Forest Club Hot spots

RSS-News

A History of Russian Forestry and its Leaders

Chapter 3

Soil Science, Forest Ecology, and Forest Science

"Before Dokuchayev, soil science was an empirical science; as a result of Dokuchayev's work it has become a broad natural science discipline." (B. R. Williams)

"The forest and the soil must be studied simultaneously." (G. F. Morozov)

"The forest's stable existence depends on the presence of a balance between its internal relationships and the geographical environment." (G. F. Morozov)

The work of V. V. Dokuchayev, P. A. Kostychev, their students and followers created a scientific foundation for soil studies in Russia in the 1880's. Their work was universal for all soils and for all countries. The classic works of Dokuchayev and Kostychev went beyond the borders of Russia and became part of the textbooks for students in universities abroad. The Russian words chernozem and podzol became part of the lexicon of agronomists and soil scientists the world over.^I

Professor Romann of the University of Munich in 1901 advised his fellow soil scientists to study the Russian language if they wanted to be on the cutting edge of their field. In 1968, the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda cited the following fact, "Until recently the majority of graduate students accepted by the soil sciences department of Oxford University knew Russian. The professors at England's oldest university believed that every soil scientist should read Dokuchayev and the scientists of the Dokuchayev school in the original." ¹

VASILIY VASILIYEVICH DOKUCHAYEV 1846-1903

Vasiliy Vasiliyevich Dokuchayev, a leading scientist of the late 19th century, was the third child ii in the family of a minister in the village of Milyukovo, Sychev county, Smolensk Province. When the boy was eleven, his father sent him to the Vyazma Seminary. When he graduated in 1861, he transferred to the Smolensk Seminary.

In August 1867, Dokuchayev went to St. Petersburg for the first time. Thanks to his excellent academic record, Dokuchayev was sent to St. Petersburg at government cost to attend the Ecclesiastical Academy. Only a month later, he ran away from the Academy, and on October 28,1867 he became a student of natural sciences at the University of St. Petersburg.iii

The University of St. Petersburg was then experiencing a golden age. The staff of the Physio-mathematics College included D. I. Mendeleyev, the genius who invented the periodic system of elements, the famous physiologist I. M. Sechenov, and the outstanding chemist A. M. Butlerov. The botany department included A. N. Beketov and A. S. Famintsin, who taught the physiology of plants. The University also employed the geologist A. A. Inostrantsev and the chemist N. A. Menshutkin.

At the end of the 1860's, a remarkable event occurred in Dokuchayev's life: he met the geologist A. A. Inostrantsev. An overwhelming interest in geology naturally dictated that Dokuchayev would devote his research work to geology. In 1871, he presented his thesis entitled On Alluvial Formations Along Kachna Creek. and received his Candidate of Sciences degree. It is interesting that this soon-to-be famous soil scientist never once mentioned soil in his work.

In 1872, Dokuchayev began to study the Gzhat River in Smolensk Province to discover the process whereby the river was becoming increasingly shallow. In his work he drew conclusions which have not lost their significance even now. "... The decreased navigability of the Gzhat has been caused mainly by intense logging along the river. With the loss of forests in the area, snow melts much more rapidly in the spring and the water quickly runs into the river, and leaves the river just as rapidly. The direct result of this has been a decrease in the number of days ofrunoff, which is now sometimes only 2-5 days. Understandably, in this short period of time it is difficult to float barges from the head of the Gzhat to the Volga. The loss afforests along the Gzhat has another negative impact on navigation: it significantly increases expenditures for shipbuilding and thus makes river transport even less advantageous.

Add to this the construction of the railroad in the region of the Gzhat, which takes freight away from the river, and it becomes quite understandable and indisputable that traffic on the Gzhat is decreasing, and this quite independently of the river's siltation."² The independence and validity of Dokuchayev's opinions and his method of geographic analysis are striking.

Only at the end of 1874 did Dokuchayev produce his first scientific work on soils. It was entitled Podzol in the Smolensk Province. During this same period Dokuchayev devoted much time and interest to another major problem, namely the draining of swamps. He studied the work of an expedition organized by the Ministry of State Properties to study the swamps of Polesiye in order to drain them.

Dokuchayev discovered that the work of the expedition did not contain necessary data from climate, meteorological, and hydro-geological research. The leader and supervisor of the expedition, a military engineer, Colonel Zhilinski, apparently did not understand the importance of such research.

Dokuchayev could not ignore such an unsatisfactory approach to a problem of such national economic importance. In May of 1875, he presented a report on his first major work. On Swamp Drainage in General and as it Relates to Polesiye.

Dokuchayev began his report with the words "Until recently, swamps have been studied from a mainly utilitarian perspective; from the perspective of their harm or use to man. The essence of the phenomenon has hardly been touched. In all likelihood, therein lies the reason for the failure of the battle that man has long been waging with swamps ..."

It was precisely these failures that led several scientist and practitioners to express doubts about the possibility of draining Polesiye. Dokuchayev, however, did not share their doubts. On the contrary, he believed that the drainage of the Polesiye swamps was fully possible, but that it would require preliminary scientific research on the "geological and me teorological characteristics of the country."

This work is also of interest to foresters, since Polesiye, a broad, swampy and forested lowland, is frequently drained to expand agricultural land. Nature has created an important role for swamps. Dokuchayev understood this and sagaciously noted "... before millions are spent on draining the swamps, it must be proven that the rivers that begin in the peat bogs can survive without them. Otherwise, we will have to spend even more money and labor to re-flood the drained areas.'' Further, he described the often complex and at times contra dictory interdependence of the swamps, rivers, forests, atmospheric precipitation, evaporation, and river deposits. He warned, "It is essential to clearly understand the mutual connection between all the factors indicated above, in order to achieve positive results from interfering in their highly important and complex struggle. "^iv

In 1876, Dokuchayev presented a major paper on The Probable Siltation of the Rivers of European Russia. He also published an article on the formation and significance of ravines and wrote a major work entitled River Valley Formation in European Russia. These works concluded the first stage of Dokuchayev's scientific research.

In the same year, Dokuchayev, known in scientific circles as a geologist, became a member of the so-called "Chernozem Commission," which was elected at a session of the Free Economic Society. He received his first direct experience with the chernozem when he explored its northern border in the Tula province in 1877. In 1879, he published a major theoretical composition called The Cartography of Russian Soils.³ With this work,^v Dokuchayev initiated the development of a new discipline of natural history, soil science.

In ^{The Cartography of Russian Soils} Dokuchayev, describing the soils of Yaroslav Province, noted, "It is remarkable that the peasants, based on the species of the trees growing in gray soils (podwl), further divide the latter into walnut (the best gray, moderately dry), pine and fire (the first is very dry and the second is somewhat moister)."

Dokuchayev seemed to be trying to remind his successors of the need to be guided by the experience of the Russian peasant farmers when he characteristically remarked, "There is reason to hope that in the near future we will be able to distinguish not only the soils of the steppe and forest from each other, but also birch, lime, oak, beech and other soils as well. The common Russian people have long recognized and valued the innate qualities of these different soils."

In The Cartography of Russian Soils Dokuchayev first formulated the genetic definition of soil, "... it has been proven that every soil is the product of the combined activity ofbedrock, climate, vegetation and local landforms .... Soil science in general and soil geography in particular have a very close genetic tie to the history of our planet. "³

Dokuchayev based soil classification on a characteristic common to all soils, be they from the steppe, the forest, or the meadow, and that was the presence of humus. Soil gradations were based on the amount of humus present.^vi In 1883, Dokuchayev published his greatest work Russian Chernozem. in which he laid the foundation of genetic soil science and presented a final definition of the concept of soil. He also named five soil formation factors: climate, landforms, bed-rock, vegetation, and the age of the area. Soil characteristics may be defined based on these factors without additional research.

While working on Russian Chernozem. Dokuchayev discovered a new and unique formation of natural history, soil. He wrote that soils comprised a fourth natural kingdom in addition to animals, plants, and minerals.

It is a fact that some scientists, contemporaries of Dokuchayev, maintained that chernozem formation was a result of pure climatic factors. In response to A. I. Voyeykov, Dokuchayev wrote in 1881, " ... / view soil as a function of the combined activity of bed-rock, climate, vegetation and local landforms, and the age of the area... I have continually said that it is precisely the combination of factors, and not any one factor alone, that explains the totality of the different characteristics of our soils."

In Russian Chernozem. Dokuchayev, when comparing different geographical areas, wrote, "outside of the European countries, only the steppes of Siberia, Missouri and Mississippi can compare with our band of chernozem."

Dokuchayev tried to strengthen and develop the genetic soil science that he created. He published the first periodical for soil scientists called Materials on the Study of Russian Soils. With the support of A. V. Sovetov, he created a soil committee within the Free Economic Society and published Works of the Soil Commission.

Dokuchayev categorically opposed the wholesale adoption of foreign methods that did not take local conditions into account. " ... It is finally time," Dokuchayev protested, "for our agronomists and their professors and instructors to abandon the almost slave-like following of German textbooks and instructions which have been compiled for a different environment, a different people, and a different economic and social structure... "

Dokuchayev demanded that Russia develop its own agronomy for chernozem, loess, and barkhan (sand-hills) that would correspond strictly to local climatic conditions, to local soils, and to the economic and social conditions of a given region or zone.

Dokuchayev's work on agricultural zones and nature zones laid the foundation for differentiated agriculture methods, which were adapted to local conditions.

The year of 1888 witnessed two important events that played an important role in the further development of the science created by Dokuchayev. One was the creation of a standing Soil Commission within the Free Economic Society. The second event was the organization of the Poltava works.

In 1889, a world exhibition was held in Paris which brought new worries for Dokuchayev. Dokuchayev received permission to display in the Russian exhibit a collection of soils, which was intended to demonstrate the basic principles of the new genetic soil science. On October 16, Dokuchayev received a letter from V. I. Vernadski in Paris, informing him that his exhibition had received a gold medal.

In the spring of 1891, Dokuchayev was compelled to participate in the work of the Commission for Higher Agricultural Education, which was formed at the government's request. In September of 1891, he inspected the Novo-Aleksandrov Institute for Agriculture and Forestry. During the academic year of 1991-92, Dokuchayev devoted all of his free time to intensive work resulting from the tragic events of the previous summer.

During the summer of 1891 nearly the entire chernozem zone of European Russia was caught in the grip of an unprecedented drought. The drought covered more than twenty provinces and affected more than 35 million people. This terrible tragedy struck Ukraine, as well as the provinces of Voronezh, Kursk, Orlov, Tambov, Samara, Saratov, Astrakhan, Simbersk, Orenburg, Penza, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Ufa, and a number of others. In many counties of these provinces, no crops were harvested at all. In other places, the yield amounted to only 2-3 poods (1 pood = 36 pounds) per desyatina (2.7 acres). No seed was harvested. Potatoes and vegetables suffered as well from the drought and yielded little. The meadows dried up and there was no hay for livestock. In 1891, the grain harvest in Russia amounted to less than one half million poods (9,000 tons).

Dokuchayev was one of the first to respond to the national disaster. He wrote his famous book, Our Steppes Yesterday and Today, in which he analyzed the reasons for the drought and proposed a plan to reform nature and reorganize agriculture in the chernozem region to promote consistently high harvest yields.

He wrote with anger, "The forests once protected the area from erosion, wind, and snowdrifts, helped conserve soil moisture and maintained the level of the water table. They prevented pollution in streams, lakes and rivers, and regulated the size and length of the spring runoff. These most important regulators of atmospheric water and life in our springs, rivers, and lakes, have decreased in size by 3-5 times in some places and even more in others. Up to 90% of the territory in many places," he continued, "has been cultivated and this has destroyed the grainy structure of the chernozem, the characteristic essential for holding soil moisture. Plowing has caused the soil to fall victim to the erosion of wind and water."

The destruction of the forests and the breakdown of the firm grainy or crumbly structure of the soil resulted in the siltation of the rivers, drought, "the energetically increasing erosion of fertile soil from the steppes," the formation of ravines, the spread of sand, the siltation of steppe depressions, ponds and temporary lakes, which were once fed by steppe streams.

Dokuchayev was deeply convinced of the unlimited power of man's influence on nature. He wrote, "... all of these enemies of our agriculture - wind, storms, drought - are frightening only because we cannot control them. They are not evil, but we must study them and learn to control them, and then they will work in our favor."

Dokuchayev created a brilliant plan of action to accomplish his goal of transforming nature on the steppes. The plan included methods for snow retention and water regulation from runoff and rain. It also established norms for the relative amount of cultivated land, meadows, forests and water bodies. Dokuchayev developed methods for cultivating the soil that would maximize moisture usage and prescribed the sowing of crops suitable to the local soil and climatic conditions. The plan suggested methods to fight soil erosion, protect sandy areas from wind erosion, safeguard the waters and soils, protect fields by planting tree breaks, and regulate rivers, ravines and gullies. It also proposed planting timber crops along the riverbanks, and building ponds and reservoirs in ravines and gullies and on small rivers for irrigation, and to stop further erosion in the ravines. The plan also promoted estuary irrigation, and the forestation of ravines, gullies, reservoirs, sandy areas, and any other land not suitable for cultivation.

Dokuchayev's well-balanced plan included all of this and much more. He wrote, "These measures must be purposeful, stringency systematic, and sequential..."

In the end, Dokuchayev was able to convince government agencies of the need to fight the drought. On May 22, 1892 the Forest Department organized, under the leadership of V. V. Dokuchayev, the Special Expedition for the Testing and Evaluation of Various Methods and Approaches to Forest and Water Management in the Russian Steppes. Eighteen volumes of reports of the Special Expedition were issued over the next four years under the editorship of Dokuchayev.

Dokuchayev's plan prescribed that the main experimental plots be designated in watersheds, on open flat steppes, and in areas where some forest remained. These areas, thanks to Dokuchayev and later generations of foresters, have become widely known in the world of forestry.

Dokuchayev's first choice was the so-called Khrenov plot, located in Bobrov and Pavlov counties of Voronezh Province. The selection of this plot was very fortunate; it included a large tract of steppe called the Kamen (stone) Steppe, as well as two forests, the coniferous Khrenov forest and the decidu-ous Shipov forest. The latter had been designated as a protected shipbuilding grove at the order of Peter I.

A second experimental plot - Starobel - was selected in the watershed of the Don and Donets rivers. This plot was by its nature quite different from the Khrenov plot and farther to the south, but it was also quite typical for the steppes.

A third plot was designated in the south close to the shores of the Sea of Azov. This plot was located near the birthplace of the writer A. P. Chekhov and included the settings of Chekhov's story Steppes, which was a favorite of Dokuchayev. The Veliko-Anadol plot lies between the Donets and the Dniepr rivers in Mariupol County, Yekaterinoslav Province.

Dokuchayev led the expedition from 1892-1897. During this time a network of the above-mentioned and other plots was established, which laid the foundation for experimental forestry in Russia.

Another fact of note is that, in his work The Steppes Yesterday and Today.⁴ the scientist emphasized that it is essential to designate at least two types of forest vegetation: forests in river valleys and forests on the dry plains of the steppe.

On June 1,1892, Dokuchayev was appointed as the acting director of the Novo-Aleksandriyskiy Institute in addition to his position of professor at St. Petersburg University. Dokuchayev spent almost the entire academic year of 1892-93 at the Novo-Aleksandriyskiy Institute, where he concentrated his attention on its operation, which had long been neglected. On April 17, 1893, a pronouncement was made concerning new staff and the state of the Institute. Because of this pronouncement, the Institute and all of its students were accorded the rights and privileges of a higher institution of learning, thus increasing Institute's budget threefold.

V. V. Dokuchayev reorganized the Novo-Aleksandriyskiy Institute, renewed the teaching staff by bringing to it many of his best students (Sibirtsev, Barakov and others), and achieved the reorganization of the network of agricultural schools and experimental stations, which were organized according to zones and local natural and economic conditions. Dokuchayev believed that a good teacher must also work independently in the field of his science.

1893 was the peak of Dokuchayev's organizational activity. He worked intensively on the Forest Department expedition, as well as on the reorganization and operation of the Novo-Aleksandriyskiy Institute. In that year he also had to finish the research reports on the soil studies for the Poltava province. In spite of all his work and worries, Dokuchayev also managed to assemble a soil collection and send it with an accompanying description translated into English for the worldwide Columbus Exhibition in Chicago.

The work of the Forest Department expedition was in full swing. Especially intensive work was being done on the Kamen Steppe plot in the Voronezh region. In 1892 and 1893, the Special Expedition, under the leadership of Dokuchayev, planted protective forest breaks on 125 hectares, built a series of ponds and reservoirs, and conducted comprehensive natural history research. This work makes Dokuchayev one of the creators of experimental science, including experimental forest science, in Russia. ^vii

Dokuchayev's plans for the reorganization of the Institute placed special emphasis on the teaching of soil science. He wanted to create a serious scientific base for the new science, with a special laboratory and office to exclusively serve the needs of the new science. In order to achieve his cherished dream - the creation of a soil science department within the Novo-Aleksandriyskiy Institute - Dokuchayev was required to expend much time and energy.

Finally, at the beginning of 1894, the Novo-Aleksandriyskiy Institute established a department of genetic soil science. It was the first in the world. This was without doubt a great accomplishment. An independent department and an independent course, even if it was offered in only one institute, signified the official recognition and legitimization of the new science.

Dokuchayev wanted the new department to be headed by his best student, Nikolai Mikhailovich Sibirtsev. The course of lectures, read by N. M. Sibirtsev from 1894-1899, was the basis for the world's first textbook on soil science, which was published only after Sibirtsev's death in 1900. This textbook, which was universally acclaimed and is still meaningful today, served as the foundation for every successive course on genetic soil science in Russia.

At the beginning of 1895, Dokuchayev submitted a memo to government authorities that outlined "the advantages and timeliness of creating two new departments. Soil Science and Micro-organic Studies, within the College of Mathematics and Physics of the St. Petersburg University." Dokuchayev's proposal received the support of many leading scientists, and was quite actively supported by D. I. Mendeleyev. However, the authorities did not approve the request.

In 1898, Dokuchayev provided scientific substantiation for the theory of zonality in nature, which had been proposed by the Russian academician I. I. Lepekhin in 1783. According to Dokuchayev, the theory of zonality makes no sense without a comprehensive approach to the soil, "To understand the soil, it must be studied as a natural historical body, like minerals, plants and animals. From this perspective, the soil, as a subject of study of equal importance and interest for the mineralogist, geologist, chemist, physicist, meteorologist, biologist, and geographer, encompasses all the basic fields of natural science. "

In his work Horizontal and Vertical Soil Zones (1898'). Dokuchayev wrote that formerly "...studies were conducted on isolated bodies - minerals, rocks, plants, animals, and on isolated phenomena and elements of nature - fire (vulcanism), water, earth, air. In so doing, science achieved amazing results, but it has discovered neither the correlation, nor the genetic, eternal, and always natural ties, which exist between energy, natural bodies, and phenomena, between the dead and living in nature, between the plant and mineral kingdoms, on the one hand and man, his existence, and even the spiritual world on the other hand. It is precisely these co-relations, these natural interactions that are the essence of understanding the natural world; they are the best and brightest charms of natural science. They should be the building blocks of human life, including morality and religion."

In 1899, with the assistance of his students, Dokuchayev compiled the first soil map of the world. Soil Zones of the Northern Hemisphere. He also compiled a Study of the Distribution of Soils on the Earth's Surface. With these works he developed the basis for the scientific study of landscapes. That same year the first issue of the journal Soil Science was published and edited by Dokuchayev's former student, P. V. Ototski.

A. N. Beketov, who was usually very cautious in his reactions, wrote in regard to Dokuchayev's zonal studies; "... For the first time soil zones merge and correspond with the zones of nature, with the zones of natural history in such a tight and friendly manner, that one could hardly expect such love from a faithful spouse or the most exemplary children and parents. In these zones we see the highest manifestation of the world law of love. "

V. V. Dokuchayev's accomplished an unusually large number things in his lifetime, but, of course, not everything that he had planned. During the last three years of his life he suffered both spiritually and physically. Dokuchayev died on December 8, 1903.

It is impossible to end a biography of V. V. Dokuchayev with only the date of his death. He belongs to the number of remarkable people who continue to live in the hearts and minds of their successors even after their death.

Dokuchayev is universally recognized as the founder of a new science, genetic soil science, which provided the genuine scientific base required for the resolution of some of agriculture most important problems dealing with soil fertility. Dokuchayev created an outstanding school of science, the graduates of which include such important scientists as academicians V. I. Vernadsky, F. Yu. Levinson-Lessing, K. D. Glinka, G. N. Vysotsky, L. I. Prasolov, and professors N. M. Sibirtsev, P. A. Zemyatchinsky, G. I. Tanfilyev, P. F. Barakov, A. N. Krasnov, S. A. Zakharov, and others.

Dokuchayev's studies on soil positively influenced a number of other fields of study, such as physical geography and geomorphology, geo-botany and forestry, microbiology and geo-zoology. On the basis of Dokuchayev's ideas, his students and followers created new scientific disciplines. V. I. Vernadski, Dokuchayev's student and friend, created bio-geo-chemistry and G. F. Morozov created forest science. The contemporary study of landscapes resulted from the work of L. S. Berg and other followers of Dokuchayev.

"In the history of every science, the creation of laboratories and special museums, the founding of special departments at institutes or universities devoted to that science are an important historical moment that determines the course of its further development. For soil science, these important steps were first taken in Russia, and the credit for this lies entirely with V. V. Dokuchayev." (V. I. Vernadsky).

^I It would be natural to assume that these outstanding people, leaders in the field of soil science, were, if not friends, at least of similar views. Indeed, they worked together at the same university and lived in the same neighborhood on Vasiliyevski Island in St. Petersburg. They had many of the same friends and acquaintances. But, quite to the contrary, they were enemies to the end of their days and did not forgive each other their mistakes. They associated with one another only when it was necessary and treated each other coldly.
While Kostychev received the recognition of his peers for his services, Dokuchayev had to fight for any recognition. Today Dokuchayev's genetic theory of soil formation is universally recognized, while Kostychev's discovery of the "law of increasing fertility" is known only to a narrow circle of specialists. It is said that the truth is born of argument. They discovered the truth jointly. It is no secret today that their views were less contradictory than they were complementary, and Russian soil science reaped the benefit.
Only at the end of their lives did they, dryly and briefly, recognize the accomplishments of each other in print. (Chernova, L., Vasiliy Vasiliyevich Dokuchayev. Pavel Andreyevich Kostychev. in the book Sowers and Preservers. 2 volumes, Vol. 2, Moscow, Sovremmenik, 1992, pp. 49-114.) ⁱⁱ Vasiliy was the youngest of three brothers, and he also had four sisters.
ⁱⁱⁱ Dokuchayev's life at this point was similar to the experience of another famous Russian scientist and physiologist, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1839-1936). Pavlov, who later became an academician and won the Nobel Prize in 1904, also studied for a time at the Religious Academy. Like Dokuchayev, he left the Academy to study in the natural sciences department of the College of Physics and Mathematics at St. Petersburg University.
^iv A large-scale project to drain wetlands in Germany resulted in an ecological imbalance and the area had to be remade into swamp.
^v In 1875 an officer of the Ministry of State Properties, V. I. Chaslavsky, who was working on the compilation of a soils map for Russia, invited Dokuchayev to assist him. The map was compiled on the basis of statistical and questionnaire data. Dokuchayev was assigned the task of soil classification, since it was clear that statistical data would be insufficient. The task required a multi-faceted and in-depth knowledge of soils.
^vi In 1881, he refined his definition of soil: "The essence of soil are mineral-organic surface formations which are always more or less found with humus; these bodies are independent in origin; they are always and everywhere the product of the combined activity of rock, climate, live organisms (vegetation and animals), local landforms; soils, like every other organism, always have a normal structure, normal thickness and normal state..." Dokuchayev tried to avoid calling soil an organism, but in his definition of soil he removed it from the mineral kingdom.
^vii In 1899, the Forest Department stopped subsidizing the work on the Khrenov forest plot. The Kamen Steppe forest district was organized in the area. It later became the Kamen Steppe Experimental Station, and in 1946 it was renamed the Dokuchayev Institute of Agriculture of the Central Chemozem Zone.

PAVEL ANDREYEVICH KOSTYCHEV 1845-1895

Pavel Andreyevich Kostychev was born in Moscow at the home of the Tambov landlord Petrov, to whom belonged Pavel's serf parents Andrei Aleksandrovich and Yevdokia Ivanovna Kostychev.¹ In the spring of that year, the family, along with the landlord's household, moved to the village of Karnaukhovo, Shatsk County, Tambov Province. ^viii

In August of 1857, at the decision of the landlord, A. A. Kostychev took his son to the Shatsk County School. The boy was overwhelmed by the world of books, and in three years he was never once late to school, even though he had to walk 12 versts (1 versta = 3500 feet) to town. After the abolition of serfdom in 1861, Petrov sent Kostychev to Moscow with the request that his protege be allowed to enroll at the Moscow Agricultural School on Zubov Boulevard. Pavel graduated with honors, but did not return home.^ix

Kostychev studied hard and eagerly. He was encouraged in this by the staff of the school including the director N. I. Annenkev, a talented botanist and forester, and his teacher S. P. Karelshchikov. After a brilliant career at the school, Kostychev considered how to further his education. A new agricultural and forestry academy opened in 1865 in Petrovsko-Razumovsky near Moscow, but it accepted only applicants from rich families. Kostychev was forced to become a tutor.

Two years later, in the summer of 1867, Kostychev enrolled in the St. Petersburg Agricultural Institute. He became the first student from a peasant serf family not only at the Institute, but in all of Russia.^x

Kostychev was thoroughly educated. His knowledge of agronomy, botany, forestry and other natural sciences went far beyond the framework of any course of study. On his own, he studied Latin, German and French. Even at that time no one could rival his knowledge of agricultural literature. During his student years, Kostychev began to write for the Agricultural Gazette and the journal Agriculture and Forestry.

At the Institute he met Professor A. N. Engelgard and began to work under his guidance. Engelgard was amazed at Kostychev's ability to conduct extremely delicate chemical analyses. He began to lobby for Kostychev's appointment as a teacher at the Institute. Kostychev's arrest and imprisonment for several months in the Peter and Paul fortress for participating in a student protest put an end to those plans. The situation worsened when Engelgard was exiled to his estate of Batishchevo in 1870. Kostychev found himself with no means of support and almost without hope to continue his scientific career.

For more than three years he could not get a government job. He finally was hired as an assayer in the chemistry lab of the Ministry of Finance. His job of evaluating the silver and gold content of coins was uninteresting to him, but he continued to keep abreast of the current agricultural literature.

During these years Kostychev became friends with several artists of the podvizhnik (wanderer) movement, including N. N. Ge, who painted a famous portrait of Kostychev. Kostychev especially valued his friendship with N. A. Nekrasov and M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin.

Kostychev's broad erudition and deep theoretical and practical knowledge attracted the attention of the publisher Devriyen, who proposed that Kostychev compile a Calendar of Russian Agriculture for 1874. Kostychev did the job brilliantly.

In 1875, Kostychev received a position as instructor of plant science at the Agricultural Institute. At this institute, which was soon reorganized as the Forest Institute, Kostychev created a chemisty laboratory, which he used to test the experiments on chernozem of the French scientist Grandeau and to study the soil types from the collection ofV. V. Dokuchayev. A series of painstaking experiments with phosphorous enabled Kostychev to defend his master's dissertation Insoluble Phosphoric Compounds. He proved that the introduction of lime binds the phosphoric acid making the resulting compound capable of assimilation by plants.

In 1870, he presented a report on the subject and created a sensation with this important achievement for soil science and agronomy. The report was highly acclaimed by Mendeleyev, who told Kostychev, "You have arrived as a chemist. You should now be giving lectures at the university; the Forest Institute is too small for you. "

In 1880, Kostychev began to teach a course on soil science at the Forest Institute, and later began a private course on soil science for graduate students at St. Petersburg University. Beginning in 1881, he received the opportunity to travel in the summers on scientific trips as an employee of the Department of Agriculture and Agricultural Industry.

Kostychev's prolonged and exhaustive work on the study of the chernozem and the steppes enabled him to publish a number of articles in the journal Agriculture and Forestry. These were published as separate books in 1886 and 1892, entitled Soils of the Chernozem Region of Russia⁵ and Cultivating and Fertilizing Chernozem.⁶

While studying the chernozem zone, Kostychev encountered the question of forests in the steppe. He was continually bothered by the question, was it possible to forest the southern steppe or did the climate make it impossible? Had there been forests in the steppe and was it possible to restore them? To answer these questions, which had been occupying the minds of a number of scientists, Kostychev visited the Veliko-Anadol and Berdyan forest districts, inspected the forest zones of the Don, and studied a large volume of literature. On the basis of this study, he compiled a map of the steppe zones of the earth, which included, besides the European and Asian steppes, the North American prairies and the South American pampas.

In 1889, at the 8th Congress of Natural Scientists and Physicians, Kostychev presented a paper entitled The Relationship Between Soils and Several Vegetation Formations. In this work, the scientist established that the borders between the forest and the steppe are determined by climate and that there exists a close relationship between the soils of these regions and their vegetation formations. He explained why the forests of the steppe grow only in soil with specific characteristics, and explained man's role in reforesting the steppes. His report later became a program document when reforestation began in the semi-steppe and steppe regions in southern Russia.

In 1894, at the suggestion of A. S. Yermolov, a former classmate at the Forest Institute and current minister of agriculture and state properties, Kostychev was appointed director of the Department of Agriculture. Kostychev came to the position with a program to improve agriculture in all areas: farming, forestry, horticulture and animal husbandry.

Kostychev accomplished much in the last year of his life, but his main achievement was the opening of an agricultural institute in Moscow that replaced the Petrovski Agricultural Academy. In addition, a network of experimental stations was established in many places in Russia based on Kostychev's program.

After a ship accident on the Caspian Sea, Kostychev' heart problems became more severe, and on December 3, 1895 he died.

P. A. Kostychev left behind many successors and students, like the soils scientists and agronomists D. N. Pryanishnikov, P. S. Kossovich, and K. K. Gedroits. Kostychev passed his interest in microbiology on to his son Sergey Pavlovich Kostychev, who in 1914 became a professor at St. Petersburg University and in 1923 an acting member of the Academy of Sciences. It was S. P. Kostychev who nominated Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, the outstanding geneticist and selectionist, for Academy membership.

^viii Petrov was one of those landlord farmers who loved innovation. Agronomists were the new thing, and Petrov decided to learn for himself how to scientifically manage his estate. His peasants told him that there was no one more inquisitive or dependable in the area than Pavel Kostychev. By the age of ten Pavel learned to read and write on his own, and he read every book in the village.
^ix Kostychev's obituary, published in the journal Landlord (1895), stated, "...inarguably private agriculture lost an able steward, but Russia gained a great scientific-agronomist." (Kompaneyets, M. K. 1971. Scientific Agronomists of Russia in History of Agronomic Science. Moscow, Kolos. p. 72.)
^x Enrollment at an institute required a diploma from a gymnasium, which Kostychev, of course, did not have. A trustee of the Peterburg education district gave Kostychev three days to pass a gymnasium equivalency examination. Kostychev passed with a grade of excellent and received a diploma from Petersburg Gymnasium No. 7.

GAVRIIL IVANOVICH TANFILYEV 1857-1928

Gavriil Ivanovich Tanfilyev,⁷ outstanding Russian geographer, natural scientist, geo-botanist and soil scientist, and the father of wetland studies, was born in Revel (now Tallinn). From 1877 to 1884, he studied at the St. Petersburg University. He studied physio-mathematics, but felt closer to natural sciences and in 1879 transferred into the first year of the Natural Sciences Department. As a student, Tanfilyev was influenced by several famous Russian scientists who taught at the university. These included soil scientist V. V. Dokuchayev, geo-botanist A. N. Beketov and others.

As early as 1884, Tanfilyev submitted to the university his work as a candidate of science entitled Flora of the Chernozem. Upon graduation in 1885, he went to work for the Department of Agriculture and became a member of the Free Economic Society, the St. Petersburg Society of Natural Scientists and the Russian Geographic Society.

In 1888, a soil commission was created within the Free Economic Society; V. V. Dokuchayev was appointed chairman and G. I. Tanfilyev became secretary.

In 1894, Tanfilyev defended his masters dissertation Boundaries of the Forests in Southern Russia and was appointed assistant professor at St. Petersburg University, where he taught a course on botanic geography.

In Boundaries of the Forests in Southern Russia Tanfilyev explained that the absence of forests on the steppes is caused by an overabundance of chloride and sulfate in the soil. This is the result of too little precipitation and makes the soil toxic for trees. Trees draw these toxic salts in through their root system together with other nutrients from the soil and poison themselves. In the more northern regions, where there is more precipitation, the salts are washed from the soil, promoting normal forest growth. Forests appear in the steppes only in places where there are conditions favorable to eliminating the excess soluble salts, namely watersheds, deep ravines, and riverbanks. He listed the "specific tree species that are the pioneer trees which extend the forests of the steppe, both along the borders of existing forests and in open areas." The oak is foremost among these trees and Tanfilyev stressed that, "... seeds for planting must be selected from those trees which grow in the steppes and are already adapted to its conditions." In addition, brush growth on the steppe can help establish the necessary conditions for forestation.

In this work, Tanfilyev quotes the words of Korzhinski, who said, "... physical geographic conditions are not the only ones upon which vegetation depends. There is a whole other world of social relationships with other living organisms. It is quite possible that climatic and other physical geographic conditions are entirely favorable, but a species still can not survive in that place, because stronger competitors force it out."

After these lines, Tanfilyev poses the question, "What does it mean to be "forced out by stronger competitors' ? A species can be forced out, of course, by others that are better adapted to the given conditions of survival, e.g., moisture, light, food, pollination, resistance to parasites and other enemies, etc. These relationships with the environment are so numerous that it is impossible to discover them all, but this still does not mean that a species' chance for survival depends only on "specific vital internal characteristics." Any single factor, of course, cannot explain a specific question of botanic geography, but rather all factors must be taken into account. When all else is equal, one specific factor always dominates and it is credited as the reason for one or another phenomenon, even though all the other factors are not without influence. The search for and discovery of specific real factors in any given case should always be the goal of science."

In 1895, Tanfilyev was hired as the junior conservator for the St. Petersburg botanical gardens. In 1899, he became the chief botanist and also replaced V. V. Dokuchayev as Chair of the Soil Commission.

In his article Cycles of Drought (1899), Tanfilyev suggested the existence of periodic fluctuations in the climate over the course of history and noted that no data existed that addressed general climatic changes toward drought or the positive influence of forests on the amount of precipitation.

In Flora of the Chernozem (1889), Tanfilyev raised the question of the close relationship between the soil and the vegetative covering and the influence of soil composition on vegetation distribution. He concluded that the diversity of vegetation on the steppes can be explained by the abundance of lime in the soils of the chemozem. Chernozem is always found on top of limestone. The soils along the northern border of the chernozem are poor in lime. The vegetation of the cher-nozem must be considered lime soil vegetation.

G. I. Tanfilyev compiled many botanical-geographical maps of Russia. In 1897, the work Physical Geographical Regions of European Russia was published and well received. Before this publication, scientists had created divisions based on a single characteristic, for example, soil, climate, vegetation, or animals of the world. Division by bio-geographical regions became the standard for all subsequent divisions. These regions included soil, botanical, climatic and hydro-logical characteristics as well as geological history and land formation. Tanfilyev is credited with the compilation of one of the first compendiums of the botanical geography of Russia, The Most Important Characteristics of Vegetation in Russia (1903), in which he developed the physical-geographical division of Russia into regions. No description of vegetation by zones existed before.

In 1905, Tanfilyev moved to Odessa. In Odessa he was chosen by the Council of the Novorossisk University to be a regular professor in the geography department. There he wrote his doctoral dissertation Forest Boundaries in Polar Russia (1911) as well as his major work The Geography of Russia. which was published in four volumes between 1916 and 1924 and contained a colossal amount of factual material.

Tanfilyev's 1923 Essay on the Geography and History of Important Crops was about the origin of agricultural crops and their distribution in Russia and around the world.

In Zonality of the Chernozem (1927) and Origin of the Steppes (1928), Tanfilyev explored the reason for the bareness of the steppe. His conclusions, however, exaggerate the role ofbedrock and gives climate only a regulatory role in the processes of soil formation.

Tanfilyev spent the last 23 years of his life in Odessa. He died on September 4, 1928.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE MAJOR WORKS OF G. I. TANFILYEV

GEORGIY FYODOROVICH MOROZOV 1867-1920

Georgiy Fyodorovich Morozov (1867-1920),⁸ the outstanding Russian forester, was born in St. Petersburg. His father was a merchant and city council commissioner. Morozov received a military education, graduating from the 2^nd Aleksandrov Cadet Corps and the Pavlov Military Academy. After graduation, he put in three years of compulsory service in the military and then enrolled in the St. Petersburg Forest Institute. During his student days, Morozov made a living by teaching mathematics, for which he had a great talent, at a local gymnasium.

When he graduated from the Forest Institute in 1893, Morozov worked as an assistant forester in the Khrenov forest district in Voronezh province and taught at the Khrenov Technical Forest School. Morozov's work in the forest district acquainted him with the activity of the well-known forester N. D. Sukhodski, who had resolved one of the most difficult problems faced by foresters at the time - growing pine in a dry climate with sandy soils. While participating in the forest crop work in the Khrenov forest, Morozov tried to create a strong scientific base and organized a series of experiments which led to the appearance of several scientific articles about the Khrenov forest and the dependence of forest crops on soil moisture. One of these works. The Fight against Drought when Growing Pine. earned him the rank of Scientist Forester First Class.

In 1897, the talented young forester received an assignment abroad and over the course of two years visited and studied over 70 forest districts in Germany and Switzerland. He became familiar with pine and oak production and methods to stabilize forest quicksand. Morozov became interested in experimental forestry, and for seven months he worked as an assistant to Professor Schwappach in the forest and laboratory of the Eberswald experimental forest station. Thanks to his fluent knowledge of German, Morozov became well acquainted with many leading German foresters, including Professor Heyer, and he took classes from Meyer. All of this helped Morozov to glean the best of what could be useful to Russian forestry and eliminate that which was specific to German conditions.

Morozov, in his reports from the assignment to Europe, devoted much attention to the question of barren sands. Consequently, the Ministry of Agriculture sent Morozov to the sand forestation project in Voronezh province. In 1899 he was appointed as Forester First Class in the Kamen Steppe forest district. There Morozov developed many valuable methods for forest reproduction in the steppes in the fight against drought. These methods are widely used in Russia today.

The work in Voronezh province, which was the site of the Dokuchayev expedition's former experimental plot, brought Morozov into contact with Professor Dokuchayev and his school, and, in particular, with G. I. Tanfilyev, the botanical geographer. His real teachers were these two leading scientists, who determined the direction of Morozov's entire future scientific career. "In my life," Morozov wrote, "learning has played the decisive role and has brought to my work such joy, light, and moral satisfaction, that I cannot imagine my life without the principles of the Dokuchayev school and its view of nature..."

Despite his occupation with practical work, Morozov also conducted a large volume of research and even published a number of articles in forestry journals and in the journal Soil Science. These articles brought him the recognition of other foresters and soil scientists, and in 1901, he was hired as a professor at the St. Petersburg Forest Institute in the department of general forestry.

In 1902, at the initiative of Morozov, the forestry department was divided in two. The department of general forestry dealt with issues of silvics, natural reproduction and intermediate cutting and thinning, while the department of specific (micro) forestry included the subjects of artificial forest renewal and reforestation. From that time on, forestry in Russia began to be taught and develop along two independent lines.

Morozov's work at the Institute constituted an era of creative development for forestry in Russia. At the Institute he worked to establish a new department, a departmental museum, and library. He also took an active part in the scientific and scientific social life of St. Petersburg, and presented reports and lectures at a variety of forestry and botany conferences, meetings, and societies. He immediately earned the love of his students and popularity among a broad circle of society. He participated in the creation of the first agricultural school for women, the Stebutov Higher Agricultural Course for Women, and was the director for a time. He was a member of the standing commission on forest experimentation, initiated the opening of a number of experimental forestry stations, and provided the direction and program for their work.

In 1904, Morozov became the editor of the Forestry Journal and managed it for 15 years.

G. F. Morozov, as a forester and citizen, supported government ownership of the forests. In a speech at the Second Congress of the Union of Foresters, he emphasized that, "...the forest should belong only to the state, and the state should be its caretaker. Not only legally, but also the facts and lessons of history prove that the state should be in charge of forest matters. The state is a community of interests; the forest belongs to the state and, thus, to everyone, and only the state can manage it in the interests of everyone. It is our task therefore to reinforce this concept in the consciousness of the people, to reinforce it in a pure and complete form."⁹

In 1917, Morozov's health forced him to move to Yalta. In the Crimea, despite his serious condition (paralysis), Morozov still took an active part in the work of forestry practitioners. In the summer of 1918, Morozov, in a wheelchair, attended the forestry conference in Kiev, which developed a program to organize forestry work in Ukraine.

At the same time, Morozov was offered a professorship at the newly reorganized Simferopol Tavria University in the forestry department of the college of agronomy. Morozov had long dreamed of teaching at the university. There he could give his lectures a broad general biological character and find satisfaction presenting his audience with the deep ideas and generalizations on natural philosophy, to which his years of studying the forest had led him.

Although weakened by illness, Morozov found the strength to organize a forestry museum within the forestry department at the university. He also participated in various commissions to improve city services, parks, children's agencies, etc., and he continued to give public lectures.

Morozov died on May 9, 1920. His relatives and friends decided to bury him on the outskirts of Simferopol (now part of Ukraine) in Salgirka Park, which belonged to the university. This fulfilled, at least in part, his wish to be buried under the cover of the Russian forest.

Through the efforts of the Russian Federal Forest Service and the Russian Society of Foresters, and broad public involvement, a monument to G. F. Morozov was unveiled on March 12, 1997 at the Khrenov Technical Forest School (Voronezh Province, Russia), where he began his career.

The G. P. Morozov Gold Medal was established, and it is awarded in Russia for outstanding work in the field of forestry and forest science.

G. F. Morozov was the first in the world to create a single integrated theory of forest management. He gave us the theory of forest types, which was based on consideration for vegetation characteristics within the forest environment, and his theory provided many new answers in the practice of forestry. Morozov was the father of the concept of timber species succession, which demonstrated that forest development depends not only on the characteristics of the species, but also on environmental characteristics, such as soil, atmosphere and animals. He developed and proposed many principles, methods and practices for forestation of the steppes, natural forest renewal, and selective and final harvesting.

The Theory of Forest Ecology

Morozov's theory of forest management was formulated during work on a lecture course at the St. Petersburg Forest Institute. The course on the theory of forest management was first issued in lithographic form as notes taken by students from the lectures of G. P. Morozov in l902-1903. Later, the lecture notes were gradually replaced by several separate books and articles, sometimes with whole chapters devoted to the broad theme of "the theory of forestry management." The first publication of the book The Theory of Forest Ecology. Part 1. Introduction to Forest Biology appeared in 1912. Three more parts were planned, but publishing complications prevented their appearance.

In 1920, Principles of Forest Ecology was published for wider distribution, but it did not include several units of the course which had been published earlier by Morozov as separate articles, and several units were shortened. Only after Morozov's death, did one of his students, V. V. Matreninski. publish The Theory of Forest Ecology in complete form.

Following are excerpts from several chapters of the work.

Introduction Forestry is the child of necessity. When there was an abundance of forests, there was no need to worry about using them up. When the forests began to diminish and there was some fear of depleting the forest reserves, the first thoughts began to appear about ways to organize forest use so that they would not be depleted; the wonderful idea of sustained use was born. This idea imbues all of forest ecology, it is its sole and most characteristic feature. It means that harvesting is organized in such a way that new generations of forest will always result. This is the characteristic, the very basic feature that differentiates forestry from all other types of extraction industries. If there were no disease, there would be no medicine and there would be no doctors. If there were no shortage of forest or the fear of such, there would be no such thing as forest ecology or foresters. The scientific nature of forest ecology is complex and should be divided into two parts: the basic science of the nature of forests and applied science, that is forest ecology itself or the regulation of forest use. It must be noted that all sciences in general can be divided into two groups: sciences about the nature of things and sciences about culture. Forestry belongs to both the first and second groups. Forestry teaching and forest science belong to the first group, while forest ecology belongs to the second .. . without knowing the nature of the forest, it is unthinkable to study forest ecology. That is why forest science will precede forest ecology in our course of study. Only when we are familiar with the first discipline, will we be ready to conscientiously undertake our study of applied knowledge. Introduction to Forest Biology Undergrowth, its forms and condition under the forest canopy Definition of the forest ...The forest is not just a totality of woody plants, but is, rather, a society or union of woody plants, in which they mutually influence each other and, thus, give rise to a whole series of new phenomena, which are not characteristic of plants growing in isolation. The Environment Under the Forest Canopy The forest mat Numerous precise measurements have shown that the crowns of the forest canopy retain 15-80% of precipitation, depending on the species, density of the stand, age of the forest and other factors... This means that the very trees forming the forest and successive generations, which will appear as an under-story of the forest canopy, will have access to less precipitation than is characteristic for the given geographic location... Less heat and light will penetrate the canopy, and the forest will hinder the penetration of wind to its interior. Consequently, the canopy creates a different thermal and light climate, different relative air humidity, etc. The understory of the canopy is subject to different conditions of humidity and evaporation, etc. The impact of these variable atmospheric elements is not limited to the understory, but penetrates even further into another environment, namely the soil, where temperature fluctuations make the forest soil generally colder. In order to evaluate the transformational influence the forest has on the soil, attention must be given to one highly characteristic phenomenon of the forest. There is always present in the forest, in addition to a living mantel of shade-tolerant grasses, mosses, etc., a so-called dead mantel, or litter mat made up of fallen leaves, small branches, dead seeds and other plant remains. We know from our general botany course that leafy organs serve for the assimilation of carbon, for respiration and evaporation. In the forest, these are joined by a new function, as noted by the forester Busgan: when leaves fall they form a mat which decomposes in the specific conditions of the forest climate and creates deep changes in the underlying soil... The forest is a major producer of soil as a result of this mat and the climatic conditions which the forest creates under its canopy and which determine the character of the decomposition of this dead mantel. ...The forest also acts directly on the soil with its roots, which change the structure of the soil environment and, in drawing up huge amounts of moisture for physiological transpiration, dry out the soil and the ground under the forest. Numerous experiments, both here and in western Europe, have proven one basic fact: the only soil under the forest canopy that is moister than soil outside the forest is the soil of the top horizontal layer, since it is not permeated with roots. The deeper horizontal layers, which hold the root systems of the upper tree layer, underbrush, etc., are dryer than the corresponding earth outside the forest. We will define the forest as a population of woody plants that influence not only each other, but also the soil and atmosphere where they grow. The Protective Influence of the Forest Canopy Woody plants in the forest are in a state of interaction, and we are familiar with one aspect of this interaction as the plants' struggle for survival with each other. This is the most important and most closely studied aspect of this phenomenon. However, it is impossible to ignore that the interaction of the plants has another aspect of a contradictory character, which is known in forestry as the protective capability of species and the timber canopy. We have seen that the forest canopy protects plants growing beneath it from insolation and excessive radiation. It also protects frost-sensitive saplings from morning frost. When part of a spruce forest is cleared, new spruce trees will usually not begin to grow in these open places that become quickly covered with grasses, even when there is a wall of mature spruce trees nearby. This is not because spruce seedlings have failed to sprout; close examination will show just the opposite. Among the grasses we can easily find seedlings and sometimes even spruce saplings that are dead or dying from the frost. In a few years, however, the spruce will again conquer the territory, as any excursion to a spruce forest will show. How does this happen? If we examine cuts of various ages, we will consistently see the following picture. The forest cuts are lightly covered with birch or aspen. These species have extremely light seeds, their seedlings grow rapidly and they are fairly resistant to frost. Thanks to this combination of biological and silvicultural characteristics, these species are well adapted to surviving in open areas; they compete well with the grasses and are tolerant of frost. When this light covering closes in and creates forest conditions - shade and protection from radiation - the more frost-sensitive spruce will begin to move in under the protective canopy. On the one hand, this canopy of birch and aspen, and sometimes of other species (white alder and pine), will block out the light and other elements to such a degree that it will suppress the spruce undergrowth. On the other hand, if there were no canopy, no spruce understory would appear. We see the indisputable protective ability of the forest canopy and, at the same time, we see that the protective and suppressive influences of the forest are two sides of the same coin. We see that they are inseparably connected and, finally, we see, in this case, that the protective influence is of greater biological and vital importance than the competitive influence of the canopy, which must be viewed as an unavoidable companion of the first species. What will happen in the future lives of two such forest societies? The birch stand, under the law of survival of the fittest, will gradually thin out. Within the stand, as with any forest, suppressed classes will gradually appear. The number of birch trees, as a light-loving species, will diminish quickly and the protective stand, with the passage of years, will permit the penetration of more light, heat and precipitation and will suppress the spruce less and less. The spruce understory, while gradually growing higher and higher, will, with time, become the second tree layer. In the end, the spruce will slowly emerge as the upper tree layer, but only at great loss to itself and after a cruel battle that will leave the tree marked with the signs of earlier suppression. Spruce is a slow and long-growing species that is shade-tolerant; birch, on the contrary, loves light and has a shorter longevity, and although it grows rapidly, it stops growing in height much earlier than spruce. So, when the spruce reaches the upper canopy it is bad for the birch. If the spruce, even with some damage to itself, can withstand the shade of the birch for a long period, the birch will eventually find itself beneath the spruce. The birch will not be able to cope with this state and will begin to die. At the same time, the spruce will overcome its former protector and once again the spruce forest will predominate with a small mixing of soft deciduous species (birch and aspen). If this new birch forest is cut again, nature will begin to scribe the same circle. Silviculturists make use of this protective capability in the field. When it is necessary to reforest a barren area that is susceptible to spring frosts with frost sensitive species such as spruce, foresters first plant a secondary frost resistant species like birch. When this stand begins to crown, a more valuable species is planted beneath its canopy. Foresters, as we see, imitate nature. Shrubs from the Papilionaceous family are found in the undergrowth of spruce forests. They have great biological value to the spruce forest as nitrogen collectors. This characteristic is exploited with great success in the practice of forestry. In places where these shrubs were introduced between the rows of the newly planted spruce forest, the crop was more successful and the growth of the spruce was much better than in places without these cooperating elements. In forestry, there are many instances demonstrating that some species adapt better, regenerate better and grow better in association with other species than if they grow in pure stands. Some changes in the anatomical structure of wood under the influence of other woody plants in a community ...We can define the forest as the aggregate of woody plants changed both in their external form and their internal structure through their effects s on each other and on the soil and atmosphere. Causes of the Heterogeneity of the Forest The forest as a geographical phenomena The forest is an element and like the steppes, deserts and tundra it is a part of the landscape and therefore, a part of the earth's surface. As a result of its specific biological characteristics it is occupied by corresponding forest communities. The woody plants in it are connected to each other not in some chaotic disorder, but in harmony with internal or biological properties. Larch cannot grow under spruce or fir. It is too dark. Larch is a light loving species, but spruce and fir can grow under larch. The external environment defines the composition of a tree population. The combinations that the species create are determined first by external conditions, second by the internal properties in the trees and third, by man's interference. In a word, the forest is a social and geographical phenomenon. Classification in Silviculture The stands which form the forests are characterized by great diversity, and attempts to systematize the great variety of forest community forms are natural. The classification of stands originated simultaneously with scientific silviculture. What was the basis, however, for these stand classifications? They were based first and foremost on the composition and dominance of species and, then on the origin of the stand resulting from different types of cutting. For example, mixed sprouting stands, stands from selective, seed trees or clearcutting, etc. Berger considers stand classification based on composition or similarity of species to be artificial and compares it to the equally artificial Linneas system of plant classification based on the number of stamens. Natural stand classification should be based on stand types. The science of stand types should form the scientific foundation of forestry. When classifying stands it is important to consider all things that form the forest. This includes, above all, silvicultural zones as units primarily dependent on climatic conditions. Here silviculture must make use of all scientific botanical-geographical material available, for the foundation of silviculture is nothing other than a branch of botanical geography. If the surface of the earth were chaotic and its structure conformed to no natural laws, it would be impossible, of course, to expect that habitat conditions as a basis for forest differentiation would give any clear and helpful results. In reality, however, this is not the case. The chemistry, physical properties, hydrological characteristics, thermal regime and the quality of humus in the subsoil are all predictably and mutually interconnected. They are also connected to the climate and morphological characteristics of the given portion of the earth's surface. In the same way that the forest can be divided into stands, so can the habitat of a specific territory be divided into types of habitat condition. There can be a correspondence between stand units and the process of distinguishing types of habitat conditions as parts of the earth's surface, which are homogeneous in themselves, but distinct from neighboring habitats, in particular, in some essential characteristics for organism or forest life. Location in relation to sea or river level, exposure, slope steepness, surface character, ground composition all determine air and water drainage, the degree of warming, etc. Consequently they create habitats that in the biological sense of the forest are not unique. Unessential differences in the inner and outer elements of the earth's surface or insignificant changes in the size of the territory may not affect overall conditions, and then the area may be designated as biologically homogeneous. Specific types of vegetation and forest stands, in particular, are characteristic of such areas, i.e. similar areas are in conformity with: specific forest composition, specific forest form, specific interdependent species combinations, the longevity of the forest organisms, the internal vital properties of the organisms, the density of tree population, the intensity of the struggle for survival, growth and fruitage and consequent regeneration of the entire organism, and the degree of stability in the forest's struggle as a unit with other plant communities or with predators from the animal and plant kingdoms and other forces of nature such as hurricanes, thunderstorms, etc. The consequences of man's interference depend to a large degree on the geological environment. One clearcut area may give rise to species succession while another may not, depending on the soil conditions. One clearcut in an oak-forest will cause the oak to be replaced by soft species and another will not. The same ground fire will produce different results in different stand types of the same species. Research on forest stands originated on Russian soil. The geographic conditions of Russia were conducive to such research, as they were conducive to the earlier development of soil science by V. V. Dokuchayev. Various motivations led to this research. Practical considerations, the need for an orientation system in the immense expanses of the North and Siberia, the need to better address the problem of rational regenerative logging in pine forests, the need to control species succession and other reasons all played a role in its development. At present the classification of forest communities, if it is to be natural, must be based on the totality of all factors of forest formation. These include: 1) the internal ecological characteristics of the tree species, 2) the geographical environment - climate, ground, landscape, soil, 3) bio-social relationships between a) the plants of the forest community and b) the plants and the fauna, 4) historical-geological factors, and 5) man's interference. When breaking down the vegetative communities according to these factors, the third and fourth factors play a weaker role, as they are studied less. Nonetheless, the goal should ideally be an aggregate of all the factors. It is necessary to differentiate the units of the various orders in classification and simultaneously try to examine the possibility of encountering one and the same stand type within the limits of a broad region or broad groups. The next requirement is that a unit of any order, beginning with zones and ending with stand types, should be, using the term of L. S. Berg, a landscape type. With landscape types of any size, the parts affect the whole and the whole affects the parts. The largest units are zones and subzones, followed by regions and subregions, and finally forest types and stand types. Tundra, forest, steppe and desert are zones. They are divided into subzones: the forest-tundra, the northern forest belts of taiga and swamps, the ancient forest-steppe subzone with relic oak forests, the ancient steppe sub-zone, the present forest-steppe and, finally, the steppe with gullied forests. If the zones and subzones extend more or less parallel latitudinally, then the regions and sub-regions will have a different directional orientation. I will site some examples: oak and aspen stands on degraded chemozems of the mountainous part of the present forest steppe; pre-steppe pine woods; pine-oak stands on degraded chernozem sands of the transitional belt between the above-meadow terrace to the steppe in the central region of the present forest steppe. We see from these examples that classification includes both indicators of the main controlling species and geographical and historical conditions. The Science of Stand Types The origin of the science of stand types and its significance in silviculture The biological characteristics of species primarily determine harvest methods and forest care. On the basis of the silvicultural characteristics of these forest forming factors, very specific conclusions may be drawn in regard to what type of harvest methods will promote regeneration and what types will not. The silvilcultural properties of beech and spruce, for example, very specifically dictate only one method for preliminary regeneration. However, if we want a more detailed answer on which system of regeneration to use, then we must first examine the silvicultural properties of the species. Secondly, we must remember that the trees making up a stand create a whole series of new phenomena, which must be considered in regeneration. Finally, we must remember that the silvicultural properties of the species, as well as their combination, can change within certain limits depending on the plasticity of the species and the environmental conditions. In Baden, where annual precipitation is 2000 mm, selective cutting is used very successfully in spruce forests. In neighboring Wurtemberg, where annual precipitation is 700 mm, success has been achieved through short-term seed tree cutting, which allows better penetration of precipitation to the soil. In view of the very limited precipitation penetration of the canopy in spruce forests and the draining influence of the root system, this factor is very important in regeneration... The nature of the forest cannot be comprehended without an understanding of three silvicultural coordinates . . . The nature of the forest is made up of the nature of the species, their combination, and the nature of environmental conditions (climate, soil-geological conditions, landscape). There is one more factor in addition to the three already named, and that is man's interference, both direct and indirect. Man affects both managed and unmanaged forests. The difference of the effect is only a question of the degree of influence and the character of the resulting change. Logging, fire, grazing, agriculture, and drainage work can all impact the composition, density and form of the forest, as well as environmental and other conditions. The influence of man is so significant that, when we try to analyze the form of forest stands or decide which form of regeneration is most appropriate when studying the undergrowth beneath a stand canopy, we must always ask ourselves what major changes have occurred in this forest because of man. We must be able to separate this influence in order to avoid mixing its consequences with the impact of purely natural agents. Are all three factors equally important? Both the species composition and their combination in a stand of a certain density and form are determined primarily by environmental conditions. The composition of the stand is determined mainly by indirect factors (climatic and soil-geographical conditions) and the influence of direct factors (landscape, which changes the face of the climate, and soil-ground conditions). In turn, the biological characteristics of the species change within certain limits, as does their combination. Beech stands, for example, have a forest mantel of humus that is sometimes acid and sometimes mild, depending on the climate and ground. In poor soils with low lime content, acid humus is easily formed and vice versa. A specific cutting method can be selected only by separating a specific region into growth types. The ability to distinguish stand types can help in those cases when, for example, an area must be forested that was cleared long ago. In such a case, nearby stands must be studied to determine which ones are most environ-mentally similar to the given area. The species of these stands will be the most appropriate for the given area. The Foundation of Silviculture (from lectures by Morozov at the Petrograd Forest Institute in 1916) Silviculture is a normative science. It is not enough to know the statistics and dynamics of the forest. These factors must be evaluated from the perspective of an ideally managed forest. Imagine yourself as a person charged with the organization or management of a large forest. You must inevitably think about what parts of silvicultural practice you will use as the foundation of your program... I am speaking of only the pure silvicultural side of things... The development of a goal-oriented outlook is of utmost importance. You know well that silviculture is a special type of geo-culture and is not like agriculture. Its peculiarities, as you know, lie primarily in the ideas of sustained forest use and forest regeneration. ...Silviculture deals with the forest, e.g., the aggregate of communities consisting of plants that are perennial, wild and undomesticated .... However, we must keep in mind that every incursion into the forest, even the most reasonable, will always violate the movable balance, which is characteristic of nature in general and of the nature of the forest in particular. This violation of equilibrium in the forest is reflected primarily in the weakening of the biological stability of our subjects, the stands. At the same time, we must make the creation and support of forest stand stability the number one condition in the implementation of the ideas of sustain-able forest use. Thus, given the unavoidable interference in the life of the forest and the unavoidable violation of the movable equilibrium of the forest, silviculture must, above all, deal with a possibly less significant weakening of the stability of forest communities. That is the first principle of our plan. From the perspective of this fundamental beginning we must examine all other tasks: evaluation of regeneration methods, increased forest production, maintenance measures, preservation measures and, in particular, forest plantation programs. ...What is necessary to fully implement the principle of stand stability? This requires, above all, correspondence between stand composition, stand form and density, and environmental conditions. The more all aspects of the life in the stand are adapted to local conditions, the less we need to worry about the forest and the easier it will be to regenerate and preserve the forest and increase production. The silviculturist faces the task of developing principles for man's intervention in the forest that will increase the production of the forest while weakening its biological balance as little as possible. To do this, it is necessary to listen to nature in the primordial forest. We must learn the laws of forest life in order to turn these laws into management principles. However, it is not always possible to follow nature, as the following examples will show. We cannot be as wasteful with seed, for example, as is nature. Many generations of young trees would never live, would never become a dominant stand, would never see the forest canopy... The primordial forest with its great stability, by the way, is bound by this quality to have enormous fertility and mortality. We can imagine how intensively the struggle for survival is waged in the forest. Considering the huge blocks of time, over which these phenomena take place, we can clearly see the gradual progression that is characteristic, not counting various catastrophes, of the dynamic of the primordial forest. Thus, the primordial forest knows no economy of time or material. It is essential for us, as managers, to observe the principles of economy: economy of time, material, energy and means. In short, we are not able to implement the principles of gradual progression. No matter how many seeds our forest sows after, for example, a seed cut, this amount is insignificant in comparison to what happens in the primordial forest, not to mention the low density of a population after artificial regeneration. This one circumstance decreases the intensity of the struggle for survival. We are completely justified in our desire to increase the productivity of the forest and in applying periodic utilization to achieve that goal, consciously weakening the process of the struggle. Knowing that the nature of the forest poorly tolerates sharp interference, we must strive to make our intervention as gradual as possible, observing nature's laws. However, when we observe the principle of gradual action, we do not need to need to completely tie our hands. There are instances when relatively rapid and, consequently, harsh intervention is totally reasonable. For example, simplified seed cuts with two thinnings are appropriate where young trees already exist and where we are dealing with stands that do not possess a clearly defined internal environment. The atmosphere of such stands differs little in element composition from that found in the clearings of some pine forests. In some cases, in our diluted spruce groves, as Kravchinsky called them, it is obviously rational and harmless to conduct seed cuts at a faster rate, for example in three thinnings, than that normally recommended in textbooks. Incidentally, Heyer's selective cut, which has many advantages in general, is also good because it combines a gradual approach with relatively quick measures. You will agree with this if you will recall that two periods of regeneration follow such cuts. The first applies to the whole cut site and is of long duration, encompassing, as you know, more than an age class or 30-40 or even 60 years. However, in some cases the regeneration period of a cut may be relatively short. In this case, cutting is begun in groups where further suppression by the original canopy is undesirable and the young trees no longer require sheltering. Postponement of cutting the original canopy may harm the young trees through breakage. In such groups of young trees cutting is begun, as you know, from the final stage. Thus, given the most rational and careful interference in the life of the forest, we, as managers, must observe economy of time. We must, while striving for a gradual approach, work in leaps and conserve regenerative materials. As a result, we decrease the population density, weaken the struggle for survival and, consequently, weaken the intensity of natural selection and involuntarily create certain new conditions, which may be favorable for some species and unfavorable for others. Light-loving species will take advantage of these new conditions and, conversely, they will negatively impact shade-tolerant species. The same thing, to a greater degree, will usually occur in regard to the elements of the living forest mantel and to the numerous pests of the forest, both animal and insect. Our actions, so to say, do not distribute their consequences evenly to the whole organism, to the whole complex community that is the forest. Man involuntarily creates a protective influence for elements that are able to adapt to the new biological conditions and a negative influence for those that can not accept the change in their usual environment. Recall, for example, the disappearance of some shade-loving flora resulting from certain conditions brought on by our interference and their replacement by meadow weeds. These undesirable and harmful elements appear among both flora and fauna. Often we are not able to evaluate these new categories. In our near-sightedness, we often underestimate the useful or harmful properties of certain elements, thereby exacerbating the devastation we cause. Therefore, it is important to implement preventive measures against harmful insects and plants. When we study forest entomology, protection or forest zoology, we must consider not only the characteristics of the given organisms, but also the characteristics of those conditions created in the forest by man and how they correspond to the natural biological characteristics of those organisms. It is not just the struggle for survival occurs in the primordial forest. The law of the mutual adaptation of organisms to each other also rules there. Otherwise, there could be no mobile equilibrium in the forest. The forest is a site of complex interaction among not only tree species, but among everything living in it. In other words, using the terminology of the zoo-geographers (Mobius), the forest should be viewed as a biocenose, i.e., as a complex community of diverse organisms. When it is viewed this way, the dominance of the law or principle of stability becomes even more indisputable. In the forest the internal interaction of the elements on each other is subject to the external conditions of the soil and climate. Because the forest is a complex organism, all of its internal parts and all aspects of life correspond to each other in a certain way. The violation of the total unity in any one place leads, after a while, to the reestablishment of the former order, the former structure, as is true of any organism... When we fulfill the basic requirement of creating and maintaining stability in the forest, we inevitably . . .face the need to observe the principle of geography. This is because the first condition of biological stability in both primordial and managed forests is the correspondence of all internal relationships, of all life in the forest to external environmental conditions. Thus, the basic law of management leads us to a geographical, i.e. typological beginning. Our management must correspond to the characteristics of the stand type. Many do not understand Heyer's research, presuming that he advocated the preservation of mixed stands at all cost... Given all the advantages of mixed stands, is it possible, however, to make this silvicultural principle the foundation of our plan? Evidently, not. Indeed, only pine will grow in places where there is only poor dry sand, for example. And we are talking not only about pine stands. Stands of mixed composition are also excluded for oak groves on alkali soil, black alder sloughs and others. Some silviculturists assume that if linden seedlings are introduced into the poor pine forest soil, pine growth will improve. Pine grows better in the depressions between dunes, and groups of young pine trees are mixed with birch or aspen in these areas. Some silviculturists, upon observing this, will attribute the higher bonitat and better regeneration in such places to the properties of mixed stands and not to the properties of the ground soil in the depressions, which is more fertile and moister. It is true that the principle of mixed stands is very important, but it must be evaluated as a particular instance of the general law requiring correspondence between stand composition and form and environmental conditions... Heyer points out other principles including the need for group and multi-age forest structure. All of Heyer's reform work and proposals resulted from the devastation and tragedy that occurred in the German forests when, under the impact of a one-sided attempt to increase income, they began to introduce marketable species, such as spruce, in soils and climates, which were sometimes just not appropriate. When natural reforestation was replaced on a large scale by artificial regeneration, the latter was not always successful, although it appeared to be at first. Later epidemics appeared that shortened the life of the forest... The regulating activity of the silviculturist in the forest will be successful only when he applies his genius to meet the needs of humanity in the forest, on the one hand, and manage the forest as a living organism, on the other hand. He must do all this while increasing the productivity of the forest and preserving its stability. Thus, the attempt to create and maintain stand stability as a dominant principle of silviculture, is the surest way to satisfy forestry's basic mission of sustainable use... Silviculture, as any other human management activity, strives to achieve its goals with the least possible expenditure of time, energy and means. However, we know that nature as a force works on other principles: incredible fertility, an energetic battle for survival, and colossal mortality, not to mention time. In our work we, unlike natural forces, must be efficient. It is this economy that decreases the mass element and consequently the struggle for survival and also weakens the intensity of selection. It introduces new elements into the life of the forest, changing the mutual relationships and weakening stability. The colossal scientific task of observing the basic laws of the life of the forest rises before the creative energy of the silviculturist. We must preserve those principles of the struggle for existence, which lie at the foundation of every living thing, but on the basis of efficiency. And if natural selection turns into artificial selection in the hands of agriculturists, then we must turn natural selection in the direction of intentional selection..., which is the regulation of natural selection under the conditions and framework of economic discipline."

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE MAJOR WORKS OF G. F. MOROZOV

VLADIMIR NIKOLAYEVICH SUKACHEV 1880-1967

Vladimir Nikolayevich Sukachev¹⁰, the future botanist, geographer, forester, founder ofbiogeocoenology, creator of the geo-botanical school of Russia and the USSR, and master natural scientist, was born on June 7, 1880 in the village of Aleksandrovka, Kharkov Province. His father was the overseer of a small estate.^xi The family had quite limited means and lived very modestly. Vladimir had a younger brother named Boris.

Sukachev's father sent him to the Kharkov technical school and, thus, closed the doors of the university to him. To enroll at the university, an applicant must have finished classical gymnasium and studied ancient languages and other subjects that were not offered at the technical school. When Sukachev graduated from technical school, he entered the St. Petersburg Forest Institute.

Among Sukachev's professors were famous Russian foresters, botanists and geographers, like G. I. Tanfilyev, V. V. Dokuchayev, and G. F. Morozov. These scientists heavily influenced Sukachev's scientific interests.

As a student at the Institute, Sukachev conducted serious work on the flora of various regions in Russia and published his first articles. Sukachev's first works are devoted to the relationship between the forest and the steppe, the origins of wetland vegetation in the forest steppe, and the influence of man on the vegetative mantel. These works received high evaluations, the Institute awarded Sukachev a gold medal for one of the works." Sukachev actively participated as a student in the activities of several scientific societies (Society of Natural Sciences, Russian Geographic Society).

Upon graduation in 1902, the talented student remained in the department of botany as an assistant. In 1903-1904, he studied the Busuluk Forest and the Bryansk forests. In 1905, he was sent to Germany on a scientific mission.

In 1906, the young instructor developed and began to teach a new course. The Geographic Distribution of Wood Species. at the Forest Institute.^xii At the same time, he taught the ecology of plants at the Higher Agricultural Courses for Women in St. Petersburg. It was the first time that this course had been taught at an institution for higher education.

In 1908-1912, Sukachev led expeditions to the Pskov province, participated in the expeditions of the Academy of Sciences and the Russian Geographical Society to the northern Urals and Karsk tundra, and as a member of Pereselenchesky department he studied the vegetation of the Baikal region and Yakutiya.

From 1912 to 1918, Sukachev worked in the Botanical Museum of the Russian Academy of Sciences and in the Leningrad Botanical Gardens and the Botanical Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. During the years 1914-1916, he studied the vegetation of Lake Baikal and Tien-Shyan in Semirechensk province. In 1914, he organized a station for the study of meadow vegetation of the Novgorod province and directed its work from 1914-1925.

In 1919, at the St. Petersburg Forest Institute, Sukachev organized a new department of dendrology, which he chaired until 1941. Dendrology, according to Sukachev, was a complex discipline with elements of ecology, geography, and genetics. Sukachev constantly combined teaching and research work.

From 1918 to 1925, Sukachev also held a professorship at the Institute of Geography.

The next period of Sukachev's life was tied to Moscow University, where he chaired the department of botanic geography. He also chaired the department of plant taxonomy and dendrology at the Moscow Technical Forest Institute. In 1944, Sukachev organized and became a director of the Forest Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In 1959, the Institute was moved to Krasnoyarsk. Later, Sukachev established the Forestry Laboratory of the USSR Academy of Sciences in the village of Uspensk in the Moscow region and was its first director (1962-1964).

Sukachev devoted much time and energy to public organizations. In 1904, he joined the Petersburg Society of Natural Scientists and in 1912 the Russian Geographic Society and the Forestry Society. In 1915, Sukachev was one of the founding members of the Russian Botanical Society, with which he maintained a lifelong tie. He was a member of its Council (1916-1941), president (1941-1963) and honor ary president (1963-1967). From 1946 to 1967, he was the editor-in-chief of the Botanical Journal. In addition, from 1955-1967 he headed the Moscow Society of Naturalists (MOIP),^xiii the oldest such society in Russia. He was also the editor of the MOIP Bulletin. Biology Series.

In 1967, Sukachev initiated publication of a new Academy of Sciences journal called Silvics. He was the journal's editor for a short time.

In 1920, V. N. Sukachev was elected as a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences. In 1934, he received a doctor's degree in biological science without defending a dissertation. In 1943, he became a full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. V. N. Sukachev was awarded the decoration of "Honored Worker of the Forest Industry" in 1939, the "Badge of Honor" order in 1942, the order of "Red Banner of Labor" and a medal for "Outstanding Work in the Great Patriotic War" in 1945. In 1965, he received the highest award for labor, "Hero of Socialist Labor."

In 1912, Sukachev received a silver medal from the Russian Geographic Society for his work in the field of botany. In 1914, the Society awarded Sukachev the Przhevalski Great Medal for his contribution to the study of wetland vegetation.^xiv

The research work of V. N. Sukachev encompasses a broad range of regions of Russia and the USSR: the polar Urals, the Baikal region, the Kolski peninsula, the Crimea, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Kazakhstan and other regions.

Sukachev established a number of general and specific laws in regard to the development of the vegetative mantel. These include: the interrelationship between separate forest species, the dynamics of grassy vegetation in the forest, the impact of fires on forest societies, the interrelationship of forest and wetland formations, and forest typology. It is impossible to ignore Sukachev's contribution to plant taxonomy. Of special interest are his works on birch (Betula), larch (Larix), pine (Pinus) species. In Russia the name Sukachev'^xv is tied to the creation and development of experimental methods in biogeocoenology. He organized several experimental stations, which still function today.

For more than fifty years, Sukachev developed a comprehensive science of plant communities. Sukachev presented his first insights into plant societies as early as 1910 in the article Forest Formations and their Interrelationships in the Bryansk Forests. The theory is founded on concepts about the formation and functioning of communities as a consequence of the interrelation of plant species simultaneously inhabiting the same environment. This new approach to the question allowed him to make a significant contribution to the scientific theory of the dynamics of plant communities.^xvi

Sukachev's geo-botanic work was simultaneously landscape (ecosystem) science, since in it he examined the vegetative covering as a component of the geographical environment. Research in this direction led Sukachev to the creation of biogeocoenology, the theory of the role of life within the structure and dynamic of the landscape. This direction of study synthesized contemporary concepts about the functioning of living nature and became definitive in the direction of research of the Sukachev school.

Sukachev contributed a large body of work on the theory and methods of phytocoenology, forestry, wetland studies, the history of vegetation in the USSR, spore-pollen analysis^xvii and protective forestation.

Following are excerpts from Sukachev's major work Fundamentals Of Biogeocoenology (Edited by V. Sukachev and N. Dylis "NAUKA" Publishing, Moscow, 1964}:

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE MAJOR WORKS ON FORESTRY OF V. N. SUKACHEV

The Wetland Pine. 1905. Forest Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3, p. 354-372 with illus. and tables.

The Forest as a Community. 1907. Nature in School, No. 2, p. 80-88.

Plant Communities (introduction to phytosociology). 1922. 2nd edition supplemented, Petrograd, Moscow, Kniga. 119 pp., tables.

On the History of the Development of Larch. 1924. In: Forest Practice. Collected Articles. Leningrad, Moscow, Novaya Dereyevnya. p. 12-44. Bibliography: 45 titles.

Acclimation and the Dendrological Study of Tree Species as a Task of Experimental Forest Practice. 1926. In: Works on Experimental Forest Practice, Moscow, NKZ RSFSR, Forest Administration. Issue 3, p. 114-123.

A Short Guide to the Study of Forest Types. 1927. Moscow, Novaya Dereyevnya. 150pp. Bibliography: 140 titles.

Coniferous (Chpt. 1). 1928. Forest Species: Their Systems, Geography and Phytosociology. Issue 1. Moscow, Novaya Dereyevnya. 80 pp. illus.

Main Concepts on the Study of the Vegetative Cover. 1938. In: Vegetation of the USSR, Vol. 1. Moscow, Leningrad, USSR Academy of Sciences Publishing, p. 15-37.

Types of Forests and Vegetative Covers. 1945. Moscow, Goslestechizdat. 37 pp. Bibliography: 9 titles.

The Relationship of the Concepts 'Geographical Landscape' and'Biogeocenose.' 1949. In: Issues of Geography, St. Petersburg 16, Moscow, Geographgiz. p. 45-60. Bibliography: 13 titles.

Several Basic Questions of Phytocoenology. 1950. In: Problems of Botany. Vol. 1, Moscow, Leningrad, USSR Academy of Sciences Publishing, p. 449-460. Bibliography: 52 titles.

Dynamics of Forest Biogeocoenology. 1964. In: Principles of Forest Biogeocoenology, edited by V. N. Sukachev and N. V. Dylis, Moscow, Nauka. p. 458-486.

Basic Concepts of Forest Biogeocoenology. 1964. In: Principles of Forest Biogeocoenology, edited by V. N. Sukachev and N. V. Dylis, Moscow, Nauka. p. 5-49, (with N. Ye. Kabanov).

The Theoretical and Practical Significance of Forest Biogeocoenology. 1964. In: Principles of Forest Biogeocoenology, edited by V. N. Sukachev and N. V. Dylis, Moscow, Nauka. Selected Works in Three Volumes. 1972-1975. Moscow, Nauka.

^xiHis father, Nikolai Pavlovich Sukachev came from, what was then called, a family of mixed rank. His mother, Anna Vasiliyevna Shidlovskaya, was born to an impoverished aristocratic family. Her father, Vasiliy Nikolayevich Shidlovski, married a Serbian woman in the early 1850's and brought her to Kharkov province. They had sixteen children.
^xiiV. N. Sukachev worked at the Forest Institute (now called the St. Petersburg Technical Forestry Academy) from 1906 to 1941, where he became a professor and department chairman. In 1935-36, he was the dean of the forestry college, and in 1936-38 he filled the positions of director and assistant director of the scientific education part of the academy.
^xiiiMOIP was founded in 1805, functions under the auspices of Moscow State University, and published the Bulletin and Works.
^xivNikolai Mikhailovich Przhevalski (1839-1888) was a Russian traveler, explorer of Centra] Asia, honorary member of the Petersburg Academy of Sciences 1878), and major-general in the army (1886). He led the expedition of the Ussurisk region (1867-69) and four expeditions to Central Asia (1870-85). He was the first to describe the vegetation of many Central Asian areas and discovered several mountain ranges and lakes. He assembled valuable plant and animal collections. He was the first to describe the wild camel, the wild horse (the Przhevalski horse) and other types of vertebrates. A mountain range is named for him (Przhevalski range, Arkatag) in Kunlun, China.
^xvThe following all bear the name of V. N, Sukachev: Plant World-Aconitum sukaczevii Stein).; Betula sukaczevii Soczava.; Carex sukaczevii Krecz.; Deschampsia sukaczevii (Popl.) Roshev.; Hieracium sukaczevii Zahn.; Larix sukaczevii Dylis.; Pulsatilla sukaczevii Juz.; Rhamnus sukaczevii E. Wolf.; Saussurea sukaczevii Hipsch.; Ulmus sukaczevii Anton. Minerals-Cornus sukaczevii Nikit. Geography-The cape on Kunashir Island (Kuril Islands). Scientific Organizations-The Forest and Timber Research Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences (now the Forest Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Krasnoyarsk); The Laboratory of Biogeocoenology of the Institute of Animal Morphology (Moscow).
The memorial plaque on the building of the Forestry Laboratory of the USSR Academy of Sciences (now the Forest Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Uspenskoye, Moscow region); The Sukachev Gold Medal, created in 1979; it is awarded for outstanding work in biogeocoenlogy.
^xviThe term "phytosociology," meaning the science of plant communities, was suggested by I. K. Pachosski in 1891 (V. N. Sukachev, Collected Works. 1975, vol. 3, p. 442). For unknown reasons, it is believed that the term originated in Western Europe. In some countries the term is still used today. Rejecting the terms "community" and "phytosociology," Sukachev wrote that, "Soviet botany stopped using these terms, and replaced them with the corresponding terms "phytocoenosis" and "phytocoenology" as suggested by Gams in 1918." (Same citation, p. 451)
^xviiAnother famous botanist, Vladimir Cemyonovich Dokturovski, was born and lived at this time. He was one of the first scientists in the USSR to apply the method of spore-pollen analysis. His main work was in the fields of wetland studies and the history of vegetation.

IVAN STEPANOVICH MELEKHOV 1905-1994

Ivan Stepanovich Melekhov,^xviii a leading forest ecologist and forester of our time, was born to an ordinary family^xix in the village of Zharovikha (later Staraya Zharovikha). The village is now located within the city limits of Arkhangelsk county, Arkhangelsk Province. Until the age of 6 or 7, Melekhov was cared for by his grandmother, who was his first teacher. At the age of 9, he enrolled in a three-year elementary school that was opened by the Ministry of Education not far from Melekhov's home. The school is still standing today near the monument to Peter the Great in Arkhangelsk. ^xx

Ivan finished the three-year school in the spring of 1917 and, in the fall, enrolled in a religious school. He studied there until the winter, when his old school started a fourth grade, and he returned back. After the educational reform of 1918, Melekhov continued his studies at his old school No. 4, Second Level. During the summers he worked at the sawmill. He finished the school in 1924.

The same year he enrolled at the Arkhangelsk Polytechnical School in the mechanics program. The draw of the forest won out, however, and in August 1925 Ivan Melekhov enrolled at the St. Petersburg Forest Institute. ^xxi

Melekhov's advisor at the Institute was Nikolai Petrovich Kobranov, a famous forester in those days, and the list of his teachers included well-known scientists and professors. They included V. N. Obolenski for physics and meteorology, B. N. Menshutkin for general chemistry, ^xxii N. N. Pavlovski for hydrotechnology, ^xxiii N. I. Nikitin for wood and forest chemistry, ^xxiv and V. N. Krestinski^xxv for organic chemistry.

The very brightest minds in forestry science were concentrated at that time in the forestry department. L. A. Ivanov headed the department of plant anatomy and physiology. V. N. Sukachev chaired the department of morphology, taxonomy and dendrology. ^xxvi K. K. Gedroits chaired soil science. ^xxvii M. N. Rimski-Korsakov^xxviii headed the department of zoology and forest entomology. G. G. Doppelmaier chaired the department of the biology of forest animals and birds. D. K. Sokolov headed the department of hunting science. M. M. Orlov chaired the Forest Department management and organization. N. V. Tretyakov was in charge of the forest surveying department. M. E. Tkachenko chaired general forestry while N. P. Kobranov chaired the specific (micro) forestry department (forestation).

In addition, various specific courses were taught by some of the leading scientists in those fields. For example, A. A. Yachevski taught a course on phyto-pathology, ^xxix but was later replaced'by S. I. Vanin. A mathematical statistics course was taught by A. K. Mitropolsky. V. N. Sukachev taught phytoso-ciology and N. N. Stepanov taught forest melioration. ^xxx Melekhov took and extra course in German phonetics, which was taught by Professor L. V. Scherba. ^xxxi

After Melekhov graduated from the Leningrad Technical Forestry Academy in 1930, he was sent to Arkhangelsk Technical Forest Institute, where he followed the path from assistant professor (1930) to chairman of the department of general forestry (beginning in 1934) and forestry (1944-1958). ^xxxii In 1944, Melekhov received a doctoral of science degree in agricultural sciences, and earned the title of professor. In 1956, he was elected to full membership in the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VASKhNIL).

Melekhov's life in the north was very busy, as he headed scientific expeditions for the Academy of Sciences to study the northern forests, directed a forest group at the Northern Base and Arkhangelsk Station of the Academy, and was director of the northern branch of the Forest Institute (1958-1962).

During these years Melekhov published a number of important articles, which helped to strengthen the position of Russian timber on the world market, ¹² established the methodological principles of studying forest fires, ¹³ concentrated logging in northern European Russia, ¹⁴ and the typology of concentrated cuts. ¹⁵

His works The Nature of Forests and Forest Fires (1947) and The Impact of Fire on the Forest (1948) are recognized a classics. Because of this, Melekhov is rightly considered to be the founder of forest pyrology, which has been designated in Russia as a separate scientific discipline. The designation of forest fire belts and the compilation of a map of worldwide fire seasons was the first scientific work of its type in the world. The map of forest fire seasons in the USSR and Russia helped to establish a scientifically based system of fire protection in the forests and to increase its effectiveness. Knowledge of the character of the zonal forest fire situation provided the opportunity to more quickly respond to changes in the current situation in one region or another. This was of some significance given the size of the Russian territory.

The fundamental research of I.S. Melekhov on the nature of the taiga (boreal, as we say today) forests and their changes after logging facilitated the planning and subsequently the realization of the large-scale program to study concentrated cuts, as laid out in the work Concentrated Logging in the Forests of the North (1954). This work is an outstanding model for constructing methods to study an object or phenomenon.

Melekhov's work on the typology of forests and cuts deserves special emphasis. He laid out the principles in articles and books in the 1950's and early 60's: Theoretical Principles of the Typology of Cuts (1958), Principles of the Typology of Cuts (1959). ^xxxiii Guidance for the Study of Types of Concentrated Cuts (1962). Melekhov developed these principles further in his later works. Although the typology of cuts was very important in and of itself, it later became an important integral part of dynamic forest typology as developed by Melekhov and scientists of his school.

Melekhov created a genre of historical sketches on forest issues and wrote the biographies of forester-scientists. ¹⁶ He did a great service by presenting Lomonosov to the world as a natural scientist who was concerned about the forests and as a scientist who made a significant contribution to forest science when it was first established. Melekhov's Essay on the Development of Forest Science in Russia (1957). which has long been a rarity, is loved by many generation of foresters for its multifaceted examination of the issue of forest science in its historical development and its laconic and easily understood presentation. It is appreciated not only by specialists, but by anyone interested in the history of Russian science.

Melekhov's Moscow period began in 1962 when he was appointed as assistant chairman of the State Committee on Forest Pulp and Paper and Wood Processing Industries and Forestry. This committee was part of Gosplan USSR. At the same time he became the acting forestry department chairman of the Moscow Technical Forest Institute, which he headed for more than thirty years.

The Moscow period is tied to the rethinking and development of those themes, for which Melekhov established the basic principles during his 30 years of work in the northern forests. Nonetheless, he also kept abreast of new trends in the development of forest science and actively responded to them. ¹⁷

Two very important works of the late 1960's were Issues of Dynamic Forest Typology and the collective monograph Forestry in the Taiga, which raised questions that were later addressed in his major work, that has since become a classic, Silvics (1980). ¹⁸

In Silvics. Melekhov presented a general scheme that he developed for forest type formation in relation to the anthro-pogenic changes of the forest environment. He moves from a general schematic to a concrete classic schematic of vegetation succession on the cutting site of a fir-bilberry grove. These schematics form the methodological basis for the creation of regional schematics of vegetation succession according to forest type.

The dynamic typology of cuts was the starting point for a large volume of research both in the USSR and abroad. Its importance was also emphasized in the report of the President of the IUFRO at the 7^th World Forest Congress.

In 1983, Melekhov's textbook Silvics was awarded the Morozov Gold Medal.

In 1978-1983, Melekhov's work Forest Pyrology was published independently. In it the author addressed the day's most important problems concerning forest fires and how to fight them. ¹⁹ Unfortunately, the author never fulfilled his wish to publish Forest Pyrology as a separate book, as he was very busy with the preparation of another major work, the textbook Silviculture. ²⁰

I. S. Melekhov also wrote a number of key articles for the Forest Encyclopedia, to be published for the first time in the USSR. ²¹ An abridged form of the articles Forest (Vol. 1, p. 503-506) and Forest Pyrology (Vol. 2, p. 211-212), for example, follows:

I. S. Melekhov was the author and editor of more that 350 scientific and methodological publications. He advised over 50 individuals in the preparation and defense of their candidate and doctoral dissertations.

Melekhov represented Russian and Soviet science on numerous occasions at international conferences and symposia. Thanks in part to his knowledge of English and German, he was elected vice-president of the 6^th World Forest Congress in Madrid (1966) and chairman of the forestry committee at the 14^th Pacific Science Congress in Khabarovsk (1979). As a rule, Melekhov shared the results of his trips abroad in various publications. ²²

Melekhov's work received deserved recognition not only in Russia, where he was received many high state awards and the title "Honored Leader in Science and Technology of the USSR" (1967), but also abroad. He received an honorary doctorate from the Higher Agricultural School of Brno, Czechoslovakia (1966). He became a member of the Swedish Royal Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (1968), an honorary member of the Finnish Forestry Society (1969), and an honorary member of IUFRO (1986).

Ivan Stepanovich Melekhov worked diligently as a professor of the forestry department of the Moscow State Forestry University (formerly the Moscow Technical Forest Institute) until the last day of his life. He died in the early morning of December 6, 1994 and was buried in Moscow.

^xviiiThe author of this sketch of the life and work of Melekhov is V. K. Teplyakov, his former student.
^xMelekhov's mother, Yekaterina Maksimovna (1877-1935), was the daughter of a local peasant family. His father, Stepan Andreyevich (1877-1967), worked from childhood in the Surkov sawmill near the city of Arkhangelsk. He became a highly qualified worker, filling the position of "Quality Controller, 1st class" (now this is a technical engineering position).
It is interesting to note that the outstanding forest scientist Vladimir Nikolayevich Sukachev died on the same day, February 27, 1967, as the simple worker Stepan Andreyevich Melekhov. S. A. Melekhov, of course, gave life to another great forester, who would one day carry on the work of G. F. Morozov and V. N. Sukachev.
^xxThe spirits of Peter the Great and M. V. Lomonosov still inhabit Arkhangelsk schools. From 1564 Arkhangelsk was known as Novokholmogory. It was renamed Arkhangelsk in 1613. It received the status of provincial capital in 1708. It was Peter's first "window" to Europe. Peter visited Arkhangelsk three times (1693, 1696, 1702) even though it was 2000 kilometers from Moscow. One can only imagine what the trip was like in those days!
^xxiAt the suggestion of one of the Communist Party leaders, G. E. Zinoviyev (1883-1936), Petrograd was renamed Leningrad in 1924. Despite the new name, the city's residents continued to call the city "Peter" through all the years of Soviet power.
^xxiiB. N. Menshutkin was an admirer of Lomonosov and an authority on his work. Thanks to the efforts of Menshutkin the world learned of Lomonosov's discovery of the law of the conservation of matter.
^xxiiiNikolai Nikolayevich Pavlovski (1884-1937) was a famous hydrology scientist and academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1932). He was the authors of works on the hydraulics of ground water, open sources and filtration. He participated in the construction of large hydroelectric stations and the Moscow subway.
^xxivNikolai Ignatiyevich Nikitin (1890-1975) was a chemist and corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He wrote on the chemistry of cellulose and wood. He graduated from the Petersburg Forest Institute and studied under G. F. Morozov and M. M. Orlov.
^xxvV. N.Krestinski was the brother of N. N. Krestinski (1883-1938), who was a member of the Communist Party (1903), well-known Soviet party and government figure. People's Commissar for Finance (1918), ambassador to Germany (1921) and the Assistant People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs (1930).
^xxviV. N. Sukachev graduated from the Forest Institute in 1902.
^xxviiThe geology department was separate from the department of soil science. K. K. Gedroits graduated from the St. Petersburg Forest Institute in 1897.
^xxviiiMikhail Nikolayevich was the son of the famous composer Nikolai Andreyevich Rimski-Korsakov (1844-1908), who wrote many operas.
^xxixArtur Arturovich Yachevski (1863-1932) was a famous mycologist, phytopathologist, and botanist. He wrote the first guide to fungi (1897) and organized a service for the protection of plants in the USSR. He was also a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
^xxxNikolai Nikolayevich Stepanov was an important specialist in the area of forest melioration. He directed large-scale research and experimental projects in central and southern Russia. He gave lectures once a week at the Institute, commuting from Moscow.
^xxxiLev Vladimirovich Scherba (1880-1944) was a linguist and academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1943). He published works on language learning, on Russian, Romance and Slavic philology, lexicography, and teaching.
^xxxiiI. S. Melekhov chaired the Forest Department at the Leningrad Technical Forestry Academy for a short time (1951-1952).
^xxxiiiNoting the need to study the nature of cuts to create methodological principles for natural and artificial reforestation, V. N. Sukachev wrote about Melekhov's work, "In this regard, the study of cut types developed by Melekhov (1959) is of great importance."

LITERATURE CITED

1. Kompaneyets, M. K. 1971. Agronomists of Russia in: The History of Agronomic Science. Moscow, Kolos. 184 pp. withillus.;Chernova,L. 1992. Vasiliy Vasiliyevich Dokuchayev and Pavel Andreyevich Kostychev in: Sowers and Preservers, 2 volumes. Vol. 2, Moscow, Sovremmenik. p. 49-114.
2. Baladin, R. K. 1990. V. V. Dokuchayev. Moscow, Prosveshcheniye. 96 pp. with illustrations (People of Science), p. 21-22.
3. The Cartography of Russian Soils. 1879. Explanatory text to the soil map of European Russia, published by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Industries. Compiled at the request of the Department by V. V. Dokuchayev, M.S. of geology and mineralogy., St. Petersburg.
4. Dokuchayev, B. B. 1936. Our Steppes Yesterday and Today. Moscow. 71 pp.
5. Soils of the Cerhnozem Region of Russia. 1949 Moscow.
6. Cultivating and Fertilizing Chernozem. 1892. St. Petersburg.
7. Belozozoo, S.T. 1951, Tanfilyev. Moscow. Geographgiz.
8. Nesterov, V. G. 1950. Georgiy Fyodorovich Morozov in: Outstanding Figures of Russian Forestry, 2nd Edition, Moscow, Leningrad, Goslesbumizdat. p. 67-81.
9. Morozov, G. P. 1917. Opening Speech of the All-Russian Delegate Congress of the Union of Foresters in: 14 Forests of the Republic. No. 9-10, p. 612.
10. Vladimir Nikolayevich Sukachev: Essays and Memoirs of Contemporaries. 1986. From the series Scientists of the USSR. Essays, Memoirs and Materials. Leningrad. Science. 208 pp.
11. Essay on Vegetation of the Southeast Part of the Kursk Province. 1903. News of the St. Petersburg Forest Institute. Vol. 1, p. 63-82.
12. On the Quality of Northern Pine. 1932. Arkhangelsk, Sevgiz. 20pp.
    Timber from Northern Spruce. 1934. Leningrad, Goslestechizdat. 38 pp.
    On the Technical Qualities of Pine Timber. 1934. In: Collected Works of the Arkhangelsk Technical Forest Institute. Issue 1, p. 63-82.
    The Quality of Coniferous Timber of the Pinezh-Kuloi Watershed with A. A. Kachalov. 1936. Forest Management and Forest Use. No. 8, p.45-49.
    
13. Forest Fires and the Fight Against Them. 1933. Arkhangelsk, Sevkraigis. 40 pp. (three more editions, 1934, 1935, 1936. 4th edition, corrected and supplemented, Moscow, Goslestechizdat. 1936. 100 pp).
    Fighting Forest Fires. 1938. Moscow, Goslestechizdat. 68pp.
    • Instructions on Fire Fighting for the Forest Guard of the USSR People's Commissariat of Forest Industry. 1936. (co-author P. P. Serebrennikov). Moscow, Goslestechizdat. 79 pp.
    • Forest Reforestation on Bums. 1937. In: Collected Works. Arkhangelsk Technical Forest Institute. 4^th issue, No. 2. p. 89-116.
    • Changes in the Anatomical Structure of Pine Timber After Fire. 1940. Arkhangelsk Technical Forest Institute, scientific research sector. Issue 16. 53 pp.
    • On the Theoretical Principles of Forest Pyrology. 1944. Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Technical Forest Institute. 19pp.
    • The Interrelation of Spruce and Pine in regard to Forest Fires in the Forests of the European Northern of the USSR. 1944. Botany Journal. Vol. 29, No. 4. p. 131-135.
    • Forest Fires Seasons and Constructing Geographic Maps of Forest Fire Belts. 1946. In: Collected Works. Arkhangelsk Technical Forest Institute. Vol. 8. p. 1-15
    • Nature of the Forest and Forest Fires. 1947 Arkhangelsk, Arkhoblizdat. 58 pp.
    • The Impact of Fire on the Forest. 1948. Moscow Leningrad, Goslestechizdat. 127 pp.
    Instructions to Protect the Forest from Fire. (USSR Forest Ministry, Forest Protection Division) Moscow, Goslestechizdat. 52 pp.
    
14. • A Discussion of Forest Restoration After Mechanized Skidding. 1935. (co-author I. V. Zanin) Forest Industry. No. 9, p. 31-35. • Concentrated Logging in the North and the Struggle to Restore the Forest Fund. 1944. Forest Industry. No. 9, p. 3-8.
    • Concentrated Logging in the Northern Forests. 1954 Moscow. Melekhov wrote the:
    - Introduction, p. 3-4.
    - Study of Concentrated Logging and Subsequent Forest Restoration in the Taiga Zone. p. 5-47.
    - Diagnostic and Classification Issues of Concentrated Cutovers. p. 48-60.
    - On the Stability of the Sides of the Fir Forest with Concentrated Clear Cutting, (co-author P. N. Pastukhov) p. 75-97.
    - On the Typology of Concentrated Cutovers in Regard to Changes in the Soil Cover, p. 110-125.
    - On the Nature of Meadow Cutovers and Restoration. (co-author P. B. Goldobina) p. 126-148.
    - On Fireweed Cutovers and Their Restoration (co-author A. A. Korelina) p. 149-158.
    - The Mechanization of Logging and Restoration. p. 159-172.
    - Conclusions and Suggestions, p. 240-247.
    • Logging and Forest Restoration in the North. 1960. Arkangelsk. 374 pp.
    • Principle Harvesting Operations. 1962. Moscow, Goslestechizdat. 329 pp. (Moscow. 2nd edition. 1966. Forest Industry. 374 pp.)
    • The Nature of the Taiga Forests and Cutover Area. 1962. In: Proc. Of the 5th World Congress, Aug. 20-Sept. 10, 1960, Washington. Vol. 1. p. 583-586.
    
15. • Changes in the Soil Cover in Connection with Concentrated Logging. 1947. (co-author P. V. Goldobina) In: Collected Scientific Research Works, Arkhangelsk Technical Forest Institute. Vol. 9, p. 119-140.
    • Concentrated Logging in the Forests of the North. 1954. Moscow.
    • Issues and Methods of Studying the Forests of the North. 1957. Agricultural Sciences Herald. No.l.p. 80-86.
    • The Theoretical Principles of Cutover Typology. 1958. Higher Education News Forestry Journal. No. 4, p. 16- 28.
    • Principles of the Typology of Logging. 1959. In: Principles of the Typology of Cutovers and its Significance in Forestry. Arkhangelsk, p. 5-33, (foreword to the book, p. 3-4).
    • The Connection Between Forest Type and the Type of Cutover. 1959. Botanical Journal. Vol. 44, No. 3. p. 349-352.
    • Management of the Study of Types of Concentrated Cuts. 1962. (co-authors L. I. Korkonosova and V. G. Chertovskoy). Moscow, USSR Academy of Sciences. 114 pp. (Institute of Forests and Forest Chemistry)(2^nd edition, corrected and supplemented. 1965. Moscow, Nauka. 180pp.)
    
16. • G. F. Morozov and His Role in Russian Science; On the 25^th Anniversary of Professor Morozov's Death. 1946. Arkhangelsk. 16 pp.
    • Lomonosov and Forest Science. 1947. Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Technical Forest Institute. 14 pp.
    • M. B. Lomonosov and the Science of the Forest; On the 250^th Anniversary of His Birth. 1961. Arkhangelsk, Book Publishers. 13 pp.
    • MikhailYelevferyevichTkachenko: 1878-1950. 1952. In: M. E. Tkachenko, General Silviculture. 2nd edition. Moscow, Leningrad, p. 8-12.
    • Articles in: The Large Soviet Encyclopedia (2^nd edition, 1953-1954) on D. M. Kravchinski, G. F. Morozov, N. S. Nesterov, and V. D. Ogiyevski.
    • Origins of National Forest Science. 1948. Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Technical Forest Institute. 28 pp.
    • Essay on the Development of Forest Science in Russia. 1957. Moscow, USSR Academy of Sciences Publishing. 207 pp.
    
17. • Perspectives on Using Aggregate Machinery for Selective and Gradual Cutting. 1964. (co-author A. I. Chilimov). Forestry. No. 8, p. 25-27.
    • The Forest as a Natural System. 1974. News of Higher Education, Forest Journal. No. 3, p. 7-17.
    • The Significance of the Structure of Annual Growth Rings and its Dynamics in Silviculture and Dendroclimatology. 1979. News of Higher Education, Forest Journal. No. 4, p. 6-14.
    • Stocking Coniferous Species in Forestry. 1984. Silvics. No. 6, p. 72-78.
    • Forestry on the Threshold of the 21^st Century. 1986. Forestry. No. 8, p. 3-5.
    • The Forest and Ecological, Economic and Social Problems. 1989. In: Ecology, Politics, Media, Moscow. Chpt. 1, p. 50-60.
    • The Forest in the Modern World. 1990. In: Ecological Alternatives, Moscow, Progress, p. 524-543.
    
18. • Issues of Dynamic Forest Typology. 1968. In: Collected Works of the Moscow Technical Forest Institute, Issue 23, p. 204-222.
    • Forestry in the Taiga. 1974. (co-author V. G. Chertovskoy and others) Moscow, Lesnaya Promyshlennost'. 231 pp.
    • Silvics. 1980. Moscow, Lesnaya Promyshlennost'. 406 pp.
    
19. Forest Pyrology: A Textbook for Students of the Forestry Department. 1978. Moscow, Moscow Technical Forest Institute. - 1983. In 5 parts, total 370 pp.
20. Silvilculture. 1989. Moscow, Agropromizdat. 302 pp.
21. Forest Encyclopedia. 1985. Moscow, Sovietskii entsiklopedia. 1985. Vol. 1, (articles: Forest, Forestry, Silviculture, Systematic Logging); 1986, Vol. 2, (articles: Forest stand. Forest pyrology. Cut type, Cut typology).
22. • On the Forests of Finland. 1958. News of Higher Education, Forest Journal. No. 6, p. 164-173.
    • Forests and Forestry in the USA. 1961. News of Higher Education, Forest Journal. No. 1, p. 167-172.
    • Forest Resources of the World, Their Use and Renewal. 1966. News of Higher Education, Forest Journal. No. 6,p.165-170. • 6^th World Forest Congress. 1966. Forestry. No. 10, p. 68-73.
    • Current Developments in Swedish Logging Technology and Mechanization. 1970. (co-author I. K. levin), Forestry. No. 10, p. 89-93.

    ---

    << Preview page

    Table of Contents

    Next page >>

    
    

Share |

Back to top of this page

Back to Homepage

Mail us!