Forestry in the Southeastern United States has long focused on converting natural stands into pine plantations or managing exclusively for hardwoods. Little consideration has been given to managing stands containing pine and hardwood mixtures, as these stands were considered inferior in terms of productivity and/or quality. Recent declines in small-diameter softwood markets and logging workforce have, however, begun to stress the traditional pine production model in some locations, raising interest in management alternatives. Here, we provide biological, economic, and sociocultural rationale for pine-hardwood mixtures as an alternative strategy for landowners with multiple management objectives. To support this idea, an illustration compares a mixed-species plantation to pine and hardwood monocultures under a variety of simulated scenarios to demonstrate growth potential and economic and biological resilience. Moreover, to identify scenarios where managing pine-hardwood mixtures would be most appropriate, and to help conceptualize landowner interest in mixed stands, we present a guide combining biological, economic, and sociocultural factors that we anticipate influencing the adoption of mixed-stand management. The aim of this conceptual paper is not to suggest that mixed-species stand management should become the dominant management paradigm; rather, we seek to encourage researchers and land managers to consider it as part of the broader silvicultural toolbox.

Research about the broad range of ecological, social, and economic benefits urban forests provide communities trees has expanded significantly and helped provide justification for protecting and enhancing urban forests. However, an empirical understanding of risks and liabilities is limited despite an abundance of risk research in other disciplines. Employing Alabama as a case study, this research examined municipal employees’ perceptions of factors, including legal liability, influencing actions towards urban tree risk mitigation. Qualitative interviews revealed attitudes and practices regarding municipal responsibility towards public tree management. Cities were unlikely to implement risk assessments to provide a foundation for tree maintenance. As a result, there was limited adaptive and integrative governance to handle risk in the community forest. Results are implicated in the broader narrative of community sustainability and resilience, particularly management of complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of urban forest risk and benefits. Study Implications: Large-population cities were equipped to address tree maintenance, implement best management practices, and focus on preventative risk management. However, all cities were limited in capacity to conduct comprehensive tree risk assessments and communicate with residents about proper tree selection and care to reduce risk of failure. Whereas this has negative implications for community resilience, a number of small and medium-sized communities demonstrated opportunities to address urban forest health such as harnessing employee champions, local sources of expertise, and encouraging volunteerism. Municipal tree programs should not overlook community assets and culture in the goal to reduce risk while maximizing tree benefits.

Volunteer-based urban forest inventories are a common activity among Extension professionals; however, project facilitators often end up duplicating mistakes experienced previously by others. This article shares lessons learned from conducting several volunteer-based urban forest inventories. The lessons revolve around the themes of volunteer recruitment, communication with the public, private property access, project scope and time line, volunteer management, and efforts to increase efficiency. Through awareness of these lessons, Extension professionals can implement and adapt our successful strategies yet not repeat our mistakes. In turn, readers will increase the likelihood of successfully developing baseline measures while engaging the public in urban forest management.