A SUMMARY OF THE TIMBER RESOURCE REVIEW 



79 



up a smaller proportion of the stand following 

 cutting than before. These trends indicate that, 

 in some types at least, the more preferred species 

 are being partly replaced in the newer stands with 

 less desirable species. 



Contrasts in Productivity 



With so many variables, it is difficult to isolate 

 one particular combination that is characteristic 

 of the best condition or of the poorest. In attempt- 

 ing to identify combinations of variables repre- 

 senting relatively good conditions and those rep- 

 resenting relatively poor conditions, it is necessary 

 to consider such variables as tj^pe of ownership, 

 size of ownership, geographic location, and forest 

 type, all in relation to the proportion of recenth" 

 cut lands in various productivity classes, the acre- 

 age involved, and the number of ownerships. 



An effort has been made to select several com- 

 binations of these variables which represent both 

 relatively good and relatively poor combinations 

 from the standpoint of forest productivity. In 

 identifying relatively poor or weak areas, an effort 

 was made to select those combinations with rela- 

 tively large acreages but with small proportions 

 of recently cut lands in the upper productivity 

 class. For relatively good or strong areas, the 

 effort was likewise made to identify large acreages 

 with high proportions in the upper productivity 

 'class. Both the strong and the weak areas are 

 shown in figure 38. For both categories, some 

 combinations of variables were chosen on a na- 

 tional basis and others were on a regional or sec- 

 tional basis. For this reason, there is overlap in 

 the selections, but this is not important because 

 the purpose was to illustrate various combinations 

 of size, kind, and locality of ownership, and forest 

 type, which are significant in terms of acreage, and 

 which are outstanding with respect to either high 

 or low proportions in the upper productivity class. 



Productivity Lowest on Small Private, Farm, 

 and '^Otfier" Private Ownerships 



Small private ownerships, farm ownerships, and 

 "other" private ownerships represent large acre- 

 ages, large numbers of ownerships, but relatively 

 small proportions in the upper productivity class 

 (fig. 38). The most significant problems in these 

 categories are in the South. 



On a national basis, small private ownerships 

 with 265 million acres of commercial forest land 

 and farm ownerships with 165 million acres each 

 have about 40 percent of their recently cut lands 

 in the upper productivity class. The 4.5 million 

 small private ownerships, of course, include a 

 great many of the 3.4 million farm ownerships. 



circles indicate relotive commercial forest areas 



J^ percent of recently cut lands in upper productivity class 



WEAK AREAS 



STRONG AREAS 





SMALL PRIVATE 

 OWNERSHIPS, 

 UNITED STATES 

 265 MIL. ACRES 





FARM 



OWNERSHIPS, 

 UNITED STATES 

 165 MIL. ACRES 





■OTHER" PRIVATE- 

 OWNERSHIPS, 

 UNITED STATES 

 131 MIL. ACRES 





SMALL PRIVATE 



OWNERSHIPS, 



SOUTH 



128 MIL. ACRES 





OAK-HICKORY TYPE 

 112 MIL. ACRES 



^^a 



SMALL 



"OTHER" PRIVATE- 

 OWNERSHIPS, EAST 

 93 MIL. ACRES 



^^ 



FARM OWNERSHIPS 



UNDER 500 ACRES 



SOUTH 



72 MIL. ACRES 



^^ 



LOBLOLLY- 

 SHORTLEAF 

 PINE TYPE 

 59 MIL. ACRES 



^^ 



OAK-GUM- 

 CYPRESS TYPE 

 40 MIL. ACRES 



excluding farm and forest 

 industry ownerships 



PUBLIC 



OWNERSHIPS, 

 UNITED STATES 

 127 MIL. ACRES 



^^ 



NATIONAL FORESTS, 

 UNITED STATES 

 81 MIL. ACRES 



FOREST INDUSTRY 

 OWNERSHIPS, 

 UNITED STATES 

 62 MIL. ACRES 



LARGE PRIVATE 

 OWNERSHIPS, 

 UNITED STATES 

 58 MIL. ACRES 



LARGE 



FOREST INDUSTRY 

 OWNERSHIPS, 

 UNITED STATES 

 42 MIL. ACRES 



PONDEROSA PINE 



TYPE 



37 MIL. ACRES 



MAPLE-BEECH- 

 BIRCH TYPE 

 34 MIL. ACRES 



DOUGLAS-FIR TYPE 

 32 MIL. ACRES 



STATE AND LOCAL 

 PUBLIC 



OWNERSHIPS, NORTH 

 19 MIL. ACRES 



Figure 38 









w^ 



^^^ 



W^V 



W^w 



