| Abstract |
1) A. mollissima was not damaged by the cold, even at ―4℃, while the leaves of E.rostrata were damaged in some degree every year in the past six years. 2) Though A. mollissima has shallow roots, a ver...y few trees (1.6%) were blown down by frequent typhoons. Many lateral roots of E. rostrata helped to support them. 3) The growth of A. mollissima planted in 1956 showed good results (Divisions I-IV), but the growth of those planted in 1957 in the space on the same plantation is far inferior, suppressed under the crowns of the former. 4) The leaves of A. mollissima were eaten by many basket-worms in the third year after planting, but the worms vanished of themselves without extermination. 5) The growth of E. rostrata is far inferior to that of A. mollissima due to the suppression under the vigorous crowns of A. mollissima and lack of sunshine. 6) The growth of E. rostrata (Divisions I-IV) planted near the edge of the mixed forest is far better than that of E. rostrata at the central part of the forest, because of good sunshine and the function of nodule fungi of A. mollissima. 7) From the above-mentioned results, it is recognized that the mixed planting of A. mollissima and E. rostrata is effective in the formation of forest, but care must be exercised to control E. rostrata by thinning or lopping off branches of A. mollissima at suitable opportunities.show more
|
Export Mendeley
p085