📘 Read the full study in Journal of Forestry (2026): https://doi.org/10.1007/s44392-026-00091-y or contact Dr. Bruno da Siva for more information.
A recently published study in the Journal of Forestry, led by Dr. Bruno da Silva and supported by graduate students and faculty at the Langdale Center for Forest Business, explores an important question for the forestry sector: what happens to pine plantation investment returns when pulp mills close and pulpwood prices fall? Focusing on south Georgia, north Florida, and east South Carolina, the researchers analyzed how different planting densities and thinning strategies perform when pulpwood prices drop by 50% or disappear entirely.
Lower pulpwood prices can significantly reduce landowner returns
Across all regions and silvicultural treatments studied, lower pulpwood prices reduced land expectation value (LEV), a key measure of timberland investment performance. When pulpwood prices were reduced by 50%, projected timberland returns fell by 13% to 34%, depending on the region and management approach. When pulpwood prices dropped to zero, projected losses ranged from 28% to 68%.
These findings highlight how strongly pulpwood markets influence the financial performance of pine plantations in the U.S. South. Even when returns remained positive, the size of the losses varied considerably based on management decisions and local market conditions.
Management strategy affects resilience
One of the clearest findings from the study is that management strategy shapes resilience. Treatments with one thinning were among the most exposed to pulpwood price declines because thinning removals were concentrated in pulpwood-sized material. By contrast, lower planting density was less affected, and treatments with two thinnings were somewhat buffered because the second thinning included more chip-n-saw volume.
The paper also found that more intensive treatments generally produced the highest LEV under business-as-usual conditions, but those systems were still vulnerable when pulpwood markets weakened.
Regional differences matter
The regional comparisons are especially relevant for forestry professionals. Under business-as-usual conditions, the highest LEV among the scenarios studied occurred in south Georgia, followed by north Florida and east South Carolina, reflecting differences in historical stumpage prices across markets. When pulpwood prices declined, losses occurred in every region, but the magnitude varied by region and treatment.
For example, in one of the least severe cases highlighted in the paper, returns in east South Carolina under the low-density treatment fell 13% when pulpwood prices were cut in half and 28% when pulpwood prices dropped to zero. In north Florida (FL-02), returns under that same low-density treatment fell 20% and 38% under those scenarios.
Longer rotations may help, but they are not a complete solution
Another important takeaway is that lower pulpwood prices tend to extend optimal rotation ages. As pulpwood becomes less valuable, waiting longer allows more of the stand volume to move into higher-value chip-n-saw and sawtimber classes.
This insight is especially important for landowners, consultants, and investment managers considering how to adapt silvicultural plans in markets facing structural change. At the same time, the study emphasizes that longer rotations and shifts toward higher-value products do not eliminate the financial effects of a weaker pulpwood market.
A practical caution for landowners and investors
The authors also offer an important caution: relying on stronger chip-n-saw and sawtimber markets to fully replace lost pulpwood value may not be realistic in the near term. The paper estimates the chip-n-saw and sawtimber prices that would be needed to offset pulpwood losses and notes that, while such prices have occurred historically in some cases, landowners should not assume those market conditions will return.
In practical terms, the research suggests that adaptation may need to come more from management decisions and risk planning than from expectations of a quick market rebound.
Why this matters beyond forestry professionals
This issue is not only important for landowners and forestry professionals. The paper points out that pulp mills support jobs, local businesses, and broader forest-sector activity. It also argues that maintaining sustainable forest markets matters not only for economic reasons, but also for the social, ecological, and environmental services forests provide.
For the general public, that means mill closures are not just an industry issue. They can affect rural economies, land management decisions, and the long-term sustainability of working forests across the region.
