Missouri’s Forest Resources, 2012
Research Note NRS-184
This publication provides an overview of forest resource
attributes for Missouri based on an annual inventory
conducted by the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
program at the Northern Research Station of the U.S.
Forest Service. These estimates, along with web-posted
core tables, will be updated annually. For more
information, please refer to page 5 of this report.
Table 1. – Annual estimates, uncertainty, and change
Figure 1. – Area of forest land and timberland.
Figure 2. – Area of forest land by stand-size class
of the top ten forest types, 2012.
Figure 3. – Area of timberland by stand-size class
and year, 1947-2012.
1
Table 2. – Top 10 tree species by statewide volume estimates, 2012.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Species
White oak
Black oak
Post oak
Northern red oak
Shortleaf pine
Eastern redcedar
Black walnut
Scarlet oak
Shagbark hickory
American sycamore
Other softwood species
Other hardwood species
All species
Volume of live trees
Change
on forest land
Sampling since 2007
(million cubic feet) error (%)
(%)
4,132.8
2,870.7
2,111.5
1,016.1
932.0
730.2
686.5
605.4
574.8
442.2
14.0
6,804.1
20,920.1
2.8
3.2
3.6
5.6
6.8
5.1
6.3
6.3
6.1
12.5
63.3
2.4
1.1
3.0
-2.5
2.0
0.4
5.6
11.9
14.2
-7.9
7.3
16.1
47.4
13.4
5.9
Net volume of
sawtimber trees on
timberland (million
board feet)
12,707.4
9,183.5
4,466.9
3,613.4
3,984.5
416.2
1,932.9
1,958.7
1,434.0
1,743.2
59.9
14,637.7
56,138.2
Change
Sampling since 2006
error (%)
(%)
3.5
3.9
4.7
6.7
7.3
11.7
8.2
7.3
8.5
13.8
69.4
3.8
1.7
Figure 4. – Growing stock volume on timberland by ownership category of the five largest
(by area) forest-type groups, Missouri, 2012.
Note: When available, sampling errors/bars provided in figures and tables represent 68 percent confidence
intervals.
2
4.0
-3.7
0.3
-0.2
10.1
-63.6
14.3
-4.6
11.5
19.6
48.3
13.1
3.8
Growth on Reversions in Missouri’s Forest Land, 2007 and 2012
Missouri, like several other states in the region, has seen a change in estimates due to field visits to plots that were
not visited in the previous inventory because they were classified as nonforest via aerial image interpretation. Most
plots identified as nonforest are not visited in the field. Starting in 2006, there has been an increase in the number
of plots requiring a field visit. Some of these situations involve recognition of potentially sufficient tree cover to
warrant an on-site visit and in other cases the employment of new imagery allows the prescreening analyst to make
the determination that the plot is forested. In this latter situation, we are recognizing forest land that had developed
some time in the past, in many instances, prior to the previous inventory. In the analysis below, we examined the
impact that field visits to heretofore unvisited plots has on growth of trees 5 inches in diameter and larger and its
components. The growth impact is much more prominent as we are measuring growth on newly found trees as well
as the “growth” influence from the new trees themselves. Small increases in forest area can have a large impact on
growth estimates because the total tree volume on reverted land is counted as growth.
Net growth is broken down into a number of
components, including:
Survivor growth — change in volume of live
trees between inventories on land
identified as forest in both inventories.
Mortality — volume (negative) of live trees
from the previous inventory that died
before the current inventory. The land was
forest in the previous inventory.
Ingrowth — volume of trees that grew into a
merchantable size (e.g., 5-inch diameter)
since the previous inventory. The volume
is not counted until the current inventory
and the land is identified as forest in both
inventories.
Reversion — volume of live trees on land that
is now forest but was previously nonforest.
Diversion growth — change in volume of live
trees between inventories on land that
changed from forest to nonforest.
Diversion only counts trees that remained
present and living.
Cut growth — increase in volume of live trees
from the previous inventory that were cut
before the current inventory. The land was
forest in the previous inventory.
Figure 5. – Components of growth for all species and 5
of the most prominent oak species on forest land in
Missouri, 2007 and 2012.
3
Initially, we examined five of the most prominent oak species in the State (white oak/red oak/hickory being the
largest forest-type group by far) (Fig. 5). The growth components from survivors and mortality were in
proportion to the overall values for the State. This outcome was not unexpected as oak species constitute a
high proportion of total volume in Missouri. What was notable, however, was the disproportionally small amount
of growth due to reversions for the oak species compared to the total. Only white oak possessed a growth
component due to reversions in proportion to the overall numbers for the State. This result led us to question
which species were impacted by reversions. We examined all of the growth components for Missouri for the
2007 and 2012 inventories for all species. We looked at the reversion component as a percentage of total
growth and ranked the top 25 species-year combinations, regardless of year (Fig. 6). Many species exhibited
high reversion components across both years, but there were some species that only exhibited high
proportions for one inventory or the other.
We initially ranked the species and
selected the top 25 by percentage
of total growth attributable to
reversions. Some species, such as
Ailanthus, persimmon, or Ohio
buckeye, contained such small
numbers that any so-called “trends”
should be suspect. We eliminated
eight of those from consideration,
leaving the species shown in Fig. 6.
What is notable among these
species is how many of them are
not necessarily typical of intact
upland forests but rather
inhabitants of bottomland or
otherwise mesic/hydric sites, such
as silver maple, boxelder,
sycamore, or cottonwood.
Assuming that earlier imagery did
not give evidence of sufficient forest
cover, our estimates of reversion
components, however delayed from
the actual occurrence, suggest that
some of the more prominent gains
in Missouri forest land occurred at
bottomland forest boundaries,
rather than “filling in” the
predominant upland forest land.
Figure 6. – Selected species-year combinations (irrespective of year)
of reversion components as a high percentage of net growth on
forest land in Missouri, 2007 and 2012.
4
Citation for this Publication
Moser, W.K.; Hansen, M.H.; Pugh, S.A.; Treiman, T.B. 2013. Missouri’s forest resources, 2012. Res. Note. NRS-184.
Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 5 p.
FIA Program Information
Bechtold, W.A.; Patterson, P.L., eds. 2005. The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program: national
sampling design and estimation procedures. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 85 p.
Smith, W.B. 2002. Forest inventory and analysis: A national inventory and monitoring program. Environmental
Pollution. 116: 233-242.
USDA Forest Service 2012. Forest inventory and analysis national core field guide, Vol. 1: field data collection
procedures for phase 2 plots, Ver. 6.0. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available:
http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/. (Accessed March 11, 2013.)
Additional Missouri Inventory Information
Gansner, D.A. 1965. Missouri’s forests, 1959. Resour. Bull. CS-2. Columbus, OH: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Central States Forest Experiment Station. 53 p.
Moser, W.K.; Hansen, M.H.; Treiman, T.B.; Jepson, E.; Leatherberry, E.C.; Liknes, G.; Perry, C.H.; Olson, C.L.; Piva, R.J.;
Woodall, C.W.; Brand, G.J. 2007. Missouri’s forests 1999-2003, Part A. Resour. Bull. NRS-10. Newtown Square, PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 79 p.
Raeker, G.; Moser, W.K.; Fleming J.; Morris, M.; Butler, B.; Kurtz, C.M.; Treiman, T.B. 2011. Missouri’s forests 2008.
Resour. Bull. NRS-54. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 55
p. [DVD included].
Spencer, J.S., Jr.; Essex, B.L. 1976. Timber in Missouri, 1972. Resour. Bull. NC-30. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 108 p.
Spencer, J.S., Jr.; Roussopoulos, S.M.; Massengale, R.A. 1992. Missouri’s forest resource, 1989: an analysis. Resour.
Bull. NC-139. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 84 p.
Treiman, T.; Tuttle, J.G.; Piva, R. 2008. Missouri timber industry-- an assessment of timber product output and use,
2006. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Conservation. 78 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1948. Forest resources of Missouri, 1947. Forest Survey Release 6.
Columbus, OH: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Central States Forest Experiment Station. 19 p.
Contact Information
Lead Analyst: W. Keith Moser, wkmoser@fs.fed.us
Data processing/access: Chuck Barnett, (610) 557-4031, cjbarnett@fs.fed.us
Estimates, tabular data, and maps from this report may be generated at: http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race,
color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any
public assistance program (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate
means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center
at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is
an equal opportunity provider and employer.
5