Arkansas Land Use

• To: dgorr@ucdavis.edu
• Subject: Arkansas Land Use
• From: dsouth@Forestry.Auburn.EDU (David South)
• Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 22:40:18 +0300
• Cc: forest@nic.funet.fi
• Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

>Dear Mr. Orr:
>
>Thank you for your response regarding land use in Arkansas (USA).
>Your reply was very enlightening.  I surmise from your response that:
>
>(1) you do not like the current laissez-faire policy in Arkansas
>which often results in using land for the highest economic gains
>(pastures, agronomic crops, wood fiber crops, malls, etc.)
>
>(2) you do not like the idea of "managers" manipulating the landscape.
>
>(3) you want "native" forest land to be left alone.
>
>(4) you would LIKE to see land use similar to that before settlement
>    by man.
>
>(5) you believe that society will benefit by reducing per capita consumption
>    of wood and paper products.
>
>[for what it is worth, I purchase recycled paper and do not subscribe to a
 newspaper]    
> 
>
>The following table shows how Arkansas land use patterns have
>changed from 1952 to 1985.   
>
>                                    1952-54       1985       Change
>Cropland                             26.3%         24.3%       -2.0     
>Pasture land                          6.8%         17.4%      +10.6
>Pine plantations                      0.16%         3.0%      + 2.8  
>Natural pine stands                  13.4%         10.1%      - 3.3     
>Mixed pine-hardwood stands            6.5%          8.8%      + 2.3  
>upland hardwoods                     25.4%         17.9%      - 7.5   
>bottomland hardwoods                 13.2%          8.0%      - 5.2
>All other land                        8.2%         10.5%      + 2.3
>
>Total                               100%          100%
>
>
>
>In 1985, pine plantations made up only about 3% of the land base (the forest
>industry owned about two-thirds of these plantations).  For 1990, pine
>plantations may cover 4.7% of the land base in Arkansas. 
> The increase in pine plantations is due in part to
>(1) planting pines after logging natural pines and natural upland hardwoods and
>(2) planting pines on rowcrop land.  
>
>For example, from 1956 to 1963, over 220,000 acres of rowcrop (farm) land in
>Arkansas were planted to pines under the Conservation Reserve Soil Bank Program. 
>Many of these plantations have been harvested and were planted back to pines
>(although some were likely not replanted).   
>
>As you can see, the greatest changes in land use has been an increase in
>pastures.  In less than 40 years, the amount of land in pastures has increased
>by 3,533,400 acres.  This land came mainly from natural hardwood stands. 
>Although timber companies log bottomland hardwoods, many companies allow the area
>to grow back into hardwoods.  They usually do not plant pines on bottomlands. 
>The reduction of about 1.7 million acres of bottomland hardwoods was not due to
>plantation forestry.  I think I understand why people are generally not upset
>with farmers who harvest bottomland hardwoods and then convert the land to
>pastures. 
>Producing an adequate food supply for an increasing population is important for
>today's society.  In fact, the world population increases by one billion
>every 13 years.  The population of the US is expected to double by the
>year 2080.  To support the food demands for this population level, more 
>"natural" forests all over the world may be converted to pastures.    
>
>Pine plantations are established after logging natural pines and upland
>hardwoods.  Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that all pine plantations were
>established on upland hardwood stands.  In fact, some of the reduction in 
>upland hardwood stands is due to either rowcrops and pasture or urban sprawl. 
>The major reason for reduction in upland hardwood stands is not due to planting
>pines as commonly believed (see table).
>
>"Non-plantation" timberland in Arkansas has declined from 19,572,000 acres in
>1952 to 14,960,000 acres in 1985.  This reduction of 4.6 million acres was not
>due solely to increasing pine plantations by 935,000 acres.  Most of the decline
>(3,677,000 acres) was due to other management decisions by private landowners. 
>
>I think for our children's sake, it is important to plan for the future.  In my
>opinion, increasing demands on limited resources are directly affected by an
>increasing population.  By the year 2,100 there will likely be over 500 million
>people in the US and the population density of Arkansas could exceed 90/square
>mile.  We need to take voluntary action to limit population growth (or discussion
>about resource management options will be ephemeral).  
>
>We need to ask now where we are going to produce the wood, beef and crops for our
>grandchildren.  In my opinion, establishing pine plantations on 11% of Arkansas
>makes since.  This option could allow our children to have more land in upland
>hardwoods than was present in Arkansas in 1952.  If we do not invest today in
>planting pine, our children may have few options other than to harvest most of
>the upland hardwoods for their wood needs.
David South                          FAX: 205-844-1084
School of Forestry                   Telephone: 205-844-1022
Auburn University, AL 36849-5418     Email:  dsouth@forestry.auburn.edu
USA

• Prev: Mahogany: A Research Bibliography
• Next: NEW: EFLIST - Educational Forum (fwd)
• Index: Forest mailing list August 1994
• Thread: Forest list subjects in August 1994