Page images
PDF
EPUB

fence erected around the entire property except the side immediately adjoining the Arboretum, the posts being obtained from the scattered trees which had to be removed in order to put the plan into operation. Incidentally it is interesting that enough was realized from the sale of cordwood to meet the expense of clearing the ground, and of planting the new trees.

The land which was set aside for this experimental tree plantation is located on a gently sloping mountain side of approximately 1,000 feet elevation; at places the soil is good, at other places it is thin or rocky. The land is entirely unsuitable for agricultural or even grazing purposes, and is typical of thousands of acres of Pennsylvania mountain land waiting to be reclaimed by scientific reforestation.

All of these features, together with the prevailing winds and the relative position of the highway, were taken unto account by Dr. Rothrock and Mr. Elliott in making their plan.

The tract is approximately in the form of a triangle with the base 411 feet, adjoining the Arboretum; one side, 1,034 feet, along the highway; and the other side, 947 feet, a continuation of the Arboretum boundary line. It seemed advisable to divide the land into plots approximately 100 feet square, with a driveway 16 feet in width extending around the property and pathways 6 feet wide separating any two adjoining plots. The arrangement is shown on the accompanying chart. In this way each block lends itself to experimentation as to the relative value of pure and mixed stands, and in the latter case the relative value of alternating the trees in a row or of planting alternate rows of different varieties. It seemed desirable to make the experiment with a large number of both evergreen and deciduous trees of recognized timber value. The various combinations are shown on the chart.*

The following trees have been planted .
500 White Pine.
500 Pitch Pine.

400 Red Pine.

500 Jack Pine. 400 Shortleaved Pine. 400 Scotch Pine. 100 Red Spruce. 500 Norway Spruce. 400 European Larch. 200 Bald Cypress. 100 Pin Oak.

400 Burr Oak. 300 White Oak.

300 Black Oak.

200 Scarlet Oak.
200 Cucumber.
600 Tulip Poplar.
300 Black Cherry.
300 Honey Locust.
400 Sugar Maple.
600 Basswood.
700 White Ash.
100 Yellow Birch.
100 Elm.

100 Hemlock. 8,600

[blocks in formation]

To one not particularly interested in forestry the present appearance of this experimental tree plantation is not at all impressive, on account of the small size of the trees, but it is the beginning of a practical scientific experiment, so far unique in this country, which is bound in ten, twenty and fifty years from now to be productive of information of great value to the forestry interests of this Commonwealth.

Mr. S. B. ELLIOTT in discussing the paper said: The main cause which led me to recommend the establishment of a Demonstration Plantation of trees that are of economic importance for the production of needful forest products was that thus far, in this country, we have been without practical knowledge of forest growth, and the adaptation of species to locations and environments; and hence all has been largely, if not wholly guess-work. Another reason was that if a plantation of that kind were established where it could be seen by the public at large, and where the several species of our timber trees could be seen in proximity to each other, deductions could be drawn without having to investigate forests remote from each other, and where climatic and local conditions might vary, and it would have a great educational power. Besides all this there was present in my mind the great advantage to foresters of the future who could see what those of the present day were unable to ascertain-the adaptability of certain species to certain soils, location, and environment-and thus have set before them an object lesson of great value.

As there exists a difference of opinion among educated foresters as to whether pure or mingled stands are best, Dr. Rothrock and I arranged the planting so that one-half of each compartment should be of one species only, and the other half of the same compartment of mingled species of various kinds, so that the forester of the future can see which is best in like situations. It is but proper to state that we fully agreed on all details, and if there should prove to be a failure we two, alone, are responsible.

I am clear in the conviction that Dr. Drinker and his Trustees acted wisely in declining the generous offer to establish a school of forestry in Lehigh University. While there was a dearth of such schools in our country a few years ago, they have now so multiplied that there are far more graduates of such schools being turned out every year than are at all likely to find renumerative employment. Already scores are advertising for situations. Pennsylvania probably employs more than any other ten, if not more than all the rest of the States, and she is educating her own foresters; and where these numerous graduates who

will be turned loose within the next two or three years are to find employment is more than I can conceive. Some of the schools look upon the case in its true light and are refusing applications, and take on such only as have reasonable grounds to anticipate employment. I do not mean to find fault with the forestry schools. They are doing a necessary and good work, but it is being overdone. Besides this the scope of their education is limited to a comparatively few, while Lehigh University has established the plan which Dr. Drinker has indicated, which reaches the people at large, and spreads its influence in the line of education where it is most needed; hence, without detracting in the least from the work of the average forest school, I am clear in the conviction that Lehigh University is actually doing a greater good than if it had established a forestry school, and consequently doing more practical work in educating the people than any other institution in our country; and for this good work, this painstaking, generous, patriotic, financially unremunerative work, we are indebted to the far-seeing wisdom of the donor of the necessary funds to carry it on a donor who stands unknown to the public which is benefitted by that wisdom and liberality. And we are also indebted to the wise foresight of Dr. Drinker who saw the greatest needs of the country, and who carefully worked out for the benefit of the people the broad scheme of education indicated. Therefore, the people of this country should do homage, and be grateful for all this to these two who, as I have heretofore said, saw, and dared, and did.

Dr. J. T. ROTHROCK following Mr. Elliott's comments on the forestry demonstration plantation at Lehigh University, said that, in his opinion, it was a most important educational move, not simply because of its association with a great educational institution, but because also of its relation to the whole forestry problem of the State.

The soil upon which this plantation is made represents fairly the character of the millions of acres upon which Pennsylvania's future forests are to grow, if grown at all. It is non agricultural land, upon which timber has once grown. Whatever is possible there is possible elsewhere in our State. Furthermore, this same plantation, it is hoped, will help to solve for our region the relative merits of different methods in forestry procedure, for we may safely assume that they will be fully "tried out."

Our hope is that Lehigh University will enlarge the area devoted to this productive line of work, because there is an assurance that a well-considered

plan will be followed to its natural results; an assurance which, unfortunately, cannot be positively counted upon for any State operation.

Pennsylvania State Forest Planting. Spring 1915.

D

URING the spring of 1915, the Pennsylvania Department of Forestry planted a total of 4,315,371 seedlings and transplants in its efforts to reforest portions of the denuded and barren areas lying within the State Forests, and 13,950 willow cuttings were planted in holts. This was an increase of almost 1,000,ooo over the number planted in 1914, and is the largest number ever planted on Pennsylvania State Forests. For the most part, the planting was done where natural regeneration could not be counted on, and where artificial reforestation must be resorted to if merchantable trees are to replace undesirable trees, weeds, bracken, and sweet fern.

Planting on State Forests was begun as early as the year 1899, when 1,000 Carolina poplar cuttings were planted as an experiment on the Pocono Forest, in Pike county. With the exception of the year 1901, plantations have been made every year since then, each year a larger number of plants being used, and with better success.

The first plantations were made on small areas with a few thousand seedlings, and were largely experimental. The purpose was to determine the species best suited to local conditions. Many failures resulted but the successes obtained have shown what and how to plant. We feel that the purely experimental stage has been passed, and that the commercial and financial aspect must hereafter be given first consideration, although some experimenting must necessarily be carried on.

Reforestation by direct seed sowing is still being experimented with, but thus far without success. This spring five foresters made new experiments with seed but the results cannot be determined as yet. 13.6 acres were sown with white pine, Norway spruce, pitch pine, black walnut, European larch and Scotch pine. The seed cost $26.41 and the sowing $25.25, a total of $51.66.

The accompanying tables show the number of seedlings and transplants planted, the cost of same, and the area planted. It is of interest to note that 51 per cent. of the plants used were white pine, and 31 per cent. Norway spruce, the two species making up 82 per cent. of the total planted. The total number of acres of new plantations established is 2,583 79, and 230.73 acres of plantations made in former years were reinforced. This was done to fill in fail spots.

W. G. C.

[blocks in formation]

TABLE NO. 1.-PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY. Summary of Planting for Reforestation on the State Forests-Spring, 1915.

Re-en

ments.

force

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

2

N. S.-W. P.-K. O.

128,500 3,000!

96.1 3.0

338.62

293.01

631.63

2.23

6.40

5.25

120,000.

47.8

306.25

520.25

826.50

4.00

17.09

1

E. L.-N. S.-W. P.-R. P.-S. P.

177.800

70.0

436.93

577.24 1,014.17.

Chatham

T. C. Harbesou.

2

3 N. S.-R. F.-W. P.-S. PE. L..

14.49

37.735 31,160 34.6 34.8

170.65

160.01

330.66

.32

5.22

4.30

Clearfield.

W. F. Dague..

1

N. S..

52,000

13.5

130.00

132.18

Grays Run..

Greenwood
Hopkins.....
Hull.
Karthaus
Kettle Creek.

Kishacoquillas.
Loyalsock.
Lushbaugh.
McClure.

262.18

2.54

19.42

A. B. Welis..

10

6

N. S.-W. P..

33,610 19,015

41.5 9.44

125.01

158.60'

283.61

3.11

4.17

T. O. Bietsch

5

12

B. F.-N. S.-R. P.-W. P.-S. P.-K. O.-B. W

41,775

F. H. Dutlinger.

47,600

13.8 63.9

292.45

229.48

521.93

2.57

16.87

11.70 4.53

1

N. S.-W. P.

67.750

40.9

176.31

G. S. Perry.

E. L.-R. P.-W. P.-S. P.-D. F...

107,900

52.0

318.93

N. R. McNaughton

E. L.-N. S.-W. P.

292,900

99.17

M. E. Müller.

E. L.-N. S.-R. P.-W. P.-R. O

452.84 629.15 333.46 767.50 963.35

6.68

15.38

652,39

3.09

12.56

1,730.85

3.28

17.45

80,000!

109.9

216.50

276.29

492.79

3.45

D. K. Warfleld.

4.48

1

E. L.-N. S.-W. P.-R. P.-R. O.-Willow.

24,400

100

14.21 .59

85.12

72.49

157.61

2.17

J. A. Bastian.

11.04

1.19

E. L.-W. P.

10,000

3.6

28.75

54.29

W. H. Horning.

83.04

5.43

23.07

N. S.-W. P.-R. P.-R. O.

95,100

63.2

246.30

469.13

715.43

4.91

11.32

J. L. Witherow.

W. P.

24,700

14.4

67.92

107.79

175.71

4.36'

[blocks in formation]

12.20

E. L.-W. P.-R. O.

15,500

7.95.

41.63

67.92

109.55

4.38

13.79

C. R. Zerby.

1

E. L.-N. S.-W. P.

84,700

51.6

244.70

216.12

[blocks in formation]

W. E. Montgomery
H. F. Elliott.
W. B. Evans.

L. E. Staley

460.82

2.55

8.93

3

B. F.-N.S.-R. P.-W. P.-S. P.-O. F.-B. C.-R. O.-H. L

92,6215

70.72

224.35

465.14

689.49

5.00

9.75

H. C. Van Horn.

1

E. L.-N. S.-W. S.-R. P.-W. P.-S. P.-D. F.

429,100

418.4

1,116.25

1,066.63

2,182.88.

2.49

5.23

L. G. Barnes.

1

W. P.

25,000

13.6

75.00

82.27

157.27

3.29

11.55

C. L. Kirk..

1

1

E. L.-N. S.-R. P.-W. P.-D. F.

186.000 111,000

125.9 41.4

720.38

804.39

1,523.77

2.70

7.77

13.14

C. R. Meek.

1

W. P.-R. O..

110,000

28.3

250.00

198.92

448.92

1.81

15.86

H. E. Bryner.

3

W. P.-B. W.

20,190

22.5

57.20

68.94

126.14

3.41

5.61

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

119.2

276.20

486.22

762.42

4.15, 6.39

B. F.-N. S.-R. P.-S. P.-W. P.-R. O..

141,550

54.73

375.14

180.96

556.10

1.27

10.145

N. S.-W. P.

6,850

6.17

20.55

55.42

75.97

8.09

12.31

W. P.

25,000

15.5

68.75

44.77

113.52

1.79

7.32

N. S.-R. P.

103,500

45.82

245.001

273.49

518 49

2.64

11.32

E. L.-N. S.-R. P.-S. P.-W. P.-D. F.-R. O.

117,000

72.00

282.95

287.21

570.16

2.45

7.92

N. S.-W. P.

24.440

14.2

62.21

106.20

168.41

.35

11.86

E. L.-W. P.

153,300,

152.8

357.42 331.89

689.31

2.16

4.51

1

E. L.-W. P.

26,000

8.4

P. H. Mulford.

N. S.-R. P.-W. P.

25,600

12.1

[blocks in formation]

V. M. Beater..

5

E. L.-N. S.-R. P.-W. P.

193,500

123.4

458.87

[blocks in formation]

670.85

1,129.72

.83

9.15

H. S. Metzger.

2

W. P.

8,000

5.05

24.00

19.74

43.74

6.461

J. B. Ryon..

8.66

1

W. P.-D. F.-R. O.

70,250

36.0

R. B. Winter.

5

E. L.-N. S.-R. P.-W. P.

47,925

86.5

Young Womans Creek. H. F. Critchley.

1

N. S.-W. P.

30,300

9.87

[blocks in formation]

9.85

253.76

372.82

7.76

4.30

246.55

4.97 25.02

[blocks in formation]

(a) There were also planted 13,950 willow cuttings for holts, costing $88.12.

ja 4,061,806 253,565 2,583.79 230.73 $10,911.47 $12,754.84 $23,666.31

[blocks in formation]

TABLE NO. 2.-PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY.

Species, Age, and Distribution of Trees Planted on State Forests-Spring, 1915.

[blocks in formation]

1,445,525 315,365,372,300 2,460 7,510 264,100 55,000 73,700 17,475 4.100 14,100 94,600 1,202,210 17,575 38,200

(a) 2,300 are one year old seedlings twice transplanted.

* One year old-twice transplanted.

†Two years old.

171,075 13,416

14,514 135,900 33,950 6,246 4,829,321

The Immediate Need of Extending State

L

Forests in Pennsylvania.

ET us refresh in our minds a few basic contions relative to the land resource of this great Commonwealth. Pennsylvania has a land area of 28.7 million acres of which the 1910 census reports 12.7 million in "improved" farm land, and 5.9 million of "unimproved land" which is largely the farm woodlot. The balance of the land area or 10.1 million acres is unseated forest land, townsites, etc., of which most certainly 7 millions are wild forest, with a strong probability that the figures could be raised to 7.5 millions. Accepting 4 or 41⁄2 of the 5.9 million acres of unimproved farm land as wooded there are 1 to 12 million acres of forest land, actual or potential, in the State. The figures are quoted at from 8 to 14 million acres, with the Federal Forestry publications giving 9.2 million acres as forest which seems entirely too low.

What is to be done with this large area of say II million acres? Can it be classified as potential forest land, or will a comsiderable part be required for agriculture in the next few generations? Let the farmers answer that question. In 1880 the total farm acreage was 19.8 million acres, and in 1910 it had decreased to 18.6 million or 1.2 million acres less! Even from 1900 to 1910, a period of rising prices for farm products the record shows the improved farm area as decreasing over half a million acres ! To be sure some of this land has been included in cities, but it can readily be seen how the mountain farms have been abandoned! The mountain farmer with work in the woods at least half the year had a simple but comfortable living. With the forest income destroyed the mountain home had to be abandoned. Seventeen mountain counties have decreased population since 1890. Eliminating the few growing manufacturing and mining towns which have kept other mountain county populations up, these 17 counties would be increased to include every single mountain county! These appalling facts certainly refute the claim that any large part of the 11 million acres of forest land is agricultural.

If any further demonstration of this is desired note that the average value of farm land in Cameron and Fulton counties is less than $10 per acre (1910 census), and that in 29 other forest counties the farm land averages in value less than $25 acre.

This is the best of the mountain land already cleared! We hear occasionally that large areas of forest land can be profitably cleared for grazing or stock ranches. Can it be cleared for the price at which this already cleared land can be bought? If stock-raising is practicable why

not boom the $9 cleared land in Cameron and Fulton, and other mountain counties? Rather than see the steep mountain slopes denuded and ruined by stock ranches, I would see it kept in briers and bird-cherry with an occasional volunteer forest tree for a hundred years! For then when it comes to be reforested as it assuredly must be, the soil will at least be in place, and have a considerable humus available for tree growth besides.

All students of the question must agree with the unanimous opinion of foresters and friends of forestry that at least 11 million acres are to be maintained in forest. How is it to be done? The 4 million or more acres of farm woodlots can be left where they are. While there is much room for improvement in handling, their position is far in advance of the remaining 7 million acres of unseated mountain lands.

Who shall handle these 7 million acres? Individuals, corporations, municipalities, the State or all combined? It seems to be the American principle for the State to keep out where the individual is willing and able to dominate the situation. What reliance can be placed in the individual and corporation in forestry? Is it not a significant fact that while for 2 million acres of merchantable income-producing forest, the United States Forest Service has prepared "working plans" (providing generally for a second crop only, and that in the comparatively near future), hardly a single private property is being managed according to the forestry plan? And remember this property is income-producing and the forestry management could be followed by reinvesting only a fraction of the net income!

In the examination of a lumbering operation in one of the remnants of Pennsylvania's virgin forest it is shown that primary forest products of upwards of $591 in value are taken from each acre, and the owners realize about $250 per acre net on the stumpage. Taken immediately after the mature forest is cut, when the fertile forest humus is still present, and before the tangle of briers and brush makes reforestation expensive, and the fire hazard high, this tract could be reforested successfully by planting at a cost of $10 to $15 an acre at the highest. And the new forest would contain more valuable species than the old. Now this company is in the lumber business, and might be expected to be interested in the perpetuation of the forest. It has knowledge of the success of State forest plantations in that part of the State. Is it interested in reforesting the land which has returned the large income? No! Now in the face of these cases where abundant present income would enable forest owners to perpetuate the forest and where the owners refuse entirely,

« PreviousContinue »