Poor pine tree plantation performance

[livemusic]

I am buying 54 acres and 35 of it had pines clearcut in 1996. It was replanted in pine and I assume that it was replanted soon thereafter. Surely they did it within a year or two. My cousin who owned it was not one to just let it sit there. However, the pines do not look very tall at all. I think all of them are less than 6" DBH. Does this sound 'normal?' Also, a timber company looked at it and they commented that the replant was a 'poor job' and that the trees would not be due a thinning until 10 years from now. When do pines need thinning? What is the measure, time or DBH or height or just what?

Is there anything that can be done to make these pines grow faster?

This land is gently sloping, well-drained.

EDIT: I just read an article that indicated 21 year old pines should be 9" DBH and 54' tall. It said 14 year old pines should be 6" DBH and 41' tall. Wow, my trees are nowhere near that tall. They are less than 6" and I'd say 15' to 30' tall. How could I figure out how old the trees are, cut a couple down and measure growth rings? I wish my cousin (daughter... her dad passed) could find a record of when it was done.

EDIT: I think these are loblolly pines that were planted. It is the common species around here.

[enigmaT120]

Tree growth rates depend a lot on soil class type, and vary a lot from plot to plot.  The USDA has a web site where you can zoom in really close to your site and it tells you the soil class, at least for some species.

An increment borer is one way to tell the age of trees, it takes out a little cylinder of wood going into the tree and you can see the rings.  With some species I can tell the age by looking at how many swirls of branches it has.  I can on Ponderosa Pine but I don't know about your trees.

[Magicman]

I would talk with your Extension Office or the Parish Forester.  An increment bore sampling will tell you the age and growth rate.


 
Here is a Forester making an increment bore on one of my trees.


  
Here is the core sample showing almost ½" growth rings indicating a growth rate of about ¾" to 1" diameter per year.  These Pines were planted in 2005 on 10' X 12' row spacing which is a bit wider than normal.

You did not indicate the tree spacing.  If planted, the trees should be in rows and evenly spaced.  If they are close and not in rows, I would suspect that they are volunteer trees. 

[curdog]

What species? I'm assuming lob lolly, but I guess longleaf could have been planted in your area  (?).  If it's loblolly, those trees seem to be struggling.  It could be poor soils, or too much competition.  Many of the stands I look at that aren't growing too well have too much competition. Our problem is usually Virginia Pine that grows in the planted loblolly stands.  I'd get one of the county foresters or a private consulting forester to take a look at them. Many times I see pines that the crown has self pruned to a point that they won't respond to thinning since they don't have a full enough crown to take advantage of the freed up water, nutrients and space.
If you have longleaf pine  (?), you're probably a little closer to the desired growth, but someone a little more familiar with longleaf can let you know more about them.

[livemusic]

I think they are loblolly.

Could it be too much competition simply from too many pines planted per acre? (They need thinning?)

I know of a tract on this same highway that I am amazed at how fast they have grown. They really shot up fast. But, the man planted them in an open pasture that had been pasture my whole life. I don't know for sure but it could be the same soil type, although, it's possible my tract has a sandier soil. The USDA site said my site is loam. I will see if I can determine what USDA site says for this other tract where they have grown so fast.

[curdog]

I kinda wonder since it was a previous pine site if the seed was already in place and then it was planted in addition. If this is the case,then a thinning would help, but if they are too small, then it could be tough to have this done commercially.  A good idea of the age and the growth rate will give you an idea of which way you need to go. Depending on how much crown is present and the age, you may be able to let it grow and thin it, or if the trees have self pruned too much and have small crowns, you may be better off to clear cut and start over.  But without seeing it, it's all guessing.

[livemusic]

I kinda wonder since it was a previous pine site if the seed was already in place and then it was planted in addition. If this is the case,then a thinning would help, but if they are too small, then it could be tough to have this done commercially.  A good idea of the age and the growth rate will give you an idea of which way you need to go. Depending on how much crown is present and the age, you may be able to let it grow and thin it, or if the trees have self pruned too much and have small crowns, you may be better off to clear cut and start over.  But without seeing it, it's all guessing.

Thanks for feedback. FWIW, I just saw an aerial photo of the site (USDA default photo of this area) and this tract I am buying had full trees! This has to be an old photo (20 yrs), since they cut it in 1996. I am going to contact the USDA if I can and see if they can tell me the date of the aerial photo. I do not see a date anywhere, but I bet they know.

My point here is... I am surprised, but the trees that were clearcut appear to be mixed. Pine and hardwood. I sure wish I would have gotten it before my cousin clearcut it! I prefer a mixed forest to a pine plantation, as ROI from timber sales is not my primary motivation.

BTW, does anyone know if any agency has aerial photos in an archive that are from each year? I think there used to be a government farm agency (now defunct) that took photos or bought photos every year, of cropland for the farmers. But I don't know about timberland.

If I could see annual aerial photos, I could tell when they replanted this tract.

[Riwaka]

If the growing conditions are poor, the trees might be doing well to have grown as big as they have.
https://www.umesc.usgs.gov/aerial_photos/l/louisiana.html
https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/NAPP
Have a look round to see if any of the old aerial photography companies work has been archived.

[svart ole]

If you are looking for aerial photos check with your county and see if the mapping department has access to them. Now days it may not be called mapping we now have fancy names like " Geographic Information System or GIS for short". State and or County forestry department is another place you might try. I have aerial photos going back to 1939 for a area our new range is on. It would seem at that time it was done by the Army Air Force I am sure it made for a good training exercise for what came a few years later.   

[SwampDonkey]

Thanks for feedback. FWIW, I just saw an aerial photo of the site (USDA default photo of this area) and this tract I am buying had full trees! This has to be an old photo (20 yrs), since they cut it in 1996. I am going to contact the USDA if I can and see if they can tell me the date of the aerial photo. I do not see a date anywhere, but I bet they know.

Do you have the hard copy of the photo or is it a soft copy (digital off a site)? The marks of the year, flight line and time are usually at the bottom. Sometime the year is part of the flight line number.

You may also use Google Earth for the area and they have historical photos from previous years under 'View' 'Historical Imagery' in the menu. Then a bar comes on the map, upper left you can slide to a different photo year. The clear up close images are aerial photos from planes, not satellites.

[livemusic]

...You may also use Google Earth for the area and they have historical photos from previous years under 'View' 'Historical Imagery' in the menu. Then a bar comes on the map, upper left you can slide to a different photo year. The clear up close images are aerial photos from planes, not satellites.

Bingo, you nailed it, thanks. I remember now that I have used Google Earth for something similar awhile back. I have a poor memory, lol.

Some of the images are rather poor quality, but I did find a timeline of images back to 1990. This will help. I will also contact some agencies to see if they have aerial photos like the farmers used to get of cropland, as those were very clear images (taken from airplanes, as I recall). But this was back in the 60s and 70s. By the 1990s, even if I find something else, they may have gone to only using satellite images.

[clearcut]

USGS has an online tool that helps you find imagery of many types including aerial photos. You can view historical images for a particular place.

     https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/

Much of the imagery can be downloaded for free.

The platform used to acquire the imagery is less important than the resolution of the images. Newer imagery from the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) is 0.6 meter (about 1 foot) ground resolution. Some commercial satellite imagery has a ground resolution of 0.31 meters, though that resolution is expensive. 

[SwampDonkey]

And National Agriculture Imagery Program is aerial photography.

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/aerial-photography/imagery-programs/naip-imagery

It's aerial photography here in Ag and Forestry. Most of it is Forestry, which is far more vast than agriculture area up here.