Intensive timber management is not appropriate everywhere. For example, many nonindustrial landowners may prefer less intensive management, because they are unwilling to bear the risks of longterm investments, or they desire amenities that result from structurally diverse, mixedspecies stands.
This report presents the results of financial analyses of intensive and lowcost reforestation options for two timber types in the United States: loblolly pine stands with hardwood competition in the South and Douglasfir and red alder stands in the Pacific Northwest. Results show that the economic returns of lowcost options that result in mixtures of conifers and hardwoods are superior, in some situations, to the economic returns of the intensive options.
Highlights include the following:
Haight, Robert G. 1993. Technology change and the economics of silvicultural investment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM232. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 18 p.