THE GARDENERS' CHRONICLE OF AMERICA. 



749 



to maintain tree symmetry — these are two cardinal points 

 to which the attention of the pruner is directed. 



.Summer pinching, or [jruning, is especially productive 

 of fruit buds. In pruning a mixed border of flowering 

 shrubs, the spring-flowering and the summer-flowering 

 problem must be met and faced ; and the time and man- 

 ner of pruning must consider the old (last season's) 

 growth and the new growth so that the flowering of the 

 shrubs be the better promoted. The foregoing applies 

 to the pruning of some of the climbing roses, differenti- 

 ated from the teas and hybrid perpetuals. 



Another question — Why do we root prune ? The an- 

 swer is. we don't — or. at least, very few of us do. My 

 personal opinion is that it is not ^vorth the labor ; the 

 same object — promoting the formation of fruit buds — 

 being attained by less lal)orious, equally dependable 

 methods. 



Why do we mulch? Primarily we mulch to conserve 

 the soil moisture by retarding and minimizing evapora- 

 tion ; and, indirectly — when we mulch with manure — to 

 feed the plant life. Heavy mulching is a mistake. It 

 acts as a non-conductor of the heat the sun gives off — 

 thus preventing the warming of the soil — and, where the 

 air is excluded, heavy mulching causes dentrification 

 which is apt to neutralize the good proper mulching con- 

 serves. 



In the fall we mulch newly transplanted trees for sane 

 and obvious reasons. The soil contact of the roots of 

 these trees is not intimate, consequently its water distrib- 

 uting capacity is at a minimum. At this stage mulching 

 — acting as a non-conductor of frost — keeps the ball from 

 freezing and conserves the moisture, and such roots as 

 are able to function will keep the tree going till the ad- 

 vent of better growing conditions in the spring, by which 

 time the roots will have developed a more intimate con- 

 tact with the soil. Nature attempts to mulch many trees 

 in the fall — especially the low-growing evergreens — but 

 in our zeal to clean up we are apt to rake away the pro- 

 tecting leaves, thus robbing the evergreen of a much 

 needed protection for the winter. During the passing of 

 the last of the winter months and following on through 

 the early spring — a period of bright sunshine and drying 

 wind — many evergreens die of atrophy ; the moisttire 

 which now transpires rapidly through the leaves cannot 

 be replenished through the roots which are unable to 

 function where the ground is frozen deep. 



But let us launch another "Why." Why does the grass 

 grow so luxuriantly on the lawn where nuishrooms have 

 grown previously? I attempt no answer to this query, 

 merely noting the fact and hoping that some one may be 

 able to throw light on the subject. 



Why do we drain land? We drain land to remove 

 stagnant water, and to lower the natural water table to 

 such depth as we believe conducive to the healthy devel- 

 opment of plant life. 



Why is from three to four feet the best depth to lay 

 tile drains? Only a short while ago a prominent gar- 

 dener giving a talk before one of the horticultural soci- 

 eties condemned the theorv of draining so deep, arguing 

 that approximately thirty inch depths were adequate — 

 this dei)th placing the drains nearer to their work, in- 

 ferring they had no function to perform below this depth. 

 This is a subject that only comes up occasionally, gar- 

 deners not being frequently called ujion to lay out drain- 

 age systems. However, the correct principles of land 

 drainage should be a part of every gardener's knowledge. 



Because of the general confusion of ideas obscuring 

 this subject, I trust you will allow me a little time to de- 

 vote to it. After nearly a hundred years of experience 

 the world over, in all kinds of soil, under a great diversity 



ol conditions, and at depths ranging from one to eight 

 feet, the balance of authority and the consensus of opin- 

 ion is in favor of the three-to-four foot depth. Forty- 

 two is better than thirty inches because it adds another 

 foot of living, growing, habitable soil — and many gar- 

 deners would give a great deal for another foot of soil ; 

 it being understood and conceded that a soil filled with 

 free stagnant water is a dead soil as far as the great ma- 

 jority of plants is concerned — in fact all with the excep- 

 tion of a few aquatic and semi-aquatic plants. Note the 

 depth of the root bed of the tree blown over or removed 

 from swampy land. Seldom, if ever, do these extend 

 downward more than a foot or so ; and never to a depth 

 exceeding the point to which the water recedes during 

 the summer. At greater than four foot depths the bene- 

 fits accruing are not commensurate to the cost of the 

 work. The greater the depth the greater the amount of 

 water a drain will discharge in a given time. .\s four 

 feet is the limit of capillarity in all but the closest grained 

 soils we do away with the cold of evaporation which is 

 what keeps our soils cold and so sluggish in the spring. 

 Some may contend that if you cut ofl: capillarity our soils 

 would get too dry on account of not getting the benefit 

 of the water raised from lower depths by this means, but 

 this is an untenable contention as four feet of well 

 drained soil will hold, between the soil particles, about 

 twelve hundred tons of water to the acre, which is nearly 

 one-third of our average annual rainfall and enough for 

 any crop requirement — especially as this^ would be aug- 

 mented and replenished every rainfall. The annual rains 

 communicate several pounds of nitrogen to each acre of 

 land ; also a small amount of carbonic acid which has a 

 solvent action on the soil, setting free much plant food. 

 The greater the depth to which the rainfall percolates to 

 reach the drains the greater the amount of plant food 

 retained bv the soil : the consensus of opinion among the 

 best qualified authorities being to the effect that deep 

 drains discharge less and shallow drains measurably more 

 soluble plant foods. 



The three-to-four foot drain is not established as a pro- 

 tection from any possible action of the frost, for this ap- 

 proximate depth obtains in countries where more than 

 a foot of frost is comparatively unknown. True, in the 

 rigorous New England climate the heaving and reset- 

 tling of the soil presents a possible element of danger to 

 the alignment of shallow drains — and such drains under 

 such conditions ofl'end against the maxim, "Better be 

 safe than sorry." The tendency of very soft tiles to dis- 

 mtegrate after being frozen is also an element to be 

 reckoned with in working out the problem. Even on the 

 score of first or initial cost the shallow drains, the par- 

 allel lines of which must be in more intimate juxtaposi- 

 tion to insure maxinnim efficiency, do not gain by com- 

 l)arison ; the greater cost for tile offsetting the cost of the 

 extra foot or eighteen inches of digging in the lesser 

 number of deeper ditches. To support the contention 

 advanced — that shallow drains are wasteful, inefficient 

 and precarious, ofttimes voiding most prodigally the rich 

 virtues and proi)erlies of the soil their draining is sup- 

 posed to enhance and conserve — I might quote the late 

 Colonel Waring (possibly America's greatest drainage 

 engineer), and Josiah Parkes, for many years drainage 

 engineer to the Royal Agricultural Society of Great Brit- 

 ain. These and other eminent authorities might be 

 quoted at great length — but hesitating to continue weary- 

 ing you with this phase of the problem I desist. 



Why is it harmful to put crushed stone, gravel or other 

 porous material in direct contact with the drains? First, 

 l)ecause the best authorities on drainage condemn this 

 |)ractice — some proceeding so far as to advise the plac- 



