1 / 34

Criterion II Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems

Criterion II Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems. Jim Bowyer Department of Bio-Based Products College of Natural Resources University of Minnesota. Indicator 10 Area of forest land and net area of forest land available for timber production.

LionelDale
Download Presentation

Criterion II Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Criterion IIProductive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems Jim Bowyer Department of Bio-Based Products College of Natural Resources University of Minnesota

  2. Indicator 10Area of forest land and net area of forest land available for timber production.

  3. Forest Area in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, 1907-2002 Thousand Acres Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  4. Forested Area in the States of the Upper Mississippi Basin, 1907-2002 A 21% increase 1907-2002 Source: U.S. Forest Service.

  5. Forested Area in the States of the Upper Mississippi Basin, 1630-2002 Source: U.S. Forest Service.

  6. Forest Land Area by Productivity Class in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Thousand Acres Cubic Feet per Acre per Year Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  7. Forest Land Area in the 0-19 ft3/Ac./Yr. Productivity Class in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Thousand Acres Cubic Feet per Acre per Year Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  8. Forest Land Area in the 20-49 ft3/Ac./Yr. Productivity Class in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Thousand Acres Cubic Feet per Acre per Year Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  9. Forest Land Area in the 50-84 ft3/Ac./Yr. Productivity Class in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Thousand Acres Cubic Feet per Acre per Year Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  10. Forest Land Area in the 85-119 ft3/Ac./Yr. Productivity Class in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Thousand Acres Cubic Feet per Acre per Year Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  11. Forest Land Area in the 120 ft3+/Ac./Yr. Productivity Class in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Thousand Acres Cubic Feet per Acre per Year Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  12. Percent of Forest Land Available for Periodic Harvest by State in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  13. Population of the Upper Mississippi River Basin States, 1952-2003 (thousands) 46% increase 1952-2002 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Feb. 2004

  14. Population of the Upper Mississippi River Basin States, 1952-2003 (thousands) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Feb. 2004

  15. Forest Land Per Capita in the Upper Mississippi River Basin States, 1952-2002 (acres) Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003 and U.S. Census Bureau, Feb. 2004

  16. Forest Land Per Capita in Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa, 1952-2002 (acres) Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003 and U.S. Census Bureau, Feb. 2004

  17. Forest Land Per Capita in Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin 1952-2002 (acres) Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003 and U.S. Census Bureau, Feb. 2004

  18. Forest Land Per Capita in the Upper Mississippi River Basin States, 1952-2002 (acres) 29% decrease 1952-2002 Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003 and U.S. Census Bureau, Feb. 2004

  19. U.S. Forestland Area Per Capita1785 - 2002 Acres Source: U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Census Bureau.

  20. U.S. Forestland Area Per Capita1785 - 2002 72% decline 1910-2002 Acres Source: U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Census Bureau.

  21. Indicator 11Total growing stock of both merchantable and un-merchantable tree species on timberland.

  22. Net Volume of Softwood Growing Stock on Timberland in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, 1953-2002 Million ft3 Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  23. Net Volume of Softwood Growing Stock on Timberland in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, 1953-2002 Million ft3 Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  24. Net Volume of Hardwood Growing Stock on Timberland in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, 1953-2002 Million ft3 Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  25. Net Volume of Hardwood Growing Stock on Timberland in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, 1953-2002 Million ft3 Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  26. Indicator 12Area and growing stock of plantations of native and exotic species.

  27. Plantations, liberally defined, account for about 9 percent of all forest land nationally.

  28. Indicator 13Annual removal of wood products compared to volumes determined to be sustainable.

  29. Net Growth and Harvest of Softwood Species by State in the Upper Mississippi Basin 2002 Harvest Net Growth Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  30. Net Growth and Harvest of Hardwood Species by State in the Upper Mississippi Basin 2002 Source: U.S. Forest Service, FIA Data, October 2003.

  31. All NC Million Cubic Feet 2897 2335 1106 Growth 551 Removals Timber Growth, Removals, and Consumption by State 375 207 297 56 327 332 490 274 613 761 62 Source: Shifley and Sullivan, U.S.F.S. - North Central Experiment Station (2002). 117 42 22 178 34 88 370 226 66 753 174 70 144 117 267 340 65 Growing Stock Consumption Non-growing Stock Consumption

  32. Indicator 14Annual removal of non-timber forest products compared to level determined to be sustainable.

  33. A disclaimer:All of the growth/harvest data reported herein are from the most recent RPA report. As noted on the next slide, these values differ – sometimes markedly – from FIA data for the same year.

  34. Comparison of Hardwood Growth and Removals Data in Current RPA and FIA Reports

More Related