ON THE REPLANTING OF WOODLANDS. 221 



ON THE REPLANTING OF WOODLANDS. 



By Thomas Wilicie, Ardkiiiglas, Inveraray. 

 [Premium — TJiree Sovei'eigns.] 



Tin; majority oi: writers who have treated upon the replanting 

 of wootliands liave uniformly agreed that a thorough clearing of 

 all the debris of the former crop is absolutely necessary, — with 

 this I also quite agree. ]')Ut, as several of those have stated 

 tliat three, live, or eight years are only necessary to elapse 

 between the clearing of one crop ere the replanting of another 

 of the same knid — when they guarantee success — I consider 

 this is calculated to mislead tlie inexperienced. 



I venture to adduce a few facts thereon, and affirm that perfect 

 success from replanting conifers after conifers will not be obtained 

 simply by clearing of debris, drains, &c., and replanting either at 

 three, five, or eight years after the former crop has 1)een cut down. 

 For, as the pine beetle {JL/luhlus Abides) has often been found 

 very destructive to the second crop in its early stages of growth, 

 so has that of fungus been equally destructive to plantations 

 of various ages, after the beetle referred to has ceased its 

 ravages. 



I shall not necessarily inquire whether the soil still retains 

 ingredients calculated to nourish a second crop of the same 

 kind. But I may state that, without some means of nourish- 

 ment being supplied to the ground, a second crop of few kinds 

 are equal to the first, except in cases of newly improved land. 

 Neither have I seen natural reproduction of a second crop of 

 timber take place, till upwards of twenty years had elapsed after 

 the former crop had been cleared, — thus, according to analogy, 

 a second crop of the same' class cannot reasonably be expected 

 to equal the first if planted at an earlier date. 



I saw 30 acres of woodland replanted with the same kinds — 

 vi/., larch, Scotch, spruce, and silver fh's, and a few hardwood 

 plants, — with the view of enhancing the landscape effect, and 

 this on ground cleared at various dates, from six months to up- 

 wards of twenty years before the second crop was planted, with 

 the result — not what those authors referred to hold out, l)ut 

 found a very considerable nund)er of the plants destroyed both 

 !)}• the beetle and fungus; this not only on recently cleared 

 portions of the ground, neither on sections closely adjoining 

 thereto which had been cleared at a remoter period, but on 

 sections isolated from those on which any coniferous tree had 

 grown, and distant from them at least 150 yards, while the 

 i'ungus destroyed a large number of plants also on sections 

 which had been cleared at various periods ranging from eight 



