6 BITLLEriX 496, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
Since piles more than five rears old were not found, the writer 
can not state positively the length of time necessary for a medium- 
sized compact brush pile of white oak to rot completely. Apparently 
it would take from three to six years longer than if the brush were 
either pulled or scattered. However, if the piles are very small, the 
brush will rot with about the same rapidity as when the tops are 
left unlopped. since the sunlight can then penetrate to the bottom. 
SPOEOPHOBE DEVELOPMENT OX PIEED BETTSH. 
The difference between the development of sporophores at the top, 
middle, and bottom of brush piles is very marked. Practically every 
twig and limb at the top of the pile bore the characteristic sporo- 
phores of Stereum ram-eale. S. unibrlnum. and & versiforme on the 
rotting limbs, while no sporophores whatever were found on branches 
in the center of brush piles which were large and compact enough to 
exclude the sunlight. Very rarely were any sporophores of wood- 
rotting fungi found on the material at the bottom of the piles. 
although sterile mycelium was frequently present on the brush so 
situated. It was therefore difficult to determine what fungi were con- 
cerned in the rotting of the brush in the bottom of the piles. How- 
ever, sporophores were found of Merulius treriuUosv.s. Pt/uph-ora 
flavido-alba^ Odontia sp.. Poria pulcheJJcu and two unidentified 
species of Poria. 
BRUSH WHEN" SCATTERED. 
When the brush is lopped and scattered it rots much more quickly 
than when piled, and in some localities somewhat more quickly than 
when left attached to the tops. On the areas examined the gain in 
the rotting of brush when scattered compared to that when pulled 
was usually about one year. 
TThen white-oak brush is scattered, only small portions of the limbs 
are actually in contact with the soil. The same fungi, therefore, that 
rot the unlopped brush will also rot most of the scattered brush, and 
with about the same rapidity. 
Brush lying on the ground sometimes absorbs from the soil suffi- 
cient moisture for the growth of ground fungi in those portions of 
the limbs which are in actual contact with the soil. On many of the 
areas examined the additional moisture obtained from the soil by the 
scattered brush was not sufficient to cause the ground fungi to attack 
the prostrate limbs. 
The influence of soil moisture on the branches lying on the ground 
usually does not extend more than 4 to 6 inches from the point where 
the limb is in contact with the soil. This means that the benefit to be 
derived from the ground fungi rotting a branch is limited to that por- 
tion directlv in contact with the soil. On account of the small quan- 
