Index of Species Information

SPECIES:  Pinus taeda

Introductory

SPECIES: Pinus taeda
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Carey, Jennifer H. 1992. Pinus taeda. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [].
ABBREVIATION : PINTAE SYNONYMS : NO-ENTRY SCS PLANT CODE : PITA COMMON NAMES : loblolly pine old field pine North Carolina pine Arkansas pine TAXONOMY : The currently accepted scientific name of loblolly pine is Pinus taeda L. [40]. There are no recognized subspecies, varieties, or forms. Loblolly pine forms hybrids with shortleaf pine (P. echinata), longleaf pine (P. palustris), pitch pine (P. rigida), slash pine (P. elliottii), and pond pine (P. serotina) [3,40]. LIFE FORM : Tree FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : NO-ENTRY


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Pinus taeda
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Loblolly pine is widely distributed in the southeastern United States from southern New Jersey to central Florida and west through the Gulf States to eastern Texas.  It also occurs in southeastern Oklahoma, central Arkansas, and southern Tennessee.  It is found in the Piedmont Plateau, the Atlantic Coastal Plain, the southern extent of the Cumberland Plateau, and the Valley-and-Ridge Province of the Appalachian Highlands [3,40]. ECOSYSTEMS :    FRES12  Longleaf - slash pine    FRES13  Loblolly - shortleaf pine    FRES14  Oak - pine    FRES15  Oak - hickory    FRES16  Oak - gum - cypress STATES :      AL  AR  DE  FL  GA  HI  LA  MD  MS  NJ      NC  OK  SC  TN  TX  VA BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : NO-ENTRY KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :    K111  Oak - hickory - pine forest    K112  Southern mixed forest    K113  Southern floodplain forest    K114  Pocosin SAF COVER TYPES :     46  Eastern redcedar     70  Longleaf pine     74  Cabbage palmetto     75  Shortleaf pine     79  Virginia pine     80  Loblolly pine - shortleaf pine     81  Loblolly pine     82  Loblolly pine - hardwood     83  Longleaf pine - slash pine     85  Slash pine - hardwood     87  Sweetgum - yellow-poplar     91  Swamp chestnut oak - cherrybark oak     98  Pond pine    104  Sweetbay - swamp tupelo - redbay SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : NO-ENTRY HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : Published classifications listing loblolly pine as a dominant species in community types are presented below. Eastern deciduous forest, Vol. 1: Southeastern evergreen and   oak-pine region [58] Plant communities of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina and their   successional relations [65] The natural communities of South Carolina [67] Common overstory associates of loblolly pine include southern red oak (Quercus falcata), white oak (Q. alba), blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), post oak (Q. stellata), water oak (Q. nigra), willow oak (Q. phellos), laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), spruce pine (Pinus glabra), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), red maple (Acer rubrum), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), American elm (Ulmus americana), water hickory (Carya aquatica) and white and Carolina ash (Fraxinus americana and F. caroliniana) [3]. Common understory shrubs and trees include flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), American holly (Ilex opaca), inkberry (I. glabra), yaupon (I. vomitoria), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), southern bayberry (Myrica cerifera), pepperbush (Clethra spp.), and sumac (Rhus spp.) [3]. Common herbaceous species include bluestem (Andropogon spp.), panicum (Panicum spp.), sedges (Carex spp. and Cyperus spp.), and fennel (Eupatorium spp.) [3].

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Pinus taeda
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : Loblolly pine is the leading commercial timber species in the southeastern United States [3,7].  Three-quarters of a million acres (300,000 ha) are harvested each year for lumber and pulpwood [38].  Most harvested pines are under 50 years old [7].  After 36 years, an even-aged planted stand can yield 5,000 to 6,000 total cubic feet per acre (350-415 cu m/ha) of merchantable timber [2]. IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : Loblolly pine seeds are an important food source for birds and small mammals.  More than 20 songbirds feed on loblolly pine seeds, and the seeds make up more than half the diet of the red crossbill.  Deer and rabbit browse seedlings [59].  Loblolly pine stands provide cover and habitat for white-tailed deer, northern bobwhite, wild turkey, and grey and fox squirrels.  Old-growth loblolly pine provides nesting habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker [3]. PALATABILITY : NO-ENTRY NUTRITIONAL VALUE : NO-ENTRY COVER VALUE : NO-ENTRY VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : Because of its fast growth and good litter production, loblolly pine is used for soil stabilization [3].  Loblolly can be planted in small gullies and washes and in deeper washes if they are first stabilized with vines [59]. Loblolly is adapted to a wide range of mine spoil sites.  When used for surface mine reclamation, it should not be planted above 2,500 feet (762 m) or in soil with a pH lower than 4.0.  It does well when planted with European alder (Alnus glutinosa) and with legumes.  A loblolly pine X pitch pine hybrid is used for mine reclamation in Kentucky and West Virginia and grows faster than either parent [55].  Because surface mine reclamation regulations require herbaceous cover, ground pads can be used to reduce nearby competition in order to increase seedling growth [18]. OTHER USES AND VALUES : Loblolly pine is used for shade and as a wind and noise barrier [3]. OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Loblolly pine is often grown in even-aged plantations.  Natural regeneration of even-aged stands can be accomplished using the seed tree, shelterwood, or clearcut systems.  Successful natural regeneration depends on an adequate seed supply, a receptive seedbed, ample moisture, and reduced competition.  The seed tree system works well in the Coastal Plain where loblolly seed crops are heavy and consistent [38].  Seed tree silviculture requires 6 to 12 loblolly pine seed trees per acre with a basal area of 6 square feet per acre (1.4 sq m/ha) [2].  Seed trees should be 30 to 50 years old [59].  The shelterwood silviculture system works well in the Piedmont where seed production is more erratic. This system requires 20 to 40 seed trees per acre with a basal area of 25 to 40 square feet per acre (5.7-9.2 sq m/ha) [19].  Seed trees need only be 30 years old in the shelterwood system [7].  Seed trees in both systems should be harvested 3 to 5 years after successful regeneration [19].  Cone production can be stimulated by releasing seed trees three growing seasons before the seed is needed [3,38]. Seedbed preparation:  Loblolly germinates best on exposed mineral soil. Prescribed burning or mechanical scarification is used [3].  Seedling growth and survival rates increase with increased site preparation [20,30].  Hardwood control:  Control of competing hardwood and herbaceous species is generally considered necessary for loblolly pine regeneration [3,19]. Herbicides, fire, and mechanical chopping are used to remove hardwoods before loblolly pine regeneration.  Once established, seedlings tolerate some shade and will overtop competitors within 5 years if growth begins at the same time [12,60].  Intensive understory control throughout the life of the stand increases the growth and yield of loblolly pine. Herbaceous control is more important than hardwood control for increasing loblolly pine growth [12]. Insects:  Loblolly pine is severely attacked by the southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis).  Infestations originate in stands stressed by fire, drought, or logging.  Other insects that damage loblolly pine include pine engraver beetles (Ips spp.), pine tip moths (Rhyacionia spp.), seedling debarking weevils (Hylobius spp. and Pachylobius spp.), cone and seed feeders (Dioryctria spp. and Leptoglossus spp.), and sawflies (Neodiprion spp.) [3,7,59]. Disease:  Fusiform rust (Cronartium quercuum) is a stem disease that infects seedlings and saplings.  If the stem is girdled, the tree dies [3,7].  Removing trees with severe stem galls minimizes timber losses and improves stand quality [5].  The incidence of fusiform rust increases with an increase in seedbed preparation [30].  Planted stands have less fusiform rust incidence and associated mortality than do naturally regenerated stands [46]. Root rot (Heterobasidion annosum) infects thinned stands.  The fungus colonizes on freshly cut stumps and then spreads by root to root contact [51].  Thick litter is associated with sporophore development [25].  The disease can be prevented by treating cut stumps with borax or with the benign fungus, Peniphora gigantea [7]. Other fungal diseases include black root rot (Fusarium spp. and Macrophomina spp.), which affects seedlings, and heart rot (Phellinus pini and Phaeolus schweinitzii), which causes bole and butt rot in old trees [3]. Weather:  Loblolly pine is relatively windfirm where soils are deep, but windthrow is common on shallow soils.  Freezing temperatures cause damage and seedling mortality, especially where southern seed sources are used to establish northern stands [3,59]. Wildlife:  The endangered red-cockaded woodpecker nests in living loblolly pine with decayed heartwood.  Trees older than 75 years are most likely to develop the heart rot necessary for cavity excavation [29].  Death of old-growth loblolly pine is primarily from the southern pine beetle.  To minimize cavity tree mortality, site disturbances such as fire and logging should be limited where southern pine beetle populations are high [16]. Pollution:  Acid rain is suspected of causing an abnormal decrease in growth of loblolly pine in the past 25 years in New Jersey [31]. However, loblolly pine does not appear affected by aluminum concentrations of 1.5 millimoles per liter or less [48]. Other considerations:  Kudzu vine (Pueraria lobata) will grow on, engulf, and eventually smother even large loblolly pine [47].  Survival and growth rates of loblolly pine seedlings decrease if grown with broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus).  Broomsedge may have an allelopathic effect on loblolly pine [44].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Pinus taeda
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Loblolly pine is a medium- to large-sized native, evergreen conifer with platy bark and a long, straight, cylindrical bole.  Cones have short, stout, triangular spines.  Loblolly pine grows rapidly, and is 90 to 110 feet (27-34 m) tall and 24 to 30 inches (61-76 cm) in diameter at maturity.  Loblolly pine is a medium-lived tree [3].  It grows a 4 to 5 foot (1.2-1.5 m) taproot in deep, sandy or loamy soil, but the taproot is much shorter and stouter in clayey soil.  In large trees, the lateral root spread is often greater than the crown spread [59]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :       Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : Seed production and dissemination:  Loblolly pine is monoecious.  It produces some cones by age 12 to 18, and begins producing cone crops with high seed viability by age 25 [59].  Forty-year-old trees produce 3 to 5 times as many seeds as 25-year-old trees.  Loblolly pine is a prolific and consistent seed producer in the Coastal Plain and produces large amounts of seed every 3 to 6 years in the Piedmont.  Seed viability ranges from 15 to 100 percent [3] and averages 60 percent [59].  Cones contain an average of 45 seeds [19] but may contain anywhere from 20 to 200 seeds [3].  In a good year, a mature tree produces an average of 9,000 to 15,000 seeds [59].  Early summer drought or freezing weather at flowering time results in low cone production [38].  The winged seeds are dispersed 200 to 300 feet (61-91 m) by wind [3]. Germination and seedling development:  Seeds lay dormant on the forest floor for 4 to 8 months.  Germination is epigeal and is enhanced by bare mineral soil.  Germination takes place in March or early April [3].  No viable ungerminated seeds carry over to the next growing season [4]. Adequate soil moisture is critical to the survival of newly germinated seedlings [3,38].  Young open-grown loblolly pine grow 2 to 3 feet (0.6-0.9 m) in height annually [13]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Loblolly pine is predominantly found on Ultisols but can grow on a wide variety of soils including Entisols, Spodosols, and Altisols.  It grows best on moderately acidic soil with imperfect to poor surface drainage, thick medium-textured surface layers, and fine-textured subsoils. Loblolly pine thrives in areas with 40 to 50 inches (1,020-1,270 mm) of annual precipitation and 6 to 10 frost-free months.  Low temperatures limit its northern range and low rainfall limits its western range [59]. Loblolly pine grows on flat to mountainous terrain from 500 to 1,200 feet (150-365 m) in elevation [3]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Loblolly pine is moderately tolerant of shade when young but becomes intolerant with age.  It invades oldfields, clearcuts, and other disturbed sites.  Loblolly pine's rapid growth allows it to dominate a site early [3].  In the absence of fire, loblolly pine is replaced by climax hardwood forest.  Where fire burns on average every 10 years, loblolly pine is considered a fire subclimax [59].  It will supplant longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) where fire frequency is reduced. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : Flowering is initiated in the summer, and staminate and pistillate buds develop in the fall.  Buds remain dormant until the following spring when fertilization takes place.  The time of pollen release is variable and depends on springtime temperatures.  Cones ripen in September and October of the second season.  Seed dispersal begins in October and peaks in November.  Eighty-five percent of the seeds fall by mid-December [3,34,38,59].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Pinus taeda
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : Loblolly pine is considered fire resistant [9,56].  Mature loblolly pine survives low- to moderate-severity fires because of relatively thick bark and tall crowns.  Loblolly pine's fire resistance increases with bark thickness and tree diameter.  Young pines become resistant to low-severity fire by age 10 [59].  Needles are low in resin and not highly flammable [36].  Loblolly pine can endure some fire defoliation [9].  It is not as fire resistant as longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) or slash pine (P. elliottii) [28].  Abundant regeneration occurs on soil exposed by fire [7].  Once loblolly pine is big enough to resist fire damage, frequent summer fire will create and maintain a pine-grassland community [63]. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :    Tree without adventitious-bud root crown    Crown residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)    Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Pinus taeda
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Loblolly pines less than 5 feet (1.5 m) tall are usually killed by light fire [37,59].  Saplings up to 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter are usually killed by moderate-severity fire, and trees up to 4 inches (10 cm) in diameter are usually killed by high-severity fire.  Trees greater than 4 inches d.b.h. are rarely killed by moderate-severity fire [17]. Shade-grown saplings are susceptible to mortality from light fire because of retarded bark and height growth [59].  In general, suppressed small trees are more susceptible to fire damage and mortality than are vigorous, large trees [1,39,45,54].  Summer fires kill more trees than do winter fires [22]. Crown damage:  Crown damage generally results in more fatality than basal damage does [17,22,54,61].  Following a low-severity winter fire in a 4-year-old stand that averaged 7.3 feet (2.2 m) in height, mortality was low for seedlings that had less than 80 percent crown scorch [61].  Older trees are not very susceptible to mortality from crown scorch.  Only a small percentage of severely crown-scorched trees greater than 8 inches (20 cm) in d.b.h. were killed by a high-severity hot spot in a prescribed summer fire in Virginia [1]. Mortality is greatly increased if needles burn.  If there is 25 percent or more needle consumption in loblolly pine younger than 9 years old , 75 percent mortality can be expected [22].  If the buds are killed, the tree will not recover [59].  Crown scorch is more serious in a summer fire because there are no dormant vegetative buds [41]. Loblolly pine needles were killed instantly when immersed in water at 147 degrees Fahrenheit (64 deg C) but survived 13 minutes at 126 degrees Fahrenheit (52 deg C) [10]. Roots are normally insulated by mineral soil, but if they are exposed and burned, the tree can die [59].  Kayll [32] reported that heat tolerance of seedling roots varied, but exposure to 129 degrees Fahrenheit (54 deg C) for 5 minutes, 122 degrees F (50 deg C) for 30 minutes, or 118 degrees F (48 deg C) for 2 hours was generally lethal. If a crown fire occurs, seeds inside cones can be destroyed.  In one study [59], only 16 percent of seeds were viable in top-killed trees compared to 70 percent in uninjured trees. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : A low-severity, slow-moving fire in thick litter can cause severe basal scorch.  Such a fire in east Texas burned deep depressions in the bark of merchantable-sized loblolly pine.  Ten percent of the stand died directly from the fire or from insect infestation of fire wounds [24]. PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : The growth of young loblolly pine can be reduced by fire damage. Lightly scorched 4-year-old seedlings showed a slight loss in height growth but no loss in diameter growth [61].  In another study [39], 19-year-old loblolly pine showed no growth loss when lightly scorched, and only completely scorched trees continued to have growth loss 3 years after the fire [39]. Loblolly pine seeds will germinate on soil exposed by fire [3].  If crown scorch occurs in the winter, foliage is usually replaced by surviving dormant vegetative buds [41]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : Contrary to other findings, growth after a prescribed fire in Louisiana was greater in trees with one-third or less crown scorch than in trees with no crown scorch [54].  In effect, the fire pruned the lower branches, which have low photosynthetic efficiency. Loblolly pine growth may be more sensitive to the amount of soil moisture available early in the growing season than it is to fire damage [41]. FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Prescribed fire is used in loblolly pine stands for seedbed preparation, hardwood control, fuel reduction, and thinning.  Unless thinning of seedlings is desired, stands should not be burned before they are large enough to withstand injury.  To avoid crown scorch, loblolly pine should be 10 to 15 years old, 15 to 20 feet (4.6-6.1 m) tall, and have a bark thickness of 0.3 to 0.4 inch (0.8-1.0 cm) before being burned for the first time [2,7,41,37,59,65].  To avoid mortality but not crown scorch, trees smaller than 8 feet (2.4 m) tall or less than 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter at groundline should not be burned [11].  The first fire is difficult because of excess fuel build-up and danger to young pines.  A backfire should be used in cool weather and high moisture conditions. Hardwood control:  Hardwoods smaller than 4 inches (10 cm) in diameter can usually be controlled by frequent fire [62].  Hardwood recovery takes 5 to 10 years, depending on the site quality.  Using prescribed fire every 5 years or when 25 percent of the largest hardwood stems are approaching 1 inch (2.5 cm) in diameter is recommended [41,42]. A single winter fire is effective at controlling 1-inch-diameter (2.5 cm) hardwoods [41]; periodic winter fires can control hardwoods up to 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter; and a summer fire can control hardwoods up to 4 inches (10 cm) in diameter [59].  Although prescribed burns are usually conducted during winter to avoid injury to loblolly pine, summer burning is a more effective control of hardwood competition [23]. Twenty years of annual summer burning completely eradicated hardwoods from a loblolly pine forest in South Carolina [62,63].  However, a series of annual winter fires will not eradicate hardwoods because root stocks are not killed.  Three annual summer fires at mid-rotation, followed by periodic winter fires may be an effective means of hardwood control [42].  Infrequent low-severity surface fires may speed up succession to hardwoods by increasing the number of hardwood sprouts [14]. Seedbed preparation:  A low-severity summer prescribed fire, approximately 1 month before seedfall, is the most effective seedbed preparation [19,41,42,57].  If only a winter fire is used, hardwoods have an entire growing season before loblolly pine seedfall [41,57].  A winter fire 1 to 2 years prior to a summer fire is suggested to reduce fuel buildup.  A winter fire, followed by three annual summer fires just before harvest, was very effective [52].  Brown and burn treatments have also proven effective [6]. Thinning:  Prescribed burning has been used successfully to thin young loblolly pine stands.  However, the forest manager risks damaging the entire stand and reducing the growth rate.  A prescribed fire in South Carolina resulted in a 58 percent reduction in stems per acre and near 0 percent mortality in 1 inch (2.5 cm) diameter and larger saplings [61]. Thinning with fire should only be done in stands with a wide range of diameters [45]. Disease and insects:  In the Coastal Plain, prescribed burning before and after thinning reduced infection by root rot (Heterobasidion annosum).  The fire destroyed litter which is associated with sporophore development of H. annosum.  A fungal competitor (Trichloderma spp.) increased in the soil after burning and may have contributed to the reduced infection [25]. Fire wounds 4 to 6 inches (10-15 cm) wide and larger can result in cull from fungi, insect action, or high amounts of resin [26].  The black turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus terebrans) attacked trees with fire wounds in east Texas [24]. Nutrients:  It is unclear whether prescribed fire on loblolly pine sites will increase or decrease the available nitrogen.  Fire volatilizes nitrogen in the soil, and repeated burning on infertile sites may limit productivity [33].  However, decomposition of burned material increases the available nitrogen content of soil.  Consequently, light prescribed fire may be a low-cost alternative to fertilizer [50,64].

FIRE CASE STUDIES

SPECIES: Pinus taeda
FIRE CASE STUDY CITATION : Carey, Jennifer H., compiler. 1992. Hardwood control for loblolly pine seedbed preparation in Georgia. In: Pinus taeda. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ []. REFERENCE : Brender, Ernst V.; Cooper, Robert W. 1968. Prescribed burning in Georgia's Piedmont loblolly pine stands. Journal of Forestry. 66(1): 31-36. [8]. SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION : Summer strip head fire/low- to moderate-severity Summer backfire/low-severity Winter strip head fire/low- to moderate-severity Winter backfire/low-severity STUDY LOCATION : The study was conducted in the Hitchiti Experimental Forest near Macon, Georgia, in the rolling hills of the lower Piedmont. PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY : The overstory consisted of 100 square feet basal area per acre (23 sq m/ha) of 40-year-old loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).  Small understory hardwoods included flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), and winged elm (Ulmus alata).  There were 750 small hardwoods per acre (1,850/ha) from 0.6 to 6.5 inches (1.5-16.5 cm) in diameter and approximately 5,000 smaller stems per acre (12,000/ha).  Hardwoods made up 22 square feet basal area per acre (5 sq m/ha). TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE : NO-ENTRY SITE DESCRIPTION : The terrain was gently rolling with 10 to 20 percent slope.  Litter accumulation was 4 to 8 tons per acre (9-18 metric tons/ha) of which approximately 10 to 45 percent was hardwood litter.  The humus type was shallow duff-mull. FIRE DESCRIPTION : Twenty plots of 1.5 acres (0.6 ha) each were randomly assigned to 5 different treatments:  summer backfire, summer strip head fire, winter backfire, winter strip head fire, and no fire.  Backfires were run down slope and head fires up slope.  A complete stand inventory by species and 1 inch (2.5 cm) diameter classes, a tally of stems less than 0.6 inches (1.5 cm) on 15 milacre quadrants, and litter fuel weights and moisture were taken before and after the fire.  The following fire-weather measurements were taken:  wind direction and speed, air temperature, relative humidity, rate of flame spread, flame length, depth of fire front, and time-temperature relationships at 1- and 4-foot (0.3-1.2 m) heights.  Soil erosion and seedling regeneration in milacre quadrants were evaluated after the fire.  Each plot was further subdivided for repeat fires.  The repeat fire data will not be discussed here because of difficulties and inconsistencies encountered with the fires. The following tables present fire data: fire            rate of spread   litter consumption   energy release                    ft/min             percent          Btu/min/ft winter back          1.4                 38              1232 summer back          1.2                 46              1200 winter strip         8.8                 40              8448 summer strip        10.0                 53             11200 fire                temperature       duration                       deg. C            winter strip-1 ft      255            24 seconds above 200 degrees winter strip-4 ft      130            43 seconds above 100 degrees summer strip-1 ft      480            22 seconds above 400 degrees summer strip-4 ft      220            27 seconds above 200 degrees FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES : Summer fires top-killed more hardwoods than winter fires.  The following table shows the percentage of hardwoods top-killed by summer and winter fires: d.b.h. class    summer kill    winter kill   inches          percent        percent      1              96             73      2              64             73      3              33             12      4              18              7      5              15              8      6              13              0 There was no significant difference in percent hardwoods top-killed between backfires and strip head fires. Fuel consumption was greater in the summer than in the winter. Loblolly pine seedlings were more abundant and better distributed on burned plots than unburned plots.  Seedlings were also more abundant on plots burned in the summer than in the winter.  The percent milacre stocking of seedlings was 57 percent on the control, 77 percent on the winter fire plots, and 90 percent on the summer fire plots. Soil erosion was minimal, and no difference was found between season or method of burning. FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS : A single strip fire in the summer is the best method for removing hardwoods and preparing an adequate seedbed.  Although there were no significant differences between head strip fires and backfires, head strip fires were cheaper and easier to control.  A summer strip fire should only be conducted, however, if fuel accumulation is less than 10 tons per acre (22 metric tons/ha).  Optimum summer fire conditions were a litter moisture content of 10 to 20 percent, a relative humidity of 20 to 60 percent, and a steady wind speed of 1 to 5 miles per hour (1.6-8 km/h).

REFERENCES

SPECIES: Pinus taeda
REFERENCES :  1.  Allen, Peter H. 1960. Scorch and mortality after a summer burn in        loblolly pine. Res. Note No. 144. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 2        p.  [12256]  2.  Baker, James B. [n.d.]. Alternative silvicultural systems -- south. In:        Silvicultural challenges and opportunities in the 1990's: Proceedings of        the National Silvicultural Workshop; 1989 July 10-13; Petersburg, AK.        Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Timber        Management: 51-60.  [15024]  3.  Baker, James B.; Langdon, O. Gordon. 1990. Pinus taeda L.  loblolly        pine. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical        coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric.        Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service: 497-512.  [13410]  4.  Barnett, James P.; McGilvray, John M. 1991. Carry-over of loblolly pine        seeds on cutover forest sites. Tree Planters' Notes. 42(4): 17-18.        [17653]  5.  Belanger, Roger P.; Zarnoch, Stanley J. 1991. Evaluating and predicting        tree mortality associated with fusiform rust in merchantable slash and        loblolly pine plantations. In: Coleman, Sandra S.; Neary, Daniel G.,        compilers. Proceedings, 6th biennial southern silvicultural research        conference: Volume 1; 1990 October 30 - November 1; Memphis, TN. Gen.        Tech. Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 289-298.  [17483]  6.  Bramlett, Dave L.; Jones, Earle P., Jr.; Wade, Dale D. 1991. Herbicide        and burn site preparation in the Georgia Piedmont. In: Coleman, Sandra        S.; Neary, Daniel G., compilers. Proceedings, 6th biennial southern        silvicultural research conference: Volume 1; 1990 October 30 - November        1; Memphis, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station:        138-146.  [17472]  7.  Brender, Ernst V.; Belanger, Roger P.; Malac, Barry F. 1981. Loblolly        pine. In: Choices in silviculture for American forests. Washington, DC:        Society of American Foresters: 37-45.  [6527]  8.  Brender, Ernst V.; Cooper, Robert W. 1968. Prescribed burning in        Georgia's Piedmont loblolly pine stands. Journal of Forestry. 66(1):        31-36.  [11000]  9.  Brown, Arthur A.; Davis, Kenneth P. 1973. Forest fire control and use.        2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 686 p.  [15993] 10.  Byram, G. M.; Nelson, R. M. 1952. Lethal temperatures and fire injury.        Res. Note No. 1. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service,Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 2 p.  [16317] 11.  Cain, Michael D. 1985. Prescribed winter burns can reduce the growth of        nine-year-old loblolly pines. Res. Note SO-312. New Orleans, LA: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment        Station. 4 p.  [11580] 12.  Cain, Michael D. 1991. Hardwoods on pine sites: competition or        antagonistic symbiosis. Forest Ecology and Management. 44: 147-160.        [16957] 13.  Chapman, H. H. 1947. How to grow loblolly pine instead of inferior        hardwoods. In: Proceedings, 1947 Society of American Foresters annual        meeting; 1947 December 17-20; Minneapolis, MN. Washington, DC: Society        of American Foresters: 347-353.  [11582] 14.  Christensen, Norman L. 1981. Fire regimes in southeastern ecosystems.        In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others],        technical coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties:        Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen.        Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service: 112-136.  [4391] 15.  Christensen, Norman L. 1988. Vegetation of the southeastern Coastal        Plain. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North        American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:        317-363.  [17414] 16.  Conner, Richard N.; Rudolph, D. Craig; Kulhavy, David L.; Snow, Ann E.        1991. Causes of mortality of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees.        Journal of Wildlife Management. 55(3): 531-537.  [16319] 17.  Cooper, Robert W.; Altobellis, Anthony T. 1969. Fire kill in young        loblolly pine. Fire Control Notes. 30(4): [Pages unknown].  [11584] 18.  Davidson, Walter H. 1989. First-year evaluation of excelsior pads on        loblolly pine. In: Walker, D. G.; Powter, C. B.; Pole, M. W., compilers.        Reclamation, a global perspective: Proceedings of the conference; 1989        August 27-31; Calgary, AB. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Land Conservation and        Reclamation Council: 339-343.  [14348] 19.  Edwards, M. Boyd. 1987. Natural regeneration of loblolly pine. Gen.        Tech. Rep. SE-47. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 17 p.  [11590] 20.  Edwards, M. Boyd; Shiver, Barry D. 1991. Evaluation of six        site-preparation treatments on growth and survival of loblolly pine in        the Georgia Piedmont. In: Coleman, Sandra S.; Neary, Daniel G.,        compilers. Proceedings, 6th biennial southern silvicultural research        conference: Volume 1; 1990 October 30 - November 1; Memphis, TN. Gen.        Tech. Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 147-154.  [17473] 21.  Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and        Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p.  [905] 22.  Ferguson, Edwin R. 1955. Fire-scorched trees - will they live or die?.        In: Modern forest fire management in the south: Proceedings, 4th annual        forestry symposium; 1955 April 6-7; Baton Rouge, LA. Baton Rouge, LA:        Louisiana State University, General Extension Division, School of        Forestry: 102-113.  [11592] 23.  Ferguson, E. R. 1957. Stem-kill and sprouting following prescribed fires        in a pine-hardwood stand in Texas. Journal of Forestry. 55: 426-429.        [13827] 24.  Ferguson, E. R.; Gibbs, C. B.; Thatcher, R. C. 1960. "Cool" burns and        pine mortality. Fire Control Notes. 21(1): 27-29.  [11776] 25.  Froelich, R. C.; Hodges, C. S., Jr.; Sackett, S. S. 1978. Prescribed        burning reduces severity of annosus root rot in the South. Forest        Science. 24: 93-100.  [8332] 26.  Garren, Kenneth H. 1941. Fire wounds on loblolly pine and their relation        to decay and other cull. Journal of Forestry. 39: 16-22.  [16314] 27.  Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].        1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range        ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p.  [998] 28.  Hare, Robert C. 1965. Contribution of bark to fire resistance of        southern trees. Journal of Forestry. 63(4): 248-251.  [9915] 29.  Hooper, Robert G.; Lennartz, Michael R.; Muse, H. David. 1991. Heart rot        and cavity tree selection by red-cockaded woodpeckers. Journal of        Wildlife Management. 55(2): 323-327.  [14965] 30.  Hunt, Ron; Cleveland, Glenn. 1978. Cultural treatments affect growth,        volume, and survival of sweetgum, sycamore, and loblolly pine. Southern        Journal of Applied Forestry. 2(2): 55-59.  [10633] 31.  Johnson, A. H.; Siccama, T. G.; Wang, D.; [and others]. 1981. Recent        changes in patterns of tree growth rate in the New Jersey pinelands: a        possible effect of acid rain. Journal of Environmental Quality. 10(4):        427-430.  [8633] 32.  Kayll, A. J. 1968. Heat tolerance of tree seedlings. In: Proceedings,        annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1968 March 14-15;        Tallahassee, FL. No. 8. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station:        89-105.  [17849] 33.  Kodama, H. E.; Van Lear, D. H. 1980. Prescribed burning and nutrient        cycling relationships in young loblolly pine plantations. Southern        Journal of Applied Forestry. 4(3): 118-121.  [6344] 34.  Krugman, Stanley L.; Jenkinson, James L. 1974. Pinaceae--pine family.        In: Schopmeyer, C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in        the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service: 598-637.  [1380] 35.  Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation        of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:        American Geographical Society. 77 p.  [1384] 36.  Landers, J. Larry. 1991. Disturbance influences on pine traits in the        southeastern United States. In: Proceedings, 17th Tall Timbers fire        ecology conference; 1989 May 18-21; Tallahassee, FL. Tallahassee, FL:        Tall Timbers Research Station: 61-95.  [17601] 37.  Langdon, O. Gordon. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on timber        species in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. In: Prescribed burning        symposium: Proceedings; 1971 April 14-16; Charleston, SC. Asheville, NC:        U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest        Experiment Station: 34-44.  [10420] 38.  Langdon, O. Gordon. 1979. Natural regeneration of loblolly pine. In:        Proceedings of the National siviculture workshop. Theme: The shelterwood        regeneration method; 1979 September 17-21; Charleston, SC. Washington,        D. C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Division of        Timber Management: 101-116.  [11662] 39.  Lilieholm, Robert J.; Hu, Shih-Chang. 1987. Effect of crown scorch on        mortality and diameter growth of 19-year-old loblolly pine. Southern        Journal of Applied Forestry. 11(4): 209-211.  [11620] 40.  Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native        and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p.  [2952] 41.  Lotti, Thomas. 1959. The use of fire in the management of Coastal Plain        loblolly pine. In: Proceedings, Society of American Foresters annual        meeting; 1959; San Francisco, CA. Bethesda, MD: Society of American        Foresters: 18-20.  [11614] 42.  Lotti, Thomas; Klawitter, Ralph A.; LeGrande, W. P. 1960. Prescribed        burning for understory control in loblolly pine stands of the coastal        plain. Station Pap. No. 116. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 19        p.  [15417] 43.  Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession        following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall        Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council        fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.        14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373.  [1496] 44.  McDonald, Philip M. 1986. Grasses in young conifer        plantations--hindrance and help. Northwest Science. 60(4): 271-278.        [3982] 45.  McNab, W. Henry. 1977. An overcrowded loblolly pine stand thinned with        fire. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 1(1): 24-26.  [10648] 46.  McNab, W. Henry; Miller, Thomas; Brender, Ernst V. 1990. Growth and        fusiform rust responses of Piedmont loblolly pine after several site        preparation and regeneration methods. Southern Journal of Applied        Forestry. 14(1): 18-24.  [11007] 47.  Michael, J. L. 1986. Pine regeneration with simultaneous control of        kudzu. In: Proceedings, 39th Southern Weed Society: 282-288.  [15901] 48.  Raynal, D. J.; Joslin, J. D.; Thornton, F. C.; [and others]. 1990.        Sensitivity of tree seedling to aluminum: III. Red spruce and loblolly        pine. Journal of Environmental Quality. 19(2): 180-187.  [11732] 49.  Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant        geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p.  [2843] 50.  Schoch, Peter; Binkley, Dan. 1986. Prescribed burning increases nitrogen        availability in a mature loblolly pine stand. Forest Ecology and        Management. 14: 13-22.  [8676] 51.  Stambaugh, William J. 1989. Annosus root disease in Europe and the        southeastern United States: occurrence, research, and historical        perspective. In: Otrosina, William J.; Scharpf, Robert F., technical        coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on research and management of        annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum) in western North America;        1989 April 18-21; Monterey, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-116. Berkeley, CA:        U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest        and Range Experiment Station: 3-9.  [11337] 52.  Trousdell, Kenneth B. 1970. Disking and prescribed burning: sixth-year        residual effects on loblolly pine and competing vegetation. Asheville,        NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest        Experiment Station. 6 p.  [10190] 53.  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.        National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.        SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p.  [11573] 54.  Villarrubia, Charles R.; Chambers, Jim L. 1978. Fire: its effects on        growth and survival of loblolly pine, Pinus taeda L. Louisiana Academy        of Sciences. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University; 41: 85-93.        [13812] 55.  Vogel, Willis G. 1981. A guide for revegetating coal minespoils in the        eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-68. Broomall, PA: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest        Experiment Station. 190 p.  [15577] 56.  Wade, Dale D. 1985. Survival in young loblolly pine plantations        following wildfire. In: Proceedings, 8th conference on fire and forest        meteorology; 1985 April 29 - May 2; Detroit, MI. Bethesda, MD: Society        of American Foresters: 52-57.  [11599] 57.  Wade, Dale; Edwards, M. Boyd; Weise, David R. 1991. Preharvest seedbed        preparation options to enhance loblolly pine regeneration. In: Coleman,        Sandra S.; Neary, Daniel G., compilers. Proceedings, 6th biennial        southern silvicultural research conference: Volume 1; 1990 October 30 -        November 1; Memphis, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S.        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest        Experiment Station: 171-185.  [17476] 58.  Waggoner, Gary S. 1975. Eastern deciduous forest, Vol. 1: Southeastern        evergreen and oak-pine region. Natural History Theme Studies No. 1, NPS        135. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park        Service. 206 p.  [16103] 59.  Wahlenberg, W. G. 1960. Loblolly pine, its use, ecology, regeneration,        protection, growth and management. Durham, NC: Duke University, School        of Forestry. 603 p.  [17848] 60.  Waldrop, Thomas A. 1991. Pine-hardwood regeneration in small openings        for uneven-aged management. In: Coleman, Sandra S.; Neary, Daniel G.,        compilers. Proceedings, 6th biennial southern silvicultural research        conference: Volume 1; 1990 October 30 - November 1; Memphis, TN. Gen.        Tech. Rep. SE-70.. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 398-408.  [17487] 61.  Waldrop, Thomas A.; Lloyd, F. Thomas. 1988. Precommercial thinning a        sapling-sized loblolly pine stand with fire. Southern Journal of Applied        Forestry. 12(3): 203-207.  [11595] 62.  Waldrop, Thomas A.; Van Lear, David H.; Lloyd, F. Thomas; Harms, William        R. 1987. Long-term studies of prescribed burning in loblolly pine        forests of the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-45.        Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 23 p.  [11596] 63.  Waldrop, Thomas A.; White, David L.; Jones, Steven M. 1992. Fire regimes        for pine-grassland communities in the southeastern United States. Forest        Ecology and Management. 47: 195-210.  [17763] 64.  Webb, Bobby G.; Messina, Michael G.; Guldin, James M. 1991. Effects of        prescribed burning and varying basal areas on nitrogen mineralization in        an east Texas pine forest. In: Coleman, Sandra S.; Neary, Daniel G.,        compilers. Proceedings, 6th biennial southern silvicultural    .x        research conference: Volume I.; 1990 October 30 - November 1; Memphis,        TN. Gen. Tech. Re. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,        Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 418-430.        [17491] 65.  Wells, B. W. 1928. Plant communities of the Coastal Plain of North        Carolina and their successional relations. Ecology. 9(2): 230-242.        [9307] 66.  Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States        and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p.  [2620] 67.  Nelson, John B. 1986. The natural communities of South Carolina.        Columbia, SC: South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Department. 54        p.  [15578]


FEIS Home Page