State Report for Texas

For Texas, estimated merchantable wood volume is expected to increase from 25.072 billion cubic-feet to 25.169 billion (a change of 0.4%), while estimated sawlog wood volume is expected to decrease from 11.541 billion cubic-feet to 11.443 billion (-0.9%). Estimated merchantable bole biomass is expected to decrease from 471.64 million tons to 461.06 million (-2.2%), while estimated stump biomass is expected to increase from 30.565 million tons to 35.235 million (15.3%), and estimated tops and limbs biomass is expected to increase from 105.58 million tons to 209.57 million (98.5%). Finally, estimated aboveground biomass is expected to increase from 686.23 million tons to 790.51 million, a change of 15.2%.

Figure 1: Percent difference in volume and biomass for Texas

Species breakdown

The top ten species in Texas in terms of standing biomass are loblolly pine, live oak, post oak, water oak, sweetgum, cedar elm, shortleaf pine, southern red oak, winged elm, and sugarberry. These species account for 72.2% of the total aboveground biomass and 75.1% of the total merchantable volume. For merchantable wood volume, the species with the smallest percent change was sweetgum -0.3%, while the largest percent change was with live oak -12.7%. For total aboveground biomass, the species with the smallest percent change was loblolly pine 1%, while the largest percent change was with live oak 34%. For sawlog wood volume, the species with the smallest percent change was post oak 0.1%, while the largest percent change was with sweetgum -8.7%. For merchantable bole biomass, the species with the smallest percent change was cedar elm 1.3%, while the largest percent change was with live oak -10.7%. For stump wood and bark biomass, the species with the smallest percent change was winged elm -6.4%, while the largest percent change was with post oak 62.4%. For top and limb biomass, the species with the smallest percent change was sweetgum 17.2%, while the largest percent change was with live oak 220.7%.

Figure 2: Percent difference in total aboveground biomass and merchantable volume for the top ten species in Texas

Figure 3: Percent difference in component biomass and volume for the top ten species in Texas