No. 1, July, 1920] FORESTRY 63 



420. EULBFBLD. Zahlen-Nachwelsung aus dem Privatwald. [Numerical evidence from 

 a private forest.] Forstwiss. Centralbl. 41 : 53-57. 1919.- -Th rtion frequently made that 



German forests wen; greatly overcut during the war is not generally true. The writer cites 

 the records for a forest under his charge, comprising 12,000 hectares, aboul ball softwood 



and half hardwoods, with a stock of more 1 ban 3,300,000 ciihic meters of wood and an annual 

 cut of about 00,000 cubic meters. The act mil out during each of the four years 1915 to 1918 

 was less than that provided by the working plan. A table shows the annual cut for every 

 year since 1899, and for single years as far back as 1577. — IT. .V. Sparhawk. 



421. Fabricius. [Rev. of: Kubhlka, August. Moderne Forstwlrtschaft. (Modern 

 forest management.) Vienna and Leipzig, 1918.] Forstwiss. Centralbl. 41: 148-152. 1919. — 

 Kuhelka develops a "Femelstreifenschlag" (selection strip cutting), different from the system 

 described by him under the same name in 1912, which was really only a slightly modified form 

 of Wagner's "Blendersaumschlag" (selection border cutting). Under the new system, the 

 w hole stand is first subjected to a preparatory cutting, then the stands are laid off in strips 

 from 30 to 50 meters wide (height of trees) running at right angles to the direction of repro- 

 duction. In every fourth strip large and small holes are cut clean, varying from a diameter 

 equal to the height of the trees, down to half that. The other strips are undisturbed, except 

 for the preparatory cutting. Later the middle remaining strips are treated in the same way, 

 then the others. As soon as reproduction is established in the openings, they are gradually 

 enlarged. Depending on the period allowed for reproduction, the stand can be made into 

 a practically even-aged one, or into a conglomeration of small even-aged stands varying from 

 each other by 60 years. — The reviewer questions some of Kubelka's conclusions as to the effi- 

 cacy of his method, such as: that insect damage is greatly reduced; that danger from storms 

 is little greater than in virgin forest. Kubelka recommended the method for general appli- 

 cation under all conditions in the forests of central Europe, although he has only tried it on 

 a few private forests for 6 years or less, and the high yields in material and money which he 

 claims were the result of the methods he seeks to change. It is doubtful whether at this time 

 Europe is in condition to suffer the loss in forest production which must result from trans- 

 forming existing forests into small broken-up stands. — W. N. Sparhawk. 



422. Fankhauser, F. Zur Kenntnis der Larche. [Facts about the larch tree.] Zeitschr. 

 Forst- u. Jagdw. 51: 289-297. PL 1-3. 1919. — A discussion regarding the factors governing 

 the distribution of the larch (Larix) in the Swiss Alps. It is an erroneous supposition that 

 larch requires a deep soil, for in the Swiss Alps it also grows on rocky, shallow soiled cliffs. 

 Its chief requirement is a fresh soil wdiich must however have a good and constant supply of 

 moisture. Lacking this, the larch is apt to perish. It is the heaviest w T ater transpirer of all 

 the conifers, in Switzerland. In support of this assertion the morphological characters are 

 noted and also the fact that the larch is the only conifer which sheds its needles (in order to 

 reduce water loss). Observations show that in periods of drought the larch survives by shed- 

 ding its needles where other conifers perished. Attention is called to fact that, owing to 

 di (Terences in densities of crowns, various varieties of larch have been (probably erroneously) 

 described. The distinctions are probably based on differences in moisture content of sites. 

 For instance, the larch forms a very compact crown where it grows on deep and well watered 

 soils, while on dry sites (e.g., south exposures), the crown becomes very open and pointed (see 

 plates illustrating differences). Where the larch grows in mixture with other trees it succeeds 

 only so long as there is sufficient, and constant water available. Hence it does poorly in 

 mixture with spruce or fir, whose crowns prevent rain water from falling readily to the sur- 

 face soil. In mixture with beech on the other hand, larch does well, for, during the winter, 

 rainwater is readily admitted to the soil, through the open crowned beech, and in the summer 

 a greater amount of precipitation is allowed to drop to the ground along the branches and stems 

 of the beech. Moreover, the shed leaves of the beech form a protective covering, thus con- 

 serving surface moisture. Much has been written concerning the light requirements of the 

 larch but it seems apparent that moisture is the controlling factor. — Hermann Krauch. 



