Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Farmers’ objectives toward their woodlands in the upper Midwest of the United States: implications for woodland volumes and diversity

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a study that explores the relationship between farm woodland owners’ stated intentions for owning woodland, and the structure and composition of these woodlands in the states of Illinois, Indiana and Iowa in the upper Midwest of the United States. Data from two sample-based inventories conducted by the USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program were combined for this analysis—the FIA forest resources inventory and the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS). We looked for relationships between product value and investment in woodlands, as reflected in volumes and tree quality. We also examined whether measures of diversity reflected specific management focus. Our results partially supported our hypotheses. Woodland-focused ownership reasons were found to have larger volumes and individual tree sizes. We found that a passive woodland ownership reason—that woods were “part of the farm”—generally had lower volumes per hectare. Although we were not able to differentiate between different forest product classes and measures of volume, we did find that those landowners who harvested veneer had more volume than those who harvested for firewood. Woodland owners who salvage-harvested their woodlands—a harvesting reason that is more reactive than proactive—exhibited lower volumes per hectare than those who harvested for more proactive, product-focused reasons. Biodiversity was also found to be related to the ownership focus and harvest intent. Generally, there was lower diversity in overstory species when the woodland was viewed merely as “part of the farm,” when the product harvested was fence posts and when timber was harvested for salvage or land clearing. The small sample size limits our analysis, but we can conclude that focusing the woodland owners on management of their woodlands—regardless of what the specific management goals might be—should increase productivity and biodiversity of those woodlands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. FIA defines forest land as land that is at least 10% stocked by forest trees of any size, or land formerly having such tree cover, and is not currently developed for a nonforest use. The minimum size is 0.405 ha in area and the minimum width is 36.6 m. The NWOS defines woodland as land at least 0.405 ha in size and 36.6 m wide and having at least 25 well-spaced trees per hectare or such land where trees were removed and will grow again. For the purposes of our analysis, we consider these two definitions to be equivalent.

  2. Family forestland owners are people who have a familial relationship, or who have a relationship based on common interests or goals (Leatherberry 2003).

References

  • Bengston D (1994) Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Soc Natl Res 7:515–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brand GJ, Walkowiak JT (1991) Forest statistics for Iowa, 1990. Resource Bulletin NC-136. St. Paul, MN, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, 100 pp

  • Bureau of Census (2000) American FactFinder: population, housing units, area, and density: 2000. [Available only on internet: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=GCT-PH1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-format=US-9&-_sse=on]. Accessed 2 August 2006

  • Burton JD (1990) Maclura pomifera (Raf.) Schneid. Osage-Orange. In: Burns RM, Honkala, BH, Tech Coords 1990. Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, vol 2, 877 pp

  • Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America’s family forest owners. J For 102(7):4–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC, Williams MS (2005) Design, implementation, and analysis methods for the National Woodland Owner Survey. Gen Tech Rep NE-336. Newtown Square, PA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, 43 pp

  • Carpenter EM (1985) Ownership change and timber supply on nonindustrial private forest land. Res Pap NC-265. St. Paul, MN, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, 14 pp

  • Crocker SJ, Leatherberry EC, Brand GJ, Little RC, (2006) Illinois’ forest resources in 2004. Resour Bull NC-260. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 35 pp

  • Garrett HE (2003) Role of agroforestry in hardwood regeneration and natural-stand management. In: Proceedings, 13th Central Hardwood Forest Conference; 2002 April 1–3, Urbana, IL. Gen Tech Rep NC-234. St. Paul, MN, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Stationm, pp 33–43

  • Hicks RR (1998) Ecology and management of Central hardwood forests. Wiley, New York, p 412

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassoie JP, Buck LE (2000) Development of agroforestry as an integrated land use management strategy. In: Garrett HE, Rietveld WJ, Fisher RF (eds), North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI pp 1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson ER (1990) Juniperus virginiana L. Eastern Redcedar. In: Burns RM, Honkala, BH, Tech Coords 1990. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers. Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC

  • Leatherberry EC (2003) Family forestland owners of the Lake States: timber harvest activities and implications for sustainable forest management. In: Buse LJ, Perrera AH (eds), comps. Meeting emerging ecological, economic and social challenges in the Great Lakes region: popular summaries. For Res Inf Pap 155. Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada, Ontario Forest Research Institute, pp 53–55

  • Leatherberry EC, Moser WK, Perry CH, Woodall CW, Jepson E, Pennington S, Flickinger A (2006) Iowa’s forests 1999–2003 (Part A). Resour Bull NC-266A. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 84 pp

  • Likert RA (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 140:5–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its management. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 179 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • McRoberts RE (1999) Joint annual forest inventory and monitoring system, the North Central perspective. J For 97(12):27–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Rast ED, Sonderman DL, Gammon GL (1973) A guide to hardwood log grading. Gen Tech Rep NE-1. Broomall, PA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 31 pp

  • Rule LC, Colletti JP, Liu TP, Jungst SE, Mize CW, Schultz RC (1994) Agroforestry and forestry-related practices in the midwestern United States. Agrofor Syst 27(1):79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt TL, Leatherberry EC (1995) Expansion of eastern redcedar in the Lower Midwest. North J Appl For 12(4):180–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt TL, Hansen MH, Solomakos JA (2000a) Indiana’s forests in 1998 Resource Bulletin NC-196. St. Paul, MN, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 139 pp

  • Schmidt TL, Hansen MH, Solomakos JA (2000b) Illinois’ forests in 1998. Resource Bulletin NC-198. St. Paul, MN, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, 133 pp

  • Smith DM (1986) The practice of silviculture, 8th edn. Wiley, New York, 527 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone RN (1970) A comparison of woodland owner intent ith woodland practices in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. St. Paul, MN, University of Minnesota PhD thesis. 115 pp

  • USDA National Agricultural Statistical Service (2005a) Source farms and land in farms. Final Estimates 1993–1997. Statistical Bulletin Number 955, 21 pp. (www.USDA.gov/nass). Accessed 5 April 2005.

  • USDA National Agricultural Statistical Service (2005b) 2002 Census of agriculture, vol 1, chap 1. Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa

  • Woodall CW, Johnson D, Gallion J, Perry CH, Butler B, Piva R, Jepsen E, Nowak D, Marshall P (2005) Indiana’s forests 1999–2003 (Part A). Resour Bull NC-253A. St. Paul, MN, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 94 pp

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Thomas Treiman, Shibu Jose, Ron McRoberts, Will McWilliams, Christopher Woodall, Dick Little, Cynthia Moser, and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments about earlier versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Keith Moser.

Additional information

The U.S. Government's right to retain a non-exclusive, royalty-free license in and to any copyright is acknowledged.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moser, W.K., Leatherberry, E.C., Hansen, M.H. et al. Farmers’ objectives toward their woodlands in the upper Midwest of the United States: implications for woodland volumes and diversity. Agroforest Syst 75, 49–60 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9124-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9124-7

Keywords

Navigation