10 



FOKEST COMMISSIONER S REPORT. 



0)^ 0) 



6.0 

 4.6 

 3.3 

 2.6 

 2.0 

 1.6 



Let us bring forward the figures showiug the 

 volume of our sample tree at diflPerent ages from ten 

 years by decades up to 100. Then subtracting vol- 

 umes from one another in turn and dividing by 10 

 gives the average yearly growth for the period. A 

 look at these figures shows that they increase ver}^ 

 rapidly at first, at 60 to 70 years reach in this tree 

 .25 of a cubic foot and remain there practically 

 stationary up to 100. This last relation can hardly 

 be called fortunate. Our sample tree would have 

 better represented the vigorous trees of the stand if 

 its growth in these later decades had kept on 

 steadily but slowly increasing. 



Let us now look at the figures from the point of 

 view of percentage. At 50 years the sapling contains 2.7 cubic feet. 

 The average yearly growth for the last decade was 16 cubic feet, 6 per 

 cent, of the stated volume. At 60 years .23 of a cubic foot is 4.6 per 

 cent, of 5 cubic feet, the volume of the tree at the time. So on down the 

 list a shrinking rate is seen. At 100 the yearly growth is .24 cubic foot, 

 almost exactly the same as at 60 years, but the ratio this bears to the volume 

 of the tree at the time is only l.G per cent. The course of these percentages 

 in this simple and typical instance is well worth careful consideration. 

 The same thing has been often referred to in the body of this report, for 

 it is a very practical and oft-recurring matter. What is true of one tree 

 is true of thousands. A piece of timberland maj- be growing a big per- 

 centage on the small growth that stands on it, and yet be producing but 

 a small amount of wood; while on the other hand land stocked with trees 

 of good size, though it may be gaining but a small interest on the value 

 of the timber, may be growing in fact a very large amount. This is a 

 fact verj' important for managers of timberland to understand. 



There are a dozen directions in which the curi-ent of what has so far 

 been said could be turned. Perhaps it will be best to take the tree which 

 has so far been used as an illustration of method, assemble the facts 

 determined in regard to it, as well as for two or three of its immediate 

 neighbors, and proceed with their aid to the solution of a larger problem 

 — the history of the growth of wood upon the ground on which these 

 trees stood. 



The first thing to do is to ascertain what is now standing on the land. 

 This piece of ground was visited by the writer in August, 1895, it beiijg 

 the same piece of second growth that was referred to on page 67 of this 

 report. In a region of dominant spruce, where the ground was well and 

 even!)' covered, a fair sample quarter acre was run out, which w^as found 

 to be covered with trees as follows: 



