavailability and use, firehistory, and range condition.And in 1977, the Southeast-ern Station broadened itstimber inventory work inSouth Carolina to obtaindata on wildlife habitat,range, water, soils, under-story vegetation, and recre-ation.

Information provided by theforest survey on the timbersituation and outlook ineach State has provided ameasure of the effectivenessof Federal, State, and privateforestry programs, togetherwith an indication of oppor-tunities for changes in theseprograms. Such use offorest resource data isillustrated in individual Statereports and programs, andin periodic national assess-ments and programs calledfor by the Forest andRangeland RenewableResources Act of 1974.

44

Closely related to surveysand analyses of forestresources have been anumber of studies of forestland ownership, conductedover the past severaldecades by Forest Serviceresearchers such as L.M.James, A.S. Todd, A.Pleasanton, and W.C.Anderson; by scientists insouthern universities, suchas C.B. Marlin (1978) inLouisiana; and by theAmerican Forestry Associa-tion in North Carolina(Pomeroy and Yoho 1964).These studies have provid-ed key information on suchmatters as owner character-istics, extent of landhold-ings, problems encounteredin management of privateforest lands, and landownerresponses to forestry assis-tance programs. Generallythese have shown a prepon-derance of small forestownerships held by a widevariety of owners who, forvarious reasons, have beenunwilling or unable to investcapital in planting or othertimber-growing measures(e.g., Birch and others1982).

A number of studies haveshown, nevertheless, that

cultural measures to pro-duce southern pines couldbe undertaken in manyareas at moderate costsand with significant returnson investments. In theSoutheastern United States,for example, analysis sug-gests that over 100 millionacres of forest land wouldqualify for some manage-ment treatment, with invest-ment returns ranging from3 to 16 percent (Dutrow1978). Conversion of oak -pine types to pine planta-tions, for example, hasbeen identified as a principalway of increasing pinetimber supplies on millionsof acres of southern forests.Guides have been preparedto aid investors contemplat-ing such action (e.g., Ander-son and Guttenberg 1971).

In recognition of the largeimportance of nonindustrialownersips in the timbersupply picture, and evi-dence of promising invest-ment opportunities, a num-ber of public programshave been adopted to assistowners in improving themanagement of their forests.In addition to Federaltechnical assistance andcost sharing, several South-

45

ern States have establishedincentive programs fundedby severance taxes or byfunding from the forestindustries, as in Texas,Many private firms havealso developed “tree farmfamily” programs or relatedefforts to work with otherlandowners in increasingtimber production.

An evaluation of the FederalForestry Incentives Pro-gram, conducted by repre-sentatives of the ForestService, the University ofMinnesota, the USDA’sAgricultural Stabilizationand Conservation Service,and several State forestryagencies, have indicatedthat this assistance programhas been a cost-effectiveway to increase timberyields on nonindustrialforests (Risbrudt and Ellef-son 1983). Investments insuch measures as sitepreparation and planting,precommercoial thinning,and cull tree removal wereestimated to yield morethan an 8-percent real rateof return while producingsignificant increases infuture yields of timber. Inaddition, soil and waterconservation, wildlife habi-tat, recreation, and esthetics

4 6

were enhanced in varyingdegree.

Economic aspects of forestmanagement in both pineand hardwood types havebeen given considerableattention by researchers inthe South. In the 1930’s,W.E. Bond and associatesissued the first in a seriesof reports on the costs andreturns of sustained-yieldforestry in southern pinetypes (Bond and others1937). W.A. Duerr and S.Guttenberg developedguidelines for determiningthe financial maturity oftimber (e.g., Duerr andothers 1956). Various analy-ses of economic aspects oftimber management, f irecontrol, or other phases offorestry also have beenconducted as part of broader silvicultural investigations,

Application of operationsresearch techniques tosawmill operations demon-strated how profits mightbe maximized by changingproduction or marketingfactors (Row and others1965). Methods of computeranalysis were also devel-oped for logging operationsto help estimate the mostprofitable timber-harvesting

procedures (Koger andWebster 1984).

Among other studies offorest policy issues was themonumental work of theforest taxation inquiry,designed to find generalsolutions to problems offorest property taxation(Fairchild 1935). Subse-quent studies of foresttaxation more specificallyoriented to the Southincluded the work of suchscientists as R.R. Craig andW.C. Siegel at the SouthernForest Experiment Station,Leon Hargreaves, Jr., at theGeorgia Forestry Commis-sion, and W.O. Klempererat the Virginia PolytechnicInstitute. Legislators andothers have used suchstudies in evaluating possi-ble impacts of various taxpolicies on forest ownershipand forestry practices.

The marketing of southernpine and hardwood prod-ucts has likewise been asubject for research by

many scientists. For morethan a century, periodicsurveys of production,prices, and end uses offoresty products have beenconducted by the U.S.Bureau of the Census, theForest Service, and variousState agencies. Beginningin the 1950’s, such re-searchers as H.E. Dicker-hoof, CA. Fasick, W.C.Anderson, and D.L. Halley,Jr., conducted localmarketing studies on con-sumer attitudes toward useof wood and competingproducts and related factorsaffecting consumption ofsouthern wood products.Studies of pulpwoodingrevealed the productionand marketing structure ofthis important southernindustry (e.g., Rawlins andSorensen 1968). BothFederal and State agencieshave issued series of localprice and market reportsfor stumpage, logs, andpulpwood of southerntimber species,

47

The research and develop-ment efforts of both publicand industrial researchorganizations in the Southhave led to many improve-ments in logging, manufac-ture of wood products, anduse of wood materials forconstruction and otherpurposes.

Investigations dealing withproperties and uses of thesouthern pines began asearly as 1882 in the Divisionof Forestry in the U.S. De-partment of Agriculture,although funds and trainedpersonnel were, of course,extremely limited. Suchwork led to the discoverythat lumber from longleafpine trees tapped for navalstores was as strong asthat from untapped timber;therefore, much of theprevailing waste of tappedtrees was unnecessary.Other studies showed thatseasoning lumber en-hanced its strength. We-search around the turn ofthe century on preservativetreatment of railway tiesand other wood productssimilarly helped point theway to better use and

conservation of timberresources.

The Forest Products Labora-tory of the USDA ForestService, established in1910 at Madison, WI, incooperation with the Univer-sity of Wisconsin, soonbecame a major center ofknowledge leading to morerational and less wastefuluse of timber. Because oftheir relative abundanceand usefulness, the south-ern pines became thesubject of much of theresearch at this worldfamous laboratory. In 1910,there were no highly efficientsawmills or dry kilns; pulpand paper production waslimited and primitive; hard-woods were seldom usedfor paper; there were noplywoods, particleboards,or laminated timbers: andwood preservation was oflimited application.7

7 “History of the U.S. Forest Prod-ucts Laboratory, 1920- 1963,” byCharles l-i. Nelson (1971), providesa detailed description of theextensive research conducted atthis institution. Research performedin subsequent years has beendescribed in annual reports of thel a b o r a t o r y .

48

The early timber testingwork of the Bureau ofForestry and several univer-sity laboratories was soonmaterially expanded at theMadison laboratory toinclude strength tests ofvarious sizes and grades ofmost commercial t imbersand effects of factors suchas defect and moisturecontent. As early as 1915,the Southern Pine Associa-tion and the AmericanSociety of Testing Materialsadopted lumber-gradingrules prepared at the Madi-son laboratory. These andsubsequently developedstandards for plywood andother products have provid-ed architects and engineerswith accurate data fordesign of structures, reliabledata for commercial specifi-cations, and a basis forsubst i tut ion for scarcespecies or materials.

Another major highlight ofutilization research at theForest Products Laboratorywas the development andpatenting of an efficient drykiln by H.D. Tieman. Thishighly practical develop-ment was the result of yearsof intensive research on thefundamental principles ofdrying, shrinkage, and

effects of moisture contentin wood of various species.The laboratory at Madisonalso sponsored courses inkiln drying to disseminateknowledge of modern dryingmethods. These effortshave helped reduce use ofgreen lumber in construc-tion, with consequent im-provement in performanceand consumer benefits.

Research aimed at improv-ing the efficiency of sawmillsled to better equipmentand plant layout and moreproductive cutting practices.Thus lumber yields, particu-larly from small logs, canbe substantially increasedthrough computer-basedselection of the “best open-ing face” of each log-adiscovery of special signifi-cance in view of the increas-ing proportion of small logsin the available timbersuPPlY-

In the area of pulp andpaper research, early workby industrial researchersand by scientists at theMadison laboratory andother institutions pointedthe way to successfulproduction of kraft pulpsfrom southern pines, andthe ensuing enormous

4 9

expansion of the southernkraft pulp and paper indus-try. With rapid growth indemand for kraft pulps,papers, and board, thediscovery that southernpines were suitable forthese products was of greatimportance. C.F. Herty andothers also found that itwas feasible to makenewsprint from the southernpines. At the Madisonlaboratory, scientists suchas C.E. Currens and G.H.Chidester found that strongwhite pulps could be madefrom southern pines througha modified kraft process incombination with two-stagebleaching.

Development of the semi-chemical pulping processat Madison also ranked asa major accomplishment.This process, involving acombination of chemicaland mechanical pulping,provided an efficient methodfor pulping hitherto unus-able southern hardwoodsand proved to be particularlysuitable for production ofthe corrugating mediumused in container board.Related studies also led todevelopment of a high-yield“cold soda” process for

50

pulping hardwoods. And anew process for “pressdrying” paper, using bothheat and pressure simulta-neously, yielded high-strength papers from hard-woods while saving onenergy otherwise usable fordrying. The basic work ofsuch men as C.W. McMillin(1978) helped in suchdevelopments throughbetter understanding ofwood chemistry, fiber char-acteristics, and relations ofsuch factors to propertiesof wood pulps, paper, andfiberboards.

Wartime activities at theMadison laboratory in the1940’s included the devel-opment and testing ofpacking boxes and othercontainers for military use.Improved designs andspecifications for shippingdifferent commodities inlumber, veener, plywood,and container board result-ed in large reductions inbreakage and financialsavings in both military andcivilian uses. Developmentof pallets for movementand storage of goods waslikewise of great importanceto the military, as well as tomany peacetime users.

Building on the wartimeexperience in providingtechnical services to theforest industries, a “ForestUtilization Service” wasestablished at the variousexperiment stations of theForest Service. This pro-gram provided a means ofstimulating research atutilization laboratories anda way of getting results ofresearch into practice withminimum delays. In theSouth, men such as M.M.Lehrbas, CR. Lockard, RD.Carpenter, R.H. Page, andW.R. Smith provided suchliaison between the Madisonlaboratory and the forestindustries. They provided awealth of information totimber producers on suchmatters as lumber season-ing, milling, wood preserva-tion, gluing of wood prod-ucts, pulp chip procurementand storage, and log andlumber grading. Someyears later, similar assis-tance was provided byextension specialists atsome of the southernuniversities.

In the early postwar years,investigations were under-taken to develop log andtree grades for southernpines, supplementing

grades for hardwoodsdeveloped in earlier years.These provided a means ofimproving efficiency inlogging and milling andmaking more accurateappraisals of timber values.The work of C.R. Lockard,R.D. Carpenter, R.A. Camp-bell, L.M. James, J.A.Putnam, and othersprovided effective log grad-ing rules both for southernpines and for hardwoods(e.g., Lockard and others1950).

The 1960’s also saw thedevelopment of technologythat permitted efficientmanufacture of plywoodfrom the southern pines.This resulted from coooper-ative efforts of the plywoodindustry and Forest Prod-ucts Laboratory re-searchers, who providedtechnical information onwood characteristics, adhe-sives, machining tech-niques, and criteria forcommercial standards. Theexpansion of this newsouthern pine plywoodindustry has been spectacu-lar, with production in 1982reaching more than half thetotal U.S. output of structuralpanels. During the 1960’s,use of sawmill residues for

5 1

pulp chips also expandedrapidly, thanks in large partto experiments by the pulpand paper industry.

Another postwar develop-ment in utilization researchwas the establishment orexpansion of forest productslaboratories in a number ofSouthern States. Theseincluded a laboratory atNorth Carolina State Univer-sity, well known for researchon pulp and paper. Alaboratory at MississippiState University developedspecial expertise in woodpreservation, Universities inGeorgia, Alabama, Virginia,and Texas also built upforest products laboratories.The Forest Service estab-lished two regional laborato-ries in the South in the1960’s, one at Alexandria,LA, initially under the direc-tion of Peter Koch, and oneat Athens, GA, under RR.Bloomquist.

Research conducted atFederal, State, and industriallaboratories has led tomany new products oruses as well as greatlyimproved efficiency in themanufacture of conventionalwood-based materials.Research on housing sys-

52

terns, for example, hashelped reduce costs andimprove performance ofboth conventional andfactory-built housing. Newmarkets have been devel-oped for preservative-treated wood foundations.Construction techniquesusing improved vaporbarriers have providedpracticable and economicalmethods of moisture control.

Other developments in useof wood include gluedlaminated arches, beams,and other items made ofsouthern pine as well asother superior species.Development of theseengineered productsstemmed in large part fromthe work of many re-searchers in design, adhe-sives, finger jointing, timberconnectors, wood preserva-tives, and finishing.

Research at Madison andother laboratories also ledto the development andcommercial manufacture ofa variety of panel products(e.g., USDA Forest Service1978c). These includefiberboard, pa&i&board,f lakeboard, oriented strandboard, honeycomb panels,composite framing, panels

composed of a particle-board core between layersof veneer, and other sand-wich materials of wood withmetal or plastic. New prod-ucts such as resin-treatedpapers and densified prod-ucts called “compreg” and“impreg” also have beenproduced and have provedimportant for military andother purposes.

Early work on wood preser-vation was soon expandedat the Madison laboratoryand at other institutionssuch as Mississippi Stateto include fundmentalstudies of chemical, physi-cal, and toxic qualities ofvarious preservatives, andways of improving preserva-tives and treating process-es, Greater efficiency in thewood-preserving industryand ways of adjusting toenvironmental regulationshave been important bene-fits of this research. Relatedstudies of the flammabilityof different woods treatedwith fire-retardant chemicalsalso helped improve wood-treating processes. Re-search on paints andpainting methods hasprovided knowledge thatresulted in better perfor-mance of wood in construc-

tion and savings in timberresources and consumerdollars.

Engineering research anddevelopment relating tologging and manufacture ofwood products likewiseproduced much new tech-nology and improved equip-ment. For example, a coop-erative project involving theGeorgia Pacific Company,Auburn University, andequipment manufacturersled to development ofmachines for chipping treesin the woods. Other compa-nies, such as InternationalPaper, working with equip-ment manufacturers didmuch to develop pulpwoodand tree harvesters.

The information developedthrough such utilizationresearch has heen issuedin many publications, includ-ing a major work by PeterKoch on utilization of thesouthern pines (1972). In1978 a symposium oncomplete tree utilization ofsouthern pines also provid-ed much useful informationon the latest developmentsin various aspects of south-ern pine timber utilization(McMillin 1978).

5 3

Research dealing with thenaval stores industry involv-ing the tapping of longleafand slash pines for oleoresinwas launched at a relativelyearly date. Work by CharlesF. Herty in 1903 resulted inimproved methods of tap-ping trees using cups andgutters rather than thehighly destructive system ofchopping a box in the baseof tapped trees. In the early1920’s, Lenthall Wayman,workin? in Starke, FL,developed more efficientmethods of chipping trees.In the 1930’s, a number ofother members of thesouthern forest experimentstations joined the Floridaproject in naval stores,including V.L. Harper, T.A.Liefeld, L.E. House, andC.H. Coulter. A series ofreports dealing with resinproduction resulted fromthis work, including a majorhandbook (USDA ForestService 1935).

After 1940, work on chemicalstimulation of gum yieldsincluded the discovery thatgum flows could be greatlyincreased by treating thefaces of tapped trees with

a sulphuric acid paste-resulting in yields up to 150percent greater than fromuntreated trees (Stubbsand others 1984). Develop-ment of plastic cups andgutters for gum collectionimproved the quality ofgum. And new equipmentsuch as rossing tools helpedlower costs and improveworking conditions. It wasalso determined in morerecent years that applicationof the herbicide paraquatto wounds on southernpines causes wood to besoaked with resin that canbe recovered during thepulping process. Suchtreatments yielded increas-es of more than 150 percentin extractives from slashand longleaf pines (Drewand Roberts 1978). Relatedstudies of insect attacks ontapped trees revealed thatspraying with lindane wouldlimit mortality that oftenfollowed chipping (Merkeland Clark 1981). Coopera-tive work on this significantdevelopment was carriedout for a period through alightwood research coordi-nating committee (Esser1979).

The long-established prac-tice of grazing cattle andhogs on the “open range”of the South, with woods-burning the primary tool ofmanagement, posed manyquestions for researchersat forestry and agriculturalexperiment stations in theregion. Could grazing bemade compatible withtimber production? Wouldboth timber growing andlivestock production beprofitable on forest lands?

An impressive series ofinvestigations dealing withthe grazing of cattle onforest ranges, particularlyon the coastal plain, wasbegun in the 1940’s byscientists such as H.H.Biswell, R.S. Campbell, J.T.Cassidy, L.K. Halls, R.A.Read, and B.L. Southwell.Both studies andobservations indicated thatin the longleaf - slash pinebelt, properly managedcattle grazing does littleharm to pine regenerationand growth and utilizesgrass and other forage thatmight otherwise feed wild-fires (e.g., Campbell andCassidy 1951).

Studies of prescribed burn-ing demonstrated thatcontrolled fires improve thenutrient content and di-gestibility of forage andincrease its availability forlivestock (e.g., Duvall andWhitaker 1964). Relatedstudies revealed how openstrips of improved pasturecan serve as firebreaks, aswell as provide feed andaccess to adjoining forestrange (Halls and others1960).

Supplemental feeding andaccess to improved pas-tures proved to be importantelements in efficient systemsof cattle management thatutilize forest ranges (Duncanand Epps 1958). Forage onforest areas was found tobe generally deficient inenergy and nutrients re-quired for good animalgrowth, especially for breed-ing herds. Hence crudeprotein, phosphorus, andtrace elements often mustbe supplied for efficientlivestock production (Lewis1983). In other studiesseasonal use proved to bepreferable to year-roundforest grazing. Properstocking of both trees andlivestock was likewise shown

55

to be essential for a desir-able balance of the combi-nation of timber and cattle.Economic evaluations ofcattle-management systemsindicated that with goodmanagement, herd control,and supplemental feeding,cattle grazing on longleafpine forest ranges canyield acceptable returns onthe necessary investments(e.g., Halls and Duvall 1961).

The grazing of hogs inlongleaf pine forests, withconsequent destruction ofseedlings, has been amatter of conflict sinceforesters came to the South.Studies by W. Hopkins(1951) and others confirmedthe need to exclude thepiney woods pigs if newforests of longleaf pinewere to survive. Firms suchas the Great SouthernLumber Company and theUrania Lumber Companyhad long fenced theirholdings, but the regionalcustom of allowing hogs toroam free and graze any-where was persistent. Itwas not until the mid-l 950’sthat southern legislatures

passed effective laws con-trolling the free ranging ofthe half-wild razorbackhogs.

Information on managementof livestock on forest rangeshas been made availablethrough many publications(e.g., Burd and others 1984)as well as through symposiaon specific forest typessuch as the slash pineecosystem (Lewis 1983).Many studies by agriculturalexperiment stations anduniversities have added toknowledge of basic ecologi-cal relationships relevantfor both tree growing andmanagement of forestranges and livestock.8

6 The substantial amount of re-search on range managementconducted in the South in recentyears is evidenced by a bibliogra-phy that shows more than athousand entries for only the 6-yearperiod 1973-78. This bibliographywas a project of the Committee onRenewable Resources and isavailable for searching through theB i b l i o g r a p h i c R e t r i e v a l S e r v i c e ,Inc., with access through thetechnology transfer group of theUSDA Forest Service in Washing-ton, DC.

Ways of enhancing produc-tion of wildlife by improve-ments in forest habitatshave been studied by manyresearchers in the South.The grazing of cattle onforest ranges, for example,was found to producevariable impacts on wildlifeas well as on timber produc-tion (e.g., Pearson 1980).Moore and Terry (1981)found that continuousyear-round grazing onsoutheastern pine landsoften degrades both wildlifehabitat and range condi-tions, whereas short periodsof grazing followed by restperiods tend to improvewildlife habitat.

The classic early work ofH.L. Stoddard (1931) deal-ing with management ofquail outlined methods forenhancing habitat of thisimportant game species,Strong interest in white-tailed deer in the Southalso stimulated considera-ble research on this speciesby scientists such as R.A.Read, LX. Halls, H.L. Short,J.R. Stransky, and T.H.Ripley. A symposium ondeer, convened in Nacog-doches, TX, in 1969, consoli-dated known information

and proposed guides forimproving deer habitat andproduction in forest areas(Halls 1969).

Other research includedevaluations of forage avail-ability and digestibility andthe physiology and nutritionof deer (e.g., Halls andBoyd 1982). Related studiesexplored relationships be-tween deer managementand habitat and silviculturalpractices. These revealedsubstantial changes inyields of forage with timber-stand development andemphasized the need formaintaining a productiveunderstory by periodicthinnings and prescribedburnings.

Cooperative work with Stategame agencies has oftenbeen of major significancein wildlife managementresearch, as in the case ofstudies with the LouisianaWildlife and Fish Commis-sion dealing with deerpotentials in selectively cutpine- hardwood stands(Blair and Brunett 1977).Much additional researchalso has been conductedby the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService and by State game

5 7

commissions, particularlyon production and manage-ment of quail, deer, andturkey. These studies havebeen financed in considera-ble part by “Pittman-Robertson funds” derivedfrom Federal excise taxeson sales of arms andammunition.

With the emphasis onenvironmental considera-tions in recent years, man-agers of public lands suchas national forests havealso given increasing atten-tion to management pro-grams that recognizenongame wildlife habitatrequirements. The South-eastern Forest ExperimentStation and Clemson Univer-sity, for example, haveprovided comprehensivedescriptions of bird-habitatrelationships for some 234bird species found in south-ern forests (Hamel andothers 1982). Studies ofendangered species suchas the red-cockaded wood-pecker have been undertak-en to determine possiblemeans of sustaining remain-ing populations (Hooperand others 1980).

These investigations ofwildlife communities and

58

habitat requirements haveshown the need for adiversity of tree species,stand ages and habitat,and retention of snags andcavity trees for somespecies. It is apparent thatsuch measures directlyaffect timber rotation ages,silvicultural methods, andtimber-harvesting tech-niques. To forest managerson public lands at least,knowledge of such relation-ships has become essentialfor achieving an acceptablebalance between timberand other nontimber uses,such as wildlife, grazing,and recreation.

Recreational uses of south-ern forests have long includ-ed hunting for deer, quail,and squirrels as part of theculture of the rural South.This has often led to sharpconflicts with moderntimber-growing practices. Inpartial response, pulp andpaper companies and otherlarge landowners (includingthe Forest Service) havegenerally permitted publichunting and often managetheir forest land to increasehunting opportunities. Someindustrial and other largeowners lease forest landsto selected hunting groups

in the hope that incendiaryfires and vandalism willthereby be reduced andsome income realized.Forest managers also havehad to accommodate in-creasing numbers ofcampers, fishermen, and

other recreational users offorest lands (Cordell 1979).Damage to property hasusually been found to bethe most important problemassociated with theserecreational uses of south-ern forests.

5 9

Around 1930, the SouthernForest Experiment Stationundertook a limited programof research on methods ofcontrolling floods and soilerosion by establishingforest cover on erodingareas. These investigationswere centered in northernMississippi, where massivegully erosion and siltationof rich farmlands providedspectacular examples ofdamage to land and people.Under the leadership ofH.G. Meginnis in associationwith W.M. Broadfoot, G.H.Lentz, and J.D. Sinclair,experimental work wasbegun with erosion andrunoff plots and the plantingof pine to maintain soilcover (Meginnis 1935).

This highly successfulresearch, and later studiesin the Piedmont area of theCarolinas, where soil ero-sion also was severe, plusrelated studies by the SoilConservation Service andthe Agricultural ResearchService, have provided asound technical basis forextensive planting and landmanagement programs tocontrol destructive erosionin forest areas. Relatedstudies on soil moisture by

60

R. Zahner and D.C.McClurkin, for example,also helped explain relation-ships between soil waterand timber growth.

Growing concern overprotection of the environ-ment, accompanied bysuch events as passage ofthe Water Pollution ControlAct of 1972 and subsequentamendments, also led inthe 1970’s to expandedresearch on nonpoint pollu-tion from forest areas. Theseinvestigations have includedevaluations of the impactsof alternative forms of landmanagement on municipalwatersheds and effects ofherbicides, pesticides, andfertilizers on water quality.

In pine flatwoods, for exam-ple, studies of timber har-vesting showed negligibleeffects on movement ofstream sediments, sometemporary increases inwater yields and peak flows,and significant removal ofnutrients only with windrow-ing of residual material(Swindel and others 1983).Measures to control unwant-ed vegetation resulted insome increases in wateryields and speed of runoff,

with mechanical controltechniques showing moreimpact than chemical ormanual methods (Douglas1981). Studies of chemicalcontrols for vegetationrevealed that some herbi-cides enter nearby streamseven when crews followrecommendations for appli-cation.

Prescribed burning in areascontaining ephemeralstreams in the Piedmont ofSouth Carolina showed nosignificant effects on streamrunoff, sediment, or nutrientconcentrations (Douglasand Van Lear 1983). Similarresults were reported incoastal plain pine forests(Richter and others 1982).Tests of effects of normalsilvicultural practices onnonpoint pollution conduct-ed by J.D. Hewlett (1983)and associates at theUniversi ty of Georgiashowed no significant

effects on water quality orsoil fertility. Such researchfindings have been appliedin the development of “bestmanagement practices”required by Federal andState water-quality legisla-tion to assure acceptablestandards of water quality.

Research at the CoweetaHydrologic Laboratory inthe mountains of NorthCarolina outside the south-ern pine region likewiseadded greatly to the fundof knowledge on generalrelationships between waterand forest management.Experiments by CR. Hurshand M.D. Hoover at thisfamous installation haveshown effects of varioustreatments of hardwoodvegetation on streamflowsand soil movement. Resultshave been widely used inthe management of bothpublic and private forestwatersheds.

61

Summary

It is evident from this briefhistory that southern forestsare used for many purposes,including production oftimber, livestock, wildlife,recreational opportunities,and water. Most researchinvestigations have relatedprimarily to single or limitedcombinations of these uses,although some work hasprovided general conceptsfor integrating timber andrelated benefits (Boyce1978).

The hundreds of researchscientists working in theSouth in recent decadeshave produced thousandsof publications that provideinformation on a wide

spectrum of forestry activi-ties from seed collection toultimate use of forest prod-ucts and services. Researchfindings have led to increas-es in timber production andgreater efficiency in produc-tion and use of timberproducts; enhanced valuesof forest and range re-sources; and expandedemployment, income, andnontimber uses throughoutthe South. The new knowl-edge and new technologyproduced by forestry scien-tists have unquestionablybeen of major and lastingbenefit to the economy ofthe South and to the Nationas a whole.

6 2

Literature Cited

Anderson, Walter C.; Guttenberg,S a m . 1 9 7 1 .

Investor’s guide to convertingsouthern oak-pine types. Res.Pap. SO-72. New Orleans, LA:U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Southern ForestE x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n . 1 0 p.

Bailey, Robert L; Pienaar, LeonV.; Shiver, Barry D.; Rheney, JohnW. 1982.

Stand structure and yield ofsite-prepared slash pine planta-tions. Res. Bull. 291. Athens, GA:University of Georgia, College ofAgriculture. 83 p.

Baker, Whiteford. 1972.Eastern forest insects. Misc. Pubi.1175. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestS e r v i c e . 6 4 1 p .

Barnett, J.P., ed. 1981.Proceedings, I st biennial south-ern silvicuitural research confer-ence; 1980 November 6-7;A t l a n t a , G A . G e n . T e c h . R e p .SO-34. New Orleans, LA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southern Forest Experi-m e n t S t a t i o n . 3 7 5 p .

Barnett, J.P.; McGilvray, John M.1 9 8 1 .

Container planting systems forthe South. Res. Pap. SO-167.New Orleans, IA: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Serv-ice, Southern Forest ExperimentStation. 21 p.

Belanger, Roger P.; Porterfield,Richard L; Rowell, Charles E.1 9 8 1 .

D e v e l o p m e n t a n d v a l i d a t i o n o fsystems for rating the susceptibil-ity of natural stands in thePiedmont of Georgia to attack bythe southern pine beetle. In:Hedden, Roy L.; Barras, StanleyJ.; Coster, Jack E., tech. coords.Hazard-rating systems in forestinsect pest management: sympo-sium proceedings; 1980 July31 -August I; Athens, GA. Gen.Tech. Rep. WO-27. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Forest Service: 79-86.

Berry, Charles R.; Marx, Donald H.1 9 7 7 .

Growth of loblolly pine seedlingsin strip mined kaolin spoil asinfluenced by sewage sludge.J o u r n a l o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y .6: 379-381.

Bertrand, A.L.; Baird, A.W. 1975.Incendiarism in southern forests:a d e c a d e o f s o c i o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h .Bull. 838. Starkville, MS: Missis-sippi Agricultural ExperimentS t a t i o n . 4 0 p .

Bey, Calvin F.; Snyder, E. Bayne.1 9 7 8 .

Genetic gains through testingand crossing longleaf pine plustrees. Res. Note SO-241. NewOrleans, LA: U.S. Department ofA g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t S e r v i c e , S o u t h -ern Forest Experiment Station.

5 P.

63

Birch, Thomas W.; Lewis, DouglasG.; Kaiser, H. Fred. 1982.

The private forest landowners ofthe United States. Res. Bull.WO-1. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService and Economics ResearchService. 64 p.

Blair, R.M.; Brunett, L.E. 1977.Deer habitat potential of pine-hardwood forests in Louisiana.Res. Pap. SO-136. New Orleans,LA: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, South-ern Forest Experiment Station.11 p.

Bond, W.E.; Wahlenberg, W.G.;Kirkland, B.P. 1937.

Profitable management ofshortleaf - loblolly pine for sus-tained yield. Gen. Pap. 70. NewOrleans, LA: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, South-ern Forest Experiment Station.37 p.

Brender, E.V. 1973.Silviculture of loblolly pine in theGeorgia Piedmont. Rep. 33.Macon, GA: Georgia ForestResearch Council. 74 p.

Burd, Nathan A.; Lewis, CliffordE.; Pearson, Henry A. 1984.

Management of southern pineforests for cattle production. Gen.Rep. R&GR4. Atlanta, GA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southern Region. 22 p.

Burkhart, Harold E. 1979.Growth and yield of the southernpines-states of the art. In:Southern Forest EconomicsWorkshop; 1979 March 22;Chapel Hill, NC. Chapel Hill, NC:Duke University. 11 p.

Burns, Russell M., camp. 1983.Silvicultural systems for the majorforest types of the United States.Agric. Handb. 468. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Forest Service. 191 p.

Burton, J.D. 1980.Growth and yield in managedstands of loblolly and shottleafpine in the west gulf coastalplain. Res. Pap. SO-159. NewOrleans, LA: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, South-ern Forest Experiment Station.23 p.

Campbell, A.S.; McCracken, ErnestM. 1932.

Studies in forest resources inFlorida. I. Timber Conservation,vol. l., no. 3. II. The lumberindustry, vol. 1. no. 4. Ill. Thenaval stores industry, vol. 1, no.5. Gainesville, FL: University ofFlorida. 113, 84, and 105 p,

Campbell, R.S.; Cassidy, J.T. 1951.Grazing values for cattle on pineforest ranges in Louisiana. Bull.452. Baton Rouge, LA: LouisianaAgricultural Experiment Station.31 p.

64

Campbell, W.A.; Copeland, O.L.,Jr. 1954.

Littleleaf disease of shortleaf andloblolly pines. Circ. 940. Washing-ton, DC: US. Department ofAgriculture. 41 p.

Chapman, H.H. 1942.M a n a g e m e n t o f l o b l o l l y p i n e i nthe pine-hardwood region ofArkansas and Louisiana. Bull. 49.New Haven, CT: Yale University,School of Forestry. 150 p.

Chi, C.T.; Horn, D.A.; Rexnik, R.B.,and others. 1979.

Source assessment: prescribedburning: state of the art.600/2-79lOlgh. Washington, DC:E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y .1 0 7 p, [ A v a i l a b l e f r o m t h e N a t i o n a lT e c h n i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e ,5285 Port Royal Road, Spring-f i e l d , V A 2 2 1 6 1 .J

Clepper, Henry. 1971.Professional forestry in the UnitedStates. Washington, DC: Re-sources for the Future. 337 p.

Clutter, Jerome L.; Harms, WilliamFL; Brister, Graham H.; Rheney,John W. 1984.

Stand structure and yields ofsite-prepared loblolly pine planta-tions in the lower coastal plain ofthe Carolinas, Georgia, and northF l o r i d a . G e n . T e c h . R e p . S E - 2 7 .Asheville, NC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service,Southeastern Forest ExperimentS t a t i o n . 1 7 3 p .

Coile, T.S.; Schumacher, F.X. 1964.Soil-site relations, stand struc-ture, andyields of slash andl o b l o l l y p i n e p l a n t a t i o n s . D u r h a m ,NC: T.S. Coile, Inc. 296 p.

Cooper, R.W. 1973.B e n e f i c i a l a n d d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t sof forest fires. In: Eighth annualm e e t i n g , M i d d l e S t . I n t e r s t a t eForest Fire Protection Compact;[Dates of meeting unknown];[Place of meeting unknown].[Place of publication unknown]:[Publisher unknown]: 57-66.

Cordell, H.K. 1979.The status and future of outdoorrecreason on the South’s privateforests. In: 28th annual forestsymposium; [Date of meetingunknown]; [Place of meetingunknown]. Baton Rouge, LA:Louisiana State University: 5-31.

Coster, Jack E.; Searcy, Janet L.1 9 7 9 .

Evaluating control tactics for thesouthern pine beetle: symposiump r o c e e d i n g s . T e c h . B u l l . 1 6 1 3 .Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service.1 1 8 p .

Croker, C. Jr.; Boyer, W.D. 1975.Regenerating longleaf pine natu-rally. Res. Pap. SO-105 NewOrleans, LA: U.S. Department ofA g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t S e r v i c e , S o u t h -ern Forest Experiment Station.21 p.

65

Crow, A. Bigler. 1982.Fire ecology and fire use in thepine forest of the South: chrono-logical bibliography. BatonRouge, LA: Louisiana StateUniversity. 131 p.

Cushwa, C.T. 1968.Fire: a summary of literature onthe U.S. from the mid 1920’s to1966. Asheville, NC: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Serv-ice, Southeastern Forest Experi-ment Station. 117 p.

Davis, K.P. 1959.Forest fire-control and use. NewYork: McGraw-Hill. 584 p.

Dinus, R.J.; Schmidt, R.A., andothers. 1977.

Management of fusiform rust insouthern pines: symposiumproceedings; 1976 December7-8; [Place of meeting un-konwn]. Gainesville, FL: Univer-sity of Florida. 163 p.

Doolittle, W.L.; Welch, G.D. 1974.Fire prevention in the South:personal contact pays off. Journalof Forestry. 72: 468-490.

Dorman, Keith W. 1976.The genetics and breeding ofsouthern pines. Agric. Handb.471. Washington, DC: U.S.D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e .407 p.

Douglas, James E. 1981.Environmental impacts of weedcontrol alternatives on water. In:Proceedings, 1981 John S. WrightForestry Conference; [Date ofmeeting unknown]; [Place ofmeeting unknown]. West Lafa-yette, IN: Purdue University.305 p.

Douglas, James E.; Van Lear, DavidH. 1983.

Prescribed burning and water ofephemeral streams in the Pied-mont of South Carolina. ForestS c i e n c e . 2 9 : 1 8 1 - 1 8 9 .

Douglas, James E.; Van Lear, DavidH.; Valverde, Carmen. 1982.

Streamflow changes after pre-scribed burning and clearcuttingpine stands in the South CarolinaP i e d m o n t . G e n . T e c h . R e p . S E - 2 4 .Asheville, NC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service,Southeastern Forest ExperimentStation: 454 -460.

Drew, John; Roberts, Donald R.1 9 7 8 .

Extractive enhancement in pinesby paraquat treatment. ForestProcessing Journal, 28(9):21 -26.

Duerr, W.A.; Fedkiw, John;Guttenberg, Sam. 1956.

Financial maturity: a guide toprofitable timber growing. Tech.Bull. 1146. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture. 47 p.

66

Duncan, D.W.; Epps, EA., Jr. 1958.M i n o r m i n e r a l e l e m e n t s a n dother nutrients on forest rangesi n L o u i s i a n a . B u l l . 5 1 6 . B a t o nRouge, LA: Central LouisianaA g r i c u l t u r e E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n .19 p.

Dunkelberger, J.E.; Altobellis, A.T.1 9 7 5 .

Profiling the woodburner. Bull.469. Auburn, AL: Alabama Agri-culture Experiment Station. 35 p.

Dutrow, G.F. 1978.Economic management opportu-nities to increase timber suppliesin the Southern U.S. In: Proceed-ings on complete tree utilizationof southern pines; [Date ofmeeting unknown]; [Place ofmeeting unknown]. Madison, WI:Forest Products Research Soci-ety: 6-14.

Duvall, V.L.; Whitaker, L.B. 1964.Rotation burning: a forage man-agement system for long-leafpine- bluestem ranges. Journalo f R a n g e M a n a g e m e n t . 1 7 : 3 2 2 6 .

Esser, Mary H., camp., ed. 1979.Sixth annual lightwood researchconference Proceedings.Asheville, NC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service,Southeastern Forest ExperimentS t a t i o n . 1 5 1 p.

Fairchild, Fred Roger. 1935.Forest taxation in the UnitedStates. Misc. Publ. 218. Washing-t o n , D C . U . S . G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n gOffice. 681 p.

Farrar, R.M. 1979.Status of growth and yield infor-m a t i o n i n t h e S o u t h . S o u t h e r nJournal of Applied Forestry. 5:162-166.

Feduccia, D.P.; Mann, W.F., Jr.1976.

B l a c k t u r p e n t i n e b e e t l e i n f e s t a t i o nafter thinning in a loblolly pinep l a n t a t i o n . R e s . N o t e S O - 2 0 6 .New Orleans, IA: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Sew-ice, Southern Forest ExperimentStation. 3 p.

Fight, Roger D.; Dutrow, G.F. 1981.Financial comparisons of forestf e r t i l i z a t i o n i n t h e P a c i f i c N o r t h -west and the Southeast. Journalof Forestry. 79: 214-215.

Folweiler, A.D.; Brown, A.A. 1939.Fire in the forests of the UnitedStates. Baton Rouge, LA:L o u i s i a n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .164 p.

Foster, A.A. 1961.Control of black root rot of pineseedlings by soil fumigation inthe nursery. Rep. 8. Macon, GA:Georgia Forestry Research Coun-cil. 5 p.

67

Franklin, E. Carlyle, ed. 1981.P o l l e n m a n a g e m e n t h a n d b o o k .Agric. Handb. 587. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture. 98 p.

Froehlich, R.C.; Kuhlman, E.G.;Hodges, C.S.; Weiss, M.J.; Nichols,Gau. 1977.

Fomes annosus root rot in theSouth: guidelines for prevention,New Orleans, LA: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Serv-ice, Southern and SoutheasternForest Experiment Stations andState and Private Forestry. 17 p.

Geary, T.E.; Meskimen, G.F.;Franklin, E.C. 1983.

Growing eucalypts in Florida forindustrial wood products. Gen.Tech. Rep. SE-23. Asheville, NC:U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, SoutheasternForest Experiment Station, 43 p.

Greene, Smith W. 1931.Effect of annual grass fires andorganic matter and other constitu-ents of virgin longleaf pine soils.Journal of Agricultural Research.U - 5 0 ( 1 0 ) .

Grelen, Harold E. 1983.Comparisons of seasons andfrequencies of burning in a youngslash pine plantation. Res. Pap.SO-185 New Orleans, LA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southern Forest Experi-ment Station. 5 p.

Grosenbaugh, L.R. 1958.Point-sampling and line-sampling: probability theory,geometric implications, synthesis.Res. Pap. SO-160. New Orleans,IA: U.S. Department of Agri-culture, Forest Service, SouthernForest Experiment Station. 34 p.

Guldin, Richard W. 1983.Regeneration costs usingcontainer-grown southern pineseedlings. Res. Pap. SO-187.New Orleans, LA: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Serv-ice, Southern Forest ExperimentS t a t i o n . 2 9 p.

Guldin, Richard W.; Barnett,James P., eds. 1981.

Proceedings of the southerncontainerized forest tree seedlingconference; 1980 August 25-21;S a v a n n a h , G A . G e n . T e c h . R e p .SO-37. New Orleans, LA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southern Forest Experi-m e n t S t a t i o n . 1 5 6 p .

Halls, L.K. 1969.White-tailed deer in the southernforest habitat. In: Proceedings ofa symposium; 1969 March25-26, Nacogdoches, TX. NewOrleans, LA: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, andthe Wildlife Society and StephenF. Austin State University. 130 p.

68

Halls, L.K.; Boyd, Charles E. 1982.I n f l u e n c e o f m a n a g e d p i n e s t a n d sand mixed pine/hardwood standson well being of deer. Res. Pap.SO-183. New Orleans, LA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southern Forest Experi-ment Station. 22 p.

Halls, L.K.; Duvall, V.L. 1961.Projects and costs of forestgrazing. Forest Farmer. 20(7):157-162.

Halls, L.K.; Hughes, R.H.; Peevy,F.A. 1960.

Grazed firebreaks in southernf o r e s t s . I n f . B u l l . 2 2 6 . W a s h i n g t o n ,DC: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture. 8 p.

Hamel, Paul 8.; Legrand, Harry E.,Jr.; Lemnantz, Michael Ft.;Gauthreux, Sidney A., Jr. 1982.

Bird- habitat relationships onsoutheastern forest lands. Gen.Tech. Rep. SE-22. Asheville, NC:U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 417 p.

Harper, V.L. 1944.Effects of fire on gum yields oflongleaf and slash pines. Tech.Bull. 494. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture. 32 p.

Hastings, Felton L.; Coster, JackE. 1981.

Field and laboratory evaluationsof insecticides for southern pineb e e t l e c o n t r o l . T e c h . R e p . S E - 2 1 .Asheville, NC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service,Southeastern Forest ExperimentStation. 40 p.

Hepting, G.H. 1935.Decay following fire on youngMississippi delta hardwoods.Tech. Bull. 494. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Agriculture.32 p.

Hepting, G.H. 1971.Diseases of forest and shadetrees. [Place of publicationunknown]: [Publisher unknown].[Pagination unknown].

Heyward, F.D.; Barrette, R.M. 1934.E f f e c t o f f r e q u e n t f i r e s o n c h e m i c a lcomposition of forest soils in thel o n g - l e a f p i n e r e g i o n . B u l l . 2 6 5 .G a i n e s v i l l e , F L : F l o r i d a A g r i c u l t u r -a l E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n . 3 9 p .

Hewlett, John D. 1983.Forests and water quality. Athens,GA: University of Georgia, Schoolof Forest Resources.

69

Hooper, Robert G.; Robinson,Andrew F., Jr.; Jackson, JeromeA. 1980.

The red-cockaded woodpecker.Gen. Rep. SA-GUS. Atlanta, GA:U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, SoutheasternArea, State and Private Forestry.8 P.

Hopkins, W. 1951.Wood logs vs. pine logs. [Placeof publication unknown]:Louisiana Forestry Association,14 p.

Johansen, Ragner W.; McNab,W.H. 1982.

Prescribed burning on large landholdings in the South during1 9 7 5 . R e s . N o t e S E - 3 1 6 . A s h e v i l l e ,NC: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Forest Service, SoutheasternForest Experiment Station. 4 p.

Johnson, E.W. 1973.Relationship between pointdensity measurements and subse-quent growth of southern pine.B u l l . 4 4 7 . A u b u r n , A L : A l a b a m aA g r i c u l t u r a l E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n .1 0 9 p .

Johnson, R.L. 1970.Renewing hardwood stands onbottom lands and loess. In:Silviculture and management ofsouthern hardwoods; 19th annualforest symposium, proceedings;[Dates of meeting unknown];B a t o n R o u g e , L A . B a t o n R o u g e ,LA: Louisiana State University:113-121.

Koch, Peter. 1972.Utilization of the southern pines.Agric. Handb. 420. (2 ~01s.)Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture. 734 and 1663 p.

Koger, Jerry L; Webster, DennisB. 1984.

L-O-S-T: Logging OptimizationSelection Technique. Res. Pap.SO-203. New Orleans, LA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southern Forest Experi-ment Station. 66 p.

Kormarek, E.V. 1981.Proceedings of conference onwildlife impacts. Tall TimbersResearch Station Prescribed Fireand Wildlife; 1981. [Place ofpublication unknown]: [Publisherunknown]. [Pagination unknown].

Kuhlman, E.G.; Hodges, C.S.;Froehlich, R.C. 1976.

Minimizing losses to Famesannosus in the Southern UnitedStates. Res. Pap. SE-151.Asheville, NC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service,Southeastern Forest ExperimentStation. 16 p.

Langdon, Gordon 0.; Bennett,Frank A. 1976.

Management of natural stands ofslash pine. Aes. Pap. SE-147.Asheville, NC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service,Southeastern Forest ExperimentStation. 12 p.

70

Lantz, Clark, camp. 1984.Proceedings, 1984 southernnursery conferences; 1984 June11 - 14 and July 24-27; Alexan-dria, LA, and Asheville, NC.Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, South-ern Region.224 p.

Larson, Robert; Goforth, Marcus.1 9 7 4 .

TRAS and timber volume projec-t i o n m o d e l . T e c h . B u l l . 1 5 0 8 .Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service.15 p.

Lawson, E.R. 1979.Natural regeneration of shortleafpine. In: Proceedings: symposiumfor the management of pines ofthe interior South. Tech. Publ.S A - T P 2 . A t l a n t a , G A : U . S . D e p a r t -ment of Agriculture, Forest Serv-ice: l-6.

Lewis, Clifford E. 1983.Forage resources and integratedmanagement in the slash pineecosystem. In: Symposium onthe managed slash pine ecosys-tem; 1981 June 9-11;G a i n e s v i l l e , F L . G a i n e s v i l l e , F L :University of Florida. 1983:[Pagination unknown].

Lockard, CR; Putnam, J.A.;Carpenter, R.D. 1950.

Log defects in southern hard-woods. Agric. Handb. 4. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture. 37 p.

Maisenhelder, L.C. 1960.Cottonwood plantation for south-ern bottom lands. Occas. Pap.179. New Orleans, LA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southern Forest Experi-m e n t S t a t i o n . 2 4 p.

Mann, W.F., Jr.; Derr, H.J. 1964.Guides for direct-seeding slashpine. Res. Pap. SO-12. NewOrleans, IA: U.S. Department ofA g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t S e r v i c e , S o u t h -e r n F o r e s t E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n .27 p.

Mann, W.F., Jr.; Hayes, M.J. 1978.Status of some new herbicides.Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-21. NewOrleans, LA: U.S. Department ofA g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t S e r v i c e , S o u t h -ern Forest Experiment Station.1 7 p .

Marlin, Clifton B. 1978.A study of owners of small timbertracts in Louisiana. Bull. 710.Baton Rouge, LA: LouisianaAgricultural Experiment Experi-m e n t S t a t i o n . 6 5 p .

Marx, D.H.; Ruelle, J.L.; Kenney,A.J., and others. 1982.

Commercial inoculum ofPisolithus tinctorius on containergrown seedlings. Forest Science.28: 373-400.

71

McKee, William, Jr.; Lewis,Clifford E. 1982a.

Changes in soil fertility followingprescribed burning on coastalplain sites. Res. Pap. SE-234.Asheville, NC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service,S o u t h e a s t e r n E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n .2 3 p .

McKee, William, Jr.; Lewis,Clifford E. 1982b.

Influence of burning and grazingon soil nutrient properties andtree growth in a Georgia coastalplain site after 40 years. In:Proceedings of the 2d biennialsouthern silvicultural researchconference; 1982 November4-5; Atlanta, Ga. Gen. Tech.Rep. SE-24. Asheville, NC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestExperiment Station: 79-85.

McMillin, C.W., ed. 1978.Complete tree utilization ofsouthern pine: proceedings of asymposium; 1978 April 17-19;New Orleans, LA. Madison, WI:Forest Products Research Society.484 p.

Meginnis, H.G. 1935.Effect of cover on surface runoffand erosion in the loessialuplands of Mississippi. Agric.Circ. 347. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture. 16 p.

Merkel, Edward P.; Clark, E.W.1 9 8 1 .

Insecticides for preventing insect-caused mortality of paraquat-treated slash pines. Res. Pap.SE-219. Asheville, NC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southeastern ForestExperiment Station. 7 p.

Mesavage, C.; Girard, J.W. 1946.Tables for estimating board footvolumes of timber. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture. 94 p.

Mexal, J.G.; Snow, G.A. 1978.Seed treatment with systemicfungicides for the control offusiform rust in loblolly pine. Res.Note SO-238. New Orleans, LA:U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 4 p.

Miller, W. Frank. 1976.Physical and chemical propertiesof forested soils. Bull. 734.Starkville, MS: Mississippi Agricu-tural Experiment Station, 112 p.

Mbore, William H.; Terry, W.S.1 9 8 1 .

Short duration grazing mayimprove wildlife habitat in south-eastern pine lands, Proceedings3 3 d a n n u a l c o n f e r e n c e , S o u t h e a s tAssociation of Fish and WildlifeAgencies; 1979 October 21-24;Hot Springs, AR. [Place of publi-cation unknown]: SoutheastAssociation of Fish WildlifeA g e n c i e s : 2 7 9 - 2 8 7 .

72

Nelson, Charles A. 1971.History of the U.S. Forest ProductsLaboratory 1910-1963). Madi-son, WI: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, ForestProducts Laboratory. 177 p.

Nord, John C.; Flavell, Thomas H.;Pepper, William D.; Layman, HarryF. 1978.

Field test of four insecticides forcontrol of pales and pitcheatingweevils in first-year pine planta-t i o n s . R e s . N o t e S E - 2 5 5 . A s h e v i l l e ,NC: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Forest Service, SoutheaternForest Experiment Station. 9 p.

Paul, James T.; Clayton, Joe,camps. 1978.

User manual: forestry weatherinterpretation system (WIS).Asheville, NC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service,Southeastern Forest ExperimentStation and Southeastern Area,State and Private Forestry, andt h e U . S . N a t i o n a l W e a t h e r S e r v i c e .83 p.

Pearson, H.A. 1980.L i v e s t o c k i n m u l t i p l e u s e m a n a g e -ment of southern forest range. In:Proceedings, southern forestranges and pasture resourcesymposium; 1980 May 13-14;New Orleans, LA. Morrilton, AR.Winrock International: 75-88.

Pee-q, F.A. 1976.Timber stand improvement-treeinjection and pellets. In: Bymes,U.R.; Holt, Harvey A., eds. Herbi-cides in forestry: John S. WrightForestry, Conference proceed-ings; 1976 February 3-5; WestL a f a y e t t e , I N . W e s t L a f a y e t t e , I N :Purdue University: 85-92.

Pomeroy, Kenneth B.; Yoho,James G. 1964.

North Carolina lands: ownership,use, and management of forestsand related lands. Washington,DC: American Forestry Associa-tion. 372 p.

Powers, H.R., Jr.; Kraus, John F.;Duncan, H.J. 1979.

A seed orchard for rust resistant,pines-progress and promise.Res. Rep. 1. Macon, GA: GeorgiaForestry Commission. 8 p,

Prewitt, E. Lavalle, Jr. 1982.The silviculture of southernhardwoods. In: Proceedings ofthe Society of American Forestersnational convention: 1981September 19-22; Cincinnati,OH. Bethesda, MD: Society ofAmerican Foresters: 24-27.

Putnam, J.A. 1951.Management of bottomlandhardwoods. Occas. Pap. 116.New Orleans, LA: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Serv-ice, Southern Forest ExperimentStation. 60 p,

73

Putnam, J.A.; Bull, H. 1932.The trees of the bottomlands ofthe Mississippi River Delta. Gen.Pap. 27. New Orleans, LA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southern Forest Experi-m e n t S t a t i o n .207 p.

Pyne, Stephen J. 1982.Fire in America: a cultural historyof wildland and rural fire. Prince-ton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress. 654 p.

Randall, J.K. 1973.Superior cottonwoods developedat the delta station. MississippiA g r i c u l t u r e E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o nResearch Highlight 37(7): l-5.

Rawlins, N.O.; Sorensen, H.B.1 9 6 8 .

An analysis of the productionand marketing structure of south-ern pulpwood. Austin, TX: TexasA g r i c u l t u r a l E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n .24 p.

Reynolds, RR. 1980.The Crossett story: the beginningof forestry in southern Arkansasand northern Louisiana. Gen.Tech. Rep. SO-32. New Orleans,IA: US Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Southern ForestE x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n . 40 p .

Richter, D.D.; Ralston, C.W.;Harms, W.R. 1982.

Prescribed fire: effects on waterquality and forest nutrient cycling.Science. 215: 661 -663.

Risbrudt, Christopher D.;Ellefson, Paul V. 1983.

An economic evaluation of the1979 forest incentives program.Sta. Bull. 550. St. Paul, MN:University of Minnesota Agricul-ture Experiment Station. 55 p.

Row, Clark; Fasick, Clyde;Guttenberg, Sam. 1965.

Improving sawmill profits throughoperations research. Res. Pap.SO-20. New Orleans, LA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southern Forest Experi-m e n t S t a t i o n .26 p.

Rowan, S.J. 1979.Rainfall and frequency of ferbamsprays important for fusiform rustcontrol. Southern Journal ofApplied Forestry. 3(4): 167-168.

Scheffer, T.C.; Lindgren, R.M.1940.

Stains of sapwood and sapwoodproducts and their control. Tech.Bull. 714. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture. 124 p.

Schiff, Ashley R. 1962.Fire and water. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press. 225 p.

Schumacher, F.X.; Chapman, R.A.1 9 4 2 .

Sampling methods in forestrya n d r a n g e m a n a g e m e n t . B u l l . 7 .Raleigh-Durham, NC: DukeUniversity School of Forestry.2 1 3 p .

Schumacher, F.X.; Coile, T.S. 1960.G r o w t h a n d y i e l d o f n a t u r a l s t a n d sof the southern pines. Durham,NC: T.S. Coile, Inc. 115 p.

74

Shea, John P. 1940.G e t t i n g a t t h e r o o t s o f m a n - c a u s e dforest fires. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 78 p.

Siggers, P.V. 1944.The brown spot needle blight ofpine seedlings. Tech. Bull. 870.Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture. 36 p.

Sluder, Earl R. 1980.A study of geographic variationsin loblolly pine inGeorgia-2Oth-year results. Res.Pap. SE-213. Asheville, NC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southeastern ForestE x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n . 3 0 p.

Snyder, E.M.; Derr, H.J. 1972.Breeding longleaf pines forresistance to brown spot needleblight. Phytology. 62: 325-327.

Southeastern Forest ExperimentStation. 1983.

Directory of research programs.Asheville, NC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service,Southeastern Forest ExperimentS t a t i o n , 1 4 p,

Southern Forest Fire Laboratory.1976.

Southern forests smoke manage-m e n t g u i d e . G e n . T e c h . R e p .SE-lo. Asheville, NC: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, ForestService, Southeastern ForestE x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n . 1 4 0 p .

Southern Forest Resource AnalysisCommittee. 1969.

The South’s third forest. [Place ofpublication unknown]: SouthernForest Resource Analysis Commit-t e e . 1 1 1 p .

Stephen, F.M.; Searcy, J.L.; Hertel,G.D., eds. 1960.

Modeling southern pine beetlep o p u l a t i o n s . T e c h . B u l l . 1 6 3 0 .Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service.174 p.

Stoddard, H.L 1931.The bobwhite quail: its habits,preservation and increase. NewYork: Charles Scribner and Sons.559 p.

Stone, E.L., ed. 1963.The management slash pineecosystem: proceedings of asymposium; 1981 June 9-l 1;G a i n e s v i l l e , F L . G a i n e s v i l l e , F L :University of Florida. 434 p.

Stubbs, Jack; Roberts, Donald R.;Outcalt, Kenneth W. 1964.

C h e m i c a l s t i m u l a t i o n o f l i g h t w o o din southern pines. Gen. Tech.Rep. SE-25 Asheville, NC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southeastern ForestE x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n . 5 1 p .

Swaine, K.M.; Remion, M.C. 1981.Direct control methods for thesouthern pine beetle. Agric.Handb. 515. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Agriculture.15 p.

75

Swindel, B.F., and others. 1983.Multi-resource effects of harvest,site preparation and planting,pines flat woods. Southern Jour-nal of Applied Forestry. 7(l):6 -15 .

Thatcher, Robert C.; Searcy,Janet L; Coster, Jack E.; Hertel,Gerard D. [1980].

The southern pine beetle. Tech.Bull. 1631. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture. 266 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.1 9 3 5 .

A naval stores handbook dealingwith the production of pine gumor oleoresin. Misc. Publ. 201.Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture. 201 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.1981.

Southern pine beetle programaccomplishments report. Agric.Inf. Bull. 438. Washington, DC:US. Department of Agriculture.23 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 1971.

Prescribed burning symposiumproceedings; 1971 April 14-16;Charleston, SC. Asheville, NC:U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, SoutheasternForest Experiment Station. 160 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 1978a.

National fire effects workshop;1978 April 10-14; Denver, CO.G e n . T e c h . R e p . W O - 1 3 . W a s h i n g -ton, DC: U.S. Department of Ag-riculture, Forest Service. 64 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 1978b.

Integrated inventories of renew-able natural resources: proceed-ings of the workshop; 1978January 8-12; Tucson, AZ. Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-55. Fort Collins,CO: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station. 482 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 1978~.

Structural flakeboard from forestresidues. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-5.Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service.241 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 1980a.

Mid-South upland hardwoodsymposium for the practicingforester and land manager:proceedings; 1980 April 30-May2; Harrison, AR. Tech. Publ.SA-TP-12. Atlanta, GA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southeastern Area, Stateand Private Forestry. 186 p.

76

U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 198Ob.

Forest insect and disease condi-tions in the South. For. Rep.SA-FR-17. Atlanta, GA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southeastern Area, Stateand Private Forestry.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 1982a.

An analysis of the timber situationin the United States, 1952-2030,F o r . A e s o u r . R e p . 2 3 . W a s h i n g t o n ,DC: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture. 499 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 1982b.

1 9 8 0 - 1 9 9 0 N a t i o n a l p r o g r a m o fresearch for forests and associat-ed rangelands. Gen. Tech. Rep.WO-32. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 60 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 1984a.

Southern pine nursery handbook.Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department ofA g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t S e r v i c e , S o u t h -e r n R e g i o n .

U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 1984b.

Pesticide background statements.Vol. 1. Herbicides. Agric. Handb.633. Washington, DC: US.Department of Agriculture, ForestS e r v i c e .

U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 1985.

insects of eastern forests. Misc.Publ. 1426. Washington, DC:U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e ,Forest Service.

U.S. Forest Service, Office ofExperiment Stations, and Cooper-ating Agencies. 1929.

Volume, yield, and stand tablesfor second-growth southern pines.Misc. Publ. 50. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 56 p.

University of Georgia. 1983.Proceedings of the 17th southernforest tree improvement confer-ence; 1983 June 6-9; Athens,GA. Athens, GA: University ofGeorgia. 375 p. [Available fromN a t i o n a l T e c h n i c a l I n f o r m a t i o nService, 5285 Port Royal Road,S p r i n g f i e l d , V A 22161.1

Verrall, Arthur F. 1982.A history of forest pathology inthe South and Southeast. Gen.Tech. Rep. SO-36. New Orleans,LA: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Forest Service. 200 p.

Wahlenberg, W.G. 1946.Longleaf pine. Washington, DC:Pack Forestry Foundation incooperation with U.S. ForestService. 429 p.

Wahlenberg, W.G. 1960.Loblolly pine. Raleigh-Durham,NC: Duke University, School ofForestry. 603 p.

77

Wahlenberg, W.G., ed. 1965.A guide to loblolly and slashpine management in the South-eastern United States. Rep. 14.Macon, GA: Georgia ForestResearch Council. 360 p,

Wahlenberg, W.G.; Reed, H.R.1 9 3 9 .

Effects of fire and cattle grazingon longleaf pine lands as studiesat McNeill, Mississippi. Tech.Bull. 683. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture. 52 p.

Wakeley, P.C. 1935.Artificial reforestation in thesouthern pine region. Tech. Bull.4 9 2 . .‘*,ohington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture. 114 p.

Wakeley, P.C. 1951.Planting the southern pines. 3vols. Occas. Pap. 122. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture. 579 p.

Wakeley, P.C. 1954.Planting the southern pines.Monogr. 18. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Agriculture.233 p.

Walker, Lawrence C. 1972.Silvicultural of southern uplandhardwoods. Bull. 22. Nacog-doches, TX: Stephen F. AustinState University. 137 p.

Wells, Carol G. 1977.Nutrient cycling and its relation-ship to fertilization. In: Proceed-ings, southern forest soils work-shop; 1976 October 19 -21;Charleston, SC. Atlanta, GA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southeastem Area, Stateand Private Forestry: 78-89.

Wells, O.O., and others. 1978.Shortleaf and slash pine hybridsoutperform parents in parts ofthe Southeast. Southern Journalof Applied Forestry. 2(!): 28-32.

White, Roy R. 1961.Austin Carey, the father of south-ern forestry. Forest History. 5(l):2 - 5 .

Wood, Gene W., ed. 1981.Prescribed fire and wildlife insouthern forests. Georgetown,SC: Belle W. Barruck ForestScience Institute. 170 p.

Zobel, Bruce; Talbert, John. 1984.Applied forest tree improvement.Philadelphia: John Wiley andSons. 505 p.

Li~e~a~~~e CiteUnpublished

Wakeley, Philip C. 1964.A biased history of the SouthernF o r e s t E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n t h r o u g hfiscal year 1933. vypedmanuscript, available from theUSDA Forest Service, SouthernF o r e s t E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n , 7 0 1Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, LA70113.1

78