An analysis of the feasibility for increasing woody biomass production from pine plantations in the southern United States

Bending strength and stiffness of loblolly pine lumber from intensively managed stands located on the Georgia Lower Coastal Plain

“…One such change was the acceleration of the growth rate in plantations which increased both the sustainability of forest plantations in the South and their financial attractiveness (Munsell and Fox 2010). Plantation growth has accelerated because of improved genetics, intensive site preparations, weed control, and the use of multiple fertilizer applications (Borders and Bailey 2001).…”

Developing contemporary and historical live tree biomass estimates for old pine-hardwood stands of the Midsouth, USA

“…Because of how well loblolly pine responds to cultural treatments, it has become the overwhelmingly preferred plantation species in the southern USA and even other parts of the world (Schultz, 1999;Borders and Bailey, 2001;Jokela et al, 2004;Allen et al, 2005). This is not surprising, given the documented productivity of southern pine forests and the willingness of many property owners in this region to engage in intensive management (e.g., Jokela et al, 2004;Munsell and Fox, 2010;Joshi and Mehmood, 2011). Pine plantations now constitute at least 19% of the forest cover in the southeastern USA (27% in the Gulf Coastal Plain), or 15.8 million ha-in contrast, pine-dominated stands of natural origin have declined from over 29 million ha in 1950 to about 13 million ha in 2010 (Wear and Greis, 2011).…”

“…By their nature, intensively managed plantations have significantly fewer species, are younger, and generally less structurally complex than the naturally regenerated forests they replaced. The silvicultural treatments needed to maximize productivity of loblolly pine plantations also involve the use of petrochemical-based fertilizers and herbicides and can further affect soil conditions by altering drainage patterns, encouraging erosion, and accelerating the decomposition of organic matter (Jokela et al, 2004;Munsell and Fox, 2010). However, the trade-offs in biomass accumulation/carbon (C) sequestration related to forest type change are less clear, even with increasing inquiry and synthesis on forest C dynamics (e.g., Malmsheimer et al, 2011).…”

Geospatial Economics of the Woody Biomass Supply in Kansas – A Case Study

“…The availability of the woody biomass is a subject of many research studies in Europe (De Wit and Faaij 2010;Verkerk et al 2011;Zambelli et al 2012;Welfle et al 2014;Rytter et al 2015), Asia (Koopmans 2005;Yoshioka et al 2005;Sasaki et al 2009;Joshi et al 2016), Latin America (Houghton et al 2001;FerreiraLeitao et al 2010), and Africa (Banks et al 1996;Marrison and Larson 1996;Dasappa 2011). The availability of woody biomass in the Southern U.S. was studied by Munsell and Fox (2010), Eastern U.S. by Brown and Schroeder (1999), Southeastern U.S. by Young and Ostermeier (1989), Young et al (1991), Galik et al (2009), Perdue et al (2011), andHuang et al (2012), Western U.S. by Skog and Barbour (2006), Tennessee Valley by Downing and Graham (1996), and the state of Mississippi specifically by Perez-Verdin et al (2009). However, a review of the literature did not indicate any previous studies focused at the state level on Kansas.…”