not been filled, so that the present stand is 35% bull pine, 35% white pine and 30% blanks. The white pine, even though it has been very heavily damaged by weevil (65%), now equals the bull pine in height which now averages 6.5 feet. The bull pine is subject to attack by Peridermium pyriforme, a fungous disease which kills a few trees each year. In fact, it seems probable that this disease may eventually kill out the species here. Compare with Plot 66. Plot 7. White pine. Area 2.3 acres. Planted in the fall of 1913 with 3 year transplants, spaced 6 x 6 feet, as a test of fall planting. The experiment was a complete success, over 95% of the trees being alive at present. The stand is irregular, the trees varying in height from 2 to 10 feet and averaging 6 feet. This unevenness is due to some extent to weevils which have attacked 60% of the trees but numerous individuals are stunted without having been attacked by weevil. The stand apparently underwent a period of stagnation for about eight years and the irregularity may be due to the fact that some trees are recovering sooner than others. This stagnation period is characteristic of all white pine plantations on the tract. The species seems to grow slowly for a longer period after planting than most of the others used. The plot has had numerous weevil cuttings and was entirely cleared of birch in the winter of 1921-1922. Plot 8a. Red pine and Norway spruce. Area 1.7 acres. Cleared in the winter of 1921-1922 of birch for cordwood and planted in the spring of 1922 with red pine and Norway spruce 3 year transplants, spaced 6 x 6 feet, and alternating by rows except the four rows on the west side which are all pine. Most of the birch was at the south end of the plot. The plantation is over 90% complete but the pine averages 18 inches tall and looks thrifty, whereas the spruce is only 6 inches in height and is yellow and sickly except where it received shade from small birch sprouts. It would seem that this mixture is not feasible in the open as the pine will probably suppress the spruce in the same way that the white pine did on Plot 69, leaving the red pine spaced 6 x 12 feet with the spruce forming an understory. The mixture might have been more successful under a heavy brush cover which would have held back the pine more than the spruce and acted as a nurse for the latter until it was well started. (See plot 42.) Cleared with Plot Plot 8b. Norway spruce. Area 1.3 acres. 8a leaving a few scattering native white pines about 15 feet high. Planted in the spring of 1924 with 2 year seedlings, spaced 5 x 5 feet, as a Christmas tree experiment. The stock was small, the season dry, and only about 10% of the trees survived the first summer. Plot may be compared with Plot 18 where white spruce stock of the same size was planted under an overwood. The latter plantation is over 90% complete thus demonstrating the value of cover during the early years. Plot 8b contains much chestnut from an experiment started in 1903. It is interesting to note that this species, even though killed back repeatedly by blight, still persists on this poor leachy soil better than most of the hardwoods used, red oak and locust excepted. Plot 9. Pitch pine and Hardwoods. Area about 6 acre. Natural growth, not planted. Plot 10. Norway spruce. Area about 6 acre. Planted in 1912 under a stand of old growth chestnut. Spacing is irregular but averages about 8 x 8 feet. The chestnut died and was removed in 1922 leaving a younger growth, consisting principally of oak, as a cover for the spruce. This cover was opened up in the spring of 1923 to give the spruce more light and will be further reduced or removed at a later date. The spruce has grown slowly but the trees are healthy, except for a small amount of weevil damage, and show every indication of coming through and forming a stand. Spruce is very tolerant and while it will not make fast growth under dense shade it will persist for a long time and, when released, makes a good recovery and increases in size rapidly. Compare with Plot 42, an older spruce plantation under shade which has been reduced from time to time. Plot 11. Native white pine. Birch cutting experiment. Area .7 acre. The north end of the plot has been devoted for some years to an experiment in bringing a scattered stand of natural reproduction of white pine through a heavy cover of old field grey birch. The pine is doing fairly well but has been badly weeviled and is of poor form. In October, 1924, an experiment was started to determine the sprouting qualities of birch under different methods of cutting at different times of year. This experiment should give some valuable information on the best season to release plantations and the best cutting methods to use in order to get a minimum of sprouts. The experiment was laid out as a number of different series of four sections each, each series to be cut at a different time of year. One series was cut during October, 1924. Another will be cut in the spring of 1925, and still another in mid-summer, 1925. The four sections in each series are as follows: a. Check-no cutting. b. Birch cut off close to the ground. c. Birch lopped off 2 to 3 feet above ground. d. Birch lopped partly off and bent over so that the trees will still continue to live. Plot 12. White pine. Area .6 acre. Planted in the spring of 1902 with 3 year seedlings, spaced 5 x 5 feet, under a cover of grey birch 15 to 20 feet tall. Fail places were filled in the spring of 1904 with 3 year transplants. The cover was removed in 1910 and 1911 and a final release cutting was made in 1919. This is one of the best plantations of white pine on the tract. Because of the heavy cover for the first 10 years the average growth has not been rapid (average height 19 feet and diameter 3 inches) but the trees are of excellent form, uniform in size and with almost no injury from weevil. Dead limbs extend to 7 feet above the ground and are quite small. Annual height growth almost doubled after the cover was removed in 1910-11. Plot 13. Norway spruce and Balsam fir. Area about 1.2 acres. In 1910, 71 balsam firs were planted along the northern border of Plots 11 and 12, and about 1916 the remainder of the plot with the exception of a narrow strip to the west of Plot 12 was planted with Norway spruce. Spacing is irregular but averages about 8 x 8 feet. Planting was done under a moderately heavy cover consisting of old pitch pine and a lower stand of hardwoods. Both spruce and fir average 5 feet tall and show the effect of too much shade. However, they are of good color and look healthy, and on removal of the overwood, should make an increased growth in height. The cover was thinned in the fall of 1923 to give the planted trees more light but a further thinning is needed as the cover is still too dense. Plot 14. Scotch pine. Area 1.2 acres. Planted in the spring of 1907 with 2 year seedlings, spaced 5 x 6 feet, the trees set in furrows plowed through the brush to try out Scotch pine in competition with an advanced hardwood growth. A part of the brush was removed in 1910 and the balance in 1913. A second release cutting was made in 1919 and third in 1924. This should be the last one needed. In addition, several large chestnuts were removed from the south side in 1921. The experiment was only a partial success because, in spite of frequent releasings, the hardwoods killed out over of the pine. However, those that have survived have made good growth and are in sufficient numbers to form the final stand. Average height 22 feet; diameter 4.5 inches. Dead branches extend for 10 feet above the ground. This plot demonstrates very well the inadvisability of attempting to grow Scotch pine under any kind of cover. The species is very intolerant and cannot stand even moderate shade. Compare with Plot 23 which was kept entirely free of brush. Plot 15. White pine. Area .9 acre. Planted in the spring of 1906 with 3 year seedlings, spaced 5x6 feet. This plot was started and has been treated in about the same manner as Plot 14, but the trees show far less injury from hardwood competition than do the Scotch pines. About 90% of the trees are still living and the result is a very dense stand with trees averaging 19 feet in height and 3.5 inches in diameter. Dead branches extend for 6 feet above ground. All brush was cleaned from the plot in 1913 and a second and final release cutting was made in 1919. Weevil damage has been very slight, probably because of the density of the stand and the fact that the trees were in brush for seven years. The stand offers a good example of the results of close spacing, i. e., good form with small side branches that are killed early. It is probably too dense for practical purposes as the first thinning will not yield enough to pay for making it. All vegetation has been shaded out and 2 to 3 inches of needles cover the ground. Plot 16. White pine-Red pine-Japanese red pine. Area 3.7 acres. Spacing 5 x 5 feet. Planted in 1917 as follows: west side, pure red pine; center, white pine and Japanese red pine alternating by rows; and east side, red pine and white pine alternating by rows. The red pine has made the best growth, averaging 5 feet in height, followed by the white with 4 feet and the Japanese red with 3 feet. The stand is practically complete, blanks amounting to less than 15%. The white and the Japanese red pines have both been attacked by the weevil, the former more heavily than the latter. The Japanese red has developed the same bushy habit as in Plots 5 and 52, and is bearing cones prolifically but no seedlings were found. The stand has not yet closed although the pure red pine on the west side has nearly done so. Except immediately under the trees, the crowns have not killed out the vegetaNumerous barren areas occur on this plot. (See tive cover. page 104.) Plot 17. Headquarters Site. Area .9 acre. The east end of this plot is used as a location for a portable headquarters cabin. The remainder of the plot which was formerly the old nursery site contains an assortment of many kinds of trees left in the old nursery rows, together with enough later plantings of red and white pine to make up a stand. In October, 1924, an experiment in pruning young conifers was started directly behind the cabin in a planting of red pine made in the fall of 1919. The experiment includes some 50 trees divided about equally among 4 rows. The row nearest the cabin was pruned to leave a leader and two whorls of branches, the next to leave a leader and one whorl, the third to leave a leader and 3 whorls and the fourth left unpruned as a check. For row 1 (east), the live crown averages about 1⁄2 the total height of the tree; for row 2, the height; for row 3, % the height; and for row 4, the entire height. A whorl of branches is to be removed from each row (the check excepted) each year, the object being to find out how much the crowns can be reduced without diminishing the growing power of the trees. Plot 18. White spruce. Area 7 acre. Planted in the spring of 1924 with 2 year seedlings, spaced 8 x 8 feet, under a cover made up of pitch pine 8 to 10 inches in diameter with an understory of smaller hardwoods. Less than 10% of the trees had died at the end of the first growing season, demonstrating the fact that spruce (2 year stock) can be planted successfully on a leachy soil if given sufficient protection against drying out. This plot may be compared with 8b where small stock of Norway spruce was planted in the open, the result being almost a complete failure. The cover should be removed, or at least greatly reduced, within five years. Planted in the Plot 19. Japanese red pine. Area 1.2 acres. spring of 1910 with 2 year seedlings, spaced 6 x 6 feet. Loss was heavy and blanks were filled in 1911 with 3 year transplants of the same species. There were further failures and at present the stand is only 50% stocked. In 1919 the hardwoods, which had completely outgrown the pine, were thinned but not heavily enough and in 1922 they were removed altogether. The interesting feature on this plot is that hardwood competition forced the pine to confine its growth normally to one stem. As a matter of fact this competition was so severe that it caused the pine to become very slender and crooked. Since releasing, however, the trees have recovered and made a much increased height growth. Weevil damage has amounted to very little and the production of cones has been small. This plot forms a very marked contrast to Plot 5 where this species was planted in the open. The average height on Plot 19 is 12 feet, nearly twice that on Plot 5. It would seem that the proper conditions under which to grow this tree successfully would be under a cover kept sufficiently dense to prevent the pine from producing several stems, but not dense enough to cause suppression and crooked, slender boles. The species seems to be fairly tolerant of shade, probably ranking with red pine in this respect. Plots 20 and 21. White pine and Scotch pine. Area 1.3 acres each. Planted in the spring of 1910, using 4 year transplants of white pine and 2 year seedlings of Scotch pine. Spacing 5 x 5 feet, the species alternating by rows. Scattered white pine set out in 1904 were ignored in the 1910 planting. The experiment does not promise to be a success. The Scotch pine is growing faster than the white and probably will suppress it. In fact the Scotch pine compares favorably with the white planted in 1904. Failures have amounted to over 30%, chiefly in the white pine and the stand is ragged and has not closed. The Scotch pine has dead limbs for a height of 4 feet, while the white has no dead limbs. The Scotch pine averages 17 feet in height and 3 inches in diameter; the white averages 10 feet tall and 211⁄2 inches in diameter (1904 planting excluded). Weevil damage in the white pine has been very slight, due probably to the fact that this species has always been shorter than the Scotch and therefore protected by it. These plots demonstrate that it is not feasible to plant white and Scotch |