Clearcutting has been the most widely recommended and applied regeneration method, albeit with mixed success, in the management of oak forests. It was most successfully applied in the drier ecosystems where oak reproduction naturally accumulated in the understory. Such forests occurred in the Missouri Ozarks and the oak-hickory forests of the Ohio Valley and Appalachians (Sander 1977, Ross et al. 1986). Clearcutting was less successful in regenerating oaks in the more mesic ecosystems of the Ohio Valley, Appalachians, and elsewhere (Beck and Hooper 1986, Gammon et al. 1960, Johnson 1976, Loftis 1983b). Failures were largely related to the inability of oak reproduction to accumulate in the heavily shaded understories of these forests (Johnson, 1993a).

In the 1960s, even-aged management became the modus operandi for much of the central and eastern hardwood region. It was enthusiastically accepted for several reasons. It met the ecological requirements of the commercially valuable, shade-intolerant species, including the oaks, white ash (Fraxinus americana L.), black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.), and yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.). Even-aged management also was economically efficient. Logging, road building, and administrative costs were minimized because large timber volumes could be harvested from relatively small areas. Moreover, the system was simple to implement, in contrast to the relatively complicated timber marking rules used to create the diameter distributions needed in uneven-aged management (Roach 1963, Smith and Lamson 1982, Trimble et al. 1974). There also was growing uncertainty about the ability of the commercially valuable intolerant species, including the oaks, to sustain the age distributions required in uneven-aged management (Roach 1963, Schlesinger 1976). Other factors that contributed to the acceptance of clearcutting included its endorsement by wildlife managers, the development of even-aged stocking guides (e.g., Gingrich 1967), an established scientific basis for its application (Roach and Gingrich 1968), and its utility in regulating the distribution of age classes of stands. Clearcutting is also recommended where tree quality and stocking are poor (such as in high-graded stands) and there is little potential to upgrade the stand (Kellison and others 1988). The many advantages of clearcutting upland hard wood forests have been further discussed by McGee (1987). (Johnson, 1993a)

In the first two decades of clearcutting (1960s and 1970s), forest managers were not greatly concerned about a diminishing oak resource even though many were aware of the problem. Apathy was reinforced by the economic acceptability of the species that usually replaced oaks in mesic ecosystems. Although there was some concert over increases in the proportion of the less valuable shade-tolerant hardwoods such as sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.), red maple (A. rubrum L.), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.), clearcutting usually provided an acceptable mix of species even though the oak component was greatly reduced (Beck and Hooper 1986, Johnson 1976, Loftis 1983b).

That apathy diminished during the last decade for two reasons. First, in the late 1970s, there was a large increase in the demand and value of oak logs (Hoover 1985). This spurred management specifically for oaks and a concern for the economic losses that accompanied a shrinking oak resource. Second, the rise of environmental activism drew public attention to the perceived negative consequences of clearcutting. These perceptions included decreased aesthetic value, biodiversity, old growth, and certain wildlife values along with increased forest fragmentation. (Johnson, 1993a)

Patric and Schell (1990) indicated that much of the controversy over clearcutting is based on the misconception that clearcutting is simply a harvest-only technique and is frequently confused with the practice of high-grading, or cutting only good and valuable trees and leaving the poor ones. The concern expressed that clearcutting leads to erosion is also generally unfounded, and most of the soil movement that occurs during forest harvesting is preventable since it results from poorly constructed roads (Kochenderfer 1970). (Hicks 1998)

To counter concerns about the possible adverse impacts of clearcutting oak forests, various modifications of the method were advocated. These included reducing the size of clearcuts; leaving snags, cull trees, and uncut islands of trees; deferring the removal of non-commercial residual trees; shaping cuts to fit more aesthetically into the landscape; and leaving uncut strips where clearcuts bordered roads, lakes, streams, and other sensitive areas (Evans and Conner 1979; Smith et al. 1989; USDA Forest Service 1973, 1980). Although all of these methods were compatible with attaining conventional oak regeneration objectives, they also were consistent with other management objectives such as improving wildlife habitat for some species and enhancing landscape aesthetics and biodiversity (Perry et al. 1990). Nevertheless, the use of clearcutting on public lands, especially the National Forests, has further declined in favor of systems that focus less on producing commodities and more on preserving biodiversity and other values (Gale and Cordray 1991, Hansen et al. 1991, Kessler 1991, Perry and Maghembe 1989, Salwasser 1990). (Johnson, 1993a)

The clearcutting regeneration method has been applied in the Southern Appalachians for several decades and research on this technique dates back to the 1920s. The accumulation of knowledge on this regeneration method has revealed several general patterns.

First, species composition following the clearcutting method is generally related to site quality. On high-quality mesic sites and in cove stands, species composition following the clearcutting method is generally dominated by yellow-poplar seedlings, sweet birch seedlings, stump sprouts of red maple, and root sprouts of black locust. It has been observed that stands become increasingly dominated by yellow poplar with development (Beck and Hooper 1986). At elevations of 3,500 to 4,500 feet in the southern Appalachians numerous black cherry seedlings often appear after clearcutting.(Hicks 1998)

On medium-quality sites dominated by upland oak species, species composition following the clearcutting method is generally dominated by the same species that were harvested, primarily white, scarlet, and chestnut oak with several pine species as associates. As previously noted, more sproutable stumps are usually present on such sites than on the better quality cove sites. Also, greater numbers of advance oak seedlings are frequently present due to the less competition from tolerant understory species. Therefore, if the clearcut stand is on southeast or northwest middle and upper slopes, we can expect to have a stand at about age 20 that can be molded into an essentially pure oak stand by thinning. On north and east aspects and lower slopes, the stand composition may be highly variable. (Sander and Graney, 1993)

Second, if advance growth dependent species, e.g. oaks, are desired on these high-quality sites, large advance reproduction of these species must be present at the time of harvest if they are to represented as dominant and codominant stems in the new stand. Herbicide application prior to, during, or immediately after harvest is often necessary to control sources of competing species. (USDA Forest Service 1995)

Third, an opening of at least 1-2 acres in size is required in order to create the openness needed to produce the characteristics of a clearcut (Sander 1992; Dale et al. 1994). Stands smaller than this have a large proportion of their area in a zone around the stand border where reproduction growth will be slow because of the influence of the surrounding trees. (Hicks 1998)

In spite of these general patterns, Loftis (1988b) acknowledges that the type and amount of regeneration following clearcutting can be quite variable, and there are instances where clearcutting has not achieved the desired objectives. For example, Elliott and Swank (1994) reported that a southern Appalachian hardwood stand clearcut in 1939 and again in 1962 showed a decrease in frequency of oaks, due in part to the regeneration strategies that are initiated when clearcutting a very young stand (notably sprouting).(Hicks 1998)

On many sites in the southern Appalachians, the clearcutting method increases unwanted competing or allelopathic vegetation, rather than the desired species (Boring et al. 1981; Leopold and Parker 1985). Horsley (1988) lists a number of woody and herbaceous species as undesirable competing vegetation, including ferns, grasses, brambles, rhododendron, mountain laurel, grapevine, striped maple, sourwood, dogwood, pin cherry, sassafras, and blackgum. It is important, before clearcutting, to assess the potential for such competitive interactions. The options for control vary, according to the type of competing vegetation being managed, but may range from selecting an alternative regeneration system to use of prescribed fire or herbicide treatment before or after cutting. Since most selective herbicides kill broadleaf species, it is not practical to use broadcast spraying after hardwood regeneration has already become established. In such cases, spot spraying, injection, or basal spraying may be required. Both herbicide injection and/or basal spray of individual stems shortly before harvest (Loftis 1985) and cut-stump treatment with herbicides at the tire of the harvest cut have met with success in the southern Appalachians (Zedaker 1987). Cutting competing vegetation without the use of herbicides is not effective due to the rapid regrowth of sprouts from the cut stumps. These treatments are expensive and labor intensive; thus, where such problems are expected, it may not be economically feasible to do them, particularly for the small private landowners typical of the southern Appalachians. Ferns and grasses have an advantage over tree seedlings in highly compacted soils so it is imperative that soil compaction be minimized during logging. (Hicks 1998)

Deer browsing also contributes to the failure of regeneration (Marquis and Grisez 1978). Smaller isolated clearcuts are particularly vulnerable since they serve as an attractant for deer. In addition to using larger clearcuts, leaving slash piles scattered through the clearcut helps in discouraging deer and promotes regeneration success. A last resort for obtaining regeneration in areas with very high deer population levels is fencing (Marquis and Grisez 1978) however, fencing alone may not be enough to ensure regeneration. (Hicks 1998)

In a few situations in the central hardwood region natural regeneration may need to be supplemented by planting or direct seeding following clearcutting (Pope 1993). Plantings can be successful but are expensive and will probably require weed control or protection from deer during the first few years, particularly on good sites (Stout 1986; Walters 1993). Although planting may be desirable under certain circumstances (Davidson 1988), cost and uncertainty of success limit its practice. (Hicks 1998)

1. Determine size of area to be designated as a stand. Stand size can vary but should be at least 2 acres. Stands smaller than this have a large proportion of their area in a zone around the stand border where reproduction growth will be slow because of the influence of the surrounding trees. A stand should preferably be restricted to a single condition or size class of timber and site quality. Size of the forest property will also influence stand size. In areas where deer populations are high, stand size may need to be relatively large in order to reduce the impact of browsing on reproduction growth.

2. Arrange and shape clearcuts so they mingle with uncut stands and blend into the landscape as much as possible.

3. Plan, construct, and maintain skid trails and logging roads to minimize erosion.

4. Harvest all merchantable trees.

5. Cut or kill remaining culls and small trees larger than about 2 in. d.b.h. Killing the unwanted trees instead of cutting them reduces sprouting and provides snags for nesting holes and perches for birds. Cutting some of them will provide habitat for other wildlife species such as ruffed grouse.

6. There may be some other options for harvesting and getting rid of the unwanted and unmerchantable trees. These options are generally used for special purposes, such as to soften the aesthetic impact or provide special wildlife habitat. Their use depends on owner policy rather than silvicultural desirability. (Sander and Graney, 1993)

If the clearcut stand is on southeast or northwest middle and upper slopes, we can expect to have a stand at about age 20 that can be molded into an essentially pure oak stand by thinning. On north and east aspects and lower slopes, the stand composition may be highly variable. In the mixed and western mesophytic forest regions, yellow-poplar will likely be abundant. Other species such as white ash, black cherry, and red and sugar maples will also be present. However, if the oak advance regeneration is adequate, we can expect to have a predominantly oak stand 20 years after clearcutting. (Sander and Graney, 1993)

When clearcutting to regenerate oaks in bottomlands, the harvest should take place during the dormant season to maximize stump sprouting (Kellison and others 1988). Control of residuals either by herbicides or cutting is advocated, especially after a commercial clearcut (Golden and Loewenstein 1991), to reduce competition from undesirable midstory and understory species (Janzen and Hodges 1987). Clearcutting is also recommended where tree quality and stocking are poor (such as in high-graded stands) and there is little potential to upgrade the stand (Kellison and others 1988). (Clatterbuck and Meadows, 1993)