For Mississippi, estimated merchantable wood volume is expected to increase from 37.83 billion cubic-feet to 38.31 billion (a change of 1.3%), while estimated sawlog wood volume is expected to decrease from 22.216 billion cubic-feet to 22.057 billion (-0.7%). Estimated merchantable bole biomass is expected to increase from 669.98 million tons to 673.26 million (0.5%), while estimated stump biomass is expected to decrease from 40.431 million tons to 37.375 million (-7.6%), and estimated tops and limbs biomass is expected to increase from 140.01 million tons to 207.63 million (48.3%). Finally, estimated aboveground biomass is expected to increase from 930.88 million tons to 1011.8 million, a change of 8.7%.
Figure 1: Percent difference in volume and biomass for Mississippi
The top ten species in Mississippi in terms of standing biomass are loblolly pine, sweetgum, water oak, white oak, southern red oak, cherrybark oak, slash pine, yellow- poplar, shortleaf pine, and red maple. These species account for 70.3% of the total aboveground biomass and 74.5% of the total merchantable volume. For merchantable wood volume, the species with the smallest percent change was loblolly pine 0%, while the largest percent change was with shortleaf pine 4.9%. For total aboveground biomass, the species with the smallest percent change was loblolly pine 1.5%, while the largest percent change was with white oak 27.8%. For sawlog wood volume, the species with the smallest percent change was water oak -0.1%, while the largest percent change was with sweetgum -8%. For merchantable bole biomass, the species with the smallest percent change was loblolly pine -0.8%, while the largest percent change was with cherrybark oak -23.2%. For stump wood and bark biomass, the species with the smallest percent change was sweetgum 4.1%, while the largest percent change was with red maple 38.2%. For top and limb biomass, the species with the smallest percent change was sweetgum 6.4%, while the largest percent change was with southern red oak 151.3%.
Figure 2: Percent difference in total aboveground biomass and merchantable volume for the top ten species in Mississippi
Figure 3: Percent difference in component biomass and volume for the top ten species in Mississippi