EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Energy analyses of forestry practices in oak pine forests and loblolly pine plantations



Energy analyses of forestry practices in oak pine forests and loblolly pine plantations



Forest Science 27(2): 365-376



Evaluation of regional management strategies for natural resources requires a common value system for measuring costs and benefits. Energy values were used to characterize and model the comparative inputs and outputs associated with mixed oak-pine forests and loblolly pine plantations in McCurtain County, Oklahoma [USA]. An energy model of the forestry industry in the county was also constructed. [The oak-pine forests are dominanted by shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), white oak (Quercus alba), post oak (Q. stellata,), blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), black hickory (Carva texana) and mockernut hickory (C. tomentosa). Expressing all types of energy as fuel equivalents (FE) permitted the calculation of energy costs for logging, land conversion and plantation maintenance. The calculated costs of logging mixed forests and pine plantations were 11.0 .times. 106 kcal FE/ha and 12.2 .times. 106 kcal FE/ha, respectively. Converting land to pine plantations required 8.2 .times. 106 kcal FE/ha, and maintaining the plantation for 30 yr required 0.03 .times. 106 kcal FE/ha. Harvested mixed-forest and pine plantation biomass amounted to 113.8 .times. 106 kcal FE/ha and 232.0 .times. 106 kcal FE/ha, respectively. The ratio of energy outputs to energy inputs was 9.0 for the mixed-forest and 9.4 for pine plantation management strategies. If solar energy is included in these ratios, the quotient was 0.31 for the mixed forest and 0.95 for the pine plantation. This 3:1 energy advantage for the pine plantation indicates the positive potential of amplifying energy subsidies while maintaining a favorable output/input energy ratio.

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 005360869

Download citation: RISBibTeXText



Related references

Influence of harvest date and silvicultural practices on the abundance and impact of pine reproduction weevils in Western Gulf loblolly pine plantations. General Technical Report Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service ( SRS-30): 565-568, 1999

Volume tables for young loblolly pine g slash pine g and longleaf pine g in plantations in south mississippi. U S Forest Service Research Note SO 102:, 1970

Ice damage to slash pine, longleaf pine, and loblolly pine plantations in the Piedmont section of Georgia. Jour Forest 40(10): 794-797, 1942

Preparing Atlantic Coastal Plain sites for loblolly pine plantations: a loblolly pine management guide. General Technical Report Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service ( SE-57): 19 pp., 1989

Southern pine g tree grades for yard and structural lumber loblolly pine g shortleaf pine g pond pine g longleaf pine g slash pine g. U S Forest Service Research Paper SE (40): 1-15, 1968

Effects of cultural practices in young loblolly pine plantations. Arkansas Farm Research 28(1): 5, 1979

Permeability of 4 species of southern pine g wood abstract slash pine g longleaf pine g loblolly pine g shortleaf pine g. Forest Products Journal: 11, 1969

Impacts of silvicultural practices in loblolly pine plantations on white-tailed deer habitat. USDA Forest Service general technical report SE United States Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: (24) 484-487, 1983

Pine utilization by deer in young loblolly pine plantations in east Texas. USDA Forest Service general technical report SE United States Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: (24) 498-503, 1983

Estimation of site index curves for loblolly pine and slash pine plantations. Journal of Korean Forestry Society 88(3): 285-291, Sept, 1999

Growth impact of pine tip moth on loblolly pine plantations in the ouachita mountains of arkansas usa. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 11(3): 128-133, 1987

Site factors and the net primary productivity of young Loblolly Pine and Slash Pine plantations. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 38(6): 968-970, 1974

Yellow-Poplar, Loblolly Pine, and Virginia Pine compared in Cumberland Plateau plantations. USDA Forest Service Research Note, Southern Forest Experiment Station (SO - 141): 6, 1972

Variation in soil organic matter in shortleaf pine and loblolly pine plantations at different tree spacings. Forestry Research Report, Department of Forestry, University of Illinois (80-2): 4, 1980