follow a relativelygood seedyear, whichwe experi- B., ed. Proc. 10th Ann. For. Symp.LouisianaSt. Univ.

Press,
enced.Earlyindications are that thistechniquecould
achieve at least a degree of conversionto pine.
Considerablework will undoubtedlybe required to
obtainpure standsof pine,but laterobservations are
neededto estimatethe type and extentof treatment.
Literature Cited
BELANGER, R. P. 1979.Stumpmanagement increases
coppiceyield
of sycamore. South.J. of Appl. For. 3:101-103.
Boycs,STSP}•SN G., andJos P. McCLURE.1975.How to keepone-
third of Georgiain pine. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-144.
Southeast.For. Exp. Stn.,Asheville,NC. 23 p.
Boycs,STSPHSN G., andJoEP. McCLuRE.1976.Actionsto capture
the biologicalpotentialfor loblollypine in Virginia and the
Carolinas.In Proc.55thAnnualMeetingof AppalachianSection,
SocAmer. Foresters,February4-6, Asheville,NC. 43-45.
BoYcs,STSPHSN G., and HERBSRT
A. KNIGHT.1979.Prospective
ingrowthof southernpinebeyond1980.USDA For. Serv.Res.
Pap. SE-200.Southeast.For. Exp. Stn., Asheville,NC. 50 p.
LANGDON,O. GORDON. 1981.Naturalregenerationof loblollypine:
a soundstrategyfor manyforestlandowners.
South.J. of Appl.
For. 5:170-176.
LoTto, T. 1961. The casefor natural regeneration.In Crow, A.
Baton Rouge,LA. 16-23.
McGsE,C. E. 1980. Expandingoptionsfor reforestationof the
CumberlandPlateau.South.J. of Appl. For. 4:158-162.
McM•NN,JAMES W. 1983.Pineregenerationvia fuel chip utiliza-
tion. Ga. For. Res.Pap.41. Ga. For. Cornmiss.,
Macon,GA. 7
p.
McM•NN,JAMESW., and WADSL. NuT'rsm 1981. Energywood
harvesting:a studyof promises and pitfalls.Ga. For. Res.Pap.
17. Ga. For. Commiss.,Macon,GA. 6 p.
NUTTEg, WADE L., and JAMSSW. McMINN. 1980. Total-tree
chipping:what aboutnutrientdrain?In Total-treechips:har-
vesting,transporting,storingand processing.Proc.Ann. Meet.,
Southeast. Section, FPRS, November 19-21, Savannah, GA. 3-
7.
SoclEanc
os AMEmCAN
FORESTEgS.
1979. Improvingoutputsfrom
non-industrial
privateforests:studyreportof a taskforceof
the Societyof AmericanForesters,Washington,DC. 11 p.
VAN LEAR,D. H., J. E. DOUGLASS,S. K. Cox, M. K. AUGSPURGER,
and S. K. NODINE.1983.Regeneration of loblollypine standsin
the Piedmontby clearcuttingwith seedin place.In Jones,E. P.,
Jr., ed. Proc. SecondBiennialSouth.Silvic.Res.Conf. USDA
For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-24. Southeast.For. Exp. Stn.,
Asheville, NC. 87-96.
Jamesw. McMinnisprincipalresearchforester,USDA
ForestService,Southeastern
ForestExperimentStation,
Forestry
Sciences
Laboratory,
Athens,Georgia30602.

Yield Relationshipsin Unthinned

Loblolly Pine Plantationson
Cutover, Site-PreparedLands
Harold E. Burkhart, DeborahC. Cloeren,and Ralph L. Amateis

ABSTRACT. Data were collected

in unthinnedloblollypine wereno significant differences
between sitepreparation
classes
(Pinustaeda)plantations oncutover, landsacross within
site-prepared theregions.
l
much ofthesouthern United States.Initialmeasurement datafrom
thesepermanent plotswereusedto(1) develop regressionrelation- Extensive plantings ofloblolly pinehave been es-
shipsbetween yieldof theplanted loblollypineandmeasurements tablishedthroughoutthe South. During the 1950s
of theplanted pineandcompeting vegetation,and(2) assess re- and early 1960smostplantingswereon abandoned
lationshipsbetweenyieldandsitepreparation methodsandphysio- agriculturallands.These old-fieldplantationshave
graphicregions (Coastal Plain andPiedmont). These analyses
showed thatyieldoftheplanted pinecomponent couldbepredicted beenthoroughlyresearched and a voluminousquan-
adequatelyfromage,average height ofdominant andcodominant tity of growth and yield information hasbeendevel-
trees,and numberof survivingplantedtreesperunitarea.Mea- oped from them (Burkhart et al. 1981). For more
surements onthecompeting vegetation didnotsignificantlyreduce than a decade, the vast majority of loblolly pine
theerrorsumofsquares afteraccounting for theplanted-pinevar-
iables.An analysis of covariance showed thatmeanyields(after
adjustingfor theeffectsofplantation age,siteindex,andnumber • Thisstudywassponsored bytheLoblolly PineGrowthandYield
ofsurviving trees)werenotsignificantly different
for siteprepa- Research Cooperativeat VPI & SU. Supportfrom BowaterInc.,
rationclasses or physiographicregions. Furtheranalyses showed ChampionInternationalCorp., ChesapeakeCorp., Continental
thatsurvivalrelationships weresimilarfor thephysiographic re- ForestIndustries,CrownZellerbachCorp., FederalPaperBoard
gionsandsitepreparation classesincluded. Although theheight- Co., InternationalPaperCo., PotlatchCorp.,UnionCampCorp.,
WestvacoCorp., WeyerhaeuserCo., North CarolinaDivisionof
agerelationshipsfor anamorphic siteindexcurveconstruction were Forestry,Virginia Divisionof Forestry,and the USDA Forest
significantly
differentfor theCoastal PlainandPiedmont, there Service(bycooperative agreement) is acknowledged.

84 SOUTHERNJOURNALOF APPLIEDFORESTRY
plantationshavebeenestablished on cutoverareas Table1. Summaryof plot locationsby stateandphy-
that havebeensite preparedprior to planting.Dif- siographicregion.
ferencesin siteand competitive
relationships
between
Physiographic
region
old-fieldand site-preparedareasare likelyto affect
yieldrelationships.
Oldfieldstypically
containedlittle Coastal
State Plain Piedmont Other Total
competing woodyvegetation, showedmodifiedsoil
physicalproperties
asa resultof agricultural
activity, Alabama 13 1 -- 14
and had some residual fertilizer effects. Arkansas 1 -- 9 10
The objectivesof thisstudywereto: (i) determine Georgia 7 8 -- 15
what variablesare importantfor predictingyieldsof Louisiana 23 -- -- 23

loblollypine plantationson cutover,site-prepared Maryland 3 -- -- 3

Mississippi 13 -- -- 13
areas,and (2) investigatethe effectsof siteprepara- North Carolina 17 19 -- 36
tion methodsand geographic locationon yieldrela- Oklahoma -- -- 1 1
tionshipsin theseplantations. South Carolina 10 11 -- 21
Tennessee 1 2 3 6
Texas 6 -- -- 6
Virginia 11 2._•7 = 3___•8
TOTAL 105 68 13 186
DATA

During the 1980-81 and 1981-82 dormant sea-
sons,permanentplots were established in cutover,
site-prepared plantations throughout the native
range of loblollypine (Figure 1 and Table i). The
initialmeasurement datafrom thesepermanentplots
were usedin thisstudy.To be includedin the sample,
the plantationshad to meet the followingspecifica-
tions:at least8 yearsin age (definedasyearssince
planting),unthinned,free of evidenceof heavydis-
easeor insectattack,not heavilydamagedby ice or
wind storms,free of interplanting,unpruned, not
fertilizedwithin the last 4 years,not plantedwith
geneticallyimproved stock,containa minimum of
200 to 300 plantedpine stemsper acrewhichappear
free to grow,not more than 25% of the maincanopy
composedof volunteer pines, and establishedon a
cutover area that receivedtypical site preparation
treatment for the site conditions and time at which
the plantationwasestablished.
The locationand standhistorywere recordedfor
eachplot. Standhistoryincludedtypeof standprior
to the current plantation,whenclearcut,type of site
preparation, whenplanted,whetheror notreleased,
and other pertinentinformation.In addition,num-
ber of treesplantedand ageweredetermined.
The followingdatawererecordedfor all planted
pines:dbh to the nearest0.i in, totalheightto the
nearestfoot, height to the baseof the live crown,
crownclass,and a stemqualityassessment.
In addition to the data recordedon the planted
pine, the followinginformationwasrecordedfor
naturalpinesandhardwoods whichwerein themain
canopy:dbhto the nearest0.i in, totalheightto the
nearestfoot,andspecies. Naturalpineandhardwood
treesnot in the maincanopy,but greaterthan0.5 in
dbh,weretalliedby 1-indbh classes only.
Measurementdata from the plots were used to
computesiteindex,numberof trees,basalarea,and
volume per acre. Tables 2 and 3 showsummary
statistics
for the 186sampleplots.Whencomputing
siteindex, an equationfor combinedCoastalPlain
and Piedmont data from old fields was used (Devan
Table2. Summarystatistics
for the 186sampleplots.
Variable Minimum Mean Maximum

Age (yearsfrom 8 15.2 25

planting)
Numberof planted 275 558 950
Ioblollysurviving
(trees/acre)
Arithmetic mean dbh of 2.7 5.7 9.4
planted Ioblolly (in)
Total overstorybasal 26.2 110.4 231.3
area (sqft/a--all
taggedtrees)
PlantedIoblollybasal 22.9 105.1 230.9
area (sq ft/a)
Volume planted Ioblolly 229.3 2125.2 7589.2
(cu ft/a oh)
Site index (ft, baseage 44.6 65.7 87.6
25)4
Figure1. Map showing
thelocationof sample
plotsby
county.
Eachdarkenedcountycontains
oneor moreplot • ComputedusingequationfromDevanandBurkhart(1982)withcoeffi-
installations. cients from combined Coastal Plain and Piedmont data,

SOUTHERNJOURNALOFAPPLIEDFORESTRY 85
Table 3. Classificationof 186 sampleplots by age, tion in the residual variation after accountingfor
site index, and numberof trees per acre of planted both plantedpinesand natural pinesand hardwoods
Ioblollypine. in the main canopy that could be ascribedto the
understorydensitywascomputed.
Site Treessurvivingper acre
Age index Independentvariablesusedin the regressionequa-
class class 0-300 301-500 501-700 701 + Total tionsto predictplantedpine yield from the planted
standmeasurements only were plantationage,aver-
Years Feet .......................... Number ..........................
8-12 40-55 1 1
ageheightof dominantsand codominants, and num-
56-65 I 2 8 2 13 ber of survivingstemsper acre.In all trial regressions,
66-75 13 22 2 37 yield was subjectedto logarithmic transformation,
76 + 4 3 1 8 and age wasenteredas a reciprocal.Variousexpres-
Total 1 20 33 5 59
sionsfor the heightof dominantsand codominants
13-17 40-55 2 5 1 8 were evaluated,includingheightdividedby age and
56-65 3 12 6 21
66-75 6 16 3 25
the logarithmof height. Numbersof treesper acre
76+ 6 3 1 10 plusreciprocaland logarithmictransformations were
Total 17 36 11 64 entered. The following regressionequation ac-
8-25 40-55 4 5 1 10 countedfor a relativelyhigh proportionof the vari-
56-65 7 23 3 33 ation in yield and resultedin residualplotswith no
66-75 7 6 13
discernabletrendsover the independentvariables:
76 + 6 1 7
Total 24 35 4 63

Grand 1 61 104 20 186

In Y = - 1.00184+ 0.97745/A (1)
Total
+ 2.14146 In Ha + 0.00105 N•

Re -- 0.9597 Sy.x= 0.1310

and Burkhart 1982). The region-widetree volume where
equationfrom Van Deusenet al. (1981) for old-field Y = total cubic-footvolume,outsidebark, per
loblollypine plantationswasusedto computetotal acreof plantedloblollypine
cubic-footvolume (outsidebark). Site preparation A = plantationage(yearssinceplanting)
treatmentsvaried widely from locationto location; Ha = averageheightof dominantand codomi-
many areas received a combinationof treatments nant plantedloblollypines(feet)
(Table 4). N• = numberof plantedloblollypinessurviving
(per acre)
ANALYSES

Yield Equations
Plottingresiduals for equation(1) overthenumbers
of naturalpinesand hardwoodsin the overstoryand
Initial measurement datafrom the permanentplots numbersin the understoryshowedlittletrend except
were usedto explore relationshipsbetweenyield of that all residualswere negativefor all observations
planted loblolly pine and measurementsof the in whichnumbersof volunteersin the overstorywere
planted pine and competingvegetation,both in the greaterthan 350 stemsper acre(or about20 sqft of
main canopyand in the understory. basalarea per acre).
Sitepreparationmethodswerehighlyvariableand Equation(1) wasacceptedfor predictingplanted
often not well documented,thus it was necessaryto pine yield from measurementdata on only the
use the result of treatment--as indicated by stand plantedpine component.Numbersof naturallyoc-
parameters--inregression analyses.Regression anal- curring pine and hardwoodstemsin the overstory
yseswith successively increasinginformation were were then addedto the equation.Althoughthe sign
performed. First, the proportion of variation in of the coefficientfor numbersof nonplantedtrees
planted pine yield accountedfor by measurement in the overstorywas negative,as expected,the ad-
dataon the plantedpine only wasdetermined.Next, dition of thisvariabledid not bring abouta significant
the proportionof the residualvariationafter account- reductionin the error sumof squares?Additional
ing for plantedpinevariables thatcouldbeattributed
to volunteerpinesand hardwoodsin the maincanopy
wasascertained?And finally,the additionalreduc-
s All testsof hypotheses
wereperformedat the0.01levelbecause
(1) a largenumberof testswereplannedand useof the 0.01 level
2Therewerenotsufficient
numbers
of plotswithvolunteer
pines for eachindividualtestguardedagainsta greatlyinflatedoverall
to separatethe competitorsin the main canopyinto pinesand Type I error rate,and (2) unlessthe testsof interestin thisstudy
hardwoods; consequentlyall competingtreesin the maincanopy showedstatistical significance
at the 0.01 levelthere wouldlikely
werelumpedtogetherfor theseanalyses. be little practicalimpacton predictedvalues.

86 SOUTHERN JOURNAL OF APPLIED FORESTRY

 Table4. Summaryof plantingmethods,sitepreparation,andintermediatetreatmentsby physiographic
regionfor 186locations.
Site preparation and intermediate treatments
Planting
method Burn Chop Drain Bed Shear Disc Windrow Spray Other Release Fert.
Coastal Plain
Hand 40 24 6 13 10 9 14 7 12
Machine 27 15 2 8 10 8 4 20
Combination 2 1 1 1 1 1 2
Piedmont
Hand 22 8 11 12 22 4 14 9
Machine 10 5 8 10 11 1 1 4
Combination 1 1
Other
Hand 10 10 1 8
Machine 8 1 2 1 2 1 2
Combination 1

TOTAL 111 53 6 15 49 44 67 7 30 58 5

expressionsfor numbers in the overstorywere en- Effectsof Site Preparation

tered but none wassignificant.
Next, numbersof naturally occurringstemsin the
understorywereaddedto equation(1). When adding
numbersin the understory,the signof the coefficient
was positive,an unexpectedresult, but the variable
wasnot significant.Various transformationsof num-
bers in the understorystill showeda positiverela-
tionship with yield after accountingfor the age,
averageheight of dominantsand codominants,and
number of survivingplanted stemsper acre. How-
ever, none of the variablesexpressingunderstory
densitywassignificant.
Finally,both numbersin the overstoryand num-
bers in the understorywere added to equation(1)
but no significant reductions in the error sum of
squaresresulted.In additionto the equationswhich
used numbers per unit area, analogousequations
were computed with basal area per acre and with
crowncompetitionfactor(Krajiceket al. 1961) asthe
measureof stand densityand the conclusions were
the same.
Regressionanalysesindicated that equation (1),
with age,heightof the dominantstand,and numbers
of survivingplantedpine, is adequatefor predicting
total cubic-footyield of planted pines for cutover,
site-preparedareas,exceptthat overpredictionbias
mayresultfor standswith a relativelylargehardwood
componentin the overstory(above350 stemsor 20
sq ft of basalarea per acre). It is possiblethat the
effectsof competingwoodyvegetationare indirectly
expressedthrough modificationsin height of domi-
nants and codominants and numbers of trees surviv-
ing.Althoughthe measurements of competingwoody
vegetationwere not significantlyrelated to yield of
the plantedpine, future growthof thesepermanent
plotsmay be significantlycorrelatedwith the density
of nonplantedpine competitors.
and Physiographic Region
on Yield
After determiningan appropriateyield equation,
relationshipsbetweenyield and sitepreparationand
physiographicregion were explored. As there was
wide variation in site preparation treatments,the
data were groupedin classes. The followingdefini-
tion of site preparationclasses,
usedby Clutter et al.
(1976) in an analysisof the relationshipsbetween
soilsand site preparationin slashpine plantations,
wasapplied:
Site PreparationClass1: Bedded--debrismoved
Site Preparation Class 2: Bedded--debris not
moved
Site Preparation Class 3: Not bedded--debris
moved
Site PreparationClass4: Not bedded--debrisnot
moved.
Table 5 shows the distribution of actual treatments
by theseclasses.
When testingfor the effectsof physiographic re-
gion, the data were groupedinto two classes:(1)
Piedmont and (2) CoastalPlain. There were insuffi-
cient data (only 13 plots)in the "other"categoryto
retainit for anyof thesecomparisons (Table6). Eight
plotshad inadequate recordsto placetheminto the
defined site preparationclasses and were omitted
from further analyses.Thus, 165 plotsremainedfor
the analysesof effectsof site preparationand phy-
siographicregion on yield. Comparisonsinvolving
the CoastalPlainphysiographic provinceincludedall
sitepreparationclasses,whereascomparisons for the
Piedmont included only site preparation classes3
and 4 (classes
1 and 2 involvedbedding,and there

SOUTHERN JOURNAL OF APPLIED FORESTRY 87

Table5. Frequencyof treatmentsby site preparation by sitepreparationclasses and physiographic region
classes.• An analysisof covariance(withcovariatesl/A, In Ha,
Treatment Frequency
and Ns, and responsevariable In Y) showedno
significantrelationshipbetweenadjustedobserved
Sitepreparationclass1: bedded--debrismoved yield and site preparationclassesor physiographic
Bed, shear 1 regions.Thus the conclusion wasthat, giventhe age,
Bed, shear, windrow 1
Bed, shear, windrow, disk 2
averageheightof dominantsand codominants, and
Bed, windrow, burn 1 numberof survivingplantedpine stemsper acre,a
Bed, windrow, burn, KG 3 single yield equation can be applied for all site
TOTAL 8 preparationclasses and physiographicregions.Clut-
Sitepreparationclass2: bedded--debrisnot moved ter et al. (1976) reachedthe sameconclusionfor the
Bed 1
site preparationclassesand soilsgroupsthat were
Bed,chop 1 included in their analysesof slashpine plantation
Bed, burn 2
data.
Bed,chop,burn 1
Bed,chop, burn, drain 2 Althoughthe sameyield equationcan apparently
TOTAL 7
be used for all site preparationclasses and physio-
Sitepreparationclass3: not bedded--debrismoved graphicregions,it ispossible thatdifferentsiteindex
Shear 1
Windrow 9
equationsor survivalfunctionsare needed. As an
Shear, windrow 11
initial look at siteindex relationships,it wasassumed
Shear,windrow, ripped 1 that anamorphicsite index curveswould be appro-
Shear, windrow, disk 6 priate and the guide curve
Windrow, burn 4
Windrow, disk, burn 5 In Ha = bo + bJA
Windrow,burn, kg 1
Shear, burn 4
Shear, windrow, burn 14 wasfitted to the plot data in eachsite preparation-
Shear, windrow, burn, bulldozed, rootraked 1
Shear, windrow, disk, burn 2 physiographicregion class with sufficient data
Shear,windrow, disk, burn, inject 2 (CoastalPlain--site preparationclasses1, 2, 3 and 4;
Windrow,chop, burn 1 Piedmont--sitepreparationclasses 3 and 4). Analysis
Windrow,disk, chop, burn 1 of varianceshoweda significantdifferencebetween
Shear,windrow,disk, pile, burn 1 the Coastal Plain and Piedmont, but there were no
Push,pile 1
Shear,windrow, disk, inject 1 differencesbetween site preparation classeswithin
Shear, windrow, disk, burn 1 physiographic regions.
TOTAL 67 The logarithmof height-reciprocal of age model
Sitepreparationclass4: not bedded--debrisnot moved fitted to the data from eachsite preparation-physio-
Spray 4 graphicregionwasusedto estimatemean siteindex
Burn, disk, spray 1 for each class.Mean site index values were (Table
Disk 15 6):
Chop, burn 38
Burn 17
Site preparationclass
Chop, spray 1
Burn, chop, disk 2 I 2 3 4
Burn, disk 3 Coastal Plain 76.3 63.6 61.3 59.8
Burn, chop, drain 3 Piedmont 57.0 55.8
Chop 1
Chop, burn, spray 1
Injected 4 Analysisof varianceproceduresshowedsignificant
Burn, tractor mist blown 1 differences between mean site indexes for the Coastal
Wildfire 3
Burn, injected 2 Plain; there were no significantdifferencesfor the
TOTAL 96 Piedmont.Further, there were no significantdiffer-
ences in mean site index between the Coastal Plain
• Eightplotswereomittedfromthistabulationbecause
of inadequate
rec-
and Piedmont for site preparationclasses3 and 4
ordson site preparationtreatmentsapplied.
Becausethe treatmentswere not assignedat random
(that is,the sitepreparationmethodsemployedwere
were no data from beddedplantationsin the Pied- subjectivelydetermined based on knowledgeand
mont). availabilityof techniquesplus conditionson the site
Comparisonsof averageyieldsby site preparation at the time of treatment),it is not possibleto make
classesand physiographicregion were adjustedfor validinferencesfrom theseresults(e.g.,differentsite
the effectsof age, site index, and stemsper acre, preparationtechniquesdo or do not affectsiteindex).
because the level of these variables varied from class If one assumes,however,that there was no strong
to class.Table 6 showsthe sampleplot characteristics associationbetween inherent site quality prior to

88 SOUTHERNJOURNALOF APPLIEDFORESTRY
Table 6. Mean valuesfor selectedcharacteristics
of the sampleplots by site preparationclassesand physio-
õraphicreõions.
Site
preparation Site
class Plots
• ^õe index Yield N• No Nu BA• BAo B,%
No. Yrs. Ft. Cu ft/a ................. No/a................................. ScI ft/a...............
Coastal Plain
I 8 11.6 76.3 2092.6 555.5 23.6 391.0 103.8 1.96 3.99
2 7 11.4 63.6 1299.7 601.4 22.6 521.9 78.8 1.04 5.04
3 20 14.7 61.3 2289.6 536.3 57.3 485.7 108.9 5.27 6.35
4 62 15.8 59.8 2184.3 524.7 73.3 880.9 104.6 6.41 10.91
Combi ned 97 14.9 61.8 2134.6 535.2 62.3 733.1 103.6 5.42 8.97
Piedmont

2 ..........
3 36 15.5 57.0 2136.0 611.2 54.6 1297.3 109.9 4.27 12.77
4 32 16.5 55.8 2149.3 572.2 80.0 1481.2 111.2 6.68 16.22
Combined 68 16.0 56.4 2142.2 592.9 66.5 1383.8 110.5 5.40 14.40
Other

2 ..........
3 11 9.1 57.6 664.0 576.2 49.9 433.7 53.2 1.70 3.46
4 2 14.5 61.0 2347.2 677.0 49.0 785.5 121.4 2.35 5.95
Combined 13 9.9 58.2 923.0 591.7 49.8 487.8 63.7 1.80 3.85
Combined
I 8 11.6 76.3 2092.6 555.5 23.6 391.0 103.8 1.96 3.99
2 7 11.4 63.6 1299.7 601.4 22.6 521.9 78.8 1.04 5.04
3 67 14.2 58.4 1940.1 583.1 54.6 913.2 100.3 4.15 9.33
4 96 16.0 58.5 2176.0 543.7 75.0 1079.0 107.2 6.42 12.57
Combined 178 15.0 59.5 2049.0 561.4 63.0 963.8 103.3 5.15 10.67

• E•õhtplotswereomittedfromthistabulation
because
of inadequate
records
on sitepreparation
treatments
applied.

treatmentand site preparationmethod,then these Ha = averageheight of dominantsand codom-

results,althoughinconclusive,
indicatethat siteprep- inantsat ageA.
arationmethodhasnot greatlyaffectedsiteindex.
Relationshipsbetweensitepreparationtechniques The covariateswere thus defined as (A)(log Np),
and physiographicregionsand survivalwere also (A)(Ha) and (A)(X/-•a).After adjustingfor the co-
•nvesti.gated.
In the survival
analyses,
theeffectsof variates,there were no significantdifferencesin the
age, s•te index, and initial number planted were survivalattributableto site preparationmethod or
removedascovariates andthentestswereperformed physiographic region.Thisresultmustbeinterpreted
with caution, however. All data used were from stands
to determineif the mean numberssurvivingwere
s•gnificantlyaffectedby site preparationtreatment 8 to 25 years.The analysisused the only two data
or physiographic region.Asin the previousanalyses, points available--one at time of planting (N•) and
the other at the time of observation in an established
data from site preparation classes1, 2, 3, and 4 were
available for the Coastal Plain, while data from site plantation(N). It is possiblethat mortalitypatterns
preparation classes3 and 4 were availablefor the (especiallyin the earlyyears)couldbe differentacross
P•edmont.Only 69 plotscontaineddataon the num- sitepreparationmethodsandphysiographic regions.
ber of treesplanted;thus,the survivalanalysiswas If suchdifferencesexist,theycouldhavebeenmissed
based on a reduced data set. The form of the survival in thisanalysis,dueto the natureof thedataat hand.
function of Feducciaet al. (1979) wasused to define Furthermore,sampleplotswere established only in
the covariates. Their survival function is plantationswith reasonablygood survival,possibly
eliminatingsomeof the variationbetweensiteprep-
log(Np/N)= A[bxlogNt, + beHa+ b•X/-ff•a] aration methodsand physiographicregions.This
where analysisdoespresentsomeevidence,however,that
mortalityrelationships may not be drastically
differ-
Np = numberof seedlings plantedper acre ent for differingsitepreparationclasses and physio-
A = age (yearsfrom planting) graphicregions.
N = numberof survivingstemsper acreat As another examinationof relationships between
age A yield, site index, and survivaland site preparation

SOUTHERNJOURNAL OF APPLIED FORESTRY 89

classesand physiographicregion, the data in each ß Although the nature of the sample data pre-
physiographic region were regroupedaccordingto cludes firm conclusions, indications are that survival
the followingclasses: is not greatlyaffectedby sitepreparationmethodor
physiographicregion.
Site PreparationClass1: Tilled--debris moved
SitePreparationClass2: Tilled--debris not moved
Site PreparationClass3: Not tilled--debris moved In similaranalyses with data from slashpine plan-
Site Preparation Class 4: Not tilled--debris not tationson site-preparedlandsin the flatwoods,Clut-
moved ter et al. (1976) found (1) averagesiteindicesto be
quite homogeneousfor soil seriesgroupsand site
where tilled is either disked or bedded or both. This preparation classes,(2) no differencesin average
groupingof the data resultedin four sitepreparation yield (adjustedfor variationin age, site index, and
classes in eachregion.The analyses describedpre- stemsper acre) by seriesgroup or site preparation
viouslywererepeatedwiththesedatagroupings.The classes, and (3) no significantdifferencesin average
resultsdid not change.That is, no significantrela- percentsurvivalor averagenumberof survivingtrees
tionshipswere found between adjusted observed by either seriesgroup or site preparationclass.The
yield and site preparationclasses or physiographic analysesreported here for loblollypine plantations
regions.There was a significantdifference in the corroboratethe findingsof Clutter et al.
height of dominantsand codominantsversusage Results and conclusionsof this study must be
relationshipbetweenthe CoastalPlain and Piedmont interpretedcautiouslyand in light of the type of data
physiographic regions,but therewasnot a significant analyzed.Data from both studiesdid not comefrom
differencebetweensite preparationmethodswithin designedexperimentsbut rather from a surveyof
each region. No significantdifferencesin mean sur- existingplantations.In the presentstudy,standhis-
vivalwerefound betweensitepreparationclasses or tory data were limited and there were no measure-
physiographic regions. ment data on the standsprior to plot installation
The sitepreparationtreatmentswere not appliedat
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
randombut weresubjectively chosen,basedon meth-
odsin useand conditionson the groundat the time
of plantation establishment.These resultsdo show,
For the populationof plantationssampledin this however,that for loblollypine plantationsof the type
studyit wasconcludedthat: sampledon cutover, site-preparedlands, a single
yield equationbasedon age, averageheight of the
ß Yield of the planted loblolly pines can be pre- dominants and codominants, and number of surviv-
dicted from age, averageheight of dominantsand ing planted pines,is applicableacrossa wide range
codominants, and numberof survivingplantedpines of sitepreparationmethodsand a broadgeographic
only. For thesedata, it wasnot necessary to include area. Preliminary indicatorsare that different site
measurements from volunteerpinesand hardwoods index curvesmay be needed for the CoastalPlain
to obtain adequatepredictions,but there was evi- and Piedmontregions,but that within each region
dence that inclusionof the densityof volunteersin the samecurveappliesto all sitepreparationmethods
the overstorymay be necessary at high levels(more And, finally, there is evidencethat survivalrelation-
than 350 stemsor 20 sq ft of basalarea per acre of shipsare similaracrosssitepreparationmethodsand
volunteers). physiographicregions.
ß A singleyieldequationisadequatefor predicting
total cubic-footvolume yield acrossall site prepara-
tion methodsand physiographicregionssampled. Literature Cited
ß The height of dominantsand codominantsver-
susagerelationshipdoesn'tseemto be alteredby site BURKHART, H. E., Q. v. CAO,and K. D. WARE.1981.A comparison
preparationmethod,but it wassignificantly different of growthand yield predictionmodelsfor loblollypine. Sch.of
between the Coastal Plain and Piedmont physio- For. and Wildl. Resour., VPI and State Univ., Publ. FWS-2-81
graphicregions. 59 p.
ß No firm conclusion can be drawn from these CLUT•rER,J. L., j. c. FoRysoN,and B. D. S•IVER. 1976. Some
data regarding sitepreparation effectson siteindex. relationships betweensoilsand site preparationin flatwoods
slashpineplantations. In Proc.,SixthSouth.For.SoilsWorkshop,
Mean site index was significantlydifferent for the Charleston,SC. p. 28-41.
four site preparationclassesin the CoastalPlainbut DEVA•,J. S. and H. E. BVRK•AR•r.1982. Polymorphicsiteindex
it wasn't different for the two classes in the Piedmont. equationsfor loblollypine basedon a segmentedpolynomial
differential model. For. Sci. 28:544-555.
This result doesnot provide strongevidencefor or FEDUCCIA,D. P., T. R. DELL, W. F. MANN, T. E. CAMPBELL,and
againstsitepreparationaffectingsiteindex,because B. H. POLMER.1979.Yieldsofunthinnedloblollypineplantations
site preparationmethodswere not assignedat ran- on cutoversitesin the WestGulf Region.USDA For. Serv.Res
dom in theseplantations. Pap.SO-148.88 p.

90 SOUTHERNJOURNAL OF APPLIED FORESTRY

KRAJ•CgK,
J. E., K. A. BR•N}•MAN,
and S. F. G•N(;R•cn.1961.Crown HaroldE. BurkhartisThomas M. Brooksprofessor,
Deb-
competition--ameasureof density.For. Sci.7:35-42. orahC. Cloeren,formergraduate researchassistant,
and
V^N DErSEN, P. C., A.D. Sv•.•.•v^•, and T. G. M^-r•E¾. 1981. A RalphL. Amateis, research
associate,
Departmentof For-
predictionsystemfor cubicfootvolumeofloblollypineapplicable estry,VirginiaPolytechnic
Instituteand StateUniversity,
through muchof its range.South.J. Appl. For. 5:186-189. Blacksburg,
Virginia24061.

Economic Aspectsof the Forest

Regeneration Delay Decision
ThomasJ. Strakaand JamesE. Hotvedt

ABSTRACT.Regeneration lag,thecostresultingfroma delayin ing a timber saleconsiderregenerationlag? In the

reestablishment
of a foreststand,representsan importantoppor- caseof proposedwholesalepostponements of regen-
tunitycost--the
costoftheforegone opportunitytogrowtimberover eration after harvest,corporateofficersimplicitly
theperiodof thedelay.Thelandexpectation value(Le)criterion assumethat savingsin short-terminterest on bor-
•susedtoevaluate thecosts associated
withone-time-onlyandper- rowedmoneyand the benefitsof maintainingdesired
petuallags.Significantdecreases in wealth,or barelandvalue,
werefoundusinga simplified example withreal-world costand levels of liquidity offset the costsof regeneration
pricedata.Changes in required
landbases resultingfromregen- delay. In this case,thesecostsalso include higher
erationdelays
werealsoreviewed. Theadditional landrequirements costsof sitepreparationsincethe sitewill havebeen
resulting
fromscheduled delays
in regenerationcanbecostly. left asis after a harvest,resultingin higherlevelsof
brush control.

Regeneration
isdefined
astheactofreplacing
old
trees,either naturallyor artificially.While prompt
regenerationisusuallyassumed in managementplan-
ning,it is not alwayssotimely.Timber salesare often
extended for up to a year in order to clean up a sale,
1.e.,to harvesta few marginalcordsof wood.Another
causeof regenerationlag is businessdownturnsand
their resultantcashflow problems.In the lastreces-
sionfor example,somecompanies considered whole-
salepostponement of regenerationafter harvestto
saveon cashoutflow,often to the chagrinof wood-
landsmanagers.In the caseof deliberatepostpone-
ment, it may well be that improvementsin short-
term cash flows are considered sufficient
lossesin land expectationvalues,increasedland
requirements,and disturbances in the optimalforest
structure(or a delay in achievingit).
Regenerationlag refersto the costof delayin re-
establishment of a forest stand (Davis 1966). It is
often ignoredin forestinvestmentanalyses.Regen-
eration lag representsan opportunitycost,or the
costof the foregoneopportunityto growtimber over
the period of the delayand the costof postponing
future rotations.The decisionto delay regeneration
means that the value of future rotations
deferredby the lengthof the delayor, alternatively,
that harvestsof delayed standswill be conducted
beforethe ageof financialor of biologicalmaturity.
How often doesthe foresterresponsible for extend-
This paper is concernedwith deliberatedelaysin
regeneration.The regenerationlag problemcan be
analyzedbystudyingfour affectedfactors:cashflows,
forest structureand allowablecut, land expectation
values,and land requirementsfor mill furnish.Bro-
die and Tedder (1982) discussed the impactof re-
generationdelayon the harvestvolumelossfor the
forest as a whole, stressingthe impact of different
allowablecut constraints.We stressthe managerial
implications of regenerationlag, mainlyits impact
on land expectationvaluesand land requirements.
to offset ANALYTICAL MODEL
Land expectation
value(Le), or bare land value,
can be used to measurethe changein forestland
valueresultingfrom regeneration
lag. The formula
used to calculate L, is often called the Faustmann
formula. The calculationis relatively simple and
involvescompoundingeachcostand revenueat a
given interestrate to derive net incomeat some
specified
rotationage.Sincethe formulacalculates
bare land value,regenerationcostis included,but
will be land cost is not. It is assumedthat the specified
rotationwilloccurin perpetuityandthattheperiodic
cashflow will not changeover time. Thus, we are
dealingwitha perpetualperiodicpayment.
The net
valueof compoundedincomelesscompounded costs

SOUTHERNJOURNAL OF APPLIED FORESTRY 91