New Forests

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 71–87 | Cite as

Silvicultural options in forests of the southern United States under changing climatic conditions

  • James M. GuldinEmail author


Changing climatic conditions add a measure of uncertainty to sustainable forest management in forest ecosystems of the southern United States. Increasing temperatures and decreasing patterns of precipitation especially in the Mid-South suggest that water stress, drought, and changing patterns of natural disturbance events will challenge managers in the twenty-first century. Efforts to manage southern forest stands in the face of changing climatic conditions will require a diversity of approaches including tactics to promote genetic diversity in natural and planted stands, encouragement of species diversity as new stands develop, and considering ways to promote diverse stand structures that encourage recruitment of new age cohorts within stands on a regular basis. With predicted changes in climatic conditions, forest ecosystems across the South will respond in different ways, depending upon whether or not they are currently being managed. Unmanaged stands will change in unpredictable ways that reflect the absence of management. But in managed stands, silvicultural treatments are available for foresters to apply to respond and adapt to maintain productive forests adapted to those changing conditions. Finally, one approach often advocated to deal with this uncertainty is a strategy for assisted migration, in which species are established in locations beyond their current range, where predicted climatic conditions are likely to occur at some point in the future within which those species will survive. This is basically an exercise in artificial regeneration, but will likely be more complicated than simply planting a few exotic seedlings and hoping for the best. The technical and practical challenges of planting species at the margins or beyond their natural range include a lack of research support especially for species not commonly planted in the region. Moreover, planting is costly, and because of that, intensive practices are more likely on institutional and government lands rather than family forests. In the end, all of these concepts fall within the practice of silviculture, and are tactics with which the profession is familiar.


Climate change Assisted migration Adaptive management Genetic diversity Species diversity Structural diversity Southern pines 


  1. Allen HL, Fox TR, Campbell RG (2005) What is ahead for intensive pine plantation silviculture in the South? South J Appl For 29:62–69Google Scholar
  2. Aubin I, Garbe CM, Colombo S, Drever CR, McKenney DW, Messier C, Pedlar J, Saner MA, Venier L, Wellstead AM, Winder R, Witten E, Ste-Marie C (2011) Why we disagree about assisted migration: ethical implications for a key debate regarding the future of Canada’s forests. For Chron 87(6):755–765Google Scholar
  3. Baker JB, Shelton MG (1998) Rehabilitation of understocked loblolly-shortleaf pine stands-III. Development of intermediate and suppressed trees following release in natural stands. South J Appl For 22:41–46Google Scholar
  4. Bettinger P, Clutter M, Siry J, Kane M, Pait J (2009) Broad implications of southern United States pine clonal forestry on planning and management of forests. Int For Rev 11(3):331–345Google Scholar
  5. Billings RF (2011) Mechanical control of southern pine beetle infestations. In: Coulson RN, Klepzig KD 2011. Southern pine beetle II. General technical report. SRS-140. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 399–413Google Scholar
  6. Binkley CS, Raper CF, Washburn CL (1996) Institutional ownership of US timberland-history, rationale, and implications for forest management. J For 94:21–28Google Scholar
  7. Bliss JC, Kelly EC, Abrams J, Bailey C, Dyer J (2010) Disintegration of the U.S. industrial forest estate: dynamics, trajectories, and questions. Small Scale For 9:53–60Google Scholar
  8. Bragg DC (2016) Initial mortality rates and extent of damage to loblolly and longleaf pine plantations affected by an ice storm in South Carolina. For Sci 62(5):574–585Google Scholar
  9. Bragg DC, Guldin JM (2014) The silvicultural implications of age patterns in two southern pine stands after 72 years of uneven-aged management. For Sci 61(1):176–182Google Scholar
  10. Bragg Don C, Shelton Michael G (2010) Recovery of planted loblolly pine 5 years after severe ice storms in Arkansas. South J Appl For 34(1):13–20Google Scholar
  11. Cain MD, Shelton MG (2001) Twenty years of natural loblolly and shortleaf pine seed production on the Crossett Experimental Forest in southeastern Arkansas. South J Appl For 25:40–45Google Scholar
  12. Carvell KL, Tryon EH (1961) The effect of environmental factors on the abundance of oak regeneration beneath mature oak stands. For Sci 7(2):98–105Google Scholar
  13. Clarke SR, Billings RF (2003) Analysis of the southern pine beetle suppression program on the national forests in Texas in the 1990s. South J Appl For 27(2):122–129Google Scholar
  14. Dale VH, Joyce LA, McNulty S, Neilson RP, Ayres MP, Flannigan MD, Hanson PJ, Irland LC, Lugo AE, Peterson CJ, Simberloff D (2001) Climate change and forest disturbances: climate change can affect forests by altering the frequency, intensity, duration, and timing of fire, drought, introduced species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, hurricanes, windstorms, ice storms, or landslides. AIBS Bull 51(9):723–734Google Scholar
  15. Dey DC, Gardiner ES, Schweitzer CJ, Kabrick JM, Jacobs DF (2012) Underplanting to sustain future stocking of oak (Quercus) in temperate deciduoud forests. New Forest 43:955–978Google Scholar
  16. Dooley E, Barlow R (2013) Special report: 2012 costs and cost trends for forestry practices in the South. Forest Landowner July/August, 22–28. Accessed 3 Nov 2017
  17. Erickson V, Aubry C, Berrang P, Blush T, Bower A, Crane B, DeSpain T, Gwaze D, Hamlin J, Horning M, Johnson R, Mahalovich M, Maldonado M, Sniezko R, St. Clair B (2012) Genetic resource management and climate change: genetic options for adapting national forests to climate change. USDA Forest Service, Forest Management, Washington, DC. Unnumbered publication. p 19. Accessed 16 Mar 2018
  18. Fox TR, Jokela EJ, Allen HL (2007) The development of pine plantation silviculture in the southern United States. J For 105(7):337–347Google Scholar
  19. Guldin JM (2006) Uneven-aged silviculture of longleaf pine. Chapter 7, p. 217–249. In: Jose S, Jokela EJ, Miller DL (eds) The longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, silviculture, and restoration. Springer, New York, p 438Google Scholar
  20. Guldin JM (2008) The silviculture of restoration: a historical perspective with contemporary application, pp 23–35. In: Deal RL, tech. ed. 2008. Integrated restoration of forested ecosystems to achieve multiresource benefits: proceedings of the 2007 national silviculture workshop. General technical report PNW-GTR-733. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, p 306Google Scholar
  21. Guldin JM (2011) Silvicultural considerations in managing southern pine stands in the context of southern pine beetle. In: Coulson RN, Klepzig KD (eds) Southern pine beetle II. General technical report SRS-140. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 317–352Google Scholar
  22. Guldin JM (2014) Adapting silviculture to a changing climate in the southern United States. In: Vose JM, Klepzig KD (eds) Climate change adaption and mitigation management options: a guide for natural resource managers in southern forest ecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 173–192Google Scholar
  23. Guldin JM (2016) Adapting silviculture to a changing climate in the southern United States. Chapter 7, pp 173–192. In: Vose JM, Klepzig KD (eds) 2013 Climate change adaptation and mitigation management options—a guide for natural resource managers in southern forest ecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 476 pGoogle Scholar
  24. Hedrick LD, Bukenhofer GA, Montague WG, Pell WF, Guldin JM (2007) Shortleaf pine-bluestem restoration in the Ouachita National Forest. In: Kabrick JM, Dey DC, Gwaze D (eds) Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks: proceedings of a symposium; 2006 November 7–9; Springfield, MO. General technical report. NRS-P-15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, pp 206–213Google Scholar
  25. Helms JA (ed) (1998) The dictionary of forestry. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, p 210Google Scholar
  26. Iverson L, Prasad A (1998) Predicting abundance of 80 tree species following climate change in the eastern United States. Ecol Monogr 68(4):465–485Google Scholar
  27. Iverson L, Prasad A, Matthews SN, Peters M (2008) Estimating potential habitat for 134 eastern US tree species under six climate scenarios. For Ecol Manag 254:390–406Google Scholar
  28. Johnson PS (1977) Predicting oak stump sprouting and sprout development in the Missouri Ozarks. Research Paper NC-149. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, p 11Google Scholar
  29. Johnson PS, Shifley SR, Rogers R (2009) The ecology and silviculture of oaks, 2nd edn. CABI Publishing Co., CAB International, New York, p 580Google Scholar
  30. Lambeth CC, Dougherty PM, Gladstone WT, McCullough RB, Well OO (1984) Large-scale planting of North Carolina loblolly pine in Arkansas and Oklahoma: a case of gain versus risk. J For 82(12):736–741Google Scholar
  31. Lambeth C, MacKeand S, Rousseau R, Schmidtling R (2005) Planting nonlocal seed sources of loblolly pine—managing benefits and risks. South J Appl For 29(1):96–104Google Scholar
  32. Ledig FT, Kitzmiller JH (1992) Genetic strategies for reforestation in the face of global climate change. For Ecol Manag 50:153–169Google Scholar
  33. Leech SM, Lara Almuedo P, O’Neill G (2011) Assisted migration: adapting forest management to a changing climate. BC J Ecosyst Manag 12(3):18–34Google Scholar
  34. Loftis DL (1990) A shelterwood method for regenerating red oak in the southern Appalachians. For Sci 36(4):917–929Google Scholar
  35. MacKeand S, Mullin T, Byram T, White T (2003) Deployment of genetically improved loblolly and slash pines in the South. J For 101(3):32–37Google Scholar
  36. Malmsheimer RW, Heffernan P, Brink S, Crandall D, Deneke F, Galik C, Gee E, Helms JA, McClure N, Mortimer M, Ruddell S, Smith M, Stewart J (2008) Forest management solutions for mitigating climate change in the United States. J For 106(3):115–173Google Scholar
  37. Masters RE, Robertson K, Palmer B, Cox J, McGorty K, Green L, Ambrose C (2007) Red Hills forest stewardship guide. Misc. Pub. 12. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, p 79Google Scholar
  38. McLachlan JS, Hellmann JJ, Schwartz MW (2007) A framework for debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conserv Biol 21(2):297–302Google Scholar
  39. McNulty S, Myers JM, Caldwell P, Sun G (2013) Chapter 3: climate change summary, pp 27–43. In: Wear DN, Greis JG (eds) 2013 The southern forest futures project: technical report. General technical report SRS-GTR-178. USDA-Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, p 542Google Scholar
  40. Monastersky RM (2013) Global carbon dioxide levels near worrisome milestone. Nature 497(7447):13–14Google Scholar
  41. Nagel LM, Palik BJ, Battaglia MA, D’Amato AW, Guldin JM, Swanston CW, Janowiak MK, Powers MP, Joyce LA, Millar CI, Peterson DL, Ganio LM, Kirschbaum C, Roske MR (2017) Adaptive silviculture for climate change—a national experiment in scientist–manager partnerships to apply an adaptation framework. J For 115(3):167–178Google Scholar
  42. O’Hara KL, Ramage BA (2013) Silviculture in an uncertain world: utilizing multi-aged management systems to integrate disturbance. Forestry 86:401–410Google Scholar
  43. Pachauri RK, Allen MR, Barros VR et al (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. In: Pachauri R, Meyer L (eds) Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC, Geneva, p 151Google Scholar
  44. Pedlar JH, McKenney DW, Aubin I, Beardmore T, Beaulieu J, Iverson L, O’Neill GA, Winder RS, Ste-Marie C (2012) Placing forestry in the assisted migration debate. Bioscience 62:835–842Google Scholar
  45. Sander IL (1971) Height growth of new oak sprouts depends on size of advance reproduction. J For 69(11):809–811Google Scholar
  46. Sander IL, Johnson PS, Rogers R (1984) Evaluating oak advance reproduction in the Missouri Ozarks. Research Paper NC-251. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, p 16Google Scholar
  47. Smith DM, Larson BC, Kelty MJ, Ashton PMS (1997) The practice of silviculture, applied forest ecology, 9th edn. Wiley, New York, p 560Google Scholar
  48. USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map (1990) Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed 3 Nov 2017
  49. USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map (2012) Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed 3 Nov 2017
  50. Vose JM, Clark JS, Luce CH, Patel-Weynand T (eds) (2016) Effects of drought on forests and rangelands in the United States: a comprehensive science synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-93b. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. Washington, DC, 289 pGoogle Scholar
  51. Wakeley PC (1954) Planting the southern pines. Agriculture monograph 18. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, p 233Google Scholar
  52. Wear DN, Greis JG (eds) (2013) The southern forest futures project: technical report. General technical report SRS-GTR-178. USDA-Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, p 542Google Scholar
  53. Williams MI, Dumroese K (2013) Preparing for climate change: forestry and assisted migration. J For 111(4):287–297Google Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceHot SpringsUSA

Personalised recommendations