49 
Reports. 
Professor Card (Horticulturist, Nebraska University Experiment 
Station), May 30, 1896: “30 per cent of pines and 40 per cent of 
larches failed; others a fair stand.” June 12, 1896, result of count of 
living trees: 1,772 Russian Mulberry (98 per cent), 992 Jack Pine (63 
per cent), 162 Artemisia, 413 Douglas Spruce (91 per cent), 298 Scotch 
Pine (63 per cent), 872 Silver Maple (96 per cent), 642 European Larch 
(71 per cent), 126 ie Locust (28 per cent), 41 Tulip ( substituted for 
Honey Locust), and 405 Catalpa (89 per cent). 
October 1, 1896, result of count: 1,779 Russian Mulberry, 833 Jack 
Pine, 145 (aie 847 Silver Maple, 398 Catalpa, 151 Honey Locust 
(and Tulip substituted), 296 Scotch Pine, 392 European Larch, 233 
Douglas Spruce; or 70 per cent of planting. 
April 15, 1897 (count of conifers only): 287 Scotch Pine, 756 Jack 
Pine, 206 Douglas Spruce, 289 European Larch. 
The blanks in Silver Maple, Catalpa, Scotch Pine, Jack Pine, and 
European Larch were replanted in the spring of 1897. 
June 30, 1897, result of count: 1,800 Russian Mulberry, 898 Silver 
Maple, 428 Catalpa, 193 Honey Locust (and Tulip substituted), 318 
Scotch Pine, 131 Douglas Spruce, 1,004 Jack Pine, 146 Artemisia and 
154 European Larch; or 67 per cent of the original number planted. 
In July this plat had grown so dense as to render further cultivation 
impossible, and Dr. B. E. Fernow, on inspecting it at this time, gave 
orders to head in the Mulberries and Maples to prevent their shading the 
conifers too much. The frontispiece is a picture of this plat taken in 
full leaf. 
Count reported October 12, 1897: 1,560 Russian Mulberry, 590 Silver 
Maple, 378 Catalpa, 50 Tulip, 221 Scotch Pine, 155 Douglas Spruce, 
820 Jack Pine, 317 European Larch; or 56 per cent of the original num- 
ber living. Discrepancies in the counts will be observed. No Honey 
Locust is reported in this count, and more Larch than were noted in 
the last count. Inaccuracies may be due to carelessness on the part of 
the employee to whom the work was intrusted. 
Whether such close planting is advisable is yet to be demonstrated. 
The principal factors to be considered are (1) cost of stock; (2) cost of 
cultivation; (3) will crowding be too great, necessitating more labor in 
thinning, or protecting the permanent trees, than would have been 
required for cultivation at wider intervals, say 4 by 4 feet? (4) will the 
comparatively limited amount of soil moisture sustain such an intri- 
cate root system as will result from the thrifty early growth of so many 
trees? 
The questions of cost of stock and cultivation are so entirely local 
that each planter must determine them for himself. If he can gather 
his own seed from near-by native trees, ayd grow his seedlings one 
year, the cost of stock is reduced to a minimum and becomes practi- 
cally nothing. Of course additional labor in planting, at a season of 
20191—No. 18 
