140 EXPERIMENTAL FARMS 



7-8 EDWARD VII., A. 1908 



At Ottawa the experience has been with trees 10 x 10 feet apart, 10 x 5 feet apart, 

 6x5 feet apart, 3x3 feet apart, and 2^ feet apart. In so;iie cases the trees are in 

 clumps of single species, and in others they are mixed. Ten by ten feet has been 

 found much too far apart to plant trees where cultivation is given as it would be 

 under almost any circumstances. In some parts of the belt it was necessary to culti- 

 vate the ground between the trees for ten years before the trees interlaced sufficientlj'' 

 to shade the ground well. At 10 x 5 feet cultivation was necessary in some soils? 

 between thin foliaged trees such as ash and walnut for eight years after planting. 

 In mixed plantations with trees 5x5 feet apart cultivation was necessary for from 

 foi;r to five years. It is evident that this distance is too great for a farmer to plant 

 trees with the idea of cultivating them., as few farmers would cultivate a plantation 

 that long. This distance is also too great from the standpoint of timber production. 



In 1889 nearly 5,000 trees and shrubs were planted out in rows 2i feet apart each 

 way^ mixed so that a large j)roportion of them were shrubs planted merely for the 

 purpose of saving cultivation. The shrubs used for this purpose were Ninebark or 

 Spiraea (Neillia opulifolia), Alder Bucktliyorn {Rliamnus Frang^il-a) , Rosemary 

 Willow (Salix rosmarinifolia) , and the Sand Cherry (Prunus pumila). The trees planted 

 in this way have done well. The ground was cultivated for only two seasons. It has 

 been found, however, that this distance is a little too close, as it was necessary to loi^ 

 off some of the branches of the shrubs to prevent the trees being smothered, the shade 

 being very dense. It is apparent from our experiments that trees planted about 3 feet 

 apart each way, 3x4 feet apart, or 4 x 4 feet apart, depending on the kinds of trees 

 and how they are mixed, would be the most satisfactory distance for the farmer from 

 the standpoint of economy in cultivation and getting the ground shaded. 



In order to gain information from our own experience regarding the relative 

 ability of the slower growing trees to live and thrive under the shade of faster grow- 

 ing species, the following notes were made in the mixed forest belt in the autumn of 

 1904 and confirmed recently. The following notes were taken in a belt of mixed trees 

 planted in the autumn of 1894, so that just ten years had elapsed since the time of 

 planting. The trees consisted mainly of Austrian pine, Scotch pine, white pine, Doug- 

 las fir, Norway spruce, Rocky Mountain blue spruce, American arbor-vitse, tamarac, 

 box elder, American elm, green ash, red ash, white ash, rock elm, and canoe birch. 

 The soil where these trees were growing was mostly black muck. 



Austrian Pine. — Does not stand shade well. In some instances has been killed 

 outright. 



Scotch Pine. — Suffers badly in shade. In some instances has been killed out- 

 right. Where not killed, leader is destroyed and tree is very weak. 



Whiter Pine. — Stands shade a little better than Scotch pine, retaining its leader 

 when the Scotch does not. 



Douglas Fir. — Is much weakened by shade, but retains leader. 



Norway Spruce. — Stands shade better than any of the pines. 



Roclcy Mountain Blue Spruce. — Stands shade about as well as Norway spruce, 

 but does not stand as much chance of development as the Norway as it grows so 

 glowly. 



American Arhor-Vitce. — Stands shade well, but makes little growth in it. 



Tamarac. — Tamarac which ' was transplanted from swamp in 1894 has pushed 

 up rapidly and is holding its own, but as foliage is comparatively thin it does not in- 

 jure other trees. This tree has done better in the moist, gravelly soil than in the 

 black muck, and in the gravelly soil is as tall as the American ehn. 



American Elm. — Has reached the greatest height and is towering above most 

 other trees. It has made a good straight trunlc. This and the box elder should do 

 well together. The dense shade of the box elder should force an iipward growth of the 

 ehn, and the elm be able to hold its own on account of its rapid growth. 



