In today’s markets, grade 1 logs sold from restored longleaf pine stands like this… bring the same price per ton as grade 3 logs from plantation loblolly stands like this.
Anecdotal observations: A. Crossett EF, trees > 24” dbh 2002: timber sale, $80/ton 2011: timber sale, $35/ton B. Timber sale, family land Trees> 24” dbh, anonymous longleaf pine family producer: 2000: $75/ton 2013: $28/ton, same price as these plantation-grown logs
Lumber markets must be modified to account not just for volume, but also for higher quality associated with large pine sawtimber…
…rather than having the big box stores sell these for the same price, in the same stack! Thanks to SRS scientist Don Bragg, during a weekend project last year
A high sawtimber:pulpwood price ratio favors even-aged and uneven-aged natural regeneration systems (Guldin and Guldin 1990, GTR SO-79) ( <- Uneven-aged Farm Forestry 40, Escambia EF Longleaf shelterwood after removal cut Escambia EF
Conversely, a low sawtimber:pulpwood price ratio favors intensive plantation silviculture (Guldin and Guldin 1990, GTR SO-79) Plantations can be used to plant longleaf pine where it is absent, but are difficult to manage for economic returns from sawlog- sized trees through a long rotation Longleaf plantation Kisatchie NF
If this loss of value from high-quality sawtimber continues, we will lose landowners interested in longleaf restoration.
2. Growth and Yield Models Derived from the RLGS— Regional Longleaf Growth Study Initiated by the late RM Farrar, 1960, Escambia EF and elsewhere Maintained by USFS cooperative agreements with Auburn University Published by the University of Florida, 2013
Two models exist: 1) Longleaf pine plantation model (bare root origin) http://carboncenter.ifas.ufl.edu/model_longleaf_planted.shtml
This model allows the user to simulate stand dynamics of planted longleaf pine stands: Growth and Yield (BA, TMCV; Sawtimber CV, CNS CV, Pulpwood CV) Pinestraw production In Situ Biomass stock Ex Situ C stock (dynamics of C sequestered in forest products: sawtimber, chip-and-saw and pulpwood) Stand C balance (In Situ + Ex Situ – Emissions due to Silviculture) Effects of prescribed burning on forest floor, coarse woody debris and understory biomass.
This model simulates stand dynamics of even-aged naturally regenerated longleaf pine stands: Growth and Yield (BA, TMCV, Sawlog volume, CNS volume, Pulpwood volume) Pinestraw production (pinestraw production from current year needlefall). In Situ Biomass stock (aboveground, coarse roots, forest floor, coarse woody debris, standing dead and understory). Effects of prescribed burning on forest floor, coarse woody debris and understory biomass.
I have not run the models to see how well they work However, Dan Leduc (SRS Pineville) is custodian of the long- term data, and assisted in model development We will beta-test the model results in the context of economic returns One of the RLGS plots on the Escambia EF
3. Using interactive GIS Imagery to detect longleaf plantations on private lands
If States and NGOS are interested in longleaf restoration, how can they identify and help landowners who are planting longleaf pine on family forest lands?
There are stewardship funds through NRCS (EQIP) available to help landowners do this work
Within the Longleaf Partnership Council (LPC), regional working groups called Longleaf Implementation Teams (LITs) are working to promote longleaf
State governments are using GIS tools to identify new longleaf plantations on private lands as part of a landowner outreach program New longleaf plantation Escambia EF
This is tied in with the math of seedling production vs enrollees in cost share programs: In 2013: Nurseries grew 113 million longleaf seedlings LPC reports 156,000 ac planted in longleaf (~725 seedling/ac) But only 84,000 ac of ownerships have been reached using stewardship plans Who is being missed, and why? Or, are our assumptions in error?
Is this a good idea? If so, how to apply it? Pros: Creates landscape corridors of longleaf stands to enhance wildlife habitat at landscape scale Assist landowners who might not be being reached through traditional outlets (such as minority landowners not dialed in to NRCS programs) Provide landowners with technical advice and possibly cost-share funding
Is this a good idea? If not, what are the concerns? Cons: Intrudes on privacy issues—spying on private lands, giving advice that is not asked for Encouraging a land ethic whereby landowners only do the right thing if the govt pays them to do it
As a result, there is some debate within the Longleaf Partnership Council about how aggressively to run down this trail. Thoughts? Clarification?
4. Anything else on your mind about longleaf? If so: email@example.com 870-723-1623