THE LARCH CANKER 67 



of recently cleared coniferous woods, the superficial layer 

 is poor in nutriment ; and if the site is one where grass or 

 heather has recently been growing, the roots of these plants 

 will prevent a free interchange of gases between the soil 

 and the air. Larch is peculiarly sensitive to the condition 

 of the surface, for being in its youth a surface-rooter it 

 cannot range through the deeper layers in search of the 

 nutriment which it requires. For the same reason the sub- 

 soil is of secondary importance, i. e. for the normal growth 

 of the tree. (The nature of the subsoil is an all-important 

 factor in susceptibility to heart-rot.) So long as this is 

 well drained a good thick surface-soil will grow satisfactory 

 larch, and if the trees are growing vigorously there is a good 

 chance of their remaining free from canker. Perhaps the 

 safest situation is a mountain-side, where the porous, well- 

 drained, gravelly soil derived from the rocks above provides 

 all the factors favourable to larch culture. 



Only in comparatively few cases can we say that a soil 

 will or will not grow healthy larch until it has been tried. 

 I have seen healthy woods grown on a clay subsoil and 

 plantations riddled with canker on sand. Mitchie (1885) 

 says that soil which is suitable for barley will generally 

 prove successful with larch. 



Conditions of culture. Pure larch-plantations are more 

 liable to attack than trees which are mixed sparingly with 

 hardwoods, such as hornbeam or beech. This is usually 

 explained by supposing that the hardwoods act as a kind 

 of screen, protecting the larch from fungal spores which are 

 blown through the woods. Such a theory, however, cannot 

 be entertained when, as is often the case even in mixed 

 woods, the dead lateral branches of the larch become 

 covered with the fructifications of Dasyscypha. For this 

 shows that the spores have found out the larch trees, and 

 the number of fructifications made on the dead branches 

 would be sufficient to ensure infection of the trees, were 

 they susceptible. Probably Forbes is right in accounting 

 for the comparative immunity in mixed woods in quite 

 another way. 



F 2 



