Dear Stockton University,

Thank you for reaching out to get a survey of your forest with us. We took some time to
work on the property to determine its forest productivity and the effect of previous prescriptions
put into place on it.

Our interest was focused on the Forest Stewardship Area on the opposite side of Vera
King Farris where the land has been thinned, or burned, both, or neither. On April 12th, 4 crews
took on 4 different stands that include: unburned & unthinned (UU), thinned & unburned (TU),
thinned & burned (TB), and unthinned & burned (UB). Each crew took a 3 to 5 samples within
each plot for a total of 12 total samples. Variable sampling with an angle gauge was used to
determine stand composition. The stand composition is Oak/Pine being about a 60/40 split across
all plots. Species variation throughout the stands is good. Most species of oaks occur about 10%
of the time in each stand they are found. Pitch pine is the most abundant with about 30% of each
stand’s composition. The health of the forest will vairy based on the specific stand, but generally
the ones that had more treatment seem to be the healthiest ones.

The following is the full report of the forest composition of your land and statistics about
it to accurately plan its management along with recommendations.

Sincerely,
Kyle Caccamesi
 Stocking & Composition Report

Introduction

This report details the university forest and specifically its composition of the Forest

Management Area (FMA) at Stockton. Stockton University requested an assessment of the

composition, structure, and condition of the FMA to further their understanding of their land

and to use it as the basis to prescribe management practices.

Methods

The stands were located on the east side of Vera King Farris Drive in the FMA on Stockton

University’s main campus. This was an upland Oak/Pine forest located within the Pine Barrens

in New Jersey. Web Soil Survey

indicated that the soil in the

management zone is DocB. DocB is a

Downer loamy sand with 0 to 5

percent slopes and is located within a

Northern Tidewater Area.

Four teams took on four plots in

Figure 1 shows the location of the stands and the dominant soil type in
the area.
the FMA: unburned & unthinned (UU),

thinned & unburned (TU), thinned & burned (TB), and unthinned & burned (UB). Each of these

areas have had a different set of management methods to research the effects of management

practices on stands of similar types. Crews sampled three to five random plots in each stand

that do not overlap. The variable plots were measured with a 2.29 basal area factor (BAF) using
a Cruz-all angle gauge from Forestry Suppliers, Inc. Trees that were considered within the plot

were measured. Measurements of all live trees include species, crown class, diameter at breast

height (DBH) in centimeters, and height measured in meters with a Haglof Vertex Hypsometer.

Borderline trees also had their distance from pot center measured in meters. Dead trees or

sangs were also measured with DBH and distance if they were borderlines. Data was written

and recorded in the field then transcribed into excel for statistics and calculations.

Forest Description

The Downer loamy sand of the area is on par for the Pine Barrens and New Jersey in general.

This is a sandy acidic soil that is perfect habitat for the native and abundant Pitch Pine that are

a staple of the Pine Barrens. It being

a sandy soil indicates its graininess

and water shedding properties.

Using the Shortleaf pine site index,

a measure of forest productivity can

be determined. SI50 indicates the

expected age and height of a tree at

age 50. After finding the age and

height of shortleaf pines in the

stands, their SI was calculated and

Figure 2 is the site index for shortleaf pine with an SI of 50. The stars indicate plotted on this chart. It can be seen
the 5 “in” shortleaf pines.

from this chart that the shortleaf

 pines in the area have a slightly above average SI50. From this it can be determined that the

forest productivity is also slightly above average for the area.

Within the four stands there were six different species recorded: black oak, chestnut

oak, pitch pine, scarlet oak, shortleaf pine, and white oak.
Species Present?
Species TB TU UB UU TOTAL
black oak 1 1 1 1 4
chestnut oak 1 1 2
pitch pine 1 1 1 1 4
scarlet oak 1 1 1 1 4
shortleaf pine 1 1
white oak 1 1 1 3
TOTAL 6 4 3 5

Table 1 bakes down if a species was in a stand. A “1” indicates the presence of the species in the
respective stand while “ ” indicates a lack of that species.

The TB stand had the most species diversity with having all six recorded species within its range.

While the UB had the least.

Species diversity is important and because of that each species density within a stand

was calculated. Table 2 shows the total density per hectare and Table 3 is the relative density of

each species per stand.

TB TU UB UU
Species BAPH TPH BAPH TPH BAPH TPH BAPH TPH
black oak 2.3 39 3.8 50 5.7 131 4.6 101
chestnut oak 2.3 53 0.0 0 0.0 0 6.9 175
pitch pine 7.3 124 6.1 55 5.3 65 12.0 160
scarlet oak 3.4 42 4.6 94 9.9 180 9.2 199
shortleaf pine 2.3 34 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
white oak 3.4 96 3.1 122 0.0 0 4.0 116
TOTAL 21.1 388 17.6 321 21.0 376 36.6 752
Table 2 references BAPH (basal area per hectare) and TPH (trees per hectare) for each of the stands.
 TB TU UB UU
Species %BAPH %TPH %BAPH %TPH %BAPH %TPH %BAPH %TPH
black oak 10.9 10.1 21.7 15.6 27.3 34.7 12.5 13.5
chestnut oak 10.9 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 23.3
pitch pine 34.8 32.1 34.8 17.2 25.5 17.3 32.8 21.3
scarlet oak 16.3 10.9 26.1 29.2 47.3 48.0 25.0 26.4
shortleaf pine 10.9 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
white oak 16.3 24.7 17.4 38.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 15.4
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 3 is the relative densities of each species per stand broken down by BAPH and TPH.

The dominate species is pitch pine in all stands but the UB which is scarlet oak. In the UB stand

scarlet oak has both the highest TPH and BAPH percentage with 48% and 47.3% respectively.

These numbers suggest that the early successional species like the pitch pine are at a

disadvantage when a stand is just burned compared to when it is thinned. While pitch pines

react better to fire generally, without the gaps to allow them to regenerate they are shaded out

by the oaks and cannot grow large enough to out-pace the fires. In the case of the TU it shows

that the pitch pines have a 2:1 ratio of BAPH to TPH indicating that while small in number they

are large in size while species like black oak in the UB have the opposite effect. They have larger

numbers with generally smaller trees which can be a sign that they will eventually succeed the

current larger stand population of pitch pine. Shortleaf pine is a species that is being promoted

in these woods. However, based on their relative density it seems unlikely that without

intervention they will significantly rise in population naturally. Shortleaf pines are a great

addition to this forest and should be managed for if that’s what Stockton wishes to do. This will

likely manifest in combined thinning/burning and plantings.

Crowding can be an important factor in forest management and must be monitored to

determine whether intervention might be needed. Stands with high stocking percentages begin
to get overcrowded and does not foster much understory growth of new trees. For the four

sands recorded each of them had large differences in stocking percentage.

Stand BAPA TPA %Stocking

TB 91.8 157 80
TU 76.5 130 65
UB 91.4 152 79
UU 159.6 304 >>110
Table 4 shows stocking percentage by stand.

Figure 3 is a stocking chart with the four stands plotted on it in their respective percentages.
Generally, most of the stands are doing quite well that have had some sort of management

practice preformed on them. TB is getting to a point where management might be considered

again in the near future. What is notable about this chart is the UU stand that is very

overstocked. UU is more than 30% over when intervention would start to be discussed. This

stand is definitely in need of silvicultural intervention. The UU should take after the TB stand.

The TB stand has a stable stocking percent, high levels of diversity, and the benefit of having

less leaf litter making it harder for wildfires to take hold. I would recommend that the UU gets

the same treatment, assuming this ongoing experiment wants to be stopped.

Wildlife is an important part to forest health, as they provide many variables needed for

forests to grow and expand. This means that their habitat should be a constant thought when

making management decisions. Sangs are important for this balance because they provide

habitat for a number of different species of both birds and mammals. Currently, all stands have

a subpar amount of them. The number of snags per stand were as follows: UB had 5, TB had 2,

TU had 1, and UU had 0. There should be about 10 sangs in the < 25.0 Size class, 10 snags in the

25.0 - 49.9 size class, and 5 in the ≥ 50.0 size class.

Size class Density

(cm) (TPH)
< 25.0 5
25.0 - 49.9 10
≥ 50.0 2
Table 5 is current snag density for all stands combined

As Table 5 shows, there is currently not enough snags for adequate wildlife habitat. Next time

management is done to any of these stands some steps should be taken to increase this

number.
Management Recommendations

Each of the stands require some sort of management to continue to facilitate the health of

Stockton’s forests. This is again assuming that these stands want to be converted away from

being an area dedicated to this type of study. First, the TB is generally good, but I would

recommend that some more snags be created for the wildlife. This can be done but killing

standing trees and allowing them die and snap naturally. Next, both TU and UB should have the

inverse management performed on them. The TU should be burned and the UB should be

thinned. While they both have good stocking, they need greater diversity. Both of those

management options open-up different trees for successional growth closing the diversity gap.

Finally, UU desperately needs a thinning and could benefit from a good burn. It has too many

trees, too thick of an understory, and too much leaf litter making it a prime location for a crown

fire to occur. This should be dealt with to avoid a wildfire being able to gain traction so close to

campus.

Additional data for this specific area is most likely not needed unless a report on

seedling data is to be performed for facilitation of shortleaf pine growth. However, more of

these in depth looks should be done around the campus to get a better idea of the health of the

entire area.