I40 TRANSACTIONS OF ROYAL SCOTTISH ARBORICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



follow to agricultural communities in the higher and lower 

 ground, due to the beneficial climatic effect of the forests. That 

 * forests increase the rainfall ' is a statement one frequently 

 hears, and the fear is often expressed that if we were to extend 

 the afforestation area we would make the country wetter. There 

 is no need for that fear. It has not been definitely proved that 

 afforestation increases the rainfall. It has, however, been 

 definitely proved that afforestation regulates the drainage, it 

 prevents excessive and destructive floods that damage the soil 

 of crofts and farms on the low ground, while it improves the 

 conditions for grazing in the higher ground. We are all of 

 one mind in regard to the beneficial influence of shelter belts 

 and the necessity for their establishment and maintenance on 

 all well-cultivated farms in this country and elsewhere. We are 

 all quite aware that on the prairie in Canada the value of 

 forest shelter belts is well recognised, and, accordingly, efforts 

 are being made to plant trees, and to form wood lots along with 

 the farms. Of course we realise that the conditions are different 

 in Canada from what they are in this country, but the guiding 

 principles are practically the same. 



" If we take a general survey of Europe and America, we find 

 it has been proved in the past that afforestation in combination 

 with agriculture improves the agricultural conditions. Canada 

 and other progressive Colonies are rapidly going in for afforesta- 

 tion in connection with farming. Although we may have taken 

 up the question late, still, it is better late than never. 



" Mr Gammell invited criticism. He asked for arguments 

 against the views he brought forward in opening this discussion, 

 but he well knew that each statement he made was really an 

 obvious truth, an axiom, and in my opinion it is not possible 

 to bring sound arguments against what he said." 



Mr A. D. Richardson, Edinburgh, said : — " There are just one 

 or two points that I wish to refer to in connection with the 

 discussion. Mr Scott Elliot and Mr Milne-Home have referred 

 to land in the south of Scotland in Roxburghshire and Dumfries- 

 shire. I have often wondered why more attention had not been 

 paid to that tract as a field for afforestation. I think it is a 

 magnificent field for afforestation. I think that Mr Milne-Home 

 •was right when he said that that land could probably be 

 brought into agricultural condition, and could be made second- 

 class arable land. But the expense of doing that would be 



i 



