THE GROWTH OF SPRUCE. Al 
was measured. [rom these measurements it was easy to determine 
which trees had increased in rapidity of growth after the lumbering 
and which had not. 
Other measurements were taken, but, as they did. not contribute 
directly to the results here presented, no further mention of them is 
required. : 
e The great labor involved in collecting such data made it impossible 
to extend the above-mentioned inquiry beyond the 2,000 trees analyzed. 
This number, however, is great enough to establish a trustworthy basis, 
and the figures derived from it are used as such in the present study. 
The reasonableness of these figures, their number, and the fact that the 
effect of the probable removal of hardwoods from Spruce lands during 
the next few years has been neglected, combined to give assurance 
that any error resulting from their use will be in favor of the forest 
owner, not against him. 
The following table gives the percentage of small trees whose growth 
was found to have been increased by the cutting of the old timber. It 
will be noticed that the causes of irregularity mentioned above have 
acted so powerfully as to prevent the statement of any exact ratio 
- between the percentage of trees affected and the amount of timber 
removed. In general the former may be taken at about 20 per cent. 
Amount of timber in standards removed at first cutting, and percentage of small trées left 
standing whose growth was accelerated, on fourteen sample plots at Santa Clara, N. Y. 
[From ‘‘ The Adirondack Spruce.” ] 
Small Small 
Amount trees Amount trees 
ar easol removed | whose nice oe removed | whose 
pl a at first | growth Dp at first | growth 
cutting. | was ac- jhe. cutting. | was ac- 
celerated. celerated. 
Stand- Stand- 
ards. | Per cent. Acres. ards. Per cent. 
38. 4 42 10 10.0 
17.0 31 1.0 9.8 
14, 2 6 ae 4,4. 
14.0 40 1.0 4.2 
13. 0 13 OW 2.6 
11.8 5 1.0 155) 
iB 20 | 1.0 | a) 
The area chosen for the study just described was at Santa Clara, 
Franklin County, N. Y. Here the first lumbering operations took place 
in 1882, the next in 1888 and 1891, and the final crop was removed in 
1896. In 1882 probably only the largest and best trees were taken, and 
in consequence the number cut was small. At least it was not possible 
to find any small trees showing an increased growth beginning at that 
date. The cuttings of 1888 and 1891 were much closer, and the effect 
on the small trees was very marked. 
