Progress 06/15/16 to 06/14/18
Outputs
Target Audience:I presented to students information about my ongoing research, including the topics addressed in this project.My teaching activities (Fall 2015), included serving as lead instructor for an undergraduate course (i.e., Forests for the Future) in School of Forest Resources and Conservation at the University of Florida (35+ students). I also served as a co-lecturer for an undergraduate course in Natural Resource Policy and Economics (25 + students). An undergraduate student volunteered to assist me in my research work (approx. 30 hours). Matt Zwerling collected data from census records and helped with survey development and testing. In the course of these activities, I mentored Matt on how to best conduct social science research, which will be useful if he decides to pursue a graduate degree in a social science field. My primary target audience includesresource professionals in government agencies, state and county government officials, as well as forest landowners, conservation organizations, and other interested landowners.I expect to reach this population in thenext 6 months when the research section of the project is completedand I begin the extension part of the project. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The proposal I submitted for this project outlined a number of specific training goals in research and teaching in higher education. Many of these goals have already been addressed and are described below. Please note, when I arranged for the training opportunities outlined in the grant proposal, some of the opportunities ended up occurring before I officially started the grant, because I requested a six month deferment on the NIFA grant. 1.) I accepted a tenure track assistant professor position in forest resources management in the Department of Ecosystem Science and Managementat Pennsylvania State University. The appointment is 25% research and 75% extension. 2.) I have been able to increase my publishing success in top-tier journals by working with my primary mentor to prepare and submit four research articles for publication (in addition to the two articles planned for this project). M. Kreye, D. Adams, R. Ghimire, W. Morse, T. Stein, and M. Bowker (2017). "Forest Ecosystem Services and Cultural Values", In E. O. Sills, S. E. Moore, F. W. Cubbage, K. D. McCarter, T. Holmes, and E. Mercer (Eds.), Trees At Work: Economic Accounting for Forest Ecosystem Services in the U.S. South (pp 103). Ashville, NC, Southern Research Station. M. Kreye, E. F. Pienaar, J. R. Soto and D. C. Adams (2017) "Marketing Payment Programs to Ranchers to Protect Endangered Species on Private Range Lands", Land Economics, 93(3): 459-480, doi:10.3368/le.93.3.459. M. Kreye, D. C. Adams, and J. Kline (2017) "Protecting Open Space: Understanding Voter Preferences and Behavior", Society and Natural Resources (draft) M. Kreye, D.C. Adams and H.K. Ober (2017) "Protecting Imperiled Wildlife Species on Private Lands: Forest Owner Values and Response to Government Interventions", Ecological Economics, (revise and resubmit). 3.) I expanded my professional network and reach as a professional by participating in conferences as presenter. These presentations are in addition to the materials from my current research project, which I also plan to present at professional conferences and through my proposed outreach program. M. Kreye, and D. C. Adams, "Water Resource Protection at the Ballot Box: Understanding Voter Preferences and Behavior" Presented at the University of Florida Water Institute Symposium in Gainesville, FL, February 6-7, 2018. M. Kreye, D. C. Adams, H. K. Ober, and N. Peterson, "Forest owner willingness to protect imperiled wildlife species on private lands in Florida" Presented at the Spring Meeting of the Florida Chapter of The Wildlife Society in Orlando FL, April 5-7 2017. M. Kreye, and D. C. Adams, "Analysis of Voter Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Clean Water Services in the Eastern US" Presented at the 2016 A Community on Ecosystem Services Conference in Jacksonville, FL, December 5-9, 2016. M. Kreye, and D. C. Adams, "Forest Owner Cultural Values and Willingness to Accept Compensation for Protecting Imperiled Species on Private Forest Lands in Florida" Presented at the 2016 A Community on Ecosystem Services Conference in Jacksonville, FL, December 5-9, 2016. M. Kreye, and D. C. Adams, "Forest Landowner Values for Protecting Imperiled Species on Private Lands in Florida" Presented at the 2016 Annual Society of American Foresters Convention in Madison, WI, November 2-6, 2016. 4.) I expanded my contributions as a professional by providing peer-review services for three manuscripts for three different scientific journals: Forest Science, Lake and Reservoir Management and Forests. 5.) Since starting the grant I have met with my mentor on a weekly or bi-weekly basis to: (1) Plan and guide research activities (e.g., experimental design and econometric modeling); (2) Provide guidance on how to manage research project goals and resources; (3) Provide guidance in the preparation of manuscripts and conference presentations; (4) Guide teaching efforts; and (5) Provide guidance in how to improve job market materials (e.g., CV), and apply for tenure-track faculty and/or research scientist positions. Regular performance reviews occurred as both formal written reviews (annual) and informal oral reviews (weekly). 6.) I received other types of targeted career training through the Elsevier Tropical Connections Training Program at the University of Florida. This training program focuses on developing a career roadmap toward attaining the desired career in academia, building an achievement portfolio through developing grant proposals, and fostering leadership, mentoring and communication skills. Three of the one-hour workshops I attended, in April 2015, were designed to improve my communication, collaboration, time management, and conflict resolution skills. 7.) Another one of the grant-writing workshops provided by the Elsevier Tropical Connections Training Program provided guidance on how to identify and apply for large research and extension grants in my field. The program also required students, along with the help of assigned mentors, to draft and submit a grant proposal (see next section). 8.) I lead the organization and writing of a research proposal (with three other co-authors) examining how social and regulatory factors influence prescribed fire implementation in the US. The proposal was submitted to the Joint Fire Science Program in December, 2015 and requested $340,000 in funding. The proposal was well received by the grant reviewers, but ultimately was not funded. I plan to continue gaining experience in this area by applying to another external grant opportunity to fund my research and outreach program. 9.) I gained important teaching experience in Fall 2015, when I served as lead instructor for an undergraduate course (i.e., Forests for the Future) in School of Forest Resources and Conservation at the University of Florida. The course addressed the social and ecological aspects of forests and the importance of forest policy and management. I also served as a co-lecturer for an undergraduate course in Natural Resource Policy and Economics. My part of the course curriculum covered one chapter and related to the economics of water supply and management. 10.) I was able to assess my instruction proficiency for the Forest for the Future course through a formal teaching evaluation. Students rated by abilities as an instructor to be 4.5 out of 5, which is similar to the average score of other instructors at the school. 11.) As co-lecturer of the Natural Resource Policy and Economics course, I also gained experience with online course design and delivery. For this course I video recorded and posted my lectures to the distance learning web platform hosted by the University of Florida How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?The stated goals not yet met for this project, and to be completed in the next reporting period, are: complete data analysis, present findings at professional conferences, submit findings to professional journals, develop outreach products, disseminate products (e.g., conduct a webinar), evaluate my outreach program impact.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
The results of the experiments have not yet lead to outcomes or impacts as the research is still ongoing. The following is what has been accomplished so far. Goal 1: My first research goal was to assess how watershed best management practices (BMPs) affects ecosystem service provision (e.g., timber, water supply) on private industrial and non-industrial forest lands in the Southeastern U.S. This information can help inform decision-makers as to how landowner incentive programs that encourage the use of BMPs can help improve the economy in rural communities and increase public welfare through improvements in environmental quality. The first problem I addressed is the need for a better understanding of how different forest management practices affect the provision of different ecosystem services. The first type of ecosystem service I examined was timber provision. To do this I used growth and yield models developed by Pienaar et al. (1996) for the slash pine tree species (Pinus ellottii), commonly grown in the Southeastern U.S. The models were parametrized using averages of important stand characteristics (e.g., basal area) and management practices (e.g., percent thin at tree age 10) common to private forests in the southeast (figures came from recent landowner surveys, industry reports and state agency reports). I also used a stand level economic model, based on the Hartman approach, to determine the profitability of forestlands-in terms of the present value (PV) of different types of timber outputs (e.g., chip and saw, saw logs). The next ecosystem service I examined was the clean water services provided by forests. In most surface waters, there is a strong correlation between water quality and water volume. Water supply is also an increasingly important issue to members of the public in the Southeastern U.S. To understand how changes in forest management may affect clean water supply I applied the equations developed by McLaughlin et al., (2013) to estimate water yield based on average rates of precipitation in the southeast and pine tree basal area. The final ecosystem service I examined related to the benefits of maintaining healthy wildlife populations. To do this I solicited the advice of five experts in forest management and wildlife biology using the Delphi method. The Delphi method of inquiry identified a wide range of factors that can affect the health these wildlife populations. Some factors related specifically to forest management (e.g., tree age and density, percent herbaceous ground cover) and some factors were unrelated to forest management (e.g., spatial location of the forest, soil type, rate of species inbreeding). The experts were then asked to rank the importance of these factors in regards to the health and survival of the indicator wildlife species. This information was used to inform a simple model that estimated how changes in forest management, in a typical stand, likely affected the health of most wildlife populations, while controlling for important factors outside of the stand (e.g., barriers to emigration). Thefindings from the expert panel, together with the findings from the timber and water yield models, provide compelling evidence that (1) in southeastern pine forests clean water and wildlife habitat ecosystem services are often bundled (i.e., associated with each other), and (2) efforts to increase timber outputs reduces water and wildlife ecosystem service outputs. The above findings were used to inform the second goal of my project which seeks to understand how ecosystem service tradeoffs, such as these, affect how forests are valued by the public Goal 2: The problem I address in this section is the need for a better understanding of public demand for different forest outputs, to help inform government policies that influence how private forests are managed. This part of the study also builds on my dissertation research that found that the processes used to implement forest conservation programs (e.g., a conservation easement) also has an important impact on public welfare and willingness to pay for forest-water benefits. Policy strategies, such as land acquisition and conservation easements, are long standing and generally well supported by the public. More recently, policy makers have become interested in advancing market-based payments for ecosystem service approaches, to address the market failures associated with ecosystem service provision on private forestlands. What is not well understood is the public's interest in using market-based strategies, compared to other long standing policy strategies, to help protect or increase certain public goods. Following Matta et al. (2009), I applied an attribute-based choice experiment design to model and analyze public willingness to pay for different levels of ecosystem service provision (i.e., timber, water supply, wildlife population health) using different policy processes (i.e., conservation easement, market-based landowner payment strategy). A survey containing the choice experiment was designed and implemented using a multi-stage process. Survey development consisted of a comprehensive literature review, semi-structured interviews and pre-testing. Likert scale question formats were used to understand how perceptions of ecosystem service provision might affect demand for certain ecosystem services. For example, services that are through to be at risk of decline may increase demand for forest conservation programs that provide those services. Likert scale questions were also used to understand public opinions about harvesting trees and government interventions on private lands. Multiple-choice questions were used to collect demographic data. The final survey contained 26 questions and was distributed to members of the public throughout the southeast using a third party web survey service (i.e., Qualtrics). Since August, 2017, I receivedapproximately 1,800 complete responses from members of the public, over the age of 18, living in Florida, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina. To collect a representative sample of the public, I used filtering procedures to select respondents based on gender, age and race/ethnicity. My demographic distribution targets were based on the distributions described in the most recent US Census. My goal was to collect a representative sample of the target population (95% CI and a 5% margin of error). Additional data were collected using the zip codes reported by respondents which were linked to respondents' locations using GIS shapefiles. Spatial data included county demographic characteristics, percent public/private forest lands and percent forest cover. Data cleaning and data analysis were conducted throughout Fall 2017. Data analysis included descriptive statistics for each state, principal components analysis and the development of several logistical regression models (best-worst scaling, mixed logit). In the final stages of the project I expect to draft 2-3 manuscripts for publication. Research outcomes and policy recommendations will also be disseminated to decision-makers through customized outreach products and reports. Matta, J. R., Alavalapati, J. R., and Mercer, D. E. Incentives for biodiversity conservation beyond the best management practices: are forestland owners interested?. Land Economics 85(1), 132-143, 2009. McLaughlin, D.L.; Kaplan, D.A.; Cohen, M.J. Managing forests for increased regional water yield in the southeastern U.S. Coastal Plain. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2013, 49, 953-965. Pienaar, L.V.; Shiver, B.D.; Rheney, J.W. Yield Prediction for Mechanically Site--Prepared Slash Pine Plantations in the Southeastern Coastal Plain; PMRC Technical Report 1996-3A; University of Georgia: Athens, GA, USA, 1996.
Publications
|
Progress 06/15/16 to 06/14/17
Outputs
Target Audience:The location of my project is in the Southeastern U.S. (i.e., Florida, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina) where most forestlands are privately owned and managed for timber production. These forestlands are often located in small rural communities where there is slow economic growth and few types of employment.My project can help stimulate the economy in these areas by demonstrating to agency leader's the existence of public demand for new types of landowner incentive programs(i.e., market-based payments for ecosystem services). These programs can help address the market failure associated with private lands and non-market ecosystem services which can improve the economy in these rural communities and increase public welfare through improvements in environmental quality. This project targets decision-makers who need estimates of public demand for non-market ecosystem services to support programs that use of landowner incentives to encourage the provision of these services. Decisions-makers targeted by this project include appointed government agency leaders (state and federal) and elected state officials. These decision-makers have not yet been reached by my outreach program, as the research part of the project is not yet complete, but members of the publichave been contacted through focus groups and surveys. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The proposal I submitted for this project outlined a number of specific training goals in research and teaching in higher education. Many of these goals have already been addressed and are described below. Please note, when I arranged for the training opportunities outlined in the grant proposal, some of the opportunities ended up occurring before I officially started the grant, because I requested a six month deferment on the NIFA grant. 1.) I have been able to increase my publishing success in top-tier journals by working with my primary mentor to prepare and submit four research articles for publication (in addition to the two articles planned for this project). M. Kreye, D.C. Adams and H.K. Ober (2017) "Protecting Imperiled Wildlife Species on Private Lands: Forest Owner Values and Response to Government Interventions", Ecological Economics, (revise and resubmit). M. Kreye, D. Adams, R. Ghimire, W. Morse, T. Stein, , and M. Bowker (2017) "Valuing Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Southeastern US" Chapter in a General Technical Report, United States Forest Service, Southern Research Station (in press). M. Kreye, E. F. Pienaar, J. R. Soto and D. C. Adams (2017) "Marketing Payment Programs to Ranchers to Protect Endangered Species on Private Range Lands", Land Economics, 93(3): 459-480, doi:10.3368/le.93.3.459. M. Kreye, D. C. Adams, and J. Kline (2017) "Protecting Open Space: Understanding Voter Preferences and Behavior", Ecological Economics (draft) 2.) I expanded my professional network by participating in conferences as presenter. These presentations are in addition to the materials from my current research project, which I also plan to present at professional conferences and through my proposed outreach program. M. Kreye, and D. C. Adams, "Analysis of Voter Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Clean Water Services in the Eastern US" Presented at the 2016 A Community on Ecosystem Services Conference in Jacksonville, FL, December 5-9, 2016. M. Kreye, and D. C. Adams, "Forest Owner Cultural Values and Willingness to Accept Compensation for Protecting Imperiled Species on Private Forest Lands in Florida" Presented at the 2016 A Community on Ecosystem Services Conference in Jacksonville, FL, December 5-9, 2016. M. Kreye, and D. C. Adams, "Forest Landowner Values for Protecting Imperiled Species on Private Lands in Florida" Presented at the 2016 Annual Society of American Foresters Convention in Madison, WI, November 2-6, 2016. 3.) I expanded my contributions as a professional by providing peer-review services for three manuscripts for three different scientific journals: Forest Science, Lake and Reservoir Management and Forests. 4.) Since starting the grant I have met with my mentor on a weekly or bi-weekly basis to: (1) Plan and guide research activities (e.g., experimental design and econometric modeling); (2) Provide guidance on how to manage research project goals and resources; (3) Provide guidance in the preparation of manuscripts and conference presentations; (4) Guide teaching efforts; and (5) Provide guidance in how to improve job market materials (e.g., CV), and apply for tenure-track faculty and/or research scientist positions. Regular performance reviews occurred as both formal written reviews (annual) and informal oral reviews (weekly). 5.) I received other types of targeted career training through the Elsevier Tropical Connections Training Program at the University of Florida. This training program focuses on developing a career roadmap toward attaining the desired career in academia, building an achievement portfolio through developing grant proposals, and fostering leadership, mentoring and communication skills. Three of the one-hour workshops I attended, in April 2015, were designed to improve my communication, collaboration, time management, and conflict resolution skills. 6.) Another one of the grant-writing workshops provided by the Elsevier Tropical Connections Training Program provided guidance on how to identify and apply for large research and extension grants in my field. The program also required students, along with the help of assigned mentors, to draft and submit a grant proposal (see next section). 7.) I lead the organization and writing of a research proposal (with three other co-authors) examining how social and regulatory factors influence prescribed fire implementation in the US. The proposal was submitted to the Joint Fire Science Program in December, 2015 and requested $340,000 in funding. The proposal was well received by the grant reviewers, but ultimately was not funded. I plan to continue gaining experience in this area by applying to another external grant opportunity to fund my research and outreach program. 8.) I gained important teaching experience in Fall 2015, when I served as lead instructor for an undergraduate course (i.e., Forests for the Future) in School of Forest Resources and Conservation at the University of Florida. The course addressed the social and ecological aspects of forests and the importance of forest policy and management. I also served as a co-lecturer for an undergraduate course in Natural Resource Policy and Economics. My part of the course curriculum covered one chapter and related to the economics of water supply and management. 9.) I was able to assess my instruction proficiency for the Forest for the Future course through a formal teaching evaluation. Students rated by abilities as an instructor to be 4.5 out of 5, which is similar to the average score of other instructors at the school. 10.) As co-lecturer of the Natural Resource Policy and Economics course, I also gained experience with online course design and delivery. For this course I video recorded and posted my lectures to the distance learning web platform hosted by the University of Florida. 11.) In June 2017, I started my training in how to execute a successful extension program by connecting with the program director for Florida Forest Stewardship Program (FFSP) at the University of Florida. Currently I am reviewing some of the outreach materials produced for landowners through this program (factsheets and recorded workshops). I plan to follow up with the director using informal interview procedures to learn more about how these materials were developed and their impact on forest conservation in Florida How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?In the next reporting period, I plan to continue attending additional professional training mini-courses in data analysis and teaching, and submit another research grant proposal. The stated goals not yet met for this project, and to be completed in the next reporting period, are: complete data analysis, present findings at professional conferences, submit findings to professional journals, develop outreach products, disseminate products (e.g., conduct a webinar), evaluate my outreach program impact, serve again as a course instructor or co-lecturer, and identify and apply to faculty positions. The following are planned papers for this project: M. Kreye, D.C. Adams (2018) "Public Preferences for using Ecosystem Service Markets to Protect Water Resources and Wildlife Habitat on Private Lands in the Southeastern US". M. Kreye, D.C. Adams (2018) "Public Perceptions of Change in Ecosystem Service Provision and Willingness to Pay for Conservation on Private Lands in the Southeastern US".
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Goal 1: My first research goal was to assess how watershed best management practices (BMPs) affects ecosystem service provision (e.g., timber, water supply) on private industrial and non-industrial forest lands in the Southeastern U.S. This information can help inform decision-makers as to how landowner incentive programs, that encourage the use of BMPs, can help improve the economy in rural communities and increase public welfare through improvements in environmental quality. The first problem I addressed is the need for a better understanding of how different forest management practices affect the provision of different ecosystem services. To do this I used growth and yield models developed by Pienaar et al. (1996) for the slash pine tree species (Pinus ellottii), commonly grown in the Southeastern U.S. I also used a stand level economic model, based on the Hartman approach, to determine the profitability of forestlands-in terms of the present value (PV) of different types of timber outputs (e.g., chip and saw, saw logs).I found pine stands managed at high densities (e.g., 30 m2/ha) and harvested at younger tree ages (e.g., 25-30 years) maximized timber outputs and timber revenues, which istypical of a forest managed as a pine plantation in the southeast. Conversely, I found trees grown at lower densities (e.g., 10 to 20 m2/ha) and harvesting at older tree ages (e.g., 50-75 years) greatly reduced timber revenues, and at times, made growing trees for production not economically practical. I characterized this outcome as being typical of a forest managed to have a more natural structure, or the historic forest condition. The next ecosystem service I examined was the clean water services provided by forests. To understand how changes in forest management may affect clean water supply I applied the equations developed by McLaughlin et al., (2013) to estimate water yield based on average rates of precipitation in the southeast and pine tree basal area. I found stands managed as pine plantations (i.e., at higher tree densities and harvested at younger ages) can use up to 25% more water during evapotranspiration, compared to forest stands managed for the historic condition. This means that forests managed to maximize timber outputs can affect water supply in surface water bodies by reducing the amount of water that comes from precipitation sources. The final ecosystem service I examined related to the benefits of maintaining healthy wildlife populations. Forest management influences the structure and function of habitats and their suitability for sustaining wildlife populations. To measurewildlife conservation outcomesI solicited the advice of five experts in forest management and wildlife biology using the Delphi method. During this process, two imperiled wildlife species were chosen to serve as indicators of wildlife conservation outcomes, the gopher tortoise (GT) and the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW).The Delphi method of inquiry identified a wide range of factors that can affect the health these wildlife populations. Some factors related specifically to forest management (e.g., tree age and density, percent herbaceous ground cover) and some factors were unrelated to forest management (e.g., spatial location of the forest, soil type, rate of species inbreeding). The experts were then asked to rank the importance of these factors and this information was used to inform a simple model that estimated how changes in forest management likely affected the health of most wildlife populations. The model revealed that the health of most wildlife populations are improved by approximately 43% in stands managed for the historic condition (and include the use of frequent fire) compared to the pine plantation condition. These findings, together with the findings from the timber and water yield models, provide compelling evidence that (1) in southeastern pine forests clean water and wildlife habitat ecosystem services are often bundled (i.e., associated with each other), and (2) efforts to increase timber outputs reduces water and wildlife ecosystem service outputs. The above findings were used to inform the second goal of my project which seeks to understand how ecosystem service tradeoffs, such as these, affect how forests are valued by the public Goal 2: The problem I address in this section is the need for a better understanding of public demand for different forest outputs, to help inform government policies that influence how private forests are managed. This part of the study also builds on my dissertation research that found that the processes used to implement forest conservation programs (e.g., a conservation easement) also has an important impact on public welfare and willingness to pay for forest-water benefits. Policy strategies, such as land acquisition and conservation easements, are long standing and generally well supported by the public. More recently, policy makers have become interested in advancing market-based payments for ecosystem service approaches, to address the market failures associated with ecosystem service provision on private forestlands. What is not well understood is the public's interest in using market-based strategies, compared to other long standing policy strategies, to help protect or increase certain public goods. Following Matta et al. (2009), I applied an attribute-based choice experiment design to model and analyze public willingness to pay for different levels of ecosystem service provision (i.e., timber, water supply, wildlife population health) using different policy processes (i.e., conservation easement, market-based landowner payment strategy). A survey containing the choice experiment was designed and implemented using a multi-stage process. Survey development consisted of a comprehensive literature review, semi-structured interviews and pre-testing. Likert scale question formats were used to understand how perceptions of ecosystem service provision might affect demand for certain ecosystem services. For example, services that are through to be at risk of decline may increase demand for forest conservation programs that provide those services. Likert scale questions were also used to understand public opinions about harvesting trees and government interventions on private lands. Multiple-choice questions were used to collect demographic data. The final survey contained 26 questions and was distributed to members of the public throughout the southeast using a third party web survey service (i.e., Qualtrics). Since July 15, 2017, I have contacted approximately 1,600 members of the public, over the age of 18, living in Florida, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina. To collect a representative sample of the public, I used filtering procedures to select respondents based on gender, age and race/ethnicity. My demographic distribution targets were based on the distributions described in the most recent US Census. At the close of the survey I expect to collect a representative sample of the target population (95% CI and a 5% margin of error). The results of this project will be discussed in the next report and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Research outcomes and policy recommendations will also be disseminated to decision-makers through customized outreach products and reports. Matta, J. R., Alavalapati, J. R., and Mercer, D. E. Incentives for biodiversity conservation beyond the best management practices: are forestland owners interested?. Land Economics 85(1), 132-143, 2009. McLaughlin, D.L.; Kaplan, D.A.; Cohen, M.J. Managing forests for increased regional water yield in the southeastern U.S. Coastal Plain. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2013, 49, 953-965. Pienaar, L.V.; Shiver, B.D.; Rheney, J.W. Yield Prediction for Mechanically Site--Prepared Slash Pine Plantations in the Southeastern Coastal Plain; PMRC Technical Report 1996-3A; University of Georgia: Athens, GA, USA, 1996.
Publications
|