Tree ?

[Sprangletop1]

like everything but red maple (they are fast growing and heavy seeders) . If you are planting in fish ponds, lean toward the nuttalls over the willows. R

[Wingman]

Nuttall gte 80%
Willow Oak lte 10%
Overcup lte 2%
Persimmon lte 2%
Bitter Pecan lte 1%
Sugarberry lte 1%
Red Maple lte 1%
Green Ash gte 3%

Man, I know you have forgotten way more about this stuff than I could ever learn, but explain to me why only 1% of some of those is what you recommend?

Is it because they won't survive, or because I'll get some of them naturally anyway and don't need to plant as many?

I'm just thinking about some soft mast species like the persimmon and sugarberry and some alternative hard mast species like the bitter pecan would be good to have more of.

Just wondering.

Thanks to all for your advice.

[ScottyLee]

Two things:
(1) to hardwood afforestation a human lifetime or career is just a blink of the eye. It's a process that takes millenia, and the sticking of trees in the ground is a mere beginning. The effort at large misses this point I think.
(2) It is more important that, at inception, ecologically-significant species be established. Ultimately, species stocking can and will be reconciled through future timber harvests.

very very good points. I would agree as well with if there is some of these trees that are already in your area, they will be there naturally. no sense in planting them, knowing they will come with time.

this is a helluva project wingman. it'll take MANY A YEARS to see the longterm effects but, if you manage it properly then it will be a nice finished project.

[Sprangletop1]

I would plant the Willows and Nuttalls at a rate that would make up 50% of total trees. These oaks produce acorn that are easily ingested by all critters from feather to fur. Remember your nuttalls can handle wetter soils than willows. Stay away from Maple, they can become quite noxious. I would say bump your bitter pecan up to 5%. I like the Sugarberry, I think it is a often over looked tree. How come no Cypress?R

[Wingman]

I've got two ponds that will be part cypress and part moist soil. Maybe a few cypress in scour holes in other ponds.

My forester is suggesting about 60% nuttall and about 15% overcup, with a few willow oak and persimmon(but he agreed with yall that persimmon would come anyway) planted on the side slopes. I was thinking about making up the rest with sugarberry and bitter pecan. Then putting some sawtooth and swamp chestnut in select locations in my spare time.

Maybe
Nuttall 60%
Overcup 15%
Willow 5%
Bitter pecan 10%
Sugarberry 5%
Persimmon 5%

[Double R 2]

I'd plant the 1%-ish rates primarily so that the landowner is happy that desired species are represented Truthfully, if it were mine, I'd go wall to wall Nuttall with about 15% green ash spread equitably across the area with the remainder comprised of minimum-acceptable amounts of additional species necessary to comply with the multiple-species regs. But I sincerely understand and respect entirely the ideals of landowners who have a personal and emotional stake in land; land is like that, it should be no other way.

In my experience, completely ancedotal, bitter pecan and sugarberry are tough. The 1 year-old bare-roots seedlings I've seen had big root systems and small stems, which is perfect, but if planters prune the roots (and they will) your left with small stems and small roots - a poor combination for survivability. And if there's a slower grower than bitter pecan, I've not seen it.

Likely, Nuttall will perform as well as overcup, is a fast-grower and excellent species in terms of both merchantability and wildlife utilization. IMHO, merchantability is very important from the persective of long-term productivity by any standard of measure (wildlife, timber-derived income, aesthetics) and similarly, future forest harvesting (management).

Sight-unseen, I figured 1% at about 1 bag total project. That might hasten species representation, but shouldn't compromise the total planting effort with poor survival. I favor inclusion of site-suitable fast-growers like red maple (and green ash) to "capture" the site by shading herbaceous relatively quickly, to provide soft-mast (samaras) and to provide what I think may be preferable conditions for oak establishement and more immediate wildlife utilization, especially of song birds. Red maple (and boxelder and American sycamore) are among 3 species documented as providing nest cavities the soonest. It's got great survivability and I liked to plant it. Way down the road when those perfect greentree reservoir conditions exist, water management and leaf substrate, for invertebrates, will be equally as important as acorns. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

[Wingman]

Well, when you put it like that...

[Wingman]

Thanks again to everyone for their input. I am going to do what I want to anyway...just kidding.

We finished disking and ripping the other half of the place yesterday. I've got willows out there that are chest high after only 3-4 months after being drained. They didn't all disk up, so I have a feeling between this year's trees and the willows that will subsequently blow in while the soils are saturated in the spring, I'm going to have plenty of shade for the oaks.

I think I'm going to go:

Nuttall 50%
Willow 10%
Overcup 10%
Bitter Pecan 10%
Sugarberry 10%
Red Maple 5%
Persimmon 5%


Some ponds stay wetter/ drain more slowly than others. I think I will stick to nuttall and overcup and maybe a few bitter pecan in these and with the ponds that drain a little better, plant the full mixture.

Y'all check back with me in 2040 and we'll go hunt some ducks in the timber.

[Bercy]

Question for those same folks piggybacking on this one but moving down the road a few years on a WRP property:

WRP properties go through a planting/grass/young tree stage and into the years 8-15 range where there is good cover/browse and maybe starting to produce some acorns. After 15 years or so, the WRP trees appear to canopy and block out nearly everything.

Question -> Has any one dealt with selectively thinning WRP trees to open it up for browse/cover, and if so how and with what results? Any other thoughts on managing WRP tracts? (I know you would have to go through NRCS for any cutting, etc., but wanted to know if anyone was at that stage with their WRP property).

Thanks.

[SWAG]

Question for those same folks piggybacking on this one but moving down the road a few years on a WRP property:

WRP properties go through a planting/grass/young tree stage and into the years 8-15 range where there is good cover/browse and maybe starting to produce some acorns. After 15 years or so, the WRP trees appear to canopy and block out nearly everything.

Question -> Has any one dealt with selectively thinning WRP trees to open it up for browse/cover, and if so how and with what results? Any other thoughts on managing WRP tracts? (I know you would have to go through NRCS for any cutting, etc., but wanted to know if anyone was at that stage with their WRP property).

Thanks.

Think this is a good question and a scenario we are getting ready to see a lot of in the Delta. Will be interesting to see how it will be dealt with. i assume alot of it will be left alone and let the trees compete it out among theirselves.

[novacaine]

Question for those same folks piggybacking on this one but moving down the road a few years on a WRP property:

WRP properties go through a planting/grass/young tree stage and into the years 8-15 range where there is good cover/browse and maybe starting to produce some acorns. After 15 years or so, the WRP trees appear to canopy and block out nearly everything.

Question -> Has any one dealt with selectively thinning WRP trees to open it up for browse/cover, and if so how and with what results? Any other thoughts on managing WRP tracts? (I know you would have to go through NRCS for any cutting, etc., but wanted to know if anyone was at that stage with their WRP property).

Thanks.

Think this is a good question and a scenario we are getting ready to see a lot of in the Delta. Will be interesting to see how it will be dealt with. i assume alot of it will be left alone and let the trees compete it out among theirselves.

This has been my concern since i saw my first 100% stand on a Forest Service tract down at Delta National back in the 90's. It looks like a spooky dark un-natural canopied biological desert to me. I realize it is in a transition phase and maybe i cant see the big picture(Im not a forester or biologist but a hydraulic engineer). I have always told my buddies that have wrp or crp that if i were mine(off the record because i was previously an NRCS employee) i would accidentaly mow or disk down some areas thru the trees while doing road maintenance, food plot, and moist soil area work. You can look around the delta and see these tracts that have 85%-99% survival that were planted in the late 90's. They look entirely to thick to me(my opinion). I know that getting a stand established is the primary point but what is wrong with 150 trees/acre as opposed to 312/acre. Anything less than 150 trees/acre is considered a failed stand by USDA/MS Forestry Commission on crp tracts but the failed stands that i have seen on crp look pretty dang good to me. I know its hard to deliver a national program to meet all resource needs in conjunction with landowner wants but i would like to have the ability at the local (nrcs)/landowner level to tweek a management plan that has a reduced planting density. This is my 2 cents............this subject has been discussed for years by many at the state and national level within NRCS and other org. and still nothing has changed.

[Wingman]

The 302/acre (12x12) spacing is actually what is recommended for "wildlife" plantings. The "timber" number (10x10) is 435/ acre.

But I agree. I have a friend who planted about 200 acres in the early 90's. The best trees on the place have just started producing acorns in the last 2 or 3 years. In the thickest parts, you can look for what seems to be 100 yards under the canopy and it is nothing but tree trunks and dead limbs. You nearly have to use a flashlight in broad daylight to see under there.

[Bercy]

The first paragraph on the WRP website states:

The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program offering landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical and financial support to help landowners with their wetland restoration efforts. The NRCS goal is to achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. This program offers landowners an opportunity to establish long-term conservation and wildlife practices and protection.

It seems like they would encourage early (years 10-15 or whenever before it becomes the dark canopy) thinning of trees which would in turn help the habitat.

I guess I should ask and see what they say we can/should do.

[Double R 2]

Wingman, what are yoour plans with the naturally established willow on the site?

The ongoing conversation...Best survival situation, with some natural stuff seeded in, it could be a temporal bottle neck with a solid canopy and lack of browse, but long-term it'll certainly be a non-issue, especially on a landscape basis where stands were established over a period of decades. In the big scheme of things, hardwood forest development is far greater than the window of opportunity through which we'll observe it.

I remember seeing a Joint Venture satellite image in the early '00s that depicted nearly 250,000 near-contiguous, or mostly-contiguous, acres of existing and restored hardwood forests stretching from about Lake George towards the Mississippi River west of Mahanna and then North towards Mayersville. I've since wondered what the cumulative acreage is at present. Born and raised in Greenville and Greenwood, I've never lost sight of the fact that the USDA pendulum swung from what extreme to another during the first 30 years of my lifetime.

On the stand or tract levels, there are so many confounding factors that effect growth and survival, species, species distribution, planting rate, hydrology, soil, herbivory, natural establishment, planting conditions, planting quality, seedling quality, time of planting, climatic events afterwards, herbaceous competition, acts of God, and the list goes on. I can recall very few instances that I've seen solid, high-density, pine-plantation like stands of hardwoods. One that comes to mind is the stand to the left as you're coming off the levee towards the 640-acre Tupelo Brake inholding at Panther - that tract was planted 3 times over a period of years, after initial failure determinations, but near-100% survival each time. And fifteen years seems a premature timeframe also; I'd think it closer to 20+ years on most sites. Generally, I do not think that survival and stocking of bare-root seedlings can be accurately assessed withing 5 years post-planting (10 years for direct seeding events, which I personally think was sold short in humanity's haste for instantaneous "visible" results but may be far superior in restoring natural forest functions).

Purely ancedotal observations, much of it predicated on my close and personal observations at 3,800-acre Willow Break, which was initially planted in the early- to mid-90s and replanted in the late-90s, but also ancedotal and quantitative observations on other WRP and CRP tracts, on state and federal properties, and on corporate and NIPF clearcut areas (which with adequate stocking of advance regenaration is recognized as the superior method of assuring oak in future hardwood stands):

* At 302 planted stems per acre, I've not once observed or quantified stem density equivocable to clear cut regeneration areas, or even close. Hardwood planted acreage generally far less stem density (tract wide), for a far longer period of time, with canopy incontinuity existing for a much longer period (2+ decades as compared to 5 or fewer years).

* At the standard planted rate, tree crowns are larger in plantations than in clearcut areas. Herbaceous cover at ground level for longer period of time. Acorn production sooner?

* Especially on larger tracts that straddle various topography, differential seedling survival and growth rates result in voids, or gaps of various sizes. The stage is set for gap-phase regeneration as trees naturally die, fall and are self-replaced within the system. This is important - future forest harvest practices such as shelterwood cuts to include small patch clearcutting will encourage this process - to promote a dynamic, uneven-aged system (multiple age classes, canopies and stands).

* Species representation in plantations is markedly more oak dominant than in vestigial delta stands. Partly because of market availability and partly because of human self-interests. Deer (ducks) like acorns. I mention this because it's similar to the systemmatic replacement of historical longleaf pine-dominated stands with loblolly monocultures, and it's relevant to discussion because few landowners choose bitter pecan, sugarberry, etc., as does wingman. I can't put my hands on a copy of Ouchley et al (2000) or Tanner (1986), that I used to have, probably lost in a move or left inadvertantly, but Gardiner and Oliver (2005) sum it up pretty good as follows:

...to reconstruct the structure of pre-European settlement bottomland hardwood forests (Foti 2001; Ouchley et al. 2000). However, problems with note interpretation, sample methods, and species taxonomy limit the strength of these descriptions. Tanner (1986) published perhaps the most cited description of an ancient bottomland hardwood forest of the LMAV. His work was based on a vegetation sample collected five decades prior to the publication of his findings. Of the more than 60 tree species endemic to bottomland hardwood forests of the LMAV (Little 1971; Putnam et al. 1960), dominant species include sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.), baldcypress (Taxodium distichum [L.] L.C. Rich.), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata Willd.), maples (Acer spp.), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis L.), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica L.), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh.), black willow (Salix nigra Marsh.), elms
(Ulmus spp.), hickories (Carya spp.), and at least nine species of oak (Quercus spp.) (Putnam et al. 1960). In addition to a highly diverse composition of overstory species, bottomland hardwood forests are characteristically rich in woody vines and shrubs, and the understory may feature large monocots such as switchcane (Arundinaria gigantea [Walter] Muhl.) and palmetto (Sabal minor [Jacquin] Persoon). The composition and density of midstory and understory layers, however, are generally determined by hydrologic regimes with the best-drained, less frequently flooded sites exhibiting the rankest vegetation.

acornman is the only person I know with first-hand experience writing forest management plans specific to harvesting wrp tracts, and if I'm not mistaken it constitutes some of the only tracts that have yet been thinned in MS. I don't remember the ages of those. I'd be interested in hearing his observations also, Bercy. After full canopy closure, browse will be predominately limited to edges and wildlife openings; harvest operations (and natural disturbances such as ice and wind) will create intervals of browse availability, but as crowns expand and refill in the canopy, or as regeneration fills the voids, it will again become limited in the relative absence of sunlight.

Willow Break's plantations are about 15 years old and I'd guess we're at about midway before stand conditions necessitate, or before volumes make financially viable, forest harvesting. There's still plenty of browse, predominately trumpet creeper and other vines, but it's waning. Mowing and discing roadsides, edges and small accessible voids helps, but it's just a matter of time.

Tree removal at ages 10-15 years best described as "pre-commercial thinnings" that would incur landowner costs that I would guess to exceed meaningful or longterm benefits. Future market forces will be interesting; I'd guess there will be a bottle neck during which supply of merchantable stems (and need to thin) will exceed demand (nearby crews and pulpmills) but who knows.

Regarding optimal "wildlife habitat": specifically, what wildlife species? You can believe that the effort at large was neither predicated on nor justified by optimal white-tail deer habitat. No way, no how. At best, rank-ordered priorities would be (1) endangered/threatened, (2) migratory bird species, and (3) endemic species (such as deer). True fact: acceptance into WRP required at one time that the subject property fall within USFWS-designated "Forest Bird Conservation Area" boundaries. That's neotropical migratory birds or, for us laymen, song birds or tweety birds.

What I remember from having poured over Ouchley's and Tanner's papers was the relative paucity of oak stocking (10-15% overall) in historic stands, and I can't help but wonder how the forests we've established will compare ecologically through time. Even on the few, relatively higher elevations that have been planted, components such as switchcane and palmetto are absent and I wonder if they'll recolonize as forest development ensues or remain largely absent forever.

[Wingman]

You talk way over my head, but I am tracking with you on some things.

I walked through the edge of an adjacent clear cut by our back ponds yesterday. On the old soil maps, you can see the sloughs that ran through those woods and through what are now our ponds. Of course, the construction of the ponds took out all of the old terrain features and basically created flat rectangles. What I saw in that 20 acre block were cottonwood, sycamore, green ash, water oak, sweetgum, nuttall, willow oak, bitter pecan, switchcane, palmetto and others. I figure I will get some natural regeneration of gum and ash from that block of woods, but it is the only block of woods that borders our property. However, that hasn't stopped the cottonwood and willows from coming in strong on all of our place this year. Our big block of ponds is a half-mile from the nearest mature trees, and yet the willows are head high in some of those ponds after only a few months of being dry.

We have mowed some of the ponds and then ripped, and disked the others and ripped. The forestry folks told us to just leave the willows be that weren't killed by the site prep. I wonder if that will create the shading you were talking about that the oaks thrive under? I know that after the winter and spring rains, there will be more new willows, so there is really no way around having them I guess.

Regarding optimal "wildlife habitat": specifically, what wildlife species? You can believe that the effort at large was neither predicated on nor justified by optimal white-tail deer habitat. No way, no how. At best, rank-ordered priorities would be (1) endangered/threatened, (2) migratory bird species, and (3) endemic species (such as deer). True fact: acceptance into WRP required at one time that the subject property fall within USFWS-designated "Forest Bird Conservation Area" boundaries. That's neotropical migratory birds or, for us laymen, song birds or tweety birds.

I didn't ask about which species. I just told them I wanted max wildlife benefits and he said 302. And I really had rather have a place that benefitis everything from rabbits to squirrels and deer, than just a solid deer/duck farm.