<%BANNER%>

Landowner Perceptions and Management of Florida's Hardwood Forests

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022851/00001

Material Information

Title: Landowner Perceptions and Management of Florida's Hardwood Forests
Physical Description: 1 online resource (92 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Hinton, Brian
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Forest Resources and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Forest Resources and Conservation thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Predicted increases in population and decreases in wood supply raise concern about the sustainability of the hardwood resource in Florida. Private forest landowners are important to improved hardwood management since they hold 2.2 million acres of hardwood forest types. These forests are largely unmanaged and silvicultural practices may improve productivity. Even though hardwoods are in abundance and occur on a wide variety of sites, the application of silvicultural practices may be difficult since the knowledge base in Florida is with pine silviculture. Also, the current markets for hardwood are limited (most hardwood volume utilized is low quality for pulp and paper) and the value of shipments is declining for hardwood-using industries. An analysis of hardwood supply and production using USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis data finds that pulp and paper overshadows other high value timber products, e.g. saw logs and veneer logs, which are utilized in significant amounts in this state. Further, high-value timber species such as yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and white ash (Fraxinus americana) occur in noteworthy volumes in Florida?s forests. Higher stumpage prices may motivate some landowners to manage for hardwoods. In a mail-out survey using Dillman's Tailored Design Method (TDM), 26% of respondents indicated they would change to hardwood management from pine management if stumpage price were above pine. The survey also indicated that landowners can improve stumpage values through better access to market price information. Of respondents who sold timber in the 5 years preceding 2005, 23% had accessed price information and received greater than $9.00 per ton, while none received greater than $9.00 per ton if they did not receive price information. A change in perceptions is also needed to improve hardwood management. Most respondents would not change from pine management to hardwood management even if the value were above pine. Most respondents who had sold hardwood were unwilling to harvest hardwood for timber. Further, most respondents lacked a written management plan which could improve hardwood management even if timber is not an objective. Aesthetic beauty, environmental benefits, and wildlife values are all reasons to manage hardwood forests. Results show that hardwood forestry in Florida has potential, and advancement lies with improved stumpage prices for private forest landowners, a willingness to perform multiple use management, the use of alternative markets, and an improved knowledge base of hardwood forestry.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Brian Hinton.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Long, Alan J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022851:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022851/00001

Material Information

Title: Landowner Perceptions and Management of Florida's Hardwood Forests
Physical Description: 1 online resource (92 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Hinton, Brian
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Forest Resources and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Forest Resources and Conservation thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Predicted increases in population and decreases in wood supply raise concern about the sustainability of the hardwood resource in Florida. Private forest landowners are important to improved hardwood management since they hold 2.2 million acres of hardwood forest types. These forests are largely unmanaged and silvicultural practices may improve productivity. Even though hardwoods are in abundance and occur on a wide variety of sites, the application of silvicultural practices may be difficult since the knowledge base in Florida is with pine silviculture. Also, the current markets for hardwood are limited (most hardwood volume utilized is low quality for pulp and paper) and the value of shipments is declining for hardwood-using industries. An analysis of hardwood supply and production using USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis data finds that pulp and paper overshadows other high value timber products, e.g. saw logs and veneer logs, which are utilized in significant amounts in this state. Further, high-value timber species such as yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and white ash (Fraxinus americana) occur in noteworthy volumes in Florida?s forests. Higher stumpage prices may motivate some landowners to manage for hardwoods. In a mail-out survey using Dillman's Tailored Design Method (TDM), 26% of respondents indicated they would change to hardwood management from pine management if stumpage price were above pine. The survey also indicated that landowners can improve stumpage values through better access to market price information. Of respondents who sold timber in the 5 years preceding 2005, 23% had accessed price information and received greater than $9.00 per ton, while none received greater than $9.00 per ton if they did not receive price information. A change in perceptions is also needed to improve hardwood management. Most respondents would not change from pine management to hardwood management even if the value were above pine. Most respondents who had sold hardwood were unwilling to harvest hardwood for timber. Further, most respondents lacked a written management plan which could improve hardwood management even if timber is not an objective. Aesthetic beauty, environmental benefits, and wildlife values are all reasons to manage hardwood forests. Results show that hardwood forestry in Florida has potential, and advancement lies with improved stumpage prices for private forest landowners, a willingness to perform multiple use management, the use of alternative markets, and an improved knowledge base of hardwood forestry.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Brian Hinton.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Long, Alan J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022851:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 LANDOWNER PERCEPTIONS AND MANA GEMENT OF FLORIDAS HARDWOOD FORESTS By BRIAN HINTON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Brian Hinton

PAGE 3

3 To my wife, Amanda and son, Asah, for provi ding support and motivation through this long process

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee, Dr. Alan Long, Dr. Doug Carter, and Dr. Alan Hodges for the guidance and directio n they gave to conduct this re search. I would also like to thank Dr. Wayne Zipperer for giving me encourag ement and motivation to finish this paper. Most importantly I give thanks and honor to God who loves me, and allowed me to be here.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................10 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............11 CHAPTER 1 FLORIDA HARDWOOD MARKETS, A LITERATURE REVIEW...................................13 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........13 Supply and Timber Value.......................................................................................................14 Demand for Products that Use Hardwoods............................................................................15 Market Price Information.......................................................................................................16 Landowners and Hardwood Management..............................................................................17 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... .........19 2 FLORIDAS HARDWOOD FORESTS.................................................................................20 Floridas Hardwood Forest Types..........................................................................................20 Hardwood Silviculture.......................................................................................................... ..22 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... .........24 3 MARKET ASSESSMENT OF FLORIDAS HARDWOODS..............................................26 Hardwood Usage for Timber Products...................................................................................27 Standing Volume of Hardwoods............................................................................................28 Industry Trends for Hardwoods..............................................................................................29 Market Prices.................................................................................................................. ........30 Market Potential............................................................................................................... .......31 4 LANDOWNER SURVEY......................................................................................................41 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........41 Objectives..................................................................................................................... ..........41 Methods........................................................................................................................ ..........42 Survey Research..............................................................................................................42 Survey Selection Process.................................................................................................44 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. .45 Results........................................................................................................................ .............46

PAGE 6

6 Demographics..................................................................................................................46 Scope of Hardwood Management...................................................................................46 Stumpage Price................................................................................................................48 Market Information and Product Knowledge..................................................................49 Market Information and Stumpage Price Association.....................................................49 Willingness to Change to Hardwood Management.........................................................50 Alternative Hardwood Markets.......................................................................................51 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........51 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... .........53 5 HARDWOOD ESTABLISHMENT TRIAL AT AUSTIN CARY MEMORIAL FOREST......................................................................................................................... ........62 APPENDIX A MAIL-OUT SURVEY QUESTIONS....................................................................................65 B LANDOWNER SURVEY RESULTS...................................................................................73 C SAS OUTPUT..................................................................................................................... ...86 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..88 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................92

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Florida hardwood species wi th potential commercial value..................................................25 3-1 Traditional and non-traditional hard wood forest products and services................................32 3-2 Area of timberland by forest type......................................................................................... ..33 3-3 Value of shipments of selected hardwood using industries....................................................34 3-4 Imports and exports of hardwoods.........................................................................................34 4-1 Demographics of the north Flor ida forest landowners surveyed............................................54 4-2 Percentage of landowners who owned each forest type.........................................................55 4-3 Primary purpose landowners identified for their forest land .................................................55 4-4 Percentage of landowners who have a written management plan..........................................55 4-5 Management practices performed by landowners..................................................................55 4-6 Landowner expenditures on trea tments to reduce hardwood growth.....................................56 4-7 Management practices of landowners relative to hardwoods on their land...........................56 4-8 Respondents who indicated a stum page price for their hardwoods........................................56 4-9 Market information sour ces utilized by landowners..............................................................57 4-10 Landowners who obtain timber market pr ice information from outside sources.................57 4-11 Product conversions for hardwoods sold or utilized by respondents...................................57 4-12 Market knowledge of landowners........................................................................................58 4-13 Association between stum page price and landowner access to market information............58 4-14 Association between a exp ectation of stumpage price and access to market information...58 4-15 Respondents willingness to change management to favor hardwoods.................................59 4-16 Cross tabulation of percep tions about values of hardw oods and willingness to change......59 4-17 Landowners who use their ha rdwoods for uncommon markets...........................................59 4-18 Non-market use of hardwoods..............................................................................................59

PAGE 8

8 5-1 The nine hardwood species se lected for research at ACMF..................................................64 5-2 Percent seedling mortality from 2005-2006...........................................................................64 5-3 Average seedling height 2006, centimeters............................................................................64

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Hardwood pulpwood and total hardwood roundwood production.........................................35 3-2 Hardwood production for saw logs, veneer logs, composite panels, and other uses..............35 3-3 Net volume of hardwood growing stock................................................................................36 3-4 Area of timberland by forestland pr oductivity class, pine and hardwood..............................36 3-5 Net volume of potentially high-value hardwood species.......................................................37 3-6 Percent net volume of ha rdwood growing stock by species...................................................38 3-7 Diameter at breast height (DBH) size class di stribution of hardwoods.................................39 3-8 Average stumpage prices for mixed saw timber, oak saw timber and pulpwood..................40 4-1 Map of North Florida landowners selected in the mail-out survey.......................................60 4-2 Forest types as percent of acreage owned by survey respondents .........................................60 4-3 Percentage of landowners who id entified hardwood species on their land ...........................61

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS FIA Forest inventory and analysis NAICS North American Indus try Classification System NIPF Non-industrial private forest OSB Oriented strand board TDM Tailored design method TPO Timber products output TSI Timber stand improvement USDA United States Department of Agriculture

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science LANDOWNER PERCEPTIONS AND MANA GEMENT OF FLORIDAS HARDWOOD FORESTS By Brian D Hinton December 2008 Chair: Alan Long Cochair: Douglas Carter Major: Forest Resources and Conservation Predicted increases in populat ion and decreases in wood s upply raise concern about the sustainability of the hardwood resource in Florida. Private forest landowners are important to improved hardwood management since they hold 2.2 million acres of hardwood forest types. These forests are largely unmanaged and silvicu ltural practices may improve productivity. Even though hardwoods are in abundance and occur on a wide variety of sites, the application of silvicultural practices may be difficult since the knowledge base in Florida is with pine silviculture. Also, the current markets for ha rdwood are limited (most hardwood volume utilized is low quality for pulp and paper) and the value of shipments is declin ing for hardwood-using industries. An analysis of hardwood supply and production using USDA Fo rest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis data finds that pulp and paper overs hadows other high value timber products, e.g. saw logs and veneer logs, which are utilized in signi ficant amounts in this state. Further, high-value timber spec ies such as yellow poplar ( Liriodendron tulipifera ), black cherry ( Prunus serotina ), and white ash ( Fraxinus americana ) occur in noteworthy volumes in Floridas forests.

PAGE 12

12 Higher stumpage prices may motivate some landowners to manage for hardwoods. In a mail-out survey using Dillmans Tailored Desi gn Method (TDM), 26% of respondents indicated they would change to hardwood management from pine management if stumpage price were above pine. The survey also indicated that landowners can improve stumpage values through better access to market price information. Of respondents who sold timber in the 5 years preceding 2005, 23% had accessed price informati on and received greater than $9.00 per ton, while none received greater than $9.00 per ton if they did not receive price information. A change in perceptions is also needed to improve hardwood management. Most respondents would not change from pine manage ment to hardwood management even if the value were above pine. Most respondents w ho had sold hardwood were unwilling to harvest hardwood for timber. Further, most respondents lacked a written management plan which could improve hardwood management even if timber is not an objective. Aesthetic beauty, environmental benefits, and wildlife values are a ll reasons to manage hardwood forests. Results show that hardwood forestry in Florida has potential, and advancement lies with improved stumpage prices for private forest landow ners, a willingness to perform multiple use management, the use of alternative markets, and an improved knowledge base of hardwood forestry.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 FLORIDA HARDWOOD MARKETS, A LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The recent increase in the value of hardwoods in the Souths timber markets may be an important indication that possibl e changes in hardwood manageme nt may be practical (Bates 2003). Southern pines have traditionally been fa vored in Florida for economic gain. In the past, the slow growth and poor form of hardwoods rece ived low stumpage value if any at all. If hardwood values are increasing, timber stand ma nagement focused on the improvement of the quality of hardwoods may be economically benefi cial. Opportunities ma y exist for landowners to increase hardwood value through hardwood management. Here, hardwood management refers to applying silvicultural systems such that the quality and volume of hardwood growing stock is increased for use as a commercial timb er product. Hardwood management can still be performed even if landowner objectives are solely for non-timber products, recreation, and environmental services so long as th e commercial value will be increased. In the early 1990s researchers noted an incr easing demand for hardwoods across the South (Abt et. al. 1994). Related to this increase, ha rdwoods began to match pine prices for certain products (Pelkki and Ringe 1994) Although Florida has many native hardwood species, forest management has focused on pines. Hardwoods ha ve only been allowed to grow on sites where pines are not promoted. Hardwoods in Florida are usually considered a weed in pine plantations and most silvicultural practices discourage grow th of hardwoods in those stands, or seek to eradicate them (Cain and Yaussy 1984). Since control of hardwoods increases pine production and financial returns for landowne rs (Williston 1987) much research effort and expense has been allocated to reducing competing hardwoods in pi ne plantations. However, hardwoods, while

PAGE 14

14 unwanted, have continued to thrive on southern pine sites and the recent changes in timber markets should increase their va lue (Abt et. al. 1994). Even so, more information about Florida hardw ood forestry is needed to sustain the use of this resource. In this paper, a review of the pertinent forest economic research explores supply, demand and market information issues with Flor idas hardwood market. While the factors of supply and demand are important to stumpage pr ices, so is market information. Landowner access to market information is a key focus of this research. Survey research methods can provide information about landowners access of market information and their management practices. The results of this survey research could determine the opportunities and limitations of hardwood management improvement by the forest landowner, as well as provide a test of the hypothesis that landowners who obtain current mark et information are more likely to receive higher stumpage prices than landowners who do not. Supply and Timber Value Supply trends have an important effect on ti mber value. A shortage of timber supply may negatively impact consumers by inflating lumb er prices, increase imports, and promote deforestation (in third world coun tries) but it should increase stum page prices. A timber surplus may negatively impact the landowner by reducing st umpage prices and th eir profits. Since standing timber supply cannot be readily increased in a short period of ti me, society will benefit from timber management that keeps supply steady. Currently, Floridas potential hardwood suppl y exceeds demand, but that may change in the near future. All of Floridas forest inventor y and analysis (FIA) survey units are expected to lose private timberland (Prestemon and Abt 2002). Hardwood growth is expected to stay ahead of removals only until the mid-2020s. The falling hardwood inventories are due to conversion of

PAGE 15

15 natural areas to pine plantation and urban de velopment (Prestemon and Abt 2002). The increase in population associated with urban devel opment may increase demand for hardwoods, and simultaneously reduce supply by taking land out of timber production. This indicates the need for Florida landowners to adopt management practices that improve hardwood quality and intensively manage for higher production. If stumpage pric e remains high enough to provide motivation for the landowner to do so, then soci ety will receive a desira ble level of hardwood supply (Callahan 1980). Demand for Products that Use Hardwoods The demand for hardwoods has been incr easing worldwide due to increasing world population and the development of third world countries. The increased hardwood demand in the Southeast is for white paper, engineered wood products and fine furniture. With these changes the U.S. has gone from a net exporter of wood pulp to a net importer (Harris et. al. 2003). In Florida, the pulp and paper industry us es about 74% of the harvested hardwoods (Bentley et. al 2002). They are most frequently used in printing paper, writing paper and in tissue paper. Hardwood pulp is added to softw ood pulp in the paper making process to improve certain paper properties such as opacity and surface characteristics of white paper (Koch 1985). Engineered wood products (EWP) have also contributed to increased demand for hardwoods, although at a much lower level than for pul p. Of particular interest is oriented strand board (OSB). Florida previously exported 14% of its roundwood hardwoods for OSB production in adjacent states (Bentley et. al 2002). The bulk of this material went to a mill near Valdosta, Georgia. Also an OSB mill recently opened in Hosford, FL. However, both of these mills currently use pine as a primary wood source.

PAGE 16

16 Market Price Information Stumpage value is an important factor in fo rest management as it provides a source of motivation to the landowner. The money receive d provides the resources to hire workers and perform various silvicultural practices. It also provides money to pay property taxes, purchase equipment to perform various other land management functions, and meet other financial needs. It is also an investment opportunity to incr ease individual wealth. Therefore, improved stumpage value provides incentives to improve hardwood forest management. Many factors affect stumpage value, such as ti mber size and quality, ability to access with logging equipment, distance to mill, etc. Improved landowner access to market price information for hardwood timber may increase the cash value of a landowners standing hardwood. Many small landowners perform very few timber sales so their inexperience may place them at a disadvantage for getting the best sa le prices. While this may improve the welfare of the timber buyer, it hurts the welfare of the landowner, and the benefits and motivations to manage a forest for timber products are diminished. Researchers try to determine whether or not prices match publicly available information for timber. By doing this they can determine if the markets are efficient (Fama 1970). In theory, timber markets could fail if they are ine fficient (Klemperer 1996). The existence of informational inefficiency in stumpage markets has been debated in the literature (Washburn and Binkley 1990, Hultkrantz 1993, Yin and Newman 1996). However, it is still widely accepted that small landowners need improved access to timber market information to optimize sale values. Market price information for hardwood stum page is readily available for Florida landowners. Sources that are free include but are not limited to local county extension agents, county foresters, and quarterly Timber Mart-South reports that are summarized in the Florida

PAGE 17

17 Forest Steward newsletter. However, these sour ces may have only generalized information that does not account for other factors (i.e. distance to mill, site conditions, etc.) that can strongly influence sale prices. Other sources that ar e available (e.g. forestry consultants and timber market price reporting companies like F2M and Ti mber-Mart South) may have an associated cost. Even with these available resources, few landowners seek market information or management advice (Rosen 1989, Bu tler and Leatherberry 2004). Research suggests landowner access to market price information may affect stumpage price. In Ohio, stumpage prices for hardwood sawtimber did not decrease as much as lumber prices during severe recession due to price expectations of landowners (Luppold et. al. 1998). Forestry consultants brought highe r bid prices to timber sales in North Carolina and Florida than were received without consultant assistan ce (Hubbard and Abt 1989, Munn and Rucker 1994). Therefore, more widely disseminated timber ma rket price information may increase stumpage price for the private landowner. Landowners and Hardwood Management In Florida the non-industrial priv ate forest (NIPF) landowner is the largest single class of landowner (Brown 1996). NIPF landowners hold 1.5 million acres of upland hardwood forest and 0.8 million acres of oak-pine forest (Thom pson 1999). Therefore, the management of 2.2 million acres of hardwood forest is dependent on the decisions of private forest landowners. The viewpoint of the landowner may also have a major impact on the decision to manage hardwoods. Many landowners in Florida have th e pre-conceived notion that hardwoods are an impediment to pine production and offer little or no cash value. Others may feel that hardwoods provide such aesthetic beauty and benefits to wildlife that they would never dream of cutting them down even if the monetary rewards are large. The spect rum of attitude, perception, and emotion represents a challenge to improvi ng hardwood timber management in Florida.

PAGE 18

18 Hardwoods are often viewed as a problem for ma ny forest landowners in Florida. In the past, pine received considerably higher stumpage price than hardwood. Hardwood control in the past has been shown to increase pine producti on and financial returns (Williston 1987). Some hardwoods, such as water oak ( Quercus nigra ) are alternate hosts for fusiform rust disease in pines (Hollis and Schmidt 1977). For these reasons, hardwoods are often perceived as undesirable and management efforts focus on reduc ing their abundance. Allowing hardwoods to grow near or in pine plantations could be rec onsidered since the price margin between hardwood and pine has narrowed considerably in recent years, at least for pulpwood and OSB logs. Landowners may benefit from increased inform ation about management practices that can increase the value of hardwoods. In the sout h central United States it has been shown that naturally regenerating mixed l oblolly pine-hardwood stands is a sound financial investment (Ruanikar et. al. 2000). Three low cost met hods of regenerating pine-hardwood stands in southern Alabama were shown to be effective (Jones et. al. 2000). The methods included seedtree, clearcut-and-plant, and fell-burn-and-plan t, and were applied to mature mixed loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda ) upland hardwood stands. Results of these and similar studies can be disseminated to help landowners manage for ha rdwoods in ways that increase their value and total stand value. Other than effects on pine growth, hardwoods are often thought to impact land value positively. Timber products, non-market timber products, recreation, and other land uses may have cash values tied to the hardwood resour ce. Additionally non-cash value may be added by the landowner because of aesthetic s, wildlife benefits, and enj oyment of the land. Since hardwoods have not traditionally been grown for profit in Florida the literature regarding hardwood management is limited. La ndowners need information regarding specific

PAGE 19

19 management practices for Florida that will maximize their profit from growing hardwoods. Similar information is available for the South but its applicability to Florida is limited (Hicks, et. al. 2004; Moorhead and Coder 1994). Conclusion Predicted increases in populat ion and decreases in supply si gnal the need for improved hardwood management in Florida. The key to improved hardwood management lies with the NIPF landowners because they hold 2.2 million acres of hardwood forest types. Improved stumpage price is a keystone to providing the mo tivation and resources for improvement of their hardwood forest. It is hypothe sized that increased stumpage price could be achieved through improved market price information. Even so, pre-conceived notions and lack of knowledge about hardwood forestry may impede their decisi ons to actively manage the hardwood resource in Florida. Therefore, the goa l of improving the hardwood resource in Florida is likely to be disregarded by many landowners. However, improvement of hardwood forestry in Florida is a goal of great importance with need for much information and research. Landowners need information on forest type and silviculture which is explored in Chapter 2. Hardwood market potentia l is largely unknown and publicly available data is examined in Chap ter 3. Landowner intere sts and potential for improving hardwood management are researched in Chapter 4 through data from a mail-out survey. Also, hardwood field trials are needed for future research and chapter 5 presents preliminary data from an establishment trial at Au stin Cary Memorial Forest. This collection of information and research will show areas of pot ential improvement for hardwood forestry in the state of Florida.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 2 FLORIDAS HARDWOOD FORESTS Floridas climate and environment supports a di verse array of hardwood species that have the potential to serve as a valuab le resource for both wildlife and timber (Table 2-1). Hardwood forestry is often overlooked as pine silvicultu ral systems take precedence. Even so, Florida has many types of hardwood forest stands that would benefit from silvicultural practices. Floridas Hardwood Forest Types Florida hardwood forest stands are often descri bed by the terms xeric, mesic, and hydric in reference to their soil water conditions of dry, moderate, and wet, respectively. The composition of the dominant tree species change s along the soil water gr adient because flooding, drought, and nutrient availability li mit the respective sites to trees adapted to those conditions. Geographic location is also important, though differe nces are more subtle. Species composition changes are observed with latitude, proximity to the coast, and from east to west across the northern portion of the state. Variations in both geographical location and soil water conditions are important considerations for accomplishing hardwood forestry practices. Most xeric sites are dry because they are well drained with deep sands allowing rainfall to rapidly percolate below the root zone. They are typically domina ted by longleaf pine ( Pinus palustris ) and turkey oak ( Quercus laevis ) when maintained by prescribed fire. In the absence of fire, hardwoods become dominant through the process of succession. Important hardwood species include pignut a nd mockernut hickory ( Carya glabra and tomentosa ), southern magnolia ( Magnolia grandiflora ), southern red oak ( Quercus falcata ), redbay ( Persea borbonia ), and black cherry ( Prunus serotina ). The infertility of xeric sites offers limited potential for intensive hardwood management (McEvoy 1995).

PAGE 21

21 Mesic forest soils are moist, fertile, and biologically diverse (Monk 1965). Often they are transitional areas between xeric and hydric stands. They may be considered hammocks, uplands, or flatwoods. Important timber species are not limited to but include basswood ( Tilia americana ), southern magnolia, American beech ( Fagus grandifolia ), white oak ( Quercus alba ), pignut hickory, and sweetgum ( Liquidambar styraciflua ). Mesic forests offer much potential for management because the relatively fertile soils support a variety of hardwoods as well as harvesting equipment. Hydric stands are flooded for at least part of the year. In Florida they may be considered bottomland hardwood forests, hydric hammocks, bay swamps, and cypress swamps. They are not well drained and are usually in low topographic position. These forests cover the flood plains around Floridas nu merous streams, ponds, lakes, and rivers as well as depressions in pine dominated flatwood forests. These hardwood fore sts support valuable timber species such as cypress ( Taxodium sp.), sweetgum, tupelo ( Nyssa sp.), red maple ( Acer rubrum ), swamp chestnut oak ( Quercus michauxii ), and other oaks. However, manage ment may be difficult because soil conditions may limit access by harvesting equipment and environmental regulations may restrict activities on certain sites (FDACS 2003). These forests are also very important to wildlife (Harris 1984). The terms described above are best for delineating the type of hardwood stand for timber management. These types occur acro ss the entire state of Florida. However, there are variations in dominant tree species and vegetation, which are important for wildlife conservation, ecological diversity and ecosystem manage ment (Myers 1990, Odum, et. al. 1998, Monk 1965, FNAI 1990). Many hardwood forestry practitione rs will want to take advantage of these associated non-timber values. Since soil-water conditions define the dom inant tree species and

PAGE 22

22 therefore stand boundaries, xeric, me sic, and hydric are appropriate descriptions for silvicultural prescriptions. Hardwood Silviculture Hardwoods, in general, are not emphasized in s ilvicultural practices in Florida. Pines are preferred for planting and harvesting for economic return. Meanwhile, hardwoods are harvested as by-products of pine production or eliminated to make improvements in health and production of pine forests. Generally, pine trees in plantations grow fast and straight, whereas hardwoods in natural stands grow slow and are poorly formed (there are, of c ourse, exceptions to this rule). Because of this, hardwood receives little emphasis in many Florida forestry operations. With proper emphasis, hardwood timber valu e may be increased through silvicultural practices. These practices improve the quantity, qua lity and ultimately the financial value of the timber (Jones, et. al. 2000; Ruanikar, et. al. 2000; Mercker, et. al. 2003; and Hicks, et. al. 2004). Some silvicultural practices common to pine plantations include fertilization, thinning, mechanical removal of weed competition, a nd tree planting. Simila r practices could be performed for hardwood management. However, ha rdwood silviculture can also be substantially different from pine silviculture. Cultural practices need to be tailored to th e hardwood situation by th e landowner. Since their experience with southern pines may not eq uate closely to knowing how to grow hardwoods (Schuler and Robison 2004, Hansbrough 1970) landowne r attempts to favor hardwoods may face difficulty. Hardwoods have diffe rent requirements and often multiple species are managed on the same site. A key advantage to hardwood silviculture is the ability to regenerate by coppice. This eliminates the need and expense for site prep an d re-planting that is n ecessary in most pine silviculture systems. However, if planting is necessary to initially establish a hardwood forest,

PAGE 23

23 there are barriers to consider. First, the cost of bareroot seedlings is considerably higher at approximately 25 each versus about 7.5 each for pine. Also, the leav es of many hardwoods provide tender forage for whitetail deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ). Seedling establishment may require additional planting and deer exclusi on devices in areas of high deer population. Especially when establishing hardwoods on site s that previously had pine, soil conditions should be examined through soil lab analysis. Nu trients and pH are important concerns when making soil amendment decisions (Kidder 1989). For example, on old pine sites the soil is often more acidic than optimum for hardwood growth. This may necessitate liming the soil. Even though hardwoods will survive on a wide range of pH levels growth may be limited without correct soil conditions. Growth may also be constrained by compe ting vegetation. Control may be necessary when establishing a stand, but herbicides ar e often non-selective a nd kill most broadleaf vegetation including hardwoods. However, if pl anting hardwoods, herbicides could be used prior to planting (Schuler, et. al 2004). Mechanical control such as mowing or bedding is also an option. Manual pre-commercial thinning may al so be applied by lan downers (Mercker 2003). Shade tolerance of individual sp ecies is important to consider in hardwood regeneration. Single tree and group selection systems require shade tolerant species. Even though it is reported that none of the commercially viable shad e tolerant hardwoods provide management opportunities in the South (Hicks, et. al. 2004) species like maple and basswood may do well with group selection, especially in developing go od form. Further res earch in this area is needed. Proper timber stand improvement (TSI) and th inning in hardwood stands is integral to quality hardwood management. It is often thought that the best TS I for Floridas hardwoods is to

PAGE 24

24 clearcut. This may be true in stands that ha ve been high graded in order to get high quality hardwoods growing. A TSI plan that leaves the be st trees until final harvest is the best way to produce high quality logs and leave good genetic stock for continued production of high quality hardwood timber. Conclusion The potential for hardwood forestry in Florid a is great. Hardwoods occur on a variety of sites from wet to dry across Florida and they are important to wildlife. However, silvicultural principles and practices need to be adjusted to achieve good quality and growth of timber species. Since pine silvicu ltural practices are widely known and performed, landowners and foresters alike must be wary of trying to appl y the same cultural techniques to hardwoods. Regeneration methods, soil nutrient management, competition control, and TSI must be evaluated and applied to hardwood management. Knowing just how to grow pines may be an impediment to desirable growth and quality of Floridas hard wood timber, but their importance to wildlife may provide landowners with e nough motivation to mana ge their hardwoods.

PAGE 25

25 Table 2-1. Florida hardwood species with potential commercial value. Common Name Genus Species Forest Type Industrial products and uses** Red Maple Acer rubrum HH, BH, SH Pulpwood, composite, lumber River Birch Betula nigra BH Inexpensive furniture, pulpwood Pignut Hickory Carya glabra MU, MM, XU Fuelwood lumber, pulpwood, charcoal, and other fuelwood products. veneer, tool handles, furniture, and pallets Mockernut Hickory Carya tomentosa MU, MM Fuelwood, lumber, pulpwood, charcoal, and other fuelwood products. veneer, tool handles, furniture, pallets, blocks, a preferred wood for smoking meats Persimmon Diospyros virginiana XU Turnery, plane stocks, shuttles, medicine from the inner bark and unripe fruit, permanent ink from fruit American Beech Fagus grandifolia BH, MU, MM Flooring, furniture, turned products and novelties, veneer, plywood, railroad ties, pulpwood, charcoal, and lumber White Ash Fraxinus americana MU Handles, oars, lumber and baseball bats Black Walnut Juglans nigra MU Solid furniture and gunstocks, veneer, nuts for food Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua HH, BH, MU Lumber, veneer, plywood, railroad ties, fuel, and pulpwood Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera MU Lumber for furniture parts, pulpwood, and tuliptree honey. Southern Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora HH, MU, MM Furniture, pallets, and veneer. Water Tupelo Nyssa aquatica BH Boxes, pallets, crates, baskets, furniture, pulpwood, and corks (from roots). Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica BH Plywood and veneer, boxboards, crossties, pulpwood. Swamp Tupelo Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora BH Tupelo honey, lumber Sycamore Platanus occidentalis BH Boxes, crates, butcher's blocks, pulp Black Cherry Prunus serotina MU, XU Veneer and lumber; jelly and wine are made from the fruit. White Oak Quercus alba MU, MM Lumber So. Red Oak Quercus falcata var. falcata MM General construction, furniture, flooring, lumber, fuel, flooring. Cherrybark Oak Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia MM Furniture and interior finish (larger and better formed than southern red oak). Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii BH Lumber in all kinds of construction, fence posts, and fuel. Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia MU, MH, MM, XU Fuelwood, blocks Live oak Quercus virginiana MH, MM, XU Fuelwood HHhydric hammock, BHbottomland ha rdwood, SHswamp hardwood, MUmesic upland, MH, mesic hammock, MMmesic mixed, XUxeric upland ** Sources: Harrar, E.S., and J.G. Harrar. 1964. Guide to Southern Trees. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY. 709p. Harlow W.M., E.S. Harrar, J.W. Hardin, and F.M. White. 1991. Textbook of Dendrology. McGraw-Hill Publishers, New York, NY. 501p.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 3 MARKET ASSESSMENT OF FLORIDAS HARDWOODS Floridas hardwood species provide a variet y of goods and services depending on their market use. Hardwood markets are classified in to four categories: timber products, non-timber products, recreation, and environmenta l services (Table 3-1). Becau se they are tangible, timber and non-timber products are easier to track and value than recreat ion and environmental services, which are less tangible and therefor e not easily valued. The true value of a hardwood forest may be hard to assess, but tim ber value is its foundation. Hardwood timber values are reali zed at harvest, when trees are cut into logs, and sold to a mill for further processing. The quality of logs pr oduced by the tree is important in determining the mill product and ultimately the stumpage value. Logs that are utilized for pulp and paper or Oriented Strand Board (OSB) are generally low valu e. They are chipped as an early step in processing, so defects, small size, and poor form in the log are not very important. The higher value logs used for lumber and veneer are sawn or peeled, respectively. The process of sawing boards or peeling thin sheets re quires straight logs with few defects and thus these qualities increase the value of hardwood logs. But even standing, down, and decaying hardwoods have a value. They are all used for non-timber products and environmental services. Th e value of these trees may be difficult to assess depending on whether or not fees are coll ected. Hunting leases are an example of a nontimber hardwood product where hard woods may influence monetary value because they provide food and shelter for many game species. Wild life viewing and hiking have certain intrinsic values that are not monetary and may be diffi cult to assess if no access fees are collected. Mushrooms are another example of a non-timber product where hardwoods are needed for shade and decay. However, markets for these products are small and not av ailable in any public data.

PAGE 27

27 Much data is made available by U.S. governme nt agencies to assess hardwood markets in Florida. The USDA Forest Service through its Forest Inventory and An alysis (FIA) program reports forest inventory and timber products out put (TPO) on the world wide web. Data is collected by many individuals across the United States and reveals how much wood supply is standing in the forest and how much volume is us ed by industry. Industrial trends can also be examined from data published by the U.S. Econo mic Census. The following analysis of these data reveals the potential for ha rdwood forestry in Florida. Hardwood Usage for Timber Products The volume of wood harvested for timber products in Florida is categorized into product uses for: saw logs, pulpwood, veneer logs, co mposite panels, other industrial products, and byproducts. These data provide valu able insight into wood-use tre nds and they can be analyzed separately for softwoods and hardwoods. The most recent data for Florida is from 2005. In 2005, Florida produced 28.3 million ft3 of hardwoods. This is a 50% decline in production from 1999 to 2005 (Figure 3-1). This trend is tied to declines in pulpwood production and masks trends that occurred w ith other products. Hardwood pulpwood accounts for 20 to 40 million cubic feet annually making it th e largest single industrial use of hardwood in the state. With the massive pulpwood volume excluded, trends in small-volume products are revealed (Figure 3-2). Composite panels increa sed dramatically after 1995, but fell off equally as much by 2005. Saw and veneer log production changed little from 1993 to 2005, with annual production about 4.5 and 1.5 million ft3, respectively. Other industria l products remained steady, but below 1 million ft3. These other products (composite saw log, veneer log, and other industrial) totaled 8.2 million ft3, 29% of the total ha rdwood production.

PAGE 28

28 Total hardwood volume illustrates the substan tial size of the hardwood market, while the product class breakdown reveals that most is fo r low quality use in large volume by pulp and paper mills. This was the largest sector of the market, and it declined between 1999 and 2005. However, smaller markets that use high quality logs, e.g. saw and veneer logs, still used significant volumes of hardwood timber a nd their production remained steady. Standing Volume of Hardwoods Hardwoods have sustained significant volume, growth rate, and acreage in Florida. According to FIA data, 2006, hardwoods accounted for 5.7 billion ft3 of standing timber, occupied 6.7 million acres, and their growth rates exceeded harvest by 111 million ft3 (USFS 2008). These data show Florida ably sustained hardwood timber growth. However, sustainability is in question. Harvests are expected to exceed growth by 2025 (Prestemon and Abt 2002). This is evident in a hi storical graph of growing stock volume (Figure 3-3). From 1953 to 1997 volume increased at a d ecreasing rate and may have reached a peak. Decreased volumes would indicate a disappearing ha rdwood forest. This would be a loss to both industry and society because of the expansive ac reage devoted to hardwood forest types (Table 3-2). Significant forest types include 1.8 m illion acres of mixed upland hardwoods, 1.1 million acres of baldcypress/swamp tupelo, and 1.5 milli on acres of sweetbay/swamp tupelo/red maple, across both private and public ownerships. Forest type gives information about harvesta bility through inference about the wetness or dryness of their soils. Wet site s are potentially difficult to ha rvest because equipment may get stuck or create ruts. From this inferen ce 2.6 million acres (baldcypress/swamp tupelo and sweetbay/swamp tupelo/red maple forest type s) may have limited access by tree harvest equipment.

PAGE 29

29 If the land is dry and accessible by harves ting equipment it may be on the unproductive sandhills. In fact, Florida land in low productivity classes is s eemingly reserved for hardwoods (Figure 3-4). In the lowest fore stland productivity class (20-49 ft3/ac/yr) hardwood exceeds pine by 1 million acres. Pine outnumbers hardwood in all other productivity classes. High-value hardwoods often require highly productive sites for good growth but will survive on a variety of soil conditions. These species, such as ash, sweetgum, yellow-poplar, black cherry, and white and red oaks, do well on ri ch soils. These species also had noteworthy standing volumes in Florida (Figur e 3-5). However, the species most prevalent in Florida are tupelo, black gum, and oaks wh ich make up 56% of the total vol ume (Figure 3-6). Even though the high-value species are small in volume, relati ve to the total, these data suggest that highvalue hardwoods are adapted to Floridas timberlands. One important factor influenci ng high-value hardwoods is bole quality, which is partially a function of diameter at breast he ight, DBH. According to FIA data, most of the standing volume of hardwoods is in 7.0 to 14.9 inches DBH trees (Figure 3-7). These tree sizes are large enough to use for pulpwood or saw logs but other measur es of log quality are no t included in the data and thus the potential to be saw timber is unknown. In summary, the FIA data do not provide a good indication of product class they only infer that much of the volume of hardwoods is large enough to be used by some sector of the wood products industry. Industry Trends for Hardwoods The U.S. economic census publishes industrial produc tion data every five years. Industries are categorized according to a hierarchical code, called the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Data is publis hed for geographical area s, including counties metropolitan areas, and states. Data on the value of shipments and the number of firms for select hardwood using industries are provided in Table 33. The values are adjusted for inflation and

PAGE 30

30 are not necessarily the va lue of hardwood products because pine is also used by many of these industries. The value of shipments decreased in all categories from 1997 to 2002. The number of firms also decreased slightly, except pulp, pape r and paperboard mills, and hardwood veneer and plywood which increased by 60 and 33 percent, re spectively. From these data the hardwood using industry generally decreased in value from 1997 to 2002. Also in a similar timeframe a downward trend is observed in the interstate commerce of Florida hardwood. Total importation and e xportation of hardwood roundwood went down by 22% and 40%, respectively. However, the la rge volume of pulpwood overshadows the smaller volumes of saw logs and veneer logs, which increased in the same time period (Table 3-4). Market Prices Timber sale dynamics have important effects on stumpage and market prices. Hardwood roundwood will generally go through two transacti ons before being processed. First, the landowner sells his timber to a wood buyer for a stumpage price. Gate, mill, or delivered prices are paid to the logger or timber broker when logs arrive at the mill. The mill then processes the timber and sells its product for profit. Some products are finished at the mill, while others may be sold to other mills for further processing. The ultimate driver of stumpage price may be demand for the finished product, but ha rvesting and transport co sts are included, and the dynamics of all these are important to determining price in a hardwood market. The stumpage prices when adjusted for inflati on reveal that outside of the cyclical up and down trends hardwood remained almost constant Trend lines for oak sawtimber prices show slightly increased value be tween 1994 and 2007 (Figure 3-8) Hardwood pulpwood stumpage value had a flat trend line. The trend line for mixed hardwood sawtimber stumpage prices slightly decreased during the same time period.

PAGE 31

31 Market Potential The hardwood market in Florida is small, but has potential to improve in volume and value. Low value, low quality trees are easily marketed through pulp and paper and OSB industries. Pricing is favorable since oak saw timber and pulpw ood stumpage value stayed ahead of inflation from 1993 to 2005. Even with favor able stumpage price trends, the hardwood land base may present a challenge to management a nd harvesting activities. Much of 6.7 million acres of hardwoods and 5.7 billion ft3 of inventory is lo cated on sites with low productivity and/or poor conditions for conducting forest operations. However, large diameter and high value species on the mesic and bottomland sites show pr omise. High value speci es exist in noteworthy volumes. Most of the volume is in trees w ith DBH 7.0 to 14.9 inches. Improvement of log quality through management practices with curre nt standing trees may be a key to maximizing hardwood forest potential. By marketing low value hardwoods when thinning as part of a management plan aimed toward producing high quality, high value saw logs landowners could unlock this potential. Thus, hardwood forestry in Florida can be supported through timber markets.

PAGE 32

32 Table 3-1. Traditional and non-traditional hardwood forest products and services. Timber Non-timber Recreation Environmental Pulp/paper Mushrooms Hunting Mine site reclamation OSB Earthworms Wildlife viewingRiparian buffer Plywood Honey Hiking Water supply catchment Firewood Crafts Camping Nutrient cycling Crates Fruits/nuts Gas exchange Lumber Extractives Pollution abatement Poles/posts Carbon sequestration Veneer Wildlife habitat Logging Mats Biomass

PAGE 33

33 Table 3-2. Area of timberland by forest type, Florida, 2006 Forest Type Acres Other tropical (989) 258 Eastern redcedar (181) 1,882 Yellow-poplar (511) 5,483 Cottonwood / willow (709) 5,615 Spruce pine (168) 7,487 Swamp chestnut oak / cherrybark oak (601) 7,487 River birch / sycamore (702) 9,488 Cherry / ash / yellow-poplar (803) 10,172 Overcup oak / water hickory (605) 10,309 Sycamore / pecan / American elm (705) 12,706 Yellow-poplar / white oak / northern red oak (506) 13,102 Sugarberry / hackberry / elm / green ash (706) 14,370 Hard maple / basswood (805) 15,109 Eastern redcedar / hardwood (402) 15,566 Eucalyptus (993) 22,766 Shortleaf pine (162) 24,808 Mangrove (982) 26,606 Atlantic white-cedar (606) 26,777 Red maple / lowland (708) 29,131 White oak / red oak / hickory (503) 29,456 Red maple / oak (519) 32,847 Willow (704) 38,394 Post oak / blackjack oak (501) 48,703 Sassafras / persimmon (507) 61,329 Melaluca (992) 67,222 Pond pine (166) 94,528 Sweetgum / yellow-poplar (508) 102,424 Other pine / hardwood (409) 127,122 Loblolly pine / hardwood (406) 275,336 Longleaf pine / oak (403) 336,930 Sable palm (981) 444,444 Sand pine (164) 545,879 Nonstocked (999) 563,461 Sweetgum / Nuttall oak / willow oak (602) 587,538 Slash pine / hardwood (407) 751,684 Southern scrub oak (514) 797,725 Longleaf pine (141) 817,807 Loblolly pine (161) 875,781 Baldcypress / swamp tupelo (607) 1,086,576 Sweetbay / swamp tupelo / red maple (608) 1,497,433 Mixed upland hardwoods (520) 1,765,375 Slash pine (142) 4,750,749 Total pine-hardwood forest types 1,491,072 Total Hardwood forest types 6,742,068 Total Forest 15,957,866 Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Invent ory and Analysis (FIA) National Program, via Forest Inventory Data Online (FI DO II, ver: 0.3.0r1) available at http://fia.fs.fed.us last accessed on April 24, 2008.

PAGE 34

34 Table 3-3. Value of shipments of selected hardwood using industrie s in Florida by North American Industry Classification, 1997 and 2002, constant dollars, Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator, 2000 = 100. Value of Shipments (million $) Number of Firms NAICS Code Industry 1997 2002 % change1997 2002 % change 322 Paper mfg 39893344-16166 163 -2 3221 Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills 25191979-2110 16 60 321 Wood product mfg 23682288-3524 528 1 32113 Sawmills 424327-2353 44 -17 321211 Hardwood veneer and plywood -429 1233 32192 Pallets 12195-2161 59 -3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Flor ida: 2002 Economic Census, Manufacturing. Geographic Area Series. Table 3-4. Imports and exports of hardwoods between Florida a nd other U.S. states, thousand cubic feet. Imports Exports Product 1999 2003 % change 1999 2003 % change Sawlogs 566 147 -74272689153 Veneer logs 0 0 N/A32160689 Pulpwood 25398 21544 -15102564505-56 Composite Panels 0 0 N/A73806400-13 Other Industrial 0 0 N/A00N/A Total 27963 21691 -222022812200-40 Source: Bentley, J.W., M. Howell, and T.G. Johnson. 2006. Floridas timber industryan assessment of timber market product output and us e, 2003. USDA For. Serv. Res. Bull. SRS110. 40p.

PAGE 35

35 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 199319951997199920032005 YearThousand ft3 Pulpwood Total Production Figure 3-1. Hardwood pulpwood and total hardwood roundwood production, Florida, 19932005. Source: Forest Inventory and Analysis Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/php/tpo2 /tpo.php, last accessed May 5, 2008. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 199319951997199920032005 YearThousand ft3 Saw Logs Veneer Logs Composite Panels Other Industrial Figure 3-2. Hardwood production for saw logs, veneer logs, composite panels, and other industrial uses, Florida, 2005. Source: Forest Inventory and Analysis, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/php/tpo2/tpo.php last accessed May 5, 2008.

PAGE 36

36 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 19531963197319831993 YearMillion ft3 Figure 3-3. Net volume of hardwood grow ing stock, Florida, 1953, 1977, 1987, 1997 and 2002. Source: Smith, W.B., P.D. Miles, J.S. Vissage, and S.A. Pugh. 2004. Forest Resources of the United States, 2002. US DA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-241. 137p. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 20-4950-8485-119120-164165-224 Cubic feet/acre/yearThousand acres Pine forest Hardwood forest Figure 3-4. Area of timberland by forestland pro ductivity class, pine and hardwood, Florida, 2006. Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) National Program, via Forest Inventor y Data Online (FIDO II, ver: 0.3.0r1) available at http://fia.fs.fed.us last accessed on May 2, 2008.

PAGE 37

37 0 100 200 300 400 500 600sw ee t g u m r e d maple g ree n a sh yellow-p o plar Ame r i ca n elm sou t h e r n red o a k black cherry w hi t e ash w hi t e oa k swam p ch e st n ut o a kmillion ft3 Figure 3-5. Net volume of poten tially high-value hardwood species in Florida, 2006. Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) National Program, via Forest Inventory Data Online (FI DO II, ver: 0.3.0r1) available at http://fia.fs.fed.us last accessed on April 24, 2008.

PAGE 38

38 Select white oaks, 1% Select red oaks, 0% Other white oaks, 7% Other red oaks, 23% Hickory 2% Hard maple, 0% Soft maple, 7% Beech, 0% Sweetgum, 9% Tupelo and black gum, 25% Ash, 6% Basswood, 0% Yellow poplar, 1% Black cherry, 0% Other hardwoods, 17% Figure 3-6. Percent net volume of hardwood growing stock by species, Florida. Source: Smith, W.B., P.D. Miles, J.S. Vissage, and S.A. Pugh. 2004. Forest Resources of the United States, 2002. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-241. 137p.

PAGE 39

39 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 681012141618202529+ Midpoint of DBH class (inches)million ft3 Figure 3-7. Diameter at breast height (DBH) size class dist ribution of hardwoods, Florida, 2006. Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) National Program, via Forest Inventor y Data Online (FIDO II, ver: 0.3.0r1) available at http://fia.fs.fed.us last accessed on April 24, 2008.

PAGE 40

40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Ja n-9 4 Jul-94 Jan-95 Jul-95 Ja n-96 Jul -96 Ja n-9 7 Jul-97 Ja n-9 8 Jul-98 Ja n-9 9 Jul-99 Ja n-0 0 Jul-00 Ja n-01 Jul -01 Ja n-0 2 Ju l-02 Ja n-0 3 Jul-03 Ja n-0 4 Jul-04 Ja n-0 5 Jul-05 J a n-06 Jul-06 Ja n-0 7 Ju l-07U.S. Dollars per ton Mixed Hardwood Saw Timber Oak sawtimber Pulpwood Linear (Oak sawtimber) Linear (Mixed Hardwood Saw Timber) Linear (Pulpwood) Figure 3-8. Average stumpage prices for mixed saw timber, oak saw timber and pulpwood, Florida, 1994 to 2007 constant dollars, Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator, 2007 = 100, linear trend line adde d by Microsoft Excel. Source: Baldwin S., and C. Melton. Timber Mart-South. 1990-2007. Tom Harris. Daniel B. Warnell School of Forest Resources. The Univer sity of Georgia: Athens Georgia.

PAGE 41

41 CHAPTER 4 LANDOWNER SURVEY Introduction An information campaign could improve ha rdwood management in Florida. Such a campaign should aim to improve landowners awareness of hardwood markets, teach silvicultural practices, and increase stumpage value. However, data are needed to assess current landowner knowledge and perceptions about hardwoods. A mail-out survey was developed to provide this information about landowners. Objectives The overall goal of our survey was to provide information that will paint a picture of current and future hardwood forestry practices in Florida. Prior to designing the survey four objectives were established: 1. determine the scope of hardwood management being practiced by private landowners, 2. determine if landowners access market informati on and if they know what forest products come from their hardwood timber, 3. determine if the hardwood stumpage price landowners receive is higher for landowners who obtain market price information than for those who do not, and 4. determine if any small non-timber market s are in existence or developing. Further, the survey and subsequent analysis n eeded to answer the following key questions to meet our objectives: What management practices are currently be ing performed with regards to hardwoods? Do landowners know what products are produced from their hardwood logs? What stumpage price are landowners receiving or willing to receive for their hardwoods? Do landowners have access to market price information? At what price will landowners change from pine management to hardwood management? Are there any current or developi ng specialty markets for hardwoods?

PAGE 42

42 Can stumpage price be improved through in creased access to market information? These questions formed the basis of the survey content. The survey questions and analysis focused on landowners knowledge of the forest on their property. It asked about their knowledge of timber products and prices, as well as management and recreation activities that occur on their property. The results were used to describe a picture of hardwood forestry in Florida. Statistical analysis helped to form inferences about the relationship between market informati on and stumpage price as well as to test the hypothesis that landowners who obtain current ma rket information rece ive higher stumpage prices than landowners who do not obtain market information. Fi nally the results are discussed to determine potential areas of impr ovement for Florida hardwood forestry. Methods Survey Research A mail-out survey can be an effective a nd inexpensive method to determine landowner interests in hardwood management. Surveys have been performed to assess landowners use of forestry services, hunting leases and overall characteristics of forest landowners in the South (Measells et. al. 2005, Jones, et al. 2001, Birch 1997). The Tailored Design Method (TDM) is a survey procedure to increase response rates, t hus effectively obtaining data needed from landowners (Dillman 2000). Mail-out surveys are cheaper than telephone or personal interview survey methods because only the cost of de signing, printing, and mailing the survey are involved. A properly designe d and executed mail-out survey may be an effective and inexpensive way to assess the current state of knowledge, attitude, and perception of hardwood forests in Florida.

PAGE 43

43 A mail-out survey has many advantages over ot her survey methods because they are low cost, can be collected on a larg e number of people over a wide ge ographic area, uniform because everyone receives the same questions in the same manner, and less intrusive as a face-to-face or telephone interview. Mailout surveys also have th e advantage of being able to control for the four types of error common to all survey methods 1) Sampling error results from surveying a percentage of the population. 2) Coverage error results from using a sample from an incomplete list of the population. 3) Measurement error results from the respondent giving inaccurate answers. These types of error can be overcome to produce reliable data. Sampling error is the precision of the survey and is calc ulated as a confidence interval. A complete list is necessary to know the size of the population and calculate confidence intervals, or margin of error. Coverage error can be overcome with accurate lists of the population such as tax rolls. Mail-out surveys can overcome measurement error with proper word ing and uniformity. 4) Non-response error is the result of failure to res pond and is the biggest challeng e in a mail-out survey. Non response occurs in every survey and is part icularly a challenge in a mail-out survey. In any survey, the reasons for non-response may be lack of inte rest in the study, mistrust in releasing personal information, forg etfulness, costs of participa tion greater than rewards, or misplacement of questionnaire in the home. The problem with non-response is that it invokes a bias on the results of the data analysis. Usua lly, the extent of non-response biases cannot be known since reliable data for non-respondents is lacking, unless a follow-up of non-respondents can entice them to respond. Non-respondents tend to be a select group. The best way to deal with non-response is to minimize it to the greate st extent possible. One such method is TDM (Dillman 2000).

PAGE 44

44 A key feature of TDM surveys is the deve lopment of survey procedures that create respondent trust and perceptions of increased re wards and reduced costs for being a respondent, that take into account features of the survey situation, and that have as their goal the overall reduction of survey error (Dillman 2000). The TDM criteria, when properl y utilized, result in high-quality and high-response surveys. Social exchange theory explains how and why TDM works. Social exchange is a theory of human behavior used to e xplain human interaction. The theory says that actions of individuals are mo tivated by the return the action brings to the individual. The criteria used to explain social exchange are rewards, costs, and trust placed on the participant. Rewards are the return that the pa rticipant expects to receive. Costs are the time it takes to fill out the survey and put it in the ma il. Trust is the expectati on that long-term rewards outweigh the cost of filling out the survey a nd providing confidential information. The TDM method aims to provide rewards, reduce costs, and establish trust thr ough a clearly articulated survey instrument that may be mailed multiple times to potential respondents. The two fundamental assumptions of a survey design base d on TDM are response to a self-administered questionnaire involves not only cognition, but also motivation, and that multiple attempts are essential to achieving satisfactory respons e rates to self-administered surveys. The mail-out survey satisfies the need to co llect data from large groups over a wide geographic area in a cost effective manner. Prop erly done, the four type s of survey error are reduced. The most challenging part, non-response bias, is at least partially overcome through Dillmans TDM. Survey Selection Process A survey was mailed to a random sample of 1999 forest landowners utilizing the Tailored Design Method (Dillman 2000). The landowners were selected from a mailing list of all North

PAGE 45

45 Florida forest landowners provided by the Florida Department of Transportation (Figure 4-1). The list, after removing duplicates, contained 24,440 names and addresses. A random number was generated for each person on the list. The se lections were made randomly with the random number function in Microsoft Ex cel computer program. The list was sorted from lowest to highest based on the random number. The firs t 1,999 people on the list were mailed surveys, representing approximately an 8% sample of the landowner population. Each landowner received an in troductory letter announcing th e arrival of the survey in about a week. A week later they received th e survey package which included a survey booklet (Appendix A) and a name and address card to be f illed out so their name could be removed from our mailing list in the event of further attempts to collect data. A week after the survey was mailed a reminder post card was sent to thank thos e who had filled out the survey as well as to encourage those who had not yet responded. A to tal of 476 surveys were returned to give a response rate of 23.8%. All were analyzed rega rdless of whether they had been completed in full. Some surveys were returned undeliv ered due to insufficient mailing address. Data Analysis The information from each survey was entere d into a worksheet in a Microsoft Excel database. The surveys were numbered so each would have a unique identifier. Most answers were categorical, so these answers were coded with a non-zero positive number. The handwritten comments were typed into the database. The answers to each survey question were then copied into separate worksheets to allow data manipulation while preserving the integrity of the original da taset. The results are reported as a percent of the total res pondents to each question. Some data were needed for further statistical analysis a nd hypothesis testing. These data were formatted for importation by the software program SAS 9.1.

PAGE 46

46 SAS 9.1 was used to perform Fishers exact te st to determine if associations existed between stumpage price and market information. Even though sample size was small this test is valid since the exact distributi on is calculated, rather than approximated which would require large sample sizes (Freeman and Halton 1951, Agresti 1990). For these analyses, Fishers exact test gives the p-value of the con tingency table created from two survey questions (SAS Institute 2004). The p-value is the proba bility of obtaining the results randomly. A low p-value is a low probab ility and is significant because the event is not random. Results Demographics The demographics collected in our survey ar e presented in Table 4-1. The average length of ownership was 24 years (n=432), and the aver age land holding was 265 acres (n=436). Most owners (61%) described their land ownership as family, 32% as sole proprietor, 3% as partnership, and no response came from Timb er Management Investment Organizations (TIMOs) or timber companies (n=441). Timber income was minimal; 75% said that none of their income came from timber and only 2% derive d more than 1/3 of their income from timber (n=436). The annual income of 64% of our re spondents was above $55,000 (n=362). Most were male (77%), and most (70%) had received colle ge training or above (n=463). The average size household was 2.4 persons (n=465). Most (88%) re sided primarily in Florida (n=472). The average age was 61 (n=460). Few (17%) were me mbers of a conservation organization (n=457). Scope of Hardwood Management Hardwood forests had a small but important co mponent of the forest land covered by our survey (Figure 4-2). Planted pines occupied ab out 61% of the respondents forested area. The three hardwood forest types combined made up a bout 29% of the area. However, a much higher

PAGE 47

47 percentage of landowners (79%) indicated having an oak-pine forest type somewhere on their property (Table 4-2). The landowners who ha d hardwood hammock or hardwood swamp made up 42% and 39%, respectively, of the total w ho answered the question. Although hardwood forests may not be a dominant cover type in terms of acreage, most landowners had hardwood forests on their property. The most identifiable hardwoods for landowners were sweetgum, white oaks, red oaks, and southern magnolia which were identified as be ing on the property of 56%, 51%, 47%, and 47%, respectively, of landowners (Figure 4-3). Th e least identifiable to landowners were basswood, elm, and black walnut at 3%, 6%, and 7%, respec tively. High value hardwoods such as ash and yellow poplar tended not to be familiar to lando wners, quite possibly because these hardwoods were not found on their property. Th ese figures are also very sim ilar to the percentage of the volume hardwood growing stock found in Florid a presented in chapter 3 (Figure 3-6). Primary purposes for owning forest land te nded to be timber production and financial investment (Table 4-3). Ti mber production was listed as the primary purpose by 43% of landowners whereas financial investment accounted for 18%. However, only 14% had a written management plan for their forest (Table 4-4). In terms of active management, pine certainly was favored over hardwoods (Table 4-5). In our survey, 94% of respondents indicated they performed at least one management activity aimed at improving pine. Hardwood was still receiving some attention, but only 46% of respondents reported at least one management ac tivity for hardwoods (Table 4-5). The top activities being performed on or near hardwoods were thinnin g, harrowing or mowing. Even though pine received more attention for impr ovement, efforts to reduce hardwoods were minimal. Most landowners (79%) spent no money on hardwood reduction (Table 4-6).

PAGE 48

48 However, 21% reported at least $1 per acre spent to control hardwoods (Table 4-6). Note that prescribed burning in pines is cons idered a method of hardwood control. General hardwood management st rategy was classified into one of three categories (Table 4-7). Control hardwoods indicated the landown er was trying to reduce or eliminate hardwood growth. No management indicates the landowne r was not concerned w ith or doing anything with hardwoods. In the third ca tegory the landowner is doing very little about hardwoods but does want the added value of hardwoods. In our survey, most answers fell into either no management strategy (48%) or a passive strategy of allowing hardwoods to grow (41%). Few landowners (16%) indicated a management strate gy of controlling the hardwood growth. Only 11% indicated no hardwoods found on their property. The answers were not mutually exclusive and some landowners checked more than one answer. Stumpage Price Landowners who sold timber within the past five years were asked to give an indication of the stumpage price they receive d. Eight price categories were lis ted in the survey, along with two other options to write in an exact amount, or to respond dont know. Of those who had sold hardwood timber at least 40% received a cash value for their hardwoods, 27% received no money, and 31% did not know how much they receive d (Table 4-8). The rest were distributed through the price categories from $0.01 to over $18.00 per ton, but we re slightly skewed to the lower price categories. Only one re spondent indicated an exact amount. Landowners who had not sold hardwoods were given the opportuni ty to indicate the expected value of their hardwoods via the stumpa ge price at which they would be willing to cut hardwoods. The majority of those who did not sell hardwood timber were not willing to cut hardwoods. Those who indicate d a willingness price are evenly distributed through the price categories (Table 4-8).

PAGE 49

49 Market Information and Product Knowledge Most landowners do not obtain current market price information (Table 4-9). Only 31% indicated that they utilized cu rrent price information sources fo r hardwoods. The most popular source of market price information was local lo ggers (Table 4-9). C onsulting foresters were used by 13% of our forest landowners. Othe r sources were used by 5% or less of the landowners. Of these who obtain market info rmation, 35% used more than one source. The landowners who obtained market informa tion were somewhat different from the average landowner in our surve y. Most (64%) had management plans, had longer average length of ownership (27 years), and thei r average landholding larger (710 acres) (Table 4-10). These landowners were more motivated to ensure the be st value from their timber because they had more experience with land, more land acreage, and clear goals and objectives through their management plans. A list of the common products derived from ha rdwoods in Florida was presented in the survey. While most respondents (58%) reported that their hardwoods were not used for timber products, 18% indicated that th ey dont know how hardwoods ar e processed (Tables 4-11 and 412). The largest use of hardwoods in Florida, pulp and paper, was among the top two products reported by landowners. The top product in our su rvey was firewood. The survey did not ask if the firewood was for personal use (Table 4-11 ). The other products were reported by much smaller percentages which was to be expected co nsidering Floridas output of these products was much less as discussed in chapter 3. Market Information and St umpage Price Association A contingency table revealed the associati on between the stumpage price received and access to market information (Table 4-13). Th e table was created by combining the results of the stumpage price question into two price categories to increase sample size for the analysis

PAGE 50

50 since most respondents did not sell timber in th at time span. The midpoint of the price range given was $9.00 per ton so the answers were grou ped into those less than or equal to $9.00 and those greater than $9.00 per ton. The midpoint also corresponded to four price categories above and below that value. Those who cut but received $0.00 per ton for hardwoods were grouped into the less than $9.00 per ton category. Th e proportion of landowners who received greater than $9.00 per ton for their hardwood timber was si gnificantly greater for those who obtained at least one source of current stumpa ge price information than for landowners who had not utilized such information (21.3% versus 0%). Using Fish ers Exact test in SA S 9.1 the probability (pvalue) of obtaining a table with this difference was 2.977E-04 (two sided p-value). The low twosided p-value gives support to the hypothesis that landowners who obtain current market information receive higher stumpage prices than landowners who do not obtain market information. Price expectations were also greater for thos e who obtain market information (Table 4-14). The contingency table indicated a higher likelihoo d of expecting greater than $9.00 per ton if the respondent obtained market information than if he had not obtained market information. But also note that most landowners who answered this question were unwilling to cut their hardwoods for timber. Willingness to Change to Hardwood Management The survey asked a question about how much mo re valuable hardwoods would need to be than pines before landowners would start ma naging hardwoods. The options 10%, 25%, and 50% more valuable were given as well as, none of the above, or I already favor hardwoods as options. The majority (54%) of landowners said none of the above (Table 4-15) and only 26% indicated a willingness to chan ge if hardwoods were more valuable than pine. Only 22% of the landowners said that hardwoods were less valu able than pines, but a 10%, 25%, or 50% price

PAGE 51

51 increase above pines would cause them to switch from pine management to hardwood management (Table 4-16). Our results indicated a very small pr oportion (6%) of landown ers felt hardwoods decrease land value, while 62% believed that hardwood was worth less than pine. Some 19% believed hardwood is worth more than pine a nd many (47%) felt that hardwoods increased land value (see questions 11 and 12 in appendix B). These results mean the hardwood resource was seemingly low value compared to pine but still added value to the land in the perspective of many forest landowners. Alternative Hardwood Markets There was a small but significant portion of landowners who used hardwoods for nonmarket purposes (Table 4-17). The uses were di verse (Table 4-18). Things such as photography, woodworking, grub worms, and down trees for horse jumps are uncommon uses of hardwoods that landowners listed in our survey. Uses such as these may potentially fill the financial gap for enterprising landowners instead of a once-in-a-lifetime timbe r harvest of hardwoods. Hunting leases could also potentially fill the financial gap since wildlife is important. Many landowners listed wildlife as an objective of their management plan (see summary of management objectives in appendix B). The most popular recreational activ ity according to the survey was hunting. Hunting leases are known to provide income to the landowner without harvesting the timber. Discussion There is potential for the advancement of hard wood forestry in Florida, but there are many challenges. Hardwoods are on the majority of fo rest lands in Florida, even on lands dominated by pines, and many landowners are making no effo rt to manage hardwoods. Most landowners do not have a written timber management plan no r do they have a management strategy with

PAGE 52

52 regards to hardwoods. Even though pine receive s the focus when it comes to silviculture, few listed controlling hardwood growth as a strategy. For this resource to be improved, landowners will have to change their interest and outlook considerably. Increased stumpage prices are needed to motivate some landowners to manage for hardwoods. Low stumpage prices may be the resu lt of poor market research and lack of timber sale experience by the landowner. Most landowners had not performed a sale in the past five years, but of those who did, 45% had not resear ched market prices for hardwood stumpage, and consequently received a lower price for their hardwood timber. Another challenge is one of perception. Most landowners feel hardwoods are worth less than pine and most would not change to hard wood management even if hardwoods were 10%, 25%, or 50% greater in value than pine. Changing percepti ons about hardwood management could be a goal of an education program aime d at teaching Florida la ndowners about hardwood forestry. There is a select gr oup of landowners who feel that ha rdwoods are less valuable than pines, but if stumpage prices were greater for hardwoods than pines they would change to hardwood management. This minority of landowners could be a target audience for a hardwood education program. Educators could also target landowners w ho are unwilling to sell their hardwoods for timber. Aesthetic beauty, environmental benefits and wildlife values are all reasons to reserve hardwood trees. These uses could all be include d as part of a written multiple use timber management plan which most landowners do not ha ve, without sacrificing these benefits. In fact, a written management plan will help landowners to meet these objectives. Alternative hardwood markets may provide income to enterprising Florida forest landowners. Things such as photography, woodwor king, grub worms, and down trees for horse

PAGE 53

53 jumps were listed by survey participants. Hunti ng is also important to the landowner. These products may provide income without harves ting trees for tradit ional timber products. Conclusion The advancement of hardwood forestry in Fl orida requires increased stumpage prices, a change in perception by the landowner, writte n timber management plans, and enterprising landowners to take advantage of alternative markets for hardw ood products. Knowledgeable and perceptive resource professionals and educators can potentially help landowners unlock the potential in hardwood production. Beginning with an education program based on accurate and authoritative information on Florida hardwood forest ry, the state can reach its full potential in hardwood forest management. However, given the current state of ha rdwood markets and the scope of hardwood management, extensive change in the hardwood re source would likely take a lifetime. Further, more research is needed on the proper application of silvicultu ral prescriptions in Floridas unique climate and environment.

PAGE 54

54 Table 4-1. Demographics of the north Florida forest landowners surveyed. n mean minimummaximummedian Household size 465 2.4 persons 1 9 3 Age 460 61 yrs. 25 92 20 Length of ownership 433 23.1 yrs. 1 100 20 Landholding size 436 265 ac. 3 30000 2 Ownership class n percent Family 268 61 Sole proprietor 141 32 Partnership 13 3 TIMO 0 0 Timber company 0 0 Other 3 0 Percent income from timber 0 328 75 1 33 86 20 34 66 3 1 67 100 3 1 Annual income (2004) Below 15,000 18 6 15,001-25,000 33 11 25,001-35,000 39 13 35,001-45,000 29 10 45,001-55,000 38 13 55,001-65,000 39 13 65,001-75,000 23 8 75,001-85,000 23 8 85,001-95,000 19 6 Above 95,000 87 29 Gender Male 358 77 Female 105 23 Education Level Elementary School 4 1 Junior High 9 2 High School 124 27 College or Technical School 215 46 Graduate or Professional School 111 24 Residence Florida 417 88 Not Florida 55 12 Conservation Organization Yes 79 17 No 378 83

PAGE 55

55 Table 4-2. Percentage of landowne rs who owned each forest type. Forest Type Landowners (n)Percent Respondents Hardwood Swamp 100 39 Cypress Swamp 100 39 Hardwood Hammock 109 42 Natural Pine 121 47 Oak-pine mixture 191 74 Planted Pines 211 82 Table 4-3. Primary purpose landowners id entified for their fo rest land (n=257)*. Purpose of forest Percent Landowners Urban development 1 Cattle grazing 4 Recreation 16 Other 16 Financial investment 18 Timber 43 Percent does not add to 100 due to rounding. Table 4-4. Percentage of landowners who have a writte n management plan (n=428). Management Plan Percent Landowners Yes 14 No 86 Table 4-5. Management practices performed by landowners, based on whether the practice was targeted to improve the pine reso urce or hardwood resource (n=267). Pine (percent) Hardwood (percent) Fertilization 12 5 Herbicide treatment 16 7 Other mechanical site prep. 20 7 Prescribed burning 34 11 Discing/harrowing or mowing 41 20 Tree planting 51 10 Thinning 52 20 At least one of the above 94 46

PAGE 56

56 Table 4-6. Landowner expenditures on treatments to reduce hardwood growth per acre of area treated between 1995 and 2005 (n=357). Amount spent on treatments to reduce hardw oods (U.S. dollars) Pe rcent landowners >100 3 76-100 3 51-75 1 26-50 4 1-25 10 0 79 Table 4-7. Management practices of landowners relative to hardwoods on their land (n=422).* Management Strategy Percent Landowners Other <1 No hardwoods on land 11 Control hardwoods 16 Allow hardwood growth for timber or non-timber value 41 No management of hardwoods 48 *Note: percentages are greater than 100% due to answers not being mutually exclusive. Table 4-8. Percentage of res pondents who indicated a stumpage price that they received or would be willing to recei ve for their hardwoods. Price (dollars per ton) Received Price, n=55 (percent) Willing to receive price, n=187 (percent) 0.00 27 2 0.013.00 7 0 3.01 6.00 9 0 6.01 9.00 11 2 9.01 12.00 2 3 12.01 15.00 2 2 15.0118.00 4 3 Greater than 18.00 ton 5 5 Dont know 31 not willing to cut trees n/a 65 cannot cut trees due to SMZs n/a 1 No hardwoods to cut n/a 17

PAGE 57

57 Table 4-9. Market information sour ces utilized by landowners (n=402)*. Information source Percent Respondents Forest2Market 1 Other 1 Internet 2 Timber Mart-South 3 County forester 3 Newsletters 5 Consulting forester 13 Local logger 17 Did not obtain 69 *Percentages do not add to one-hundred. More than one source of price information can be used so answers are not mutually exclusive. Table 4-10. Summary of the landowners who obt ain timber market price information from outside sources, n=128. Info Getters (percent) One source 65 Multi-source 35 Management Plan (percent) yes 64 no 27 no-response 9 Demographics Length of ownership 27 yrs. Landholding size 710 ac. Age 61 yrs. Table 4-11. Product conversions for hardwoods sold or utilized by respondents (n= 390). Product Percent Landowners OSB 2 Other 2 Crates 3 Poles and/or Posts 3 Plywood 4 Veneer 4 Lumber 9 Firewood 17 Don't Know 18 Pulp/paper 19 Not used for timber products 58

PAGE 58

58 Table 4-12. Market knowledge of landowners. Market knowledge Yes (percent)No (percent) Responses (n) Know the products of their hardwoods 24 18 390 Obtain market information from an outside source31 69 402 Table 4-13. Association between stumpage pr ice received and landowner access to market information (n=54). Total, n (percent) Stumpage price $0.00 to $9.00/ton, n (percent) Stumpage price greater than $9.00/ton, n (percent) Do not know price received, n (percent) Obtained Market Information 30 (100) 19 (63.3) 7 (23.3) 4 (13.3) Did not Obtain Market Information 24 (100) 10 (41.7) 0 (0) 14 (58.3) Table p-value 4.370E-05 Two-sided pvalue 2.977E-04 Table 4-14. Association between a landowners expectation of st umpage price and their access to market information, table p-valu e 2.977E-06, two-sided p-value 3.822E-04 (n=188). Total, n (percent) Willingness to sell stumpage price $0.00 to $9.00/ton Willingness to sell stumpage price greater than $9.00/ton Not willing to cut No cuttable hardwood Obtained Market Information 40 (100) 1(2.5) 14 (35) 20 (50) 5 (12.5) Did not Obtain Market Information 148 (100) 5 (3.4) 11 (7.4) 107 (72.3) 25 (16.9)

PAGE 59

59 Table 4-15. Respondents willingness to change management to favor hardwoods (n = 387). Change in value Percent Hardwood becomes 10 percent more valuable than pine 5 Hardwood becomes 25 percent more valuable than pine 7 Hardwood becomes 50 percent more valuable than pine 14 I already favor hardwood 20 None of the above 54 Table 4-16. Cross tabulation of landowner perceptions about the relative values of hardwoods and their willingness to change from pi ne management to hardwood management, n=329 (percent). Willing to change Not willing to change Already favor hardwoods Total Hardwoods equal pine 3 9 5 18 Hardwoods are greater than pine 2 8 10 20 Hardwoods are less than pine 22 36 4 62 Total 27 53 20 100 Table 4-17. Percent of landowners who use th eir hardwoods for uncommon markets (n=397). Yes No Alternative hardwood markets 22 78 Table 4-18. Non-market use of hardwoods. Shade for livestock Firewood Arts and crafts Fruits and nuts Future development Recreation Down trees for horse jumps Wildlife food Mushrooms Hunting Woodworking Photography Grub worms

PAGE 60

60 Figure 4-1. The North Florida lando wners selected in the mail-out survey owned land in the blue shaded area. Planted Pines 61% Natural Pine 6% Oak-pine mixture 17% Hardwood Hammock 7% Hardwood Swamp 5% Cypress Swamp 4% Figure 4-2. Forest types as percent of acreage owned by survey respondents (n=307). Survey Coverage area

PAGE 61

61 56% 51% 47% 47% 41% 33% 32% 30% 23% 23% 18% 17% 13% 10% 10% 9% 9% 7% 7% 6% 3% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% Sweet gum White oaks Red oaks Southern magnolia Hickory Maple Bay Persimmon Pecan Black cherry Other Blackgum-tupelo Yellow-poplar Beech Dont know Camphortree Ash Black walnut No hardwoods Elm Basswood Figure 4-3. Percentage of landowners who iden tified having each hardwood species on their land (n= 460).

PAGE 62

62 CHAPTER 5 HARDWOOD ESTABLISHMENT TRIAL AT AUSTIN CARY MEMORIAL FOREST In February of 2005, approximately 4 acres of hardwoods were planted on two different sites at Austin Cary Memorial Forest (A CMF). Nine species were hand-planted by undergraduate students in the Forestry Club at the School of Forest Resources and Conservation at the University of Florida. Two types of deer barrier were used to determine efficacy. The two sites were old fields. The first site was an old field that had been in grass cover for over 20 years. It was mowed regularly and burned periodically until establishment of the research plots. The second site was a food plot that had been maintained by grass cover and is surrounded by slash and longleaf pines. Both site s have sandy flatwoods soils, with scattered cypress ponds and a fairly shallow water table. Hardwoods were planted at ACMF to de termine how well they would grow under plantation conditions in north centr al Florida. Nine species were chosen for their potential to grow high quality and high value wood (Table 5-1). Two methods were tested to pr otect the trees from deer brow se. The first was a 7 high plastic deer fence around one-thi rd of the planted area. The second involved 36-inch mesh plastic seedling protector tubes th at fit over one-third of the indi vidual seedlings. The tube was held in place with a 4 foot bamboo stake driven into the ground. Additionally, one-third of the planted seedlings were left unprot ected. The efficacy of these met hods as well as a cost-benefit analysis should result from these experiments. The overall management objective was to produce high-quality hardwood saw timber while providing much needed research informa tion on regeneration, growth, and yield rates for hardwood plantation systems in Florida. Final harv est was expected in 40 to 50 years. The trees were densely planted at 700-800 tr ees per acre. This encourages straight bole growth, and may

PAGE 63

63 also allow for a thinning at 10 to 20 years. Depending on devel opment rate pruning may be done between age 10 and 25 to improve potential log value. After th e final harvest, regeneration methods will include coppice and planting unless improved regeneration methods are available at that time. The local bare-root hardwoods cost $0.25 per se edling. The seedling pr otector tube with bamboo stake cost $0.625 each. The labor for planting the whole project was $400. Funding was received from the Hardwood Forestry Fund for this project. Preliminary results from the first two growi ng seasons show very high mortality rates for trees with no protection from deer browsing, with the exception of persimmon which is naturally abundant in the local forest (Table 5-2). Black walnut was very susceptib le to mortality in all treatments. Persimmon actually ga ined seedlings in the fenced area, probably from outside seed sources. White ash and sycamore achieved a hei ght advantage over the rest of the hardwoods especially inside the fenced ar ea (Table 5-3). The remaining hardwood species had height differences of 30 cm (about 1 foot) or less.

PAGE 64

64 Table 5-1. The nine hardwood species selected for research at ACMF. Common Name Scientific name Black cherry Prunus serotina Yellow poplar Liriodendron tulipifera Persimmon Diospyros virginiana Black walnut Juglans nigra Southern red oak Quercus falcata var. falcata Cherrybark red oak Quercus falcata var. pagodifolia Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii White ash Fraxinus americana Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Table 5-2. Percent seedli ng mortality from 2005-2006. Deer protection treatments Species Open Fenced seedling protector tubes Black cherry 100 23 0 Black walnut 100 66 79 Cherrybark red oak 96 27 16 Persimmon 14 -5 0 Southern red oak 97 32 12 Swamp chestnut oak 100 24 13 Sycamore 92 22 0 White ash 100 22 17 Yellow poplar 100 51 17 Table 5-3. Average seedli ng height 2006, centimeters. Deer protection treatments Species control fence seedling protector tube Yellow poplar 37 46 Southern red oak 18 41 30 Black walnut 47 46 Swamp chestnut oak 52 47 Cherrybark red oak 13 54 52 Black cherry 55 63 Persimmon 40 65 67 White ash 110 78 Sycamore 20 220 140 no data

PAGE 65

65 APPENDIX A MAIL-OUT SURVEY QUESTIONS 1. What percentage of your forested land is in the following forest types? ______% Planted pines ______% Natural pines ______% Mixture of oak and pines ______% Hardwood hammock ______% Hardwood swamps ______% Cypress swamps or ponds 2. Indicate the hardwoods you know to be found on your property by checking the box next to it. Black cherry Red oaks White oaks Hickory Maple Sweet gum Persimmon Basswood Beech Yellow-poplar Ash Blackgum-tupelo Elm Pecan Black walnut Bay Camphortree Southern magnolia Other: ____________________ Dont know No hardwoods found on my land

PAGE 66

66 3. What types of recreational activities o ccur on your land? (Ch eck all that apply) Hunting Canoeing Hiking Camping Fishing Wildlife viewing Others __________ 4. What types of soils does your fo rest land have? Check all that apply. Red, loamy soil (typical of panhandle) Red clay soil (typical of panhandle) Well-drained, sandy so il (throughout Florida) Poorly drained, sandy soil (typical of flatwoods) Dont know 5. For what purpose do you own your forest land? (Check the most appropriate) Cattle grazing Timber Recreation (hunting, camping, etc.) Urban development Financial investment Other: (ple ase specify) _________________________ 6. Do you have a written management pl an and objective for your forest land? No Yes (please provide objective) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 7. How do you manage the hardwoods on your land. (Please check all that apply.) Control hardwood growth through herbicid e or mechanical treatment (examples include spraying, mowing, chopping, hand clea ring, prescribed bur ning, girdling, etc.) No management strategy with regards to hardwoods Allow hardwood growth for timber and/or wildlife value Other: (please explain) __________________________ I have no hardwoods in my forest (go to page 7 and answer questions 19-30)

PAGE 67

67 8. How much have you spent on treatments to reduce hardwood growth within the last ten years? $0 per acre of area treated $ 1 25 per acre of area treated $ 26 50 per acre of area treated $ 51 75 per acre of area treated $ 76 100 per acre of area treated Greater than $100 per acre of area treated 9. Which management activities occur on your la nd? Indicate if the activity is aimed at improving pine or hardwood timber value by checking the box under that heading. Pine Hardwood Prescribed burning Fertilization Thinning Herbicide treatment Discing/harrowing or mowing Tree planting Other mechanical site prep.

PAGE 68

68 10. How long have you actively managed your land? (Mark if you do not actively manage your land.) __________ Years 11. Which best describes the effect s hardwoods have on your land value? Hardwoods increase my land value Hardwoods decrease my land value Hardwoods have no effect on my land value 12. Which best describes the value of hardwoods and pines? Hardwoods are worth more money than pine trees Hardwoods are worth about the same amount of money as pine trees Hardwoods are worth less money than pine trees 13. Do you use hardwoods on your land for reas ons other than wood pr oduction or recreation, such as, growing mushrooms, fruits, nuts, personal firewood, arts and crafts, etc.? No Yes If yes, for what reasons? ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 14. Which of the following statements would ca use you to change your management to favor hardwoods rather than pines? Hardwood timber becomes 10% more valuable than pine timber Hardwood timber becomes 25% more valuable than pine timber Hardwood timber becomes 50% more valuable than pine timber None of the statements would aff ect how I manage the trees on my land I already favor hardwoods on my land

PAGE 69

69 15. How have you obtained current market prices for hardwood timber? (P lease check all that apply.) Internet Timber-Mart South Forest2Market County forester Consulting forester Local logger Newsletters Other: _____________ I havent obtained market prices for hardwoods 16. Which of the following are products pr oduced from hardwoods grown on your land? (Check all that apply.) Pulp/paper Crates Oriented-strand board (OSB) Lumber Plywood Poles and/or posts Firewood Veneer Other (please specify) __________________________ Don't Know My hardwoods are not used for timber products

PAGE 70

70 Please answer one of the following two questions. 17. If you sold hardwood timber in the past 5 years, what stumpage price did you receive? $0.00 $0.01 $3.00/ ton ($0.01 $9.00/cord) $3.01 $6.00/ton ($9.01-$17.00/cord) $6.01 $9.00/ton ($17.01-$26.00/cord) $9.01 $12.00/ton ($26.01-$35.00/cord) $12.01 $15.00/ton ($35.01-$44.00/cord) $15.01-$18.00/ton (44.01-52.00/cord) Greater than $18.00/ton ($52.00/cord) Dont know ________________ (If you know exactly, please write here) 18. If you havent sold hardwoods, at what price per ton (or cord ) would you be willing to sell your hardwoods for timber? $0.00 $0.01 $3.00/ ton ($0.01 $9.00/cord) $3.01 $6.00/ton ($9.01-$17.00/cord) $6.01 $9.00/ton ($17.01-$26.00/cord) $9.01 $12.00/ton ($26.01-$35.00/cord) $12.01 $15.00/ton ($35.01-$44.00/cord) $15.01-$18.00/ton (44.01-52.00/cord) greater than $18.00/ton ($52.00/cord) not willing to cut trees cannot cut trees due to special management zones Other: $______/ton or $______/cord I do not have any hardwoods to cut

PAGE 71

71 19. How long have you owned your forest land? __________ Years 20. Approximately how much forest land do you own in Florida? __________ Acres 21. What is the zip code or section-to wnship-range (STR) of your forest land? or ___ ___ ___ zip code S T R 22. Which best describes the ownership of your land? Family Sole proprietor Partnership Timber Investment Manage ment Organization (TIMO) Timber company Other: (please specify) _________________________ 23. What percentage of your total income is from timber? 0 % 1 33% 34 66% 67 100% 24. Please indicate the range of your personal 2004 annual gross income? Below $15,000 $55,001-65,000 $15,001-25,000 $65,001-75,000 $25,001-35,000 $75,001-85,000 $35,001-45,000 $85,001-95,000 $45,001-55,000 Above $95,000 25. What is your gender? Male Female

PAGE 72

72 26. Please circle your highest education level: Elementary School Junior High High School College or Technical School Graduate or Professional School 27. How many people live in your household? ___________ Persons 28. Is your primary residence in Florida? Yes No 29. What year were you born? 19__ 30. Are you a member of any conservation organization? No Yes Please list: _____________________________________________________

PAGE 73

73 APPENDIX B LANDOWNER SURVEY RESULTS 1. What percentage of your forested land is in the following forest types? Forest Type Number Respondents Forest Land Owned (acres) Percent Respondents Planted Pines 211 56928 82 Natural Pine 121 5249 47 Oak-pine mixture 191 15667 74 Hardwood Hammock 109 6848 42 Hardwood Swamp 100 4751 39 Cypress Swamp 100 4047 39 Total Forest Land (Acres) 93489 Responses (n) 307 Average Forest Land Holding (acres) 305

PAGE 74

74 2. Indicate the hardwoods you know to be found on your property by checking the box next to it. Type of Hardwood Number Respondents Percent Respondents Black cherry 105 23 Red oaks 217 47 White oaks 233 51 Hickory 187 41 Maple 151 33 Sweet gum 259 56 Persimmon 140 30 Basswood 14 3 Beech 46 10 Yellow-poplar 62 13 Ash 40 9 Blackgum-tupelo 80 17 Elm 29 6 Pecan 106 23 Black walnut 34 7 Bay 147 32 Camphortree 42 9 Southern magnolia 216 47 Other 83 18 Dont know 45 10 No hardwoods 31 7 Responses (n) 460 3. What types of recreational activities o ccur on your land? (Ch eck all that apply) Activity Number Respondents Percent Respondents Hunting 263 76 Canoeing 17 5 Hiking 90 26 Camping 66 19 Fishing 117 34 Wildlife viewing 201 58 Others 24 7 Responses (n) 345

PAGE 75

75 4. What types of soils does your fo rest land have? Check all that apply. Soil Type Number Respondents Percent Respondents Red, loamy 87 21 Red, clay 85 20 Well drained 287 68 Poorly drained 138 33 Don't know 33 8 Responses (n) 420 5. For what purpose do you own your forest land? (Check the most appropriate) Purpose of forest Number Respondents Percent Respondents Cattle grazing 11 4 Timber 110 43 Recreation 42 16 Urban development 3 1 Financial investment 47 18 Other 42 16 Responses (n) 257 6. Do you have a written management pl an and objective for your forest land? Management Plan Number Respondents Percent Respondents Yes 62 14 No 366 86 Responses (n) 428

PAGE 76

76 7. How do you manage the hardwoods on your land. (Please check all that apply.) Management Strategy Number Respondents Percent Respondents Control Hardwoods 69 16 No Mgt. 201 48 Allow growth for timber or non-timber value 171 41 Other 2 0 No Hardwoods on land 48 11 Responses (n) 422 8. How much have you spent on treatments to reduce hardwood growth within the last ten years? Amount spent on treatments (per acre) Number Respondents Percent Respondents $0 282 79.0 $1-25 37 10.4 $26-50 14 3.9 $51-75 5 1.4 $76-100 9 2.5 >$100 10 2.8 Responses (n) 357

PAGE 77

77 9. Which management activities occur on your la nd? Indicate if the activity is aimed at improving pine or hardwood timber value by checki ng the box under that heading. Pine Hardwood Number Respondents Percent Respondents Number Respondents Percent Respondents Prescribed burning 90 34 29 11 Fertilization 31 12 13 5 Thinning 140 52 53 20 Herbicide treatment 42 16 18 7 Discing/harrowing or mowing 110 41 54 20 Tree planting 136 51 28 10 Other mechanical site prep. 53 20 18 7 Responses (n) 267 10. How long have you actively managed your land? (Mark if you do not actively manage your land.) Average Active Management (years) 10.8 Responses (n) 402 11. Which best describes the effect s hardwoods have on your land value? Number Respondents Percent Respondents Hwd. inc. land value 184 47 Hwd. dec. land value 24 6 Hwd. no effect 185 47 Responses (n) 393 12. Which best describes the value of hardwoods and pines? Number Respondents Percent Respondents Hwd>pine 67 20 Hwd=pine 63 18 Hwd
PAGE 78

78 13. Do you use hardwoods on your land for reas ons other than wood pr oduction or recreation, such as, growing mushrooms, fruits, nuts, personal firewood, arts and crafts, etc.? Number Respondents Percent Respondents Yes 89 22 No 308 78 Responses (n) 397 14. Which of the following statements would ca use you to change your management to favor hardwoods rather than pines? Change in value Number Respondents Percent Landowners (n=387) Hardwood becomes 10% more valuable than pine 20 5 Hardwood becomes 25% more valuable than pine 28 7 Hardwood becomes 50% more valuable than pine 54 14 None of the above 209 54 I already favor hardwood 76 20 Responses (n) 387 15. How have you obtained current market prices for hardwood timber? (P lease check all that apply.) Information source Number Respondents Percent Respondents Internet 8 2 T-Mart South 14 3 F2M 3 1 County forester 14 3 Consulting forester 54 13 Local logger 70 17 Newsletters 19 5 Other 5 1 Not obtained Info. 278 69 Responses (n) 402

PAGE 79

79 16. Which of the following are products pr oduced from hardwoods grown on your land? (Check all that apply.) Product Number Respondents Percent Respondents Pulp/paper 63 19 OSB 8 2 Plywood 16 5 Firewood 65 20 Other 8 2 Crates 11 3 Lumber 37 11 Poles and/or Posts 10 3 Veneer 14 4 Don't Know 69 21 Not used for timber products 225 69 Responses (n) 390 17. If you sold hardwood timber in the past 5 years, what stumpage price did you receive? Price Total each response (question 17) Percent each response $0.00 15 27 $0.01$3.00/ ton 4 7 $3.01 $6.00/ton 5 9 $6.01 $9.00/ton 6 11 $9.01 $12.00/ton 1 2 $12.01 $15.00/ton 1 2 $15.01$18.00/ton 2 4 >$18.00/ton 3 5 Dont Know 17 31 Know exact amount 1 2 Responses (n) 55

PAGE 80

80 18. If you havent sold hardwoods, at what price per ton (or cord ) would you be willing to sell your hardwoods for timber? Price Total each response (question 18) Percent each response $0.00 3 2 $0.01$3.00/ ton 0 0 $3.01 $6.00/ton 0 0 $6.01 $9.00/ton 3 2 $9.01 $12.00/ton 6 3 $12.01 $15.00/ton 4 2 $15.01$18.00/ton 5 3 >$18.00/ton 10 5 not willing to cut trees 122 65 cannot cut trees due to SMZs 1 1 Other 1 1 No hardwoods to cut 32 17 Responses (n) 187 19. How long have you owned your forest land? Average Length of Ownership 24 Responses (n) 432

PAGE 81

81 20. Approximately how much forest land do you own in Florida? Total Forest Land (acres) 115363 Average Forest Land Owned (acres) 265 Responses (n) 436 21. What is the zip code or section-to wnship-range (STR) of your forest land? County No. Respondents Percent Respondents Alachua 28 7 Baker 1 0 Bay 5 1 Bradford 8 2 Calhoun 11 3 Clay 2 1 Columbia 9 2 Dixie 8 2 Duval 8 2 Escambia 3 1 Flagler 1 0 Gadsden 27 7 Gilchrist 6 2 Hamilton 8 2 Holmes 28 7 Jackson 30 8 Jefferson 14 4 Lafayette 8 2 Leon 1 0 Levy 13 3 Liberty 7 2 Madison 27 7 Marion 20 5 Nassau 10 3 Okaloosa 9 2 St. Johns 3 1 Suwannee 12 3 Taylor 9 2 Union 7 2 Volusia 1 0 Wakulla 15 4 Walton 18 5 Washington 33 8 Responses (n) 392 100

PAGE 82

82 22. Which best describes the ownership of your land? Ownership Number Respondents Percent Respondents Family 268 61 Sole proprietor 141 32 Partnership 13 3 TIMO 0 0 Timber company 0 0 Other 3 1 Responses (n) 441 23. What percentage of your total income is from timber? Percentage income Number Respondents Percent Respondents 0 328 75 1 to 33 86 20 34 to 66 3 1 67 to 100 3 1 Responses (n) 436 24. Please indicate the range of your personal 2004 annual gross income? 2004 income Number Respondents Percent Respondents Below $15,000 18 6 $15,001-25,000 33 11 $25,001-35,000 39 13 $35,001-45,000 29 10 $45,001-55,000 38 13 $55,001-65,000 39 13 $65,001-75,000 23 8 $75,001-85,000 23 8 $85,001-95,000 19 6 Above $95,000 87 29 Responses (n) 362

PAGE 83

83 25. What is your gender? Gender Number Respondents Percent Respondents Male 358 77 Female 105 23 Responses (n) 463 26. Please circle your highest education level: Education Level Number Respondents Percent Respondents Elementary School 4 1 Junior High 9 2 High School 124 27 College or Technical School 215 46 Graduate or Professional School 111 24 Responses (n) 463 27. How many people live in your household? Average Household (persons) 2.4 Responses (n) 465 28. Is your primary residence in Florida? Number Respondents Percent Respondents Primary residence in Florida 417 88 Primary residence not in Florida 55 12 Responses (n) 472 29. What year were you born? Responses (n) 460 Average Age (at end of 2004) 61 30. Are you a member of any conservation organization? Number Respondents Percent Respondents Yes 79 17 No 378 83 Responses (n) 457

PAGE 84

84 Summary of Management Objectives (Question 6) Timber production/ financial investment Clear cut on a 20 year rotation Grow trees to maturity and harvest. Harvest pines in 10 years and re-plant Income Investment Long term investmentincome, appreciation, for future Manage timber for optimal profit Maximize NPV Maximize return on investment Sell timber in 10years and replant Timber for investment, provide for hunting, encourage wildlife Timber production To let it reforest itself after logging and land purchase in 1995 Wildlife/game, recreation In progress from our game Biologist Enhance forest wildlife Game animals Improving wildlife habitat Maintain strong wildlife habitat Multiple Use Financial timber management, along with wildlife enhancement Maximize investment return, recreation, and aesthics Provide income and wildlife Provide optimal combination be tween revenue producing timber and wildlife enhancement for recreational use. Provide optimum timber production and promote wildlife growth. Restore native ecosystems, timber income, and hunting. Silviculture, hunting Thin underbrush, timber trees. Only shoot 6 point or larger. Cull does as needed Timber and wildlife Timber growth and any other legitimate activity Timber harvest pine and wildlife habitat Timber management, wildlif e, recreation (hunting) Timber production and aesthetic s and enjoyment of forest Timber production and Wildlife Mana gement. Financial Investment. Timber value, straw, wildlife, keeping the land undeveloped Timber, cattle, wildlife Return on investment and recreation

PAGE 85

85 Conservation, preservation, aesthetics Conservation, preservation of rare and endangere d species; replanting of LL pine and wiregrass It is my hope that the land will be forever preser ved, for future generations with no alterations, so that my future family and friends can enjoy and admire nature as it was meant to be. Maintain the natural beauty and hardwood preservation Preservation of natural Florida To maintain the land and forest as is for wildlife and to protect.

PAGE 86

86 APPENDIX C SAS OUTPUT

PAGE 87

87

PAGE 88

88 LIST OF REFERENCES Abt, R.C., F.W. Cubbage, and G. Pacheco. 1994. Hardwood availability: who will meet the demand? Forest Farmer 53(2): 13-14,32-34 Agresti, A. 1990. Categorical Data Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY. 557 p. Baldwin, S., and C. Melton. Timber Mart-Sout h. 1990-2005. Tom Harris. Daniel B. Warnell School of Forest Resources. The Univer sity of Georgia: Athens Georgia Bates, B. 2003. Hardwood surpasses pine as tr ee of choice in southern timber markets. Alabamas Treasured Forests. Spring 2003: 15. Bentley, J.W., T.G. Johnson, and E. Ford. 2002. Floridas Timber IndustryAn Assessment of Timber Product Output and Use, 1999. Ashevill e, NC: USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin SRS-77. 37pp. Birch, T.W. 1997. Private forest-land owners of the southern United States, 1994. USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin NE-138. 195pp. Brown, M.J. 1996. Forest Statistics for Florida, 1995. USDA Forest Se rvice Resource Bulletin SRS-6. 48pp. Butler, B.J., and E.C. Leatherberry. 2004. America s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry. 102(7): 4-14. Cain, M.D., and D.A. Yaussy. 1984. Can hardwoods be eradicated from pine sites? Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 8(1):7-13. Callahan, J.C. 1980. The non-industrial private fo rests of the eastern Un ited States: landowner perspectives and timber availability. P. 36-54 in: Opportunities and Constraints in Utilization of the Hardwood Resource. Ca ssens, D.L., M.O. Hunt, and W.L. Hoover (eds.). Proc. 1980 John S. Wright Forestry Conference. Purdue University. West Lafayette, IN. 121p. Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY. 464p. Fama, E.F. 1970. Efficient capital markets: a revi ew of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance. 25: 383-417. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). 2002. Silviculture Best Management Practices. 98p. Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 1990. Gu ide to the natural communities of Florida. 116p.

PAGE 89

89 Freeman, G.H., and J.H. Halton. 1951. Note on exact treatment of c ontingency, goodness of fit and other problems of signifi cance. Biometrika 38:141-149. Hansbrough, T. 1970. Silviculture and management of southern hardwoods. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA. 145p. Harris, L.P. 1984. Bottomland hardwoods: va luable, vanishing, vulnerable. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS University of Florida. 16p. Harris, T.G., C. Melton, S. Baldwin, and H. Ekstrom. 2003. Global Wood Fiber Markets: impact on the U.S. South. Forest Landowner. 62(1):52-3. Hicks, R.R., W.H. Conner, R.C. Kellison, and D. VanLear. 2004. Silviculture and Management Strategies Applied to Southern Hardwoods. P. 51-62 in Southern Forest Science: Past, Present, and Future, Rauscher, H.M. and K. Johnson (eds.). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. SRS-75. Hollis, C.A., and R.A. Schmidt. 1977. Site factor s related to fusiform rust incidence in north Florida slash pine plantations Forest Science. 23:69-77. Hubbard, W.G., and R.C. Abt. 1989. The effect of timber sale assistance on returns to landowners. Resource Management and Optimization. 6(3):225-234. Hultkrantz, L. 1993. Informational efficiency of markets for stumpage: comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 75: 234-238. Jones, R.H., G.R. Glover, and J.W. Kimbrell. 2000. Three methods for low cost regeneration of pine hardwood stands in the Gulf Coastal Plai n. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 24(1): 37-44. Jones, W.D., I.A. Munn, S.C. Grado, and J.C. Jones. 2001. Fee hunting: an income source for Mississippis nonindustrial priv ate landowners. FWRC Research Bulletin. FO164, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. 15p. Kidder, G. 1989. Lime and liming a Florida pe rspective. Soil and Water Science Department, IFAS, University of Florida, SL 58. 7p. Klemperer, W.D. 1996. Forest Resource Econo mics and Finance. McGraw-Hill, Inc. United States. 551p. Koch, P. 1985. Utilization of Hardwoods Growing on Southern Pine Sites. Volume 3, Products and Perspective. USDA Forest Service Ha ndbook 605. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. Luppold, W.G., J.P. Prestemon, and J.E. Baumgras. 1998. An examination of the relationships between hardwood lumber and stumpage prices in Ohio. Wood and Fiber Science 30(3): 281-292

PAGE 90

90 McEvoy, T. 1995. An introduction to the ecol ogy and management of Floridas hardwood forests. Florida Cooperative Extension Serv ice, IFAS, University of Florida. 14p. Measells, M.K., S.C. Grado, H.G. Hughes, M.A. Dunn, J. Idassi, and B. Zielinske. 2005. Nonindustrial private forest landow ner characteristics and use of forestry services in four southern states: results from a 2002-2003 ma il survey. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 29(4): 194-199. Mercker, D. 2003. Crop tree release in pre-comm erical hardwood stands. Alabamas Treasured Forests. Spring: 13-14. Moorhead, D.J., and K.D. Coder. 1994. Sout hern Hardwood Management. USDA Cooperative Extension Services, Southern Region. 142p. Monk, C.D. 1965. Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest of Northcentral Florida. Ecological Monographs. 35(4):335-354. Munn, I.A., and R.R. Rucker. 1994. The value of in formation services in a market for factors of production with multiple attributes: the role of consultants in private timber sales. Forest Science. 40(3):474-496. Myers, R.L., and J.J. Ewel. 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, FL. 765p. Odum, H.T., E.C. Odum, and M.T. Brown. 1998. Environment and Society in Florida. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 449p. Pelkki, M.H., and J.M. Ringe. 1994. Hardwood stumpage prices come of age. Forest Farmer: 53(2):10-12 Prestemon, J.P., and R.C. Abt. 2002. Timber Products Supply and Demand. P. 299-325 in Southern Forest Resource Assessment, Wear, D.N. and J.G. Greis (eds.). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. SRS-53. Raunikar, R., J. Buongiorno, J.P. Prestemon, and K.L. Abt. 2000. Financial performance of mixed-age naturally regenerated loblolly-h ardwood stands in the Southcentral United States. Forest Policy and Economics. I: 331-346. Rosen, B.N., H.F. Kaiser, and M. Baldeck. 1989 Nonindustrial private forest landowners as timber marketers: a field study of search fo r market information and decision quality. Forest Science. 35(5): 732-744. SAS Institute. 2004. SAS/STAT 9.1 user ss guide. SAS Institute Cary, NC. Schuler, J.L., and D. Robison. 2004. Hardwood pl antations and enrichme nt planting. Forest Landowner. (March/April): 21-25.

PAGE 91

91 Thompson, M.T. 1999. Forested tract-size profil e of Floridas NIPF landowners. USDA Forest Service Research Paper. SRS-15. 18p. Washburn, C.L., and C.S. Binkley. 1990. Informa tional efficiency of ma rkets for stumpage. American Journal of Agricult ural Economics. 72: 394-405. Williston, H.L. 1987. Southern Pine Management Primer. New York: Vantage Press. 161 p. Yin, R., and D.H. Newman. 1996. Are markets for stumpage informationally efficient? Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 26:1032-1039.

PAGE 92

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Brian Hinton was born and raised in Gainesville, FL. He rece ived his Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural op erations management from the Univ ersity of Florida in May 2001. He has worked as a forest ranger for the Florida Di vision of Forestry and a project coordinator for the Southern Centers for Urban and Interface Forest ry. Currently he resides in Jacksonville, FL where he is a forestry technician for the Department of the Navy.