Study of Current Growth 459 



which will be left after the next cut, and, therefore, do not repre- 

 sent the total growth of the whole stand. In different kinds of 

 timber and under more intensive market conditions, the estimate 

 and growth data could be advantageously continued to smaller 

 diameter classes. 



The same method as outlined above applied to a small State 

 forest at West Rutland, gave the result shown in Table IV. This 

 forest is made up largely of second growth stands, and represents 

 very different conditions from the culled forest discussed above. 



No cutting will be possible on this forest under present market 

 conditions and, therefore, these growth figures were taken to repre- 

 sent present conditions. The growth per cents of ash and basswood, 

 for example, are not at all normal, for both these species are being 

 suppressed. In fact, basswood is almost an imderstory of the 

 White birch. 



In comparison with these figures the results from a second growth 

 stand on another State forest may be interesting. It was impos- 

 sible to find a volimie table which would apply to this particular 

 stand, and so the stand was estimated by the Arbitrary Group 

 Method and both the diameter and height growth were studied on 

 the sample trees cut. The resulting growth figures for the groups 

 were averaged in proportion to volume to get the average per cent 

 of growth for the stand. Results are as follows: Yellow birch 

 2.6 per cent, maple 2.4 per cent, beech 3.4 per cent, ash 2.9 per 

 cent, basswood 4.3 per cent. White birch 3.2 per cent. Again, 

 ash is below the average, because it happens to be a suppressed 

 species, but basswood takes its normal place. It will be noticed 

 that beech in both of these second growth stands shows a much 

 better growth per cent than in the culled stand. 



It seems to the writer that in collecting growth data, we have 

 been putting too much stress on species, and not enough on the 

 conditions under which the trees are growing. 



The University of Vermont college forest is the only place where 

 Prof. Chapman's method has been tried out in comparison with 

 any other method. The growth of this forest was at first computed 

 by Schneider's formula, and later from a new lot of field data by 

 Prof. Chapman's method. The writer had nothing to do with 

 either the collecting of data or the computation and so cannot 

 judge as to whether all the difference is due to the methods used 

 or to other causes. These differences compensate each other so 



