408 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



area to be covered is small and surrounded by forest. It follows, 

 therefore, that in order to develop a forest rationally from a silvi- 

 cultural point of view it must be made up of a large number of small 

 stands which offer many points of attack for reproduction, reinforcing, 

 cleaning, thinning, and other improvement operations. A forest com- 

 posed of large continuous stands is not flexible enough for practical 

 and efficient treatment. 



The third question does not fall within the scope of forest pro- 

 tection nor silviculture, but within the field of forest organization — a 

 branch of forest management. Forest organization does not only 

 indicate the most desirable size for the units of management and 

 units of treatment, but also specifies a minimum limit below which 

 it is not practical to differentiate stands and a maximum limit above 

 which they are unwieldy. If there was no minimum limit one would 

 ultimately come down to a single tree management which may be 

 feasible in the teak forests of India and "in an arboretum, but is not 

 practical in American forests. According to recent German regula- 

 tions the minimum size to which stands are differentiated varies from 

 one-half acre in Saxony to two and one-half acres in Prussia and 

 Bavaria. One hectare (2.47 acres) appears to be the generally ac- 

 cepted minimum. According to recent instructions issued for the 

 state forests of Austria a minimum size of .6 hectare (1.5 acres) for 

 definite organization and 2 hectares (5 acres) for provisional work 

 is specified. Stand dift'erences of less extent are usually recorded 

 in a written description. No binding prescriptions can be issued, but 

 for practical purposes the minimum size may be taken as 1/50 of 1 

 per cent of the total area of an average-size forest. Hence, in a 

 forest of 20,000 acres the differentiation may be carried down to 

 about 4 acres, and in a forest of 60,000 acres down to 12 acres. 

 These figures do not indicate absolute limits which must not be 

 crossed, but rather serve as warning signs below which the size of 

 plantations, and the stands resulting therefrom, should not be reduced 

 unless compelled by circumstances or required for experimental pur- 

 poses, because extremely small stands cost more to establish per unit 

 of area, necessitate an ultra-intensive system of management, require 

 a very intricate road system, make inspection and mapping diiificult, 

 and present almost unsurmountable obstacles to the forest organizer 

 working towards a normal arrangement of the stands of a forest. 

 Overlarge stands, on the other hand, are equally undesirable and im- 



