Periodic Cutting of Degraded Stands

Management of Sparse Stands

For some degraded hardwood stands there is an opportunity to avoid immediate complete harvesting and to provide a source of logs and revenue in 10 to 20 years. Some degraded stands contain 20 to 40 dominant or co-dominant trees per acre that are 10-14-inches in diameter, are desirable species, and have good form and vigor. If these trees are harvested, the returns will be minimal. If the rest of the stand is cut, these trees will increase rapidly in diameter and can move into higher quality and value classes. Such a residual stand with perhaps 30 to 40 square feet of basal area could, counting in-growth, produce 150 to 200 board feet per acre per year for the next 10 years on medium or better sites (Dale 1972).

There are a number of problems in managing sparse stands. First, the residual trees must have the potential to move quickly into higher size and value categories. Epicormic sprouting may reduce the value increment for some trees. Second, there must be a means to log the mature and overmature trees and control culls without damaging the residual sparse stand. Third, smaller trees 2 to 10 inches d.b.h. should be harvested, lopped or injected. If these smaller trees are cut, regeneration can be expected to begin with moderate impact from the sparse residual overstory. Finally, there must be a means to log the sparse residual stand in 10 to 20 years. Sparse stand management should not be viewed as an overall replacement system for regenerating stands but as an option to be used only when the residual stand meets the necessary criteria. The practice, if used judiciously in conjunction with regeneration cutting on adjacent areas, can provide diversity and a deferred source of income.

Opportunistic Cutting

Removal of the best trees with no attention given to the potential of the residual stand is a major cause of degraded hardwood stands. It is called high-grading. Due to current economic conditions, many landowners are likely to continue diameter-limit cutting, high-grading, and commercial clearcuts even when they know that the treatment significantly reduces long-range productivity. These practices provide the maximum cash per unit harvested and require minimum supervision, planning, and cash outlay. So it is difficult to justify reducing current revenues or spending for cultural work when alternative investments may approach 15 to 20 percent. It is even more difficult to justify out-of-pocket expenditures that may exceed stumpage revenues. The only realistic solution for an owner who will not spend money on forest improvement is total utilization. As previously discussed, the development of markets for degraded hardwoods is essential before "stand improvement" will be attractive to some.