88 TRANSACTIONS OF ROYAL SCOTTISH ARBORICULTURAL SOCIETY, 



the best proof of the harm done in this direction. Oberforster 

 Schultz, in whose division forest with litter rights exists side by 

 side with such which are free, reports that the former, though 

 the removal is exercised under the restricting law of 1843, is 

 steadily deteriorating ; but what is more interesting, he gives an 

 instructive and convincing example of the harm done by a single 

 removal of the litter. In an old unburned Scots pine forest, 

 the removal of litter was, for pressing reasons, permitted over 



Seedlings from an area which has (specimen to right) and has not 

 (specimen to left) had the litter removed. 



certain parts thereof in autumn 1905. In spring 1910 this 

 forest was replanted with yearlings of Scots pine, and the living 

 and dead organic matter found on the ground was dug in trenches 

 along the plant lines and lightly covered with sand. The 

 difference between the plants, at the end of 191 2, on the areas 

 whence the litter had been removed in 1905 and on those which 

 had remained untouched, is shown in the figure above. 



The question of litter rights increases in importance in the 

 same ratio as the poorness of the land and the poverty of the 



