70 



TIMBER RESOURCES FOR AMERICAS FUTURE 



are many reasons for this expected increase, in- 

 cluding better machines for planting, increased 

 interest in planting especially by industrial groups, 

 and better nursery stock. To meet these expected 

 increased planting rates, and also to allow for higher 

 planting standards in the future, planting in lieu 

 of natural regeneration, interplanting on areas 10- 

 percent or better stocked, and Soil Bank planting, 

 will require an average annual output of nursery 

 stock of at least one billion trees. This would be 

 more than double the 1952 production of 462 

 million. 



Despite increases in the planting rate during 

 the past 25 years and expected additional increases 

 in the future, it is important to recall that only 

 400 thousand acres of acceptable plantations 

 resulted from the 1952 planting effort in contrast 

 to the 52 million acres that still needed planting 

 at the end of the year. This was less than 1 

 percent of the total need (fig. 34). Even with this 

 rate doubled as is expected, it would take many 

 years to cover the plantable area, and would mean 

 substantial areas of land lying idle for a long time. 



In summary, the planting situation boils down 

 to: (1) About 52 million acres need planting; 



(2) acceptable plantations total about 5 million 

 acres or one-tenth of the area in need of planting. 

 This means that 90 percent of the job lies ahead. 



(3) Although planting trends are distinctly up- 

 ward, it will take many years to get caught up; 

 and (4) completion of the job holds promise of 

 adding substantially to future growth. 



Productivity of Recently Cut Lands 



Tlie condition in wliich the forest is left after 

 cutting greatly influences subsequent growth. 

 From 2 to 4 percent of the commercial forest land 

 has been cut over annually in recent years. Except 

 for the cut that comes from the 50 million acres of 

 old growth in tlie West and Coastal Alaska, 

 current output of forest products comes from 

 previously cutover lands. All of the eastern 

 commercial forests have been cut over at one time 

 or another with the exception of a few remnants. 

 It follows, therefore, that condition of the land and 

 residual timber stand resulting from cutting is an 

 important factor affecting both current and future 

 growth. 



The greatest utility of a survey of forest pro- 

 ductivity on recently cut lands is the identifica- 

 tion of areas bj' size and kind of o\vnership, local- 

 ity, and forest type that are strong or weak from 

 the standpoint of growth prospects. The survey 

 identifies those areas that meet certain standards 

 of productivity, and areas that are better or 

 poorer than those standards, and it indicates 

 wherein lie the possibihties for greatest improve- 

 ment in future growth. 



Productivity of recently cut forest lands as 

 determined in the Timber Resource Review is 



400 











1 













/ 



r 



s 300 







acres per ye 

 plantations 



o 

 o 





y 



S 





/ 



lousands of 

 acceptable 





/ 









r 











1926 



'29 '30 



'34 '35 



'39 '40 



PERIOD 



'44 '45 



'49 '50 



•52 



Figure 33 



based upon a detailed field sampling survey of 

 recently cut lands in all kinds of o^vnerships in all 

 parts of the country. The field survey was a 

 highly technical and complex job. It is described 

 in detail in the section on Productivity of Recently 

 Cut Lands and in those parts of the appendix 

 which discuss adequacy of data and the criteria 

 for rating productivity. 



State and privately emploj'ed foresters con- 

 tributed a great deal not only in execution of the 

 survey itself but also in developing the individual 

 productivity criteria for various forest types and 

 localities. Over 40 percent of all cooperative 

 assistance received in comiection with the Timber 

 Resource Review, or the equivalent of more than 

 $215,000, was made available for the productivity 

 survey. Field examiners w^ere denied access to 

 only six ownerships, aggregating 1.5 million acres. 

 This is the second nationwide survey of this 

 general charactei — the first being undertaken in 

 1945 by the Forest Service. There have been six- 

 other more localized surveys of this general char- 

 actei sponsored by industry, State, or Federal 

 groups, all of which have differed in scope and 

 design. 



Results of this productivity survey of recently 

 cut lands cannot be compared with the results of 

 the cutting practices study of the 1945 Reap- 

 praisal. At the outset, there was a choice of 

 doing the survey exactl}'^ the same way as in 1945 

 in order to get the best possible trend indications, 

 or of making changes to take advantage of more 

 recent experience and advances in technical knowl- 

 edge. The latter choice was followed, recognizing 

 at the time that it would sacrifice comparability 

 and the possibility of identifying trends. Prob- 

 ably the best comparison that might be made is 



