Table 5. — Soil profile measurements, in inches, by plantation number 



imbGr 









Horizon 



























0„ 



A, 



"■2 



B-, 



B 





1 



1.50 



0.25 



0.25 



0.50 



1.25 



5.00 



9.00 



2 



1.25 



0.75 



1.50 



3.50 



1.50 



5.00 





3 



1.50 



1.00 



0.50 



1.00 



1.50 



4.50 



3.00 



4 



0.50 



0.25 



0.50 



2.25 





4.50 



4.00 



5 



1.00 



0.50 



1.00 



0.75 



1.25 



4.50 





6 



1.00 



0.50 



0.50 



1.25 





3.50 



3.00 



7 



0.75 



0.25 



0.75 



1.25 



1.25 



1.75 



4.50 



8 



1.25 



0.50 



0.75 



0.75 





4.50 



4.25 



9 



1.50 



0.50 



1.00 



2.50 



1.50 



4.25 



3.00 



10 



1.00 



0.50 



0.75 



0.50 





5.50 



3.00 



11 



1.50 



0.50 



1.00 



2.00 





3.50 



2.50 



12 



1.00 



0.50 



1.00 



0.50 





7 00 



5.50 



IS 



1 00 



0.25 



1.00 



1.75 





5.00 



3.25 



14 



1.25 



0.25 



1.25 



2^25 





3.50 



2!50 



15 



1.00 



0.25 



0.50 



1.25 





3.50 



3.25 



16 



0.75 



0.25 



1.00 



1.00 





9.00 



3.00 



17 



0.50 



0.25 



0.50 







2.50 



3.50 



18 



2.50 



0.50 



0.75 







3.75 



3.50 



19 



1.50 



0.50 



0.50 



1.50 



1.50 



4.50 



3.00 



'Dash indicates horizon not well defined or absent in profile. 



Invasion of the plantations by volunteer hardwood species, 

 especially black cherry and sugar maple, is an indication that 

 the site is capable of supporting more demanding hardwood 

 species. 



The accuracy of the cruise data and reported volumes of 

 hardwood species was reduced due to logging activity in the 

 plantations. Nevertheless, the recorded data show a substan- 

 tial amount of merchantable volume plus a large quantity 

 of growing stock. 



It is not realistic to compare these growth data with those on 

 more recent minesoil plantings because the coal stripping op- 

 erations in early 1900 were considerably different from cur- 

 rent practices. 



Less overburden was removed in early 1900 and probably re- 

 sulted in less toxic spoil material. The area mined was rela- 

 tively flat; thus, spoils were nearly level— to 5 percent 

 slope. Use of smaller equipment resulted in less compaction. 

 Also, smaller acreages were disturbed and this allowed for 



prompt reforestation. Finally, there were no herbaceous 

 plantings which would have reduced survival and growth of 

 the tree seedlings. 



If toxic materials are segregated and buried in the bottoms 

 of the strip pits; if extreme compaction is avoided when re- 

 placing surface layers of spoil materials; and if tree planta- 

 tions are established by using techniques to reduce competi- 

 tion from herbaceous cover plantings, future plantations may 

 be equally successful. 



Literature Cited 



Grisez, Ted J. Growth and development of older plantations 

 in northwestern Pennsylvania. 1968; USDA For. Serv. Res. 

 Pap. NE-104.40p. 



The author is a research forester at the Northeastern Forest 

 Experiment Station, Princeton, West Virginia. 



MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED FOR PUBLICATION 

 19 FEBRUARY 1981 



^U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 198 1-703-01 1/15 



5 



