Forest.ru
All about russian forest
This site supported by Forest Club Logo
All about Russian forests | Russian NGOs Forest Club | Useful links | Site map | Site search
Russian version

Basic info about Russian forest and forestry

News

Russian forest legislation

If is everything OK with forests in Russia?

Russian old-growth forests - the world natural heritage

Sustainable forestry in Russia

Forest Bulletin

Other Forest Club periodicals

Forest Club Publications

Forest Club Hot spots

 

RSS-News
RSS-News

POBEDITELI ó Soldiers of the Great War

A History of Russian Forestry and its Leaders

Chapter 4

Forest Valuation and Organization, Forest Management, and the Theory of Forest Use

The forest is nature's treasure, and man must use it wisely, not just for his own temporary gain, but for generations to come. It is easy to destroy a forest, but it is not easy to create a new one. It requires plenty of time and patience to wait until the trees are ready for use, especially as construction timber. (A. E. Teploukhov)

YEGOR FRANTSEVICH KANKRIN (1774-1845)

In this chapter, it is necessary to devote special attention to Yegor Frantsevich Kankrin, Minister of Finance (1823-1844), who was in charge of the Forest Department. In 1826, at Kankrin's initiative, a reform of forest management was undertaken. Under this reform the Russian term for forester (lesnichii) replaced the German wordforstmeister. In addition, the Scientific Committee for Forests was created to study and standardize forestry and to prepare new legislation. Beginning in 1827, graduates of the Forest Institute were sent abroad "for further improvement in forest-related sciences"i The Society for the Promotion of Forestry was founded in 1832. Profits from forest activity rose.

Through Kankrin's efforts, the first Russian language manual for forest organization appeared in 1830,1 seven years before the publication of the Russian translation of the German textbook Forest Regulation, which was written by the first director of the Tarand Forest Academy, Heinrich Cotta. In essence, the manual was a scientific and academic textbook and it played a positive role in forest management.

Ye. F. Kankrin intended that the manual should "serve as a guide for executing existing laws. " It consisted of the following ten chapters: 1) Decreasing the need for forest products, 2) Forest organization in accordance with the type of management, 3) Preservation of forests, 4) Forest surveys, 5) Various general methods of forest management, 6) Natural reforestation after logging, 7) Artificial forest reproduction, 8) Forest organization plans, 9) Specific regulations on various forest issues, 10) Creation of complete regulation plans for forest units. "The first objective of this manual," wrote Kankrin, the official author, "is to attract the full attention of the mining authorities to this subject, for the science of forest management at production facilities is no less important than the science of mining. "

In addition to addressing the applied aspects of forestry, the manual also warned against the wholesale adoption of foreign forestry practices on Russian soil. "...Every production facility must have enough new books on forestry and encourage young practitioners and of≠ficials to read them. It is also impor≠tant to prepare a sufficient number of forestry field workers, especially in sur≠veying and recording. It is necessary to instill in them a love of forestry, and discard the idea that it is too early to think about forest management in this country.

When reading books, especially for≠eign ones, young foresters should con≠stantly think about adapting their ac≠quired knowledge to the environment in Russia, and compare the theoretical principles to local conditions and specific occurrences. Theo≠retical knowledge alone is of no practical use. Hence, the main goal of this manual is not to characterize the system of for≠estry abroad, but to apply the principles of that system to Rus≠sian needs, to promote not foreign, but Russian forest man≠agement..."

These ideas were successfully implemented by many gen≠erations of Russian foresters: professors, scientists, and prac≠titioners.

i Among the first exchange students to Germany were V. S. Semyonov and A. A. Diatovsky, author of an excellent manual on practical forestry called Forest Renewal and Forestation (1843). The practice of sending students for training abroad continued until 1917.

ALEKSANDR YEFIMOVICH TEPLOUKHOV (1811-1885)

Aleksandr Yefimovich Teploukhov was born in the vil≠lage of Karagaiskoye, Okhanski County, Perm Province to the family of a serf belonging to the Stroganov counts.2 In 1824, he was sent to a school of mining sciences. After gradu≠ation he served several years in the office of the Stroganovs.

S. V. Stroganova was always interested in outstanding stu≠dents in her schools, and apparently she realized that Teploukhov's abilities should be encouraged. She sent him to Saxony to the Mining Academy to increase his knowledge of mining sciences. Dissatisfied with the teaching at the mining academy, Teploukhov asked Stroganova to let him study for≠est sciences at the Tarand Forest Academy, and Stroganova granted his request.

In 1838, A. Ye. Teploukhov gradu≠ated from the Tarand Forest Academy. He returned to Russia and received an instructor's position at the Petersburg School of Agriculture and Mining Sci≠ences.

One of his first extensive articles was published in 1840. It was the first original Russian manual and abridged course of forest regulation. In the in≠troduction, Teploukhov wrote, "The main task of forestry in general is to inventory a forest area, the quantity and quality of the forest located on it and all the circumstances that influ≠ence its reproduction and timber pro≠duction. This can be achieved only by collecting data and evaluating the for≠ests, so we will describe in detail ev≠erything needed for data collection and evaluation from a silvicultural perspective. "3

In this article, A. Ye. Teploukhov wrote about the pecu≠liarities of forest inventories and forest land surveys, about establishing borders and dividing the forest area into plots and blocks. He came to the profound and significant conclu≠sion that in forest organization "one must think first of all about organizing the forest to protect it from fire." He wrote further about dividing the forest into stands by soil type, spe≠cies, and age (age classes). He also addressed the topics of maps, marking borders, and forest records. This work was highly praised by his contemporaries. Many theses of this work were taken from a report, which he prepared for S.V. Stroganova on Maryino.

Stroganova made available two forest parcels at her Maryino estate, Novgorod Province for field studies for the students of the Petersburg school. She appointed A. Ye. Teploukhov as manager.

By the summer 1839, Teploukhov was already in Maryino. Long before Teploukhov surveyed it, the parcels had been rich in construction timber and firewood, mainly pine and spruce, which was now exhausted by cutting and fire. When Teploukhov arrived, the parcels were covered with wet waste≠lands and ugly brush in low areas and grasses in higher areas. According to archive materials, Teploukhov together with field workers from among his Petersburg students thoroughly ex≠plored different parts of the forest area over several weeks.

In his report on the forest survey studies, he wrote to S.V. Stroganova concerning the 15-year-old maps he received from the Marino Bureau of Estates. "1 found many deficiencies, many discrepancies, many things that have changed. . . . In some places the maps show swamps where there is good con≠struction timber. In other places there are swamps where the map shows forest... many roads, paths, and streams are not on the map at all." "You can find even less information," he wrote, "about forest divisions by species, but that is to be expected, since no Russian map has them yet. "

Assuming that peasants "do not use fire≠wood efficiently, and think that it is an inex≠haustible gift of nature," A. Ye. Teploukhov suggested that, "...they need to learn the value of the forest, and the value of something is un≠derstood only when it has been assessed." That is why he suggested imposing a small tax on every cubic meter of wood used for domestic consumption and every construction log.

In Ideas and Suggestions on Forestry of April 20, 1840, A. Ye. Teploukhov recom≠mended that "after the forest survey is com≠pleted" a permanent forester in Maryino be ap≠pointed. He emphasized that the forester should manage the forests entrusted to him according to a prescribed plan. He would be independent of the local authority and subordinate only to the chief forester. As a result of his thorough investigation of the forests and analysis of the reasons for disorder in them, A. Ye. Teploukhov argued clearly, powerfully, and appropriately for establishing order in the forest. Intending to begin experimental plantings in 1840, A. Ye. Teploukhov suggested that the seed cones be dried not in stoves, where they seeds could be spoiled from excessive tem≠peratures, but in saunas, heated to the appropriate level.

A. Ye. Teploukhov had always been interested in the eco≠nomic side of forestry. Thus, in the chapter "Forest Mensura≠tion" he distinguished between "commercial" and "economic" forest use. About the former he wrote, "There is a common belief, one that is fatal to the forests, that the capital gained from cutting the whole forest at once and then invested will bring more profit than the gradual use of the forest. This is well known among our rich and experienced forest industri≠alists, who incessantly buy forest parcels only to plunder them. But with this type of usage, the forest soon becomes a desert, and our children will never have what their parents had. The forest must be like a bank that will never go bankrupt...."

In the chapter "Proper Forest Management and Ways to Improve Forests," he addressed the questions of: "1) forest enclosure, 2) establishment of external border line, 3) clean≠up of windfall from streams and burns, 4) swamp drainage, 5) division of forests into plots, and 6) fire prevention."

In the conclusions to his report, A. Ye. Teploukhov wrote, "Forests always yield a return on invested capital through annual growth. Their condition improves with every decade, and they are ready at any time to return the initial investment with accrued interest."

In the chapter on "Swamps," he wrote: "Swamps have undoubtedly existed there for a long time, but I believe that they spread incessantly as the forests vanishes. Burned areas and mossy swamps work hand in hand to gradually devour the forests."

Before Teploukhov's arrival in Maryino, 12 parcels were designated for the applied agricultural school with the goal of preserving them. They were also used for firewood and wood≠working materials, and for teaching practical agriculture to the students. A, Ye. Teploukhov convinced Stroganova of the need to establish experimental plots throughout the whole Marino estate. One of his reasons was that: "The students must engage in forest work under my management, and the timber cutting must be done in such areas and for such rea≠sons, as required by proper forestry. Then the students' for≠estry practice will not be bounded by the limits of the study plots, where they get limited knowledge due to the insufficient variety of species. The whole Maryino forest will be open to them. There they will learn different types of cutting, seeding logging sites, sowing and planting. Considering the current situation in Russia, it is a necessity for agriculture, and it will increase the importance of the school, both in the general sense and in the opinion of all well-intentioned people."

The plot survey specified the location of the plot, its area, the quality of the soil, species and "mixture ratio, age and density, and quality of the trees and groves, from an economic point of view."

The quality of the soil was characterized, for example, as: "Damp, hillocky, covered with moss, and, in some places, with sedge, red bilberries and other broad-leaved grasses."

As a firm supporter of natural reforestation in Maryino, A. Ye. Teploukhov planted seed and seedlings in the forest as an experiment, "mainly for the practical teaching of the young foresters from the agricultural school." A. Ye. Teploukhov planted, "with great effort," large quantities of 8- and 15-year old nurslings of Siberian cedar (Siberian pine), oak, elm, maple, ash, poplar, and different species of willow. During the fall of 1840, 6,031 pine trees were planted. The students observed their growth and development. As an experiment, forests were planted on meadow ground in particular. The general conclusion was that, "...it is impossible not to be≠come convinced that planting seedlings is more advantageous than sowing seed."

A. Ye. Teploukhov insisted that one must be familiar with local conditions when trying to solve practical problems. In this regard Teploukhov was critical of many manuals and guides on forestry. He wrote, "...Forestry scientists write and talk under the influence of theoretical knowledge, and, unfortunately, they often write on irrelevant topics, such as forestry methods that are appropriate only in Germany or that will be appropriate in our country only In the next century..." He considered nature to be the "most genuine and wise " book, and he regretted that "not many are familiar with its lan≠guage." His affirmed that "as long as the conditions for ob≠serving nature are not of primary importance in a student's education, we cannot be successful in rational agriculture and forestry..."

In 1842, a very interesting book by Teploukhov was pub≠lished. In Instructions on Forestry.4 the author, in simple and accessible form, described the main problems of Russian forestry."

When the school closed in 1847, Teploukhov was trans≠ferred to Perm Province as chief forester and a member of the management team for the Stroganov forests.

Over the course of 13 years, 1841-1854, Teploukhov and his student surveyors and foresters surveyed and established 100-year-cutting cycles on more than 2.5 million acres of for≠est. Forty-seven recorders participated in the project, and un≠der the direction of foresters and master surveyors they mapped nearly 2.8 million acres in 13 years. Forest stands and the groves within them of at least 13 acres were recorded if they contained deviations in soil, species and age. The surveys also included arable lands, meadows, villages, roads, etc.; 31,089 sites were mapped and described.

When the surveys were completed, the process of organi≠zation was initiated in each forest. To stop the destruction of the forests and to preserve them, land parcels were selected that contained the best fir and spruce trees of medium age. These parcels contained more forest than cultivated land. They were designated as forest reserves where correct cutting meth≠ods were introduced. The mature stands were cut for logs and firewood, and the younger stands were thinned to make posts and rails.

Thus, Teploukhov's work to survey, protect, and pre≠serve the forest was thoroughly planned, prepared, and organized. The scale and detail of this work was unprec≠edented before A. Ye. Teploukhov and remained long af≠ter.

Special attention was given to stopping intentional fires in the forest. Thus, it was forbidden to start a fire to clear meadows and arable lands. At any time of the year, viola≠tors received serious punishments. If the violators were not found, the community was held responsible for the fire. Burned areas were not converted to arable fields, but were left for the forests to grow back.

The chapter "Prosecuting Violations and Legal Proceed≠ings" is remarkably interesting for its examination of ways to prevent the "inappropriate or illegal actions" of peasants in the forest. It was established that "village and forest authori≠ties are to care for the peasants' welfare. Their buildings should be kept in repair, and they should have enough fire≠wood and construction timber close to their homes to the ex≠tent possible, as allowed by forestry regulations." Providing the peasants with sufficient amounts of timber should have excluded all theft of timber. Therefore any timber theft was regarded as an unreasonable deliberate act which had to be prevented. The fine was fixed regardless of the amount of stolen timber, so that people regarded the fine not as compen≠sation to the landlord for his loss, but as a means to prevent violation of the regulations, as a price for illegal acts.

Teploukhov wrote, "Whether the peasant cut one log or twenty, he is guilty only ofwillfulness. Willful cutting of large amounts of wood over a long period of time cannot be re≠garded as a bigger crime than cutting a small amount, be≠cause this is the fault of the forest guards, who are respon≠sible for finding the violations early on by making their rounds frequently." The forest guards were charged to remember the following article of the regulations. "If a forest supervisor has poor control over the forest guards or is negligent in his duties and the willful cutting of timber or other violations have taken place, then he will be subject to a fine of up to one silver ruble, arrest, and dismissal...."

Teploukhov presented his acquired experience in his ma≠jor work Forest Organization on Country Estates, which was published in 1848. The work attracted much interest and was republished without changes in 1850.5 This project was the first original independent Russian research on forest manage≠ment, and, in a broader sense, on forestry.iii The originality of the work lies with two ideas that were impossible to find in any of the books published at the time and couldn't be bor≠rowed from someone else's experience.

Firstly, Teploukhov dedicated his work to the very diffi≠cult problem of managing landlord estates under the condi≠tions of serfdom, which were unknown in Europe. V. S. Semenov had written a manual for the organization of state forests, the management of which was simplified by the vast amount of legislation and could be easily standardized. But deviations in managing privately owned forests were great, as dictated by various financial and other considerations of the forest owner.

A second aspect is related to the problem of serfdom in Russia, which created unique economic conditions. In regard to the forests, this uniqueness consisted of the fact that peas≠ants were allowed to use the forests for free. The sale of tim≠ber was insignificant, and consequently the direct profits from the forests were very small. At the same time the profits from quitrent were significant. Given these conditions, the land≠owner needed to both produce forest products and to distrib≠ute them to consumers. This necessitated the introduction of efficient forest use.iv

Teploukhov solved the problem from a slightly different perspective. He understood proper forest regulation and for≠estry not as a way to get the maximum yield or profit, but as the best way to manage the forest. In this regard, his manual seems peculiar at first. The manual is a mix of regulations on forest regulation, silviculture and administration. He showed how to balance the landlord's and peasant's interests in the forest. He showed the peasants the advantages of forest con≠servation; without it every log would be located farther away and would take more time to get, meadows would become poorer, cattle pasture in the nearest forest would become less productive, etc. As for the landowners, he pointed out the ben≠efits of guaranteed profits "not only for the landowners and their peasants, but also for the benefit of their successors" as opposed to larger short-term profits from the sale of timber.

Teploukhov emphasized that forest regulation is essential to guarantee profits. The cost of forest regulation is very high initially, and additional expenses are required to maintain it later. However, Teploukhov argued that no enterprise can manage without expenses.

He warned that many forest owners, when talking about efficient forest practices, understand only the outward aspect of it, i.e., how the forest looks. Quality forest regulation is only the beginning of proper forestry. The next step requires skillful forest management. That's why "it is often difficult to define where forest regulation ends and forest management begins."

The manual has detailed sections devoted to main descrip≠tion. These include geographical location, site location, cli≠mate, soil and subsoil, condition of boundaries, special rights and responsibilities of the landowner, the ratio of forest to other land, forestation of fields, burns, barren land, and wet≠lands, condition of forest stands, quantity of windfall, the time and direction of previous fires, historical notes on previous practices, suggestions for creating forest blocks, the condi≠tion of bordering forests, maximizing timber profits, local prices, improving flumes and roads, building guard posts, mill construction, thoughts on the volume of forest product sales, studying the impact of earlier sales on the condition of the forest, suggestions on fulfilling the needs of the landowner and the peasants for forest products, plans for organizing management and forest protection, logging plans (charting cutting rotations), designating forest plots for peasant use, the size and direction of logging sites and reforestation methods, designation of thinning sites, establishing reserves, thoughts on introducing efficient forest use among the peasants.

Teploukhov opposed the use of insignificant innovations at the expense of things that were more important. As a sup≠porter of rational forest protection and preservation, he stood against the sentimental defenders of the trees who opposed the cutting of birch for making brooms and linden for making bast shoes. He believed that with efficient forestry practices (correct forest management) such losses as those described would be recovered with "a few hours growth." "Just protect your forests from fire and don't be afraid of the time-honored habits of the Russian peasant. "

As a genuine champion of the people's welfare, Teploukhov even suggested that the forest territory in the north could be reduced to make way for more hay and other fields in order to support the living standard of the peasants and thus reduce the potential for damage to the forests. At the same time, he was opposed to small, scattered fields. He believed that it was possible to widen the hay fields by turning forests along the rivers and streams into meadows. This would have achieved other goals as well, like decreasing fire danger and establish≠ing well-defined natural borders between forest plots. It is worth noting that Teploukhov favored natural boundaries and approved of clearing breaks and sight lines only in the ab≠sence of natural physical boundaries. He recommended that careful thought be given to creating clearances, their orienta≠tion in space, and their size (he recommended the golden sec≠tion ratio of 2:3) since they would be cut once and last for≠ever.

Teploukhov left us his thoughts on what an ideally man≠aged forest would look like. He knew that such a forest could not exist in nature, but it was a worthy goal. The eight points of his plan are as follows:

1. Borders: A forest should have clearly defined and stable borders. The forest tracts should be divided into blocks with permanent and clear borders.
2. Spatial continuity of the forest tract: The forest should not be scattered within its territory, with the possible exception of plots along rivers.
3. Selection of timber species: The forest should con≠sist of species best adapted to the local conditions.
4. Matching species to local growth conditions and cli≠mate: Timber species in pure and mixed stands should match the requirements (biology) of the given spe≠cies and local climate.
5. Age divisions: All the trees of every stand should belong to a single age class. In every part of the for≠est there should be an equal number of old (mature) stands, maturing stands, medium and young, and these stands should be placed so that the young trees begin at one side, followed by the maturing and mature groves. This arrangement should then be re≠peated in the same order.
6. Reforestation: Logging should be conducted in such place and time that the forest will naturally regener≠ate.
7. Stand density: All stands should have appropriate density and excessively dense stands should be thinned in a timely manner.
8. Species succession: Teploukhov originally divided the forests into artificial, which did not exist at the time in Russia, and natural. He further divided natu≠ral forests into virgin, logged and secondary,v noting that secondary forests form on clearcuts.

He considered forest regeneration through seeding and planting to be the simplest and easiest form of reforestation, and that it could be easily mechanized and quickly mastered by peasants. The main obstacle to using this method in the north was the low profitability of the northern forests, which required that all direct costs be avoided when possible, even at the cost of increasing the reforestation time of cuts. He recommended that the forests in the north be allowed to re≠generate naturally.

Teploukhov also presented the principles of forest typol≠ogy in his work. "A stand," he wrote, "is an area of the forest that is different from other areas in 1) tree species, 2) age or years, 3) density, and 4) quality or worth."

When differentiating homogeneous or pure stands from heterogeneous of mixed stands, Teploukhov noted the spe≠cies and their proportion in the latter type. Since "the propor≠tions in mixed stands" can be different, he believed it impor≠tant to define the proportions in decimals, such as birch 0.5, pine 0.25, aspen 0.25.

Emphasizing the importance of the soil and subsoil on the condition of the forest, Teploukhov recommended differenti≠ating soil types. He based this differentiation on:

1. the composition and degree of adherence of its parts (sandy, clayey, loamy, marled and limey, meager and chemozemy, rocky and sated, compact, heavy, crum≠bly and light, hot and cold); and

2. the degree of moisture (very dry, dry, damp, moist, wet and bare, and bare swamp).

Teploukhov also believed it important to characterize the subsoil of the stand as granite, gneiss, lime, sand, etc.

Since the "soil cover, consisting of ground cover and other small shrubs and plants living on it, affects the fertility of the earth," Teploukhov suggested describing the composition of the mantel and ground cover, which determine soil variations. He can be considered the founder of the science on forest types, nearly a century before its further brilliant develop≠ment by G. F. Morozov.

Teploukhov's book, as unfortunately happens rather often in Russia, was soon forgotten.

While working on the Stroganov estates,6 Teploukhov di≠vided the forests into forest districts, ranger districts, riding circuits and walking circuits. The divisions that he introduced exist still today in a somewhat different form. He also began the practice of marking trees to be cut.

Teploukhov also introduced the terms thinning cut and selective cut.7 He wrote, "Thinning can provide the peasants with valuable materials so necessary to their everyday lives, such as poles, posts and rails." He maintained that in places where bast production was well developed and was a source of sustenance for the peasants, the landowner should make the proper management of the linden forests a priority.

His words on the misunderstood concepts of forest use and forest misuse are remarkable. Teploukhov wrote, "In our country's forestry practices we often confuse the words 'use' and 'misuse.' The forest grows so that it can be used. ... It would be wrong to call the use of the birch forests for steam≠ship fuel, for brooms, for house decorations on Trinity day, misuse. No, that is not misusing the forests. But when fire destroys a forest that has not been organized, that is misuse. The peasants," he continued, "use the forest, but do not mis≠use it, for the essentials of their everyday life..."

In this article the author, for the first time in a Russian forestry journal, raised the question of the struggle for sur≠vival in the forest. When Russian foresters say that this issue was addressed in literature before Darwin, they are usually referring to either foreign sources or to the writings of Ye. F. Zyablovsky. Russian forestry literature never cites A. Ye. Teploukhov on this question, although his treatment of it is exceptionally interesting.

"Every tree," he wrote, "requires sufficient space in the earth and air to fully develop its roots and branches. When these conditions are insufficiently met in stands that are too dense, the trees stop growing and are spoiled..."

He illustrated his theoretical suppositions with the follow≠ing example: "Some forest species during their struggle with each other in their early years, lose much growth. Thus, a fir grove, if it is too dense, will in 15 to 20 years stop growing to the point that the young trees will reach a diameter of only 1 vershok (1.75 inches). When these trees grow in an open stand of consistent age, the trees will grow to 4-5 vershoks in diam≠eter."

Unfortunately, Russian specialized forestry literature no≠where mentions that the first Russian silviculturist to use the words thinning and selective cutting and to outline the theory of these cutting methods was A. Ye. Teploukhov.

In addition, the article is valuable because of the author's interest in the role of the forest in water retention. "In order to protect the rivers and streams, which feed the ponds, from drying up, it is essential to preserve and create forests at the source, where the spring comes from the earth. The forest holds the snow and rainwater for a long time and it gradually runs into the streams, ensuring a consistent depth in the rivers and ponds. If the soil is cleared of forests and growth, the snow and rainwater will immediately run off of it into the streams and rivers. It will flood their banks, it will build up in the ponds and sometimes break through the dikes. The resulting shortage of water will bring damaging droughts.

...In forest preserves clearcuts should never be allowed under any circumstances. If they contain very valuable trees, these may be cut selectively in small quantities and from vari≠ous places so that there are no clearings or empty spots. If young trees have begun to grow in the shade of others and in former clearings, then in appropriate cases the seed trees may be cut very gradually. If they are not valued species, they should be left to lie after cutting to decompose. The main thing is to ensure that there is an abundance of ground cover on the soil, and deadfall contributes greatly to its formation." This article was a continuation of the author's thoughts on the de≠pendence of a territory's water cycle on logging.8

Teploukhov also wrote interesting articles on forest soil science. In one article,9 for example, he explained the con≠cept of soil and the need to study it, and described ways to determine the quantity of humus in the soil and test it for the presence of carbonic lime. In another article,10 he advocated preserving the forest mantel for it provided a source of nutri≠tion for tree growth. He wrote, "Destroying the forest litter means decreasing the fertility of the forest soil and deteriora≠tion of the forest."

The major economic significance of logging waste and site clean-up is attested to by the fact that even today much time is devoted to its discussion and the issue is addressed in spe≠cial literature. Teploukhov was undoubtedly correct when he said that solutions to the problem must vary depending on the presence of immature trees, the soil and economic conditions, and the landscape and the grade of the site.

Teploukhov died in 1885. It is strange that not a single Russian journal dealing with forestry, even to a small degree, carried an obituary upon his death. It is no less strange that his friends and relatives did not think it necessary to show what kind of person he was in his private life. He married the daughter of a professor of the Tarand Academy. What sort of worthy qualities must a person have had who was not afraid to join her life with Teploukhov? He was still a serf when she went with him to a strange and, according to hearsay, wild country, where they settled in an isolated village in Perm Prov≠ince.

Kuyninka Park in Il'insk remains as a living monument to A. Ye. Teploukhov. It has grown luxurious from the ancestors planted by him in 1842. The park now contains nearly 400 species of plants.

The breadth of vision expressed in Teploukhov's theoreti≠cal research and practical work gives every reason to con≠sider him a great Russian forest scientist of international im≠portance. A. F. Rudzky rightfully called Teploukhov the pa≠triarch of Russian forestry.

ii This work was nothing less that a textbook for the students of the Petersburg School of Agriculture and Mining, who did their field studies on the two forest parcels of the Maryino estate in Novgorod province. Teploukhov was given charge of these parcels with the rights of a manager.
iii Later P. N. Verekha and A. F. Rudzky highly evaluated this book (P. N. Verekha and A. F. Rudzky, Literature of Russian Forestry. St. Petersburg, 1878). F. K. Arnold, in his History of Forestry in Russia. France and Germany (St. Petersburg, 1895), noted that this work was "completely independent and does not borrow from foreign experience, but draws from Russian practices."
iv A. E. Teploukhov was a leading Russian forester in the middle of the last century. He grew up in peasant surroundings and thoughtfully studied peasant ways while managing the Stroganov forests. He said, "It is very difficult for peasants to break their old habits." They use the forest thoughtlessly, without concern for its preservation and protection." When discussions began in 1859, before the liberation of the serfs, about giving forest land to the peasants, Teploukhov was spoke out against it. 140 years have passed, but the problem of preserving and managing the forests of peasants (farmers) is still very real.
v Teploukhov's definition of secondary forests is essentially synonymous with today's temporary (G.F. Morozov) or derivative (V. N. Sukachev) types of forests.

ALFONSE ROMANOVICH VARGAS DE BEDEMAR 1816-1902

Alfonse Romanovich Vargas de Bedemar was one of the founders of the Russian school of forest mensuration.11 The descendent of an ancient Spanish family and a count, Vargas de Bedemar was born on his father's estate in Helsinger, Den≠mark. He received his education in Plen and Kiel (Holstein) and studied forest sciences at the Tarand Forestry Academy in Saxony. At the age of 25 he went to Russia, where he lived to the end of his days; Russia became his second homeland.vi

In December 1841, Vargas de Bedemar was admitted to the Petersburg Forest and Survey Institute. Four months later he finished the science course and, in April 1842, he was sent with the rank of master sergeant of the Foresters Corps to the Lisino forest training center. In 1844, Vargas de Bedemar graduated from the Institute with the rank of lieutenant of the Foresters Corps and title of reserve forester.

Over the next five years, Vargas de Bedemar worked in forest regulation in the Tula, Petersburg, and Simbirsk Provinces. In 1846, his first work appeared. It was de≠voted to research on stands of the Tula Province and presented growth rate tables for closed stands of oak, birch, aspen and linden.12

In 1850, his brilliant work The Study of Forest Stock and Growth in the Stands of the St. Petersburg Province from 1843 to 184813 appeared as separate publication. It was the first original Russian work on forest mensuration. It was valuable not only for its sample tables on forest growth rates and growth increments, but also for the inclusion of a wide range of issues, such as the effect of climate, geological struc≠ture and soil on forest growth, the proper≠ties of timber species, etc.

In the introduction the author empha≠sized that, "sample tables on forest growth increments com≠piled in Western Europe cannot serve as a manual for forest mensuration in the St. Petersburg and other adjoining prov≠inces." Unfortunately, the book includes very little on meth≠ods of gathering and processing data. This is especially dis≠appointing since the tables are still being used in the field and are included in the forest survey manuals for the northwest≠ern region of Russia.

Tables were compiled on five classes of site quality. In the process, the author compared his data, received from experi≠mental plots that he laid out, with Cotta's data for Saxony and Pfeil's for Prussia. This comparison supported his conclusion that with worsening local growth conditions, the quantity of trees per unit of territory consistently rises.

In 1849, Vargas de Bedemar was appointed to manage the forests of the Tsarskoye Selo government estate where, under his management, swampy areas were drained using drainage canals and pine and larch were planted.

In 1862, Vargas de Bedemar was invited to manage the Experimental Forest Estate for the newly created Petrovsky Agricultural and Forest Academy.vii The territory of 148.3 hectares was divided into fourteen blocks and each block was surveyed in detail. Sixteen experimental plots were laid out, two of which exist still today. Vargas de Bedemar also established goals and outlined a management plan.viii

Vargas de Bedemar wrote, by hand, a 281-page report, entitled Survey of the Forest Estate of the Petrovsky Agricultural Academy (1863). In it he emphasized that the estate should be kept in condition "to serve as a model for the rational applica≠tion of forest sciences and permit students of the Academy to study in the field the technical methods of forest manage≠ment."14

The experimental plots laid out in 1862 in pine-birch stands were the first in the study of the growth rates of mixed stands. Only in 1905, at the congress of German experimental forest stations, did Professor A. Schwappach suggest that mixed stands be studied as part of a task plan.15

In 1870, Vargas de Bedemar was as≠signed a project to gradually reforest the steppes of the Stavropol independent inherited estate. In 1871, he participated in the planting of three thousand white aca≠cias and poplars. Despite the fact that a large portion of the plantings died for lack of care, Vargas de Bedemar consid≠ered the beginning of the project successful and he suggested that oak be planted in some places. This was one of the first attempts at steppe reforestation.

In 1875, Vargas de Bedemar was appointed as head man≠ager of the forest section of the Department of Apanages. He remained at this post until 1882 when the council was abol≠ished and Vargas de Bedemar retired with the rank of privy councilor.

Vargas de Bedemar received seven Russian orders for his services in the field of forestry. At the order of the Danish king, he received the commodore's cross of the Order of Deneborg.

A. R. Vargas de Bedemar died in 1902 and was buried in Pavlovsk near St. Petersburg.

vi The reason Vargas (as he was called in Russia) went to Russia has not been documented. One version tells of a plot against his father, a government minister, who suddenly died shortly thereafter.
vii The first mention of the Experimental Forest Estate dates to the end of the 16th century when it was part of the ancestral lands of Prince A. I. Shuisky. The estate was then transferred to Prince P. S. Prozorovsky who sold it in 1676 to the father-in-law of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich, K. P. Naryshkin. Tsar Peter I became the owner of the estate in 1705 and it was then called "Petrovsky (Peter)." In 1732, the ownership of the estate passed to Count I. L. Naryshkin and from him to Count K. G. Razumovsky in 1766 as a dowry for his daughter Ye. I. Naryshkina. The estate received its present name of "Petrovsko-Razumovskoye." In 1828, the estate passed to the apothecary P. A. Schultz, and 1861 it was bought by the state with the idea of making it a base for the Petrovsky Agricultural and Forestry Academy, which was opened in November 1865. (Polyakov, A. N., "130 Years of the Experimental Forestry Estate TSKhA: An Overview," Moscow, VNIITsLesresurs, 1993. (Silviculture and Forestation. Issue 5.)
viii Vargas de Bedemar's choice for the main species was very successful as shown by the stand surveys of 1887, 1915, 1935, 1945, 1955, 1962 and 1986-87. (See footnote vii above, p. 2-26.)

FYODOR KARLOVICH ARNOLD 1819-1902

Fyodor Karlovich Arnoldix was born in St. Petersburg to the family of Karl Arnold, a German who had taken Russian citizenship. His mother was the niece of an impoverished gen≠eral of Peter the Great's reign, Broun. Fyodor was the young≠est of three sons.

In 1831, Arnold enrolled at the Petersburg For≠est Institute, where he graduated in 1838.16 After finishing officer's training in 1840, he was sent to the Tarand Forest Academy and the Agronomy Institute in Germany. He took classes and in the summer he did forest surveys. He returned from his studies abroad earlier than planned (in March 1842) because of strained relations with his ad≠visor Heinrich Kotte.

Upon his return from Germany, Arnold worked on organizing forests in Vyatsk, Orenburg, Tula, Kaluga provinces and in the Crimea. He worked with Vargas de Bedemar on the organization of abatis construction in Tula. When work began on organizing steppe reforestation, together with V. Ye. Graff, he inspected more than thirty state plots, which later (1845) served as the foundation for the famous Veliko-Anadol forest district.x

In November 1843, he was promoted to lieu≠tenant, returned to St. Petersburg and entered the Forest Committee as a clerk.

In 1845, Instructions for Survey Work on Forest Estates Selected for Proper Forestry Management, which Arnold com≠piled, was published. The Instructions further developed the hypotheses of Ye. F. Kankrin (1830) and established the prin≠ciples for Russian forest regulation in state forests.xi

The Instructions defined the goals of forest regulation as: determining timber quality, harvesting timber without dam aging the forest estate, forest protection, controlling the con≠dition of the forest, and implementing measures for forest rec≠lamation. The Instructions distinguished three levels of forest regulation corresponding to the intensity of the forest man≠agement plan. Forest management units were defined as dis≠tricts consisting of one or more forest estates, for which for≠est management plans were compiled. The Instructions intro≠duced the idea of harvest rotations, and the size of the final cutting was defined according to a normal harvest site. To implement the forest regulation plan, survey parties included officers of the Foresters Corps, land surveyors and topogra≠phers. An officer of the Foresters Corps, the chief surveyor, led the survey party. These general principles of forest regu≠lation, as well as the position of surveyor, have remained prac≠tically unchanged even today.

In 1846, the Guide to Forest Regulation and Mensuration was published. In the same year, Arnold compiled and gave the Free Economic Society the first map of Russia's state for≠ests. For this work he received a gold medal.

In 1848, F. K. Arnold started his teaching activity when he began to read lectures on forestry at the St. Petersburg School for Agriculture. Beginning in October 1855, he taught forest mensuration at the Forest Institute. In 1857, he began to teach state forest practices and statistics (classes for officers), for≠est mensuration, forest regulation, forestation, and forest protection (cadet classes) at the St. Petersburg Forest and Surveying Institute.

Arnold's work Guide to For≠estry was published in 1854 and 1856. In 1855, he founded the ga≠zette Forestry and Hunting and was its editor until 1857. In 1858, his textbook on forest mensura≠tion17 appeared, and in 1860, For≠estry: A Manual for the Efficient Care of the Forests was pub≠lished.

In 1876, Arnold was appointed director of the Petrovsky Agricultural and Forest Academy in Moscowxii There, from 1877-1879, he taught the history of forestry.xiii

Arnold maintained an active public life. He worked on the establishment of several forestry schools, the organization of the Russian National Industrial Arts Exhibition in Moscow (1882), and the Fifth Russian National Congress of Foresters and Forest Owners in Moscow (1883). He was selected as an honorary member of the Council of the Ministry of State Prop≠erties. In 1883, he helped to establish the Moscow Forest So≠ciety and was made a member of the Forest Committee. In 1894, he was awarded the Order of the White Eagle. In 1898, Arnold was the first member of the Forest Corps to receive the rank of active privy councilor.

The Russian Forest, in three-volumes, is considered to be Arnold's most important work. He published it in 1890 together with V. A. Tikhonov.18 iv Arnold had developed the idea for the book much earlier, but the stimulus for its writing came from the royal Statute on the Conservation of the For≠ests of April 4. 1888.xv The introduction to the Statute states that:

1. The regulations of this statute apply to all forests belonging to the state, independent agencies, vari≠ous institutions, societies and private parties.

2. To conserve the forests (Article 1) the following mea≠sures are to be taken: a) protection of the forests from depletion and destruction, and b) proper forest man≠agement and generation of new forests,

3. From the total volume of forest estates (Article 1) those forests the preservation of which is essential to the state and public interest will be subject to spe≠cial conservation measures. These will be calledpro-tected forests.

The first volume of Arnold's book is devoted to a review of the state of Russian forests, acquainting the reader with the significance of the forest and the spatial distribution of for≠ests in Russia. It also addresses the forest conservation law of April 4,1888, the contents of conservation laws in other west≠ern European countries, and the tasks of forestry in the fu≠ture.

The second volume addresses the economic elements of forestry, soil description, the structure and life of trees, forest practices in deciduous and coniferous forests, etc. The last chapters are devoted to natural forest regeneration, nurseries and tree farms, and sowing and planting forests.

The third volume describes regulation and survey meth≠ods for forest estates, principles of wood science, equipment and methods of wood processing, forest product specifica≠tion (marketing), mechanical and chemical methods of wood processing including tapping and transporting logs.

P. K. Arnold died in 1902 and was buried in St. Peters≠burg.

ix The father of F. K. Arnold, Karl Ivanovich, was the first director of the Moscow Academy of Commercial Sciences. His oldest brother, Ivan, who was deaf and dumb from the age of two, founded and directed a school for deaf and dumb children. The middle brother, Yuri, became a musician, famous in both Russia and abroad. He was a renowned specialist in the theory of ancient Russian church and folk singing.
x Much later, in 1878, F. K. Arnold published an article, "The History of the Veliko-Anadolsk Forest District" in the Forest Journal.
xi F. K. Arnold directed and participated in the compilation of subsequent Instructions in 1854, 1870, 1872, 1884, 1887, 1890 and 1894.
xii Presently called the Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy (Timiryazevka).
xiii Arnold's lectures were the basis for his book published in 1895, The History of Forestry in Russia. France and Germany. (St. Petersburg, 1895,404pp.).
xiv It is interesting that in the foreword to the 2nd edition Arnold wrote, "In this 2nd edition of The Russian Forest, as in the 1st edition, V. A. Tikhonov has remained my faithful co-worker. He has born almost the entire burden of this new edition due to the weak state of my health. And if his name is not listed on the title page next to my own, it is only because of his great modesty."
v This "Statute" became part of the Code of Law of the Russian Empire under the title of Forest Decree, which changed the law of May 15, 1867 on the protection of forests belonging to private parties and societies.

ALEKSANDR FELITSIANOVICH RUDZKY 1838-1901

Aleksandr Felitsianovich Rudzky had tremendous influ≠ence on the Russian school of forest regulation and mensura≠tion. He was born to the family of a forester in the Chernigov Province.19 Rudzky graduated from the Chernigov gymna≠sium with a gold medal and enrolled in the St. Petersburg Forest and Survey Institute, where he graduated in 1860. He was commissioned as a master sergeant and sent to the Lisino training forest district for field studies with the cadets of the Forest Institute.

In 1861, Rudzky was sent to study forest regulation and management in Western Europe. He was in Germany, France, Belgium, Holland and England. He sent articles from abroad, the best of which. From Garrona to Andur and A Look at Mod≠ern European Forestry, were published in the journal of the Ministry of State Properties (MSP) for 1862.

When Rudzky returned home, he visited many forest dis≠tricts to study Russian forests in depth. He published a series of articles in the journal of the MSP under the title Letters on the Russian Forests. In Petersburg, he presented several pub≠lic lectures on the theme "General Principles of Forest Regu≠lation," and published several articles about state forest prac≠tices in the journal The Russian Herald.

The success of Rudzky's public lectures and the breadth of his vision on state forest practices earned him deserved respect. As a result, Rudzky was offered a teaching position at the Forest Institute. However, he considered himself too young and inexperienced to assume such a high post and, in≠stead, managed to gain appointment as a forester at the Zasursko-Seleksinsk model forest district in the Penza Province, where he worked tirelessly for five years.

In 1876, Rudzky assumed the post of forest regulation instructor in the department of forest mensuration at the Petersburg Forest Institute.xvi In 1878, the department was divided in two: the department of forest mensuration, which was chaired by P. N. Verekha, and the department of forest regulation, which Rudzky chaired until his death.

Rudzky was a talented educator who inculcated his stu≠dents with a love for forestry and tried to broaden their outlook. He helped create three new disciplines at the Insti≠tute: forest engineering, horticulture,xvii and wildlife manage≠ment.

Rudzky loved his students and encouraged their interests. He strove to help them master the knowledge of their field. He attached great importance to field studies for students in the forest.

Throughout his life Rudzky worked relentlessly to create a national forest regulation system,xviii based on the study of the economic and natural character≠istics of the Russian forest, Russian in≠dustry, and the needs of the Russian people. His theoretical legacy lasted for many decades.

Rudzky's main works are Forest Mensuration (three editions),20 Forest Regulation (two editions),21 A Brief Summary of Forest Regulation.22 Guide to the Organization of Russian Forests (two editions).23 Reference Book for the Forester (in the second edition called The Forestry Reference Book).24 and Discussions on the Forest.25 He also contributed greatly as the editor of such major works as Guide to Horticulture for Practitioners by N. Goshe and The Complete Encyclopedia of Russian Agriculture and Related Sciences. He also founded and edited several journals and gazettes.

A. F. Rudzky died on June 27, 1901, in the small town of Vershuba near Vilnius. Over his grave stands a monument with the words: "To a Friend of Youth."

Rudzky criticized the German orientation toward so-called mathematical forest mensuration (textbooks by Bayer and Kuntze), as well as German forest mensuration, which was called "forestry stereometry" by the Germans.

In 1880, Rudzky's article The Content and Direction of Forest Mensuration26 was published. Rudzky was long criti≠cized by some for not considering the consequences of what he wrote in the article and for causing stagnation in the school of Russian forest mensuration. He wrote, "Forest mensura≠tion has a right to exist only because it meets specific needs in the practice of forest management. Therefore, it must con≠centrate on meeting those needs and not chase after scientific breakthroughs that are not within its realm...

The unpopularity of forest mensura≠tion in our country is due in large part to the fact that it has been turned into 'for≠est mathematics.' I am determined to counteract this false trend for, in reality, the baggage of mathematical knowledge needed for forest mensuration is relatively small. Even a person who has forgotten his gymnasium courses will not encoun≠ter serious mathematical obstacles in un≠derstanding those methods needed to cor≠rectly estimate forest stock and growth rates." (p. 45)

Rudzky's true ideas on forest mensu≠ration can be found in his textbook For≠est Mensuration. In the chapter, "Methods of Forest Mensuration," he wrote that it is neces≠sary for proper forest management to de≠termine the forest stock and growth rate, which give the total value of the separate boles. It is also necessary to calculate the volume of logs made from the boles. The water displace≠ment method for calculating volume "is always cumbersome in forestry since it deals with such large volumes." There≠fore, "it became the practice to calculate tree volume using stereometric formulas ..." Considering that "the complex≠ ity of the formulas does not guarantee their accuracy." Rudzky protested not against the use of mathematics in forest mensu≠ration, but against the use of "dazzling mathematics," which prevented "silviculturists from looking critically at its role in forestry." He opposed the unfounded impression that "math≠ematics in current methods of measuring timber is the end itself and not the means."

This opinion was the basis for his rejection of the organi≠zation principles of the majority of German textbooks, which presented every previous method and mean of forest mensu≠ration and the instruments they used. This cumbersome ap≠proach prevented foresters from finding information in the textbook that they needed for their daily work.

"It is desirable to have a statistical investigation of the degree of accuracy and efficiency of various methods of cal≠culating forest stock and growth rates and the degree of ac≠curacy, convenience and reliability of various instruments. This must be done to reliably recommend the best methods and instruments. Everything else should go into the archives."

Rudzky attempted to create a textbook (manual) on forest mensuration that was convenient to use in daily forestry prac≠tice. "The merit of a textbook lies not in its size but in its internal content. To garnish this content with drawings of various strange instruments and formulas three yards long will perhaps fool an ignoramus, but it only detracts from the true merit of the textbook, decreases the respect of many for the subject and clouds understanding of the book's actual content."

Rudzky had a deep understanding of the goals, tasks and needs of forestry. He believed that forest mensuration, as a unique science, should serve the goals of forestry. "The craft, using scientific methods of research, must always search for utility, only utility, and nothing but utility. If it turns out in the future that some breakthrough has no practical application, how can it be included in the theory of the science?"

Rudzky knew modern Russian forest practices well. He understood that the blind application of German forest men≠suration methods, which were developed for small managed forests, would not work in the immense forests of Russia. At the same time, he never opposed the use of mathematical methods in an appropriate experiment if it simplified field and laboratory work. He was no stranger to delicate research that exposed the complex interactions in the forests. His plan to study the forms of tree trunks attests to this.

"The forest is very diverse, but for the person coming to the forest for the first time in their life, the diversity is prob≠ably most obvious in the density and height of the trees, the colors of the bark and leaves. The variety of forms of the indi≠vidual trees is not immediately obvious. When this variety is finally discovered, a first step has been taken. In the study of nature this is the discovery of diversity among what seems to the novice to be uniformity. The next step is to study the noted diversity, to study the reasons for it, to discover the order among the chaos, to establish order out of the disorder through the discovery of laws that govern the disorder.

When this general path of natural science development is applied to the study of trunk forms it turns out that the ob≠served phenomena are here too diverse and numerous. The same methods that are used generally in the natural sciences - experimentation and observation - must be called upon. The forest evaluator, however, cannot create experiments because he is not able to replicate the phenomenon under study in the forest. Thus, one of the mightiest tools of the natural sciences, especially of physics and chemistry, which are obligated to experiment, is not available for forest mensuration. It must be satisfied with another method, that of observation, which is broader, more difficult and less reliable.

Conducting research is complicated not only by the diver≠sity of the phenomena, but also by the complexity of the rea≠sons which collectively produce them. It happens, for example, that foliation affects the form of the trunk, but it also true that not all foliated trunks have the same form. Consequently, the form of the trunk is affected not only by foliation, but by other factors, as well. Some of these causes may be discovered through consistent observation of certain characteristics. These include the age of the tree, its origin, the soil in which it grew, the care it received, damage that it incurred, etc.

When complex causes of effect are discovered in this ob≠servable chaos, it becomes necessary to define the effect of every cause, to study, classify and explain the diversity. This work cannot be done without analysis, above all mental analy≠sis. When a substantive explanation of complex causes is re≠quired, one must point a priority first of all to forms of diver≠gence, which must then be looked for in the forest. Conse≠quently, intellectual analysis will point to a deductive path, subject to selection, and material analysis, following these paths, will seek out cases in the forest where one of the fac≠tors, hypothesized through deduction, is absent although all other factors are present.

Then the researcher has to hypothesize a general law of trunk formation from a number of observations and from the effect of various factors discovered through analysis.

After these calculations are made, the third and final stage of the process remains that of verification. In the case we have selected, a large number of factors cannot be connected, as happens in experiments, but are discovered a priority. This is why we cannot be certain that we didn 't miss one of these factors. We establish this certainty through verification, achieved by comparing our conclusions with the results of specially organized direct observations. If this result, despite the diversity of accompanying factors, supports the conclu≠sion, the conclusion is probable. The more complex the case taken for verification and the more cases that are verified, the more probable the conclusion.

This could be, in general terms, the best method for calcu≠lating tree measurement."

In regard to Russian forest regulation, Rudzky sagaciously wrote, "Forest regulation can be firmly established only when its importance is recognized, when we are convinced that it is not a luxury, but, on the contrary, a necessity for creating proper practices in our forests. The absence of appropriate practices is a weakness in our state forestry, which is strong in the areas of protection and marketing. We are far from thinking that proper forest practice will be automatically implemerited with the creation of a plan, but, nonetheless, we recognise that the development of a reasonable plan is one of the conditions for introducing proper practices in the forest. In addition, forest regulation has an undoubted controlling value, because control through forest regulation has to do not with petty bureaucratic issues, but with the basic vital issues of the economy. With this dual significance, forest regulation deserves the full attention of the authorities and should be appropriately organized and implemented by trained person≠nel. "

The forest manager must not neglect any types of forest use in his descriptions. "The forest manager who would ne≠glect to thoroughly study factors relating to grass cutting in the forest because it is a trivial use of the forest, would be making a big mistake. Every enterprise is made up of trifles and none of them can be ignored without causing damage to the whole."

The forest manager also must remember that an explana≠tory note on the forest management plan is not a scientific treatise, but an economic report that will be used by forest workers. "The general description should be easily readable, not too voluminous. Therefore we recommend that, while he not miss anything that could be important for the future of the undertaking, the forest manager should make his description as brief as possible. He should especially avoid supplement≠ing his work with excerpts from various books to make it seem more scientific."

Rudzky deeply believed that the practice of Russian for≠estry management would fundamentally improve. "We can≠not doubt that public interest in the forest is now much greater that previously, and that the management of our state forests is, evidently, on the way to rational reorganization... We boldly express not only the hope, but the certainty that in the near future, after the refinement of regulations, state forest man≠agement will be gradually introduced in at least the more densely populated areas of Russia. Appropriate forest prac≠tices will be established that will meet the standards of both industrial development in the country and modern forest man≠agement science. Formerly obstacles to introducing forestry management were not only on paper, but in practice as well. One certain obstacle was the lack of reliable trained person≠nel. However, thirty years ago a sharp turn to the better was made in this regard, and there is no doubt that this is not such a problem today and Russia has, in general, enough trained personnel to confidently handle the protection of this immense public property. Regardless of how deficient our practices are today, they have given us a certain supply of observations and experience, however negative. Several individual experi≠ments are not devoid of positive results. The schools, also, have done their job little by little. The level of forest manage≠ment knowledge and general development of foresters has un≠doubtedly improved.

All of this leads us to the conclusion that the time is com≠ing, and it won't be long, when our forestry practices will be fundamentally better. Inept practitioners will be a thing of the past, and Russian foresters will boldly embark on a path to gradually improve their field. Its foundation will become more stable as we devote more study to the unique characteristics of our Russian forestry. We must refuse to slavishly imitate others, but consciously adapt general scientific data to the specifics of each case.

As forestry continues to develop along this path, the inten≠sity of work in the field will increase. The forest will begin to consume more capital and more intellectual labor and the size of management units will decrease. However, as expen≠ditures increase, the gross income from the forests will in≠crease even more, and, even more important, the forest will not only be protected as well as it is today, but even better. This increased intensity cannot help but affect forest regula≠tion. "

Rudzky attributed a significant role in the improvement of Russian forestry to the foresters themselves. "Of course, the introduction of an intensive forest management program will require that the forester, as the manager of the forest, exhibit great independence and responsibility toward his duties. We have already said that the quality of trained Russian foresters is relatively high in scientific and general development, and such a group can work independently and not fear the ac≠companying responsibility."

Rudzky was one of the first people in Russian forest regu≠lation work to propose the division of stands according to natural historical conditions. He called plots divided accord ing to this criteria conditional monoforms or sections. "The forester should, after a brief inspection, mentally divide all stands of the forest estate, regardless of their extreme hetero geneity, into a small number of conditional monoforms. The point of creating a small number of subdivisions is not to de crease the amount of work, but to ensure correct results. Even if there were time to establish a large number of subdivisions. the very abundance of them would create a clouded picture with blurred lines; the impression would be pale and diffused and the results would be devoid of required precision. Here, as in many questions of application, chasing after tiny differ≠ences would be as much of a mistake as ignoring such differ≠ences when conducting a scientific experiment"23 As an ex≠ample he cited seven sections, later called forest types.

In the work cited above, Rudzky was the first Russian for≠ester to advocate the creation of a unified classification sys≠tem for our forests. "Quality classes are, of course, artificial and have large gaps that do not exist in nature. This is what allows us to create a general classification system that is no'i based on local observations. A general classification of soils is advantageous because judgments can be made on the rela≠tive favorableness of growing conditions in different areas."

Rudzky was a remarkable forest scientist and left a bril≠liant mark on the theory and practice of Russian forestry. For example, the reconnaissance method of designating plots us≠ing survey lines, which he proposed in 1863, is still used to≠day. It has been included in many manuals, beginning with Instructions on the Organization of State Forests of 1894.

The Instructions of 1900 introduced a new organizational-management unit into the theory and practice of Russian for estry called the management unit. This idea of Rudzky solved a burning issue for forestry at the time and established a place for management in the system of organizational-management methods of forest regulation.xix

In the Guide to the Organization of Russian Forests (2nd edition, 1893), A. F. Rudzky wrote about the ethical relation≠ship between man and the forest. "The forest is capable of fulfilling not only man's material needs, but also many ethi≠cal needs... The idea of man as a being interested only in meeting his bodily requirements is undoubtedly false... We can rightfully consider the opportunity to fulfill the needs of our emotions and minds as much a part of the concept of well-being as the opportunity to fulfill our material needs.

...As a result of its relationship to the moral nature of man, the forest must be considered one of the essential ele≠ments of every society capable of progress." (p. 61)

The forest serves the ethical needs of society only while it still lives. When the forest is cut down, its ethical benefit dis≠appears, as well.

In this regard, Rudzky emphasized that the focus of na≠tional economy science should not be property, but people, and not imaginary people, but real people with their different requirements, both physical and spiritual.

Rudzky scientifically substantiated the need for state own≠ership of the forests. On this topic he wrote, "The state as a forest owner should treat the areas surrounding the state for≠ests almost as it treats the state property itself. The govern≠ment cannot allow profits derived from state land to harm the general well-being... Private ownership is the least ca≠pable of putting the public good before its own interests ...)." (p. 64-65)

With his work on forest regulation and forest mensura≠tion, A. F. Rudzky enriched Russian forest science and pro≠moted the development of forest management science in Rus≠sia.

xvi In 1877, Rudzky, with A. Bitnyi-Shlyakhto, a member of the Special Forestry Committee (of the Scientific Council), published Forest Regulation, which was written by Friedrich Udeich, director of the Tarand Forest Academy and translated from German (St. Petersburg, 1877,409+VII pp.).
xvii A. F. Rudzky devoted much time to agricultural issues, especially horticulture. In 1890, he founded the journal Horticulture, which he managed until 1895. At the end of the 1880's, he finished editing N. Goshe's extensive work Guide to Horticulture for Practitioners. which was published as a second edition in 1900. Rudzky, as editor, supplemented and adapted the original text for Russian horticulture.
In 1896, he founded a new publication called Nursery Practices. A Journal for Various Branches of Agriculture and Horticulture. The goal of the journal was to disseminate knowledge among the peasants through the national schools. Rudzky devoted the last years of his life to editing and organizing the publication of his major work The Complete Encyclopedia of Russian Agriculture and Related Sciences.
xviii In 1901, Professor N. P. Verekha spoke bitterly about how difficult it was for Rudzky to work on the problem of forest regulation. He said, "The scientific principles of forest regulation, introduced by its creator Fyodor Karlovich Arnold, were forgotten under the influence of the long-term 'simplified regulations'for the organization of Russian forests. Russian literature on forest regulation died, since its voice was not needed. Ruddy had to work practically alone, but that did not stop him. With a number of respected literary works, he strove to reach his goal. In addition to this, Rudzky attempted to free forest regulation and mensuration from the ballast which was unwisely attached to this branch of forestry by German silviculturists. While respecting their work, Rudzky was, nonetheless, opposed to transplanting them indiscriminately on Russian soil without acclimation in the Russian forests. Three publications of Forest Mensuration proves that Russian foresters appreciated his aspirations" (Verekha, P. N.,1901)
xix Later M. M. Orlov wrote that, "The introduction of the concept of management' into our forest regulation, while satisfying a pressing need in its practice, was widely recognised and applied. It appeared quietly, but has filled a dangerous void, and it is now considered a necessity and seems to have always existed." (M. M. Orlov, Forest Regulation. Vol. 3, St. Petersburg, 1928, p. 7).

VASILY TARASOVICH SOBICHEVSKY 1838-1902

Vasily Tarasovich Sobichevsky27 was born in Lipkani, Bessarabia Province. The Zhitomir chasseur regiment, in which Sobichevsky's father served, was stationed there. In 1855, V. T. Sobichevsky graduated from the Kaments-Podolsk school with a silver medal. He enrolled at Kiev University, where he graduated with a scientific degree in mathematics. Having decided to devote his life to the military, he applied to the First Pioneer Calvary Division, but the division was soon disbanded. In 1860, Sobichevsky enrolled in the forestry course at the Petersburg Forest Academy, which had been es≠pecially created for persons with a university degree. Teach≠ers at the academy included the famous forest scientists F. K. Arnold, N. V. Shelgunov, and others.

In December 1861, after finishing the theoretical course and spending eight months at the Lisino Forest Training Dis≠trict, SobichevsKy passed the graduation exams and was sent as a master sergeant to the Foresters Corps. In two months, he was sent on a two-year study program to Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and France. In Tarand, he attended lectures by the famous German forester and mathematician M. Pressler.

When he returned to Russia, Sobichevsky taught forest mensuration and regulation at the Forest Academy. After the Academy closed in 1865, he taught at the Petrovski Agricul≠tural and Forest Academy in Moscow. He worked there for sixteen years and became the first professor and first dean of the forest division. He combined teaching with research work (he established permanent experimental plots for forest crops at the Academy's experimental estate)28 and business (he man≠aged forest regulation for the Moscow Province as a forest regulation inspector).

Sobichevsky's scientific activity began in 1865 when he published a bibliographical review of new works on forest mensuration in the journal Agriculture and Forestry. In 1866, the same journal published his work Results of Work on Sev≠eral Issues of Forest Mensuration. In 1869, his interesting ar≠ticle on turpentining coniferous species appeared.29 At the time, turpentining was not widely practiced, but the scientist fore≠cast its great future. The article examines the physiological effect of turpentining on the condition and quality of wood, as well as its economic importance.

In 1871, Sobichevsky addressed the annual meeting of the Petrovski Academy and noted that the main task of forestry is the continual and beneficial use of timber without causing harm to the forest. This task could be fulfilled through knowl≠edge, using the power of nature over an ex≠tended period and man's labor over the course of several gen≠erations. He proposed creating experimental forest stations where well-developed long-ter plans could be constantly moni≠tored. The Experi≠mental Forest Estate of the Petrovskaya (no the Timiryazev) Academy was one such station. Experi≠ments developed by Sobichevsky and other scientists continue there even now.

In 1872, Moscow hosted a technology exhibition near the Kremlin walls in recognition of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Peter I. It included a large "Forestry Sec≠tion" that was organized by Sobichevsky. It was the first exhibit in Europe to showcase the accomplishments in for≠estry and the forest industries. For his work Sobichevsky was awarded a medal commemorating the 200th anniversary of Peter'sbirth. In 1873, Sobichevsky organized the forestry sec≠tion of the Polytechnical Museum, which he directed until his death.

In December 1877, at a meeting of the Society on Animal and Plant Acclimation, Sobichevsky presented a report on the theme "The Significance of the Successful Acclimation of Tree and Shrub Species in Forest Practice." He analyzed the state of this issue in Germany, noting mistakes that had been made in introducing several fast-growing species of North Ameri≠can origin. In conclusion, he made a strong case for the cre≠ation of experimental forest stations, where he believed prob≠lems with the acclimation of non-native species could be solved.

In August 1881, Sobichevsky became the director of the St. Petersburg Forest Institute and remained at the post for six years. At the end of 1887, he performed the duties of vice-inspector of the Foresters Corps, and at the beginning of 1888, he was appointed a member of the Special Forest Committee. After the reorganization of the Ministry of State Properties, he was appointed director of the forest bureau of the Special Forest Committee.

Sobichevsky published in nine journals. He wrote the for≠estry articles for letters B-K and edited the agricultural ar≠ticles through letter L for the Brockhaus and Efron encyclo≠pedic dictionary.xx

From 1870 to 1898, Sobichevsky was a constant partici≠pant in the Russian national congresses on agriculture and forestry. He was an honorary member of the Imperial Forest Institute, the Moscow and St. Petersburg Forest Societies, and an acting member of other societies.

Vasily Tarasovich Sobichevsky died on February 21,1913 and was buried at the Volkov Cemetery in St. Petersburg, where a monument, built with money collected by foresters, was erected in his honor.27 xxi

V. T. Sobichevsyi published a number of articles in vari≠ous publications.30

xix The encyclopedic dictionary was published by the joint-stock publishing company F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron. The first edition was printed in St. Petersburg with 82 main and 4 supplemental volumes. In 1911-1916 a new edition was undertaken. 29 of the planned 48 volumes were printed.
xx In the article by F. A. Komanenkov, 1951, Forestry, No. 4, the date of death is given as January 23, 1913.

MITROFAN KUZMICH TURSKY 1840-1899

Mitrofan Kuzmich Tursky was born in Narva.31 He com≠pleted the religious seminaryxxii and graduated from the de≠partment of physics and mathematics of the St. Petersburg University. After completing special forestry courses at the Petersburg Forest Institute, he was given the rank of lieuten≠ant in the Foresters Corps and in April 1864 was sent to the Perm Province as a forest surveyor. In 1867, he was appointed forester in the Nizhny Novgorod Province. In April 1869, he was promoted to forest inspector for "outstanding service qualities, work and conscientiousness" and worked at that post for five months. He was then appointed as instructor at the Lisino Forest (wildlife) School near St. Petersburg, where he taught for six years. In 1871, he published Tables for For≠est Mensuration.32

In 1875, Tursky was sent to Germany to study forest man≠agement, forestation and the teaching of forestry. He visited Prussia, Saxony and Bavaria and became convinced of the need to introduce and develop original methods of forest man≠agement. "We have models before us, but it is not enough to copy them. We must take from them only that which is really applicable and useful. The blind imitation of Western Euro≠pean models can lead to unexpected failures, and so it is at times harmful. Many circumstances require that we develop our own forestry methods. Until we begin to use our own in≠dependent forest practices, we will spin, as we do now, in an endless cycle of forms and rites, and won't improve our for≠ests one iota."33

On January 23, 1876, Tursky was appointed professor of the Petrovsky Agricultural Academy and chaired the depart≠ment of forestry. His students included the future famous sci≠entists V. R. Williams and G. N. Vysotsky.

Tursky was one of the founders of the Moscow Forest So≠ciety. Later he served as chairman of the Society until his death in 1899.

The creative legacy of Tursky is extremely diverse. In 1877-1880, he created a series of experimental forest crops at one of the oldest experimental research institutions, the Experi≠mental Forest Estate of the Academy. He conducted an ex≠periment on creating new pine crops through sowing and plant≠ing on a former meadow. In 1879, he conducted the first ex≠periments in Russia regarding the effect of the density of a planting on the growth of pine stands. In 1883, he was the first to experiment with the geographical planting of one and two-year-old seedlings.28 He managed to resolve several is≠sues with the help of these stands. These included the effect of tree density on stand growth, the effect of timing and plant≠ing methods on forest growth, the effect of tree care on the productivity and quality of the stand, the growth of introduced tree species, and others.

In 1893-1899, Tursky led a forest regulation study expedi≠tion to the Volga and Dniepr river basins. This expedition strongly influenced the study of the water retentive capabili≠ties of the forest. The expedition initiated the study of forests in the main river basins of the European part of Russia and continued the ideas of V. V. Dokuchayev about the water re≠tention role of the forest. The company of the expedition in≠cluded a young professor of the Petrovsky Academy and fu≠ture academician, V. R. Williams (1863-1939), who directed xxiAt the seminary he became friends with Nikoay Gerasimovich Pomyalovsky (1835-1863) who became a writer. the agronomy part of the expedition.xxiii In addition, the com≠pany included D. N. Anuchin (1843-1923), who directed the study group on lakes, N. I. Kuznetsov (1864-1932), who was in charge of botany, S. N. Nikitin (1851-1909), a hydrologist. These men all became academicians or corresponding mem≠bers of the Academy of Sciences. F. G. Zbrozhek, a hydrotechnician, was also a member of the group.

Tursky's scientific work encompasses four major areas of forest science and includes forty-three titles. Among the more important works are his unique textbook Forestry.34 which went through six editions. Organization of the Nikolskv For≠est Estate.35 and Determining Timber and Branch Volume36 (with L. I. Yashnov).

Tursky developed the valuable scale of light requirements for timber species. This scale was the basis for his method to determine the light requirements of trees by growing them in varying light environments. This scale appeared in almost every Russian for≠estry textbook thereafter. For the condi≠tions of Russia, "our timber species can be scaled in regard to shade tolerance, beginning with those requiring the most light, as follows: larch, birch, common pine, aspen, willow, oak, ash, maple, black alder, elm, Crimean pine, white al≠der, poplar, hornbeam, spruce, beech and fir.37

The scale for soil fertility require≠ments is also interesting. "Timber spe≠cies and shrubs of the central Russian zone can be scaled, beginning with spe≠cies requiring the most fertile soil, as follows: elm, ash, maple, raspberry, apple, pear, summer oak, small-leafed linden, black alder, white willow, fir, bird-cherry, walnut, common spruce, white al≠der, cedar, aspen, mountain ash, honey≠suckle, buckthorn, birch, larch, sallow willow, common juni≠per, and common pine. In this sequence, every species can grow in the richer soil required for the following species, but the reverse of this is not true. Of course, there are exceptions"37

Tursky's monograph The Organization of the Nikolskv For≠est Estate was for a long time very valuable for beginning forest regulationists. It presents a detailed, scientifically grounded plan for forest management.

In one of his first works and in Forestry. Tursky defined when forest management is required and pointed out the need to keep logging strictly commensurate with forest growth. "The main reason for the destruction of the forests is that man has cut them without calculation. He did not limit the annual harvest to a quantity that the forest can reproduce in a year; he cut more than the annual growth. So, there are no more forests."38

"Until the volume of use of a given forest reaches it natu≠ral reproductive ability, there will be no need to be concerned about timber production. When use begins to approach the productive capability of the forest, however, it becomes nec≠essary to worry about the supply of forest products. Other≠wise, we don't notice that use outweighs production and that the forest becomes depleted. If the depletion of the forest is not reversed, the forest will be destroyed.

Thus, the need for forest management becomes tangible only in those forests where the natural production of the for≠est does not meet the desired volume of use, i.e., when the forest is deficient"37

Tursky's approach to issues of forest regulation and plan≠ning was always sober and sometimes tough. He wrote, "Our forest regulation offers a list of proposals and projects to bring our forests into proper condition on the basis of scientifically developed methods. Meanwhile, the pro≠posals have no organisation. There is only a plan, an organisation project. The for≠ests will be organised only when the plan is carried out. Just as a house is consid≠ered built not when the plan is drawn up, but when the plan is fulfilled."39

From the economic point of view, Tursky's opinion on the forestation of logging cuts is highly applicable today. He preferred to use natural reforestation when possible. "One must be very care≠ful in dealing with the problem of refor≠estation on clearcuts so as not to incur excessive expenditures on crops. In the first years, it is difficult to decide if the cut is reforesting or not. In 5-10 years, not earlier, some kind of conclusion can be reached. A period of 5-10 years between the cutting of the forest and its regenera≠tion in long boles cannot be considered significant. There are no timber species that can be considered undesirable"38

A ceremony was held on July 29, 1912, in the square near the forestry department to dedicate a monument to M. K. Tursky. The face of the monument bears the inscription "To M. K. Tursky, 1840-1899" and a bas-relief depicting a peas≠ant boy watching as an old peasant man plants a tree. The back of the monument bears an inscription in bronze letters: "To the glorious sower of forests. From the Russian forest community."

N. G. Nesterov, one of Tursky's students, spoke to those gathered. At the end of his address he said, "Here, near the temple of scientific knowledge dedicated to the great deed of serving Russian agriculture, we dedicate this monument. It will serve as a reminder that in the rational coupling of agri≠culture and forestry lies the key to the flourishing of our na≠tional economy, to the beauty and strength of Russia."

Professor G. F. Morozov spoke next. "Why did his stu≠dents and admirers erect this monument to his memory? Above all, because of his moral character, his great kindness, sensi≠tivity and love for people and his remarkable forthrightness... He was a theoretician and a practitioner, one of the first origi≠nal foresters and forest philosophers. His complete works, with comments by his students, should be published. His lit≠erary work, as a reflection of his thoughts and practical ac≠tivities, should become one of the resources of forestry edu≠cation. The classics do not age ... they are eternally young."

xxiii The joint work of the expedition later led Academician V. R. Williams to acknowledge the great impact of the forest on agriculture. He believed that the forest is a powerful agro-technical tool and as a strong regulator of soil moisture it is a necessary feature of every county and region, regardless of climatic conditions. V. R. Williams highly valued M. K. Tursky as his forestry teacher.

MIKHAIL MIKHAILOVICH ORLOV 1867-1932

Mikhail Mikhailovich Orlov is a recognized leader in Rus≠sian forest science who made a significant contribution to the theory and practice of forest management and forest regula≠tion, forest mensuration and use, and forest education.40 M. M. Orlov was born in Yeletsky county, Orlov Province in a middle-class family.xxiv

In 1884, after graduating with honors from technical school, Orlov entered the St. Petersburg Forest Institute. He gradu≠ated in 1888xxv and received the rank of forester 1st class. He became a forester's assistant at the Lisino Forest Training Dis≠trict, which was managed at the time by D. M. Kravchinsky. In 1889, he received a scholarship for advanced studies at the forest regulation department at the Forest Institute. In 1890, he was sent for two years of forestry study to Germany, France, Switzerland and Austro-Hungary.

When he returned home, Orlov worked from 1892-1894 as the director of the forest regulation team at the Forest De≠partment of the Ministry of State Properties. In 1893, he met V. V. Dokuchayev for the first time.

In 1894, Orlov was appointed professor at the Novo-Aleksandrisky Institute of Agriculture and Forestry. When A. F. Rudzky died in 1901, Orlov chaired the department of for≠est regulation for more than thirty years, until February 1932.xxvi The department included three disciplines: forest mensuration, forest regulation and forest management.

In 1902, he became the director of the Okhta forest train≠ing estate. From 1904-1907, Orlov was the assistant director of the Petersburg Forest Institute, and in 1907, he became its director. In 1924, he became the first dean of the forestry fac≠ulty. In 1925, Professor Orlov was the chairman of Scientific Forest Committee of the Central Forest Authority of the Rus≠sian Federation (RSFSR) Narkozem. For his scientific, edu≠cational and public works, Orlov was granted the titles of Hon≠ored Professor in 1921, Hero of Labor in 1923, and Honored Figure of Science and Technology of the RSFSR in 1928. He was the first Russian forester to receive the latter title.

Mikhail Mikhailovich Orlov published 148 books and ar≠ticles, including 48 on forest regulation, 32 on forest mensu≠ration, 21 on forest management, 19 on forest economy, 15 on silviculture, and 12 on state forest practices. The volume of his published works totaled 600 printer's sheets (10,000 hand-written pages).

His most important works in the field of forest mensura≠tion were Forest Mensuration41 (three editions) and Auxil≠iary Forest Manual42 (eight editions).xxvii Works in the area of forest regulation included "The Okhta Forest Estate,"43 Forest Regulation44 in three volumes,xxviii Forest Management as the Fulfillment of Forest Regulation Planning.45 and Recur≠rent Issues in Forest Regulation.46 In the fields of forest pres≠ervation, forest use and forest management he published "Prin≠ciples of Forest Preservation in Russia,"47 Forests of the USSR.48 and Water Conservation and Protective Forests and Forest Parks.49 which appeared only in 1983.

The book The Okhta Forest Estate is recognized as a clas≠sic. It deals with issues that are still important today. These include: forest regulation by forest types, the block method of forest management, tables for pine and fir growth by forest type and by grade within the forest type.

Orlov's credo on forest mensuration was expressed in the phrase, "the inquiries of practice and mensuration are not always the same and require different methods. In addition, mensuration must satisfy the inquiries of scientific research, which demands precise results, regardless of how complicated or difficult the methods are. Finally, it is important to under≠stand that serving narrow pragmatism can only be successful when scientific method is applied to all work. It is not enough to be satisfied with knowing the 'how' without also seeking the answer to the question 'why'."50 Oriov understood that the importance of forest mensuration was much broader than presumed by the contemporaries of Rudzky and his own col≠leagues, who interpreted Rudzky's views on the "mathemati-zation" of forest mensuration without complete accuracy.xxix

In 1911, Professor Oriov developed a classification sys≠tem for stands by grade classes that was very significant for the development of forest regulation. His general grade scale is still used today.

It must be noted that Oriov contributed to the compilation of forest regulation instructions of 1904xxx and 1908. He was in charge of the compilation of the Instructions of 1911,1914 and 1926. The basic premises of the 1926 Instructions were in force until the 1950's.xxxi

Oriov developed an original system of regional economic divisions of the USSR based on percentages of forest land, population, transportation and economic development of the forest.

Oriov dedicated Forest Regulation, in three volumes, to the memory of his teachers F. K. Arnold and A. F. Rudzky. This major scientific practical work summarized forest regu≠lation experience around the world. There is not another pro≠fessional scientific work of this stature in the world literature of the field. The book deals with the principles of scientific method, efficiency, scholarship and practicality.

Oriov supported scientific forest typology. He opposed only the descriptive aspect of this issue. He focused his attention on the deep silvicultural (and economic) study of concrete forest types in the interest of both science and forestry. His works further developed the basic principles originated by Russian scientists on forest typology. These include Rudzky's prototype and monoform (1888), V. Ya. Dobroblyansky's stand types (1888), Kravchinsky's silvicultural types (1896), N. K. Genko's stand types (1902), Morozov's stand types (1904), and others.

Oriov advocated mechanized concentrated clear cuts not only on scientific grounds. He was also a supporter of selec≠tive cutting. He developed a method for gradual selective cut≠ting, which entered the forestry textbooks as a method called the Oriov cut. At the turn of the century he proposed clear cutting and trough cutting on the "Ruda" forest estate near Novo-Aleksandria based on the use of advance growth for pine.51

Orlov devoted much attention to the issue of reforestation and focused on ways to create forest crops using mechaniza≠tion. He dealt with this issue in a number of his works: A Historical View on Artificial Forest Regeneration in Rus≠sia (1895), Research Report on Forest Crop Work in the State Forest Districts of Several Russian Regions. (1903), The Needs of Russian Forestry (1906) and others.

In his monograph Forest Management as the Fulfill≠ment of Forest Regulation Planning, Orlov summarized forest management experience worldwide. Orlov consid≠ered it strange that in a country where forests covered more than half of the territory, forest management and forest economics played a small role in the overall management of the national economy. Forest economics was always treated as a "stepchild" to one of the more influential partners (branches of industry), who worried the least about the fate of the forests and forest practices. In this regard, Orlov wrote, "Forestry in Russia is one of a kind. . . and the structure of management must be special..."

At this time in Russia there was not a forest ministry that represented forestry interests. Therefore Orlov wrote that, "when various interests clash with the forest, the latter, hav≠ing no special representation, is always doomed to defeat. This is because it is difficult to escape the preconception that our forests are many and that they grow by themselves. If some≠thing in them is not quite right, it does not have to be dealt with today or by us, but sometime in the future and by those who come after us."

In this regard he recommended and substantiated scien-tifically the reorganization of forest practices. "The first step of forest management reform should be to make it indepen≠dent, to make it economically self-sufficient. Forest manage≠ment should be guided not by economizing on expenditures, but increasing income" However, the independence of for≠estry had to be tempered with increased accountability for the results of its actions. He gave the main responsibility for this to the forester, who is "the center and soul of any system of forest management."

In the area of forest experimentation, Orlov published Views on Organizing Forest Experimentation in Russia (1915) and Reviving Forest Experimentation on a National Scale (1926). He developed the first project to organize forest ex≠perimentation in Russia in 1896. From 1907-1917, he chaired a standing committee on forest experimentation. During the years of Soviet power (1917-1930), he also directed the USSR agencies on forest experimentation.

M. M. Orlov devoted special attention to the issue of for≠est ownership and the creation of a unified forest policy for the whole country. He was adamantly opposed to the local≠ization of forestry, about which he wrote, "All parts of the country stand to benefit from the development of a standard≠ized Russian forest management system. In this regard, nar≠row local, county or regional measures regarding the forests of European Russia cannot be allowed to dominate or even to appear that are not subordinate to the general principles, which should be established for the forests of the entire coun≠try".

Orlov created his own scientific school which included renowned scientists, educators and practitioners, such as N. P. Anuchin, A. A. Baitin, N. I. Baranov, S. A. Bogoslovsky, P. V. Voropanov, 0. 0. Gernitz, V. K. Zakharov, G. P. Motovilov, A. A. Tarashkevich, M. Ye. Tkachenko, D. I. Tovstoles, N. V. Tretyakov, A. V. Tyurin, M. M. Shef, and others.

M. M. Orlov died on December 25, 1932 at work from a brain hemorrhage. His death was the result of public persecu≠tion of the scientist for his "bourgeois theories." Orlov never changed "his position regarding the sustainability of forest use.xxxiii

Over the course of thirty years not a single significant na≠tional forestry problem was solved without the help of Orlov. A Russian proverb states that "Much is expected from him, to whom much has been given." M. M. Orlov was given much, but even more was asked of him. He was the main recipient of blame for all that was wrong in the country's forest sector, from science to industrial forest operations. Orlov's authority and publicistic skills were so great, however, that he was vic≠torious in the debate. Then his work and, more importantly, his replies to his opponents, ceased to be published. Insults and personal attacks poured in from all sides. The cruelest blow came at the beginning of the 1932-33 academic year when Orlov was expelled from the department he had chaired for thirty years. Orlov's name was discredited for many yearsxxxiii and Russian forestry was a long time recovering, as were genetics and selection and the scientists who created them. Despite everything, the creative legacy of M. M. Orlov remains. As a scientist, educator, practitioner, and adminis≠trator, Orlov rightfully belongs among the giants of Russian forest science.

xxiv His mother, Darya Alekseyevna Kostomarova, was the niece of the famous Russian historian N. I. Kostomarov (1817-1885). The family had five sons-Mikhail, Fyodor, Pavel, Vladimir and Socrat-and one daughter, Maria. All of the boys except Mikhail entered the cadet corps and became professional military men. The daughter was not educated.
xxv The main departments at the Institute then were chaired by famous scientists and educators of the day: P. A. Kostychev in soil science, I. P. Borodin in botany, N. S. Shafranov and D. M. Kravchinsky in forestry, N. A. Kholodkovsky in entomology, A. F. Rudzky in forest regulation, D. N. Kaigorodov in forest technology and others.
Orlov studied with students who later became leading figures in the field: V. Ya. Dobrovlyansky, V. D. Ogiyevsky, 1.1. Surozh, and V. I. Stankevich. xxvi M. M. Orlov sought to give as much independence as possible to each discipline. At his suggestion, the department was split to create in 1921 the department of forest mensuration, headed by Prof. N. V. Tretyakov, and in 1924 the department of forest economy, chaired by Prof. S. A. Bogoslovsky. The former department of forest mensuration became the department of forest practice organization, which included two disciplines: forest regulation and forest management.
xxvii It is noteworthy that the first edition ofAFB contained 41 tables and the eighth edition contained more than 100.
xxviii M. M. Oriov dedicated this major work to his teachers: "This work is dedicated to the memory of my teachers and predecessors F. K. Arnold and A. F. Rudzky."
Before the foreword Oriov wrote the following passages. "Recognizing that the bridge ahead is a bridge to the past and gratefully recalling the wonderful lessons of my forestry teachers, /feel a duty to honor their memories. Therefore, I dedicate to them this work, which is a continuation and further development of those beginnings found in Arnold's work The Evaluation of Acting Capital in the Forest and Rudzky's Manual for the Organization of Russian Forests."
The beginning of Russian forest regulation in the 1840's is tightly connected to the names of Arnold and count Vargas de Bedemar. Fifty years of Arnold's influence was felt in the practice of forest regulation, for he was the compiler and main contributor to almost all the forest regulation Instructions from 1845 to 1900. The last half of the 19th century in Russian forest regulation stands out mainly because of the work of Arnold's student, A. F. Rudzky, who directed the theoretical development of Russian foresters...
...Much has changed beyond recognition, but the basic principles laid out by Arnold and Rudzky - scientific approach, efficiency, accountability, and practicality - remain unchanged." (Forest Regulation. Vol. 1, p. V).
xxix In 1880 Rudzky's article "The Content and Direction of Forest Mensuration" (Prague, Forest Journal. 1880, No. 1) was published. Rudzky was long criticized by some for not considering the consequences of what he wrote in the article and for causing stagnation in the school of Russian forest mensuration. Oriov attempted to overcome this.
xxx During work on the Instructions of 1904, Oriov, for the first time, established the scientific concept of forest regulation. "Work on the compilation of apian of forest practice is organization of the forest, forest regulation or organization of forest practice in a given forest estate..., but forest regulation as a theory and science is the creation of principles that determine the solution to all possible practical tasks."
xxxi In 1924, the journal Forestry. Forest Industry and Fuel published a small article by Oriov entitled "Forest Regulation and Aerial Forest Surveys" (No. 12, September, p. 11-13). Forest surveying from the air was at that time taking its first steps. Oriov recognized its enormous possibilities for forest research, and in the 1926 Instructions raised the issue of using aerial surveys in forest regulation.
xxxii The drama of the events of the 1930's stemmed from the need of the growing economy for huge amounts of timber, which could be supplied only by violating the principles of forestry and forest regulation plans. This meant a retreat from the principle of sustained and gradual forest use. This principle was declared to be reactionary and Orlov was accused of sabotage.
Foresters were under severe political, party and administrative pressure. They began to be retrained in millwork. This was the reason that M. E. Tkachenko, the number one forester of the mid 1930's, told one of his students, "It is bad to be a forester."Morozov, Tkachenko, Sukachev, Bogoslovsky, Tretyakov and others were called things, in comparison with which "bourgeois scientist" seems rather soft.
xxxiii The scientific debate went beyond allowable limits and even in professional literature there were articles with titles like "Uproot the Enemies of the People in Forestry" (Forest Protection. 1937, No.l). One issue (Forest Protection. 1937, No. 3) said, "Fulfillment of the grandiose tasks defined for forestry by the party and government has already in the first five-year plan (1928/29-1932/33) met resistance from the harmful bourgeois theories of the science promoted by the school of Morozov, Orlov and others. A merciless war has been launched against these conservative theories, but undoubtedly the roots of this school have yet to be dug out."

NIKOLAY PAVLOVICH ANUCHIN 1903-1984

Nikolay Pavlovich Anuchin was one of the most impor≠tant specialists in the fields of forest use, forest regulation and forest mensuration during the Soviet period. He was born in the village of Larikovo, Kirillov County, Vologda Province.xxxiv His father was the manager of a small privately owned butter factory.

N. P. Anuchin, who grew up among the vast Vologda for≠ests, went to Moscow where he decided to enroll at the Mos≠cow Technical Forest Institutexxxv He then changed his mind and set off for Petrograd, where in 1921 he enrolled at the Petrograd (Leningrad from 1924) Forest Institute (now the St. Petersburg Technical Forest Academy).

His teachers included leading scientists and educators. M. M. Orlov chaired the department of forest regulation and was the dean of the forestry faculty. V. N. Obolensky taught phys≠ics and meteorology. B. N. Menshutkin taught general chemistry. N. N. Pavlovsky, a future academician of the USSR, taught hydrotechnology and N. I. Nikitin, who later became a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, taught timber and forest chemistry. M. N. Rimsky-Korsakov taught biology, general zoology and forest entomology. A. A. Yachevsky, later a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, taught a course on phytopathology. M. E. Tkachenko taught general forestry, while N. P. Kobranov taught specific forestry and L. A. Ivanov taught plant anatomy and physiology. G. G. Dopplemaier taught the biology of forest animals and birds, K. K. Gedroitz taught soil science and A. K. Mitropolsky taught statistics.

When Anuchin graduated from the for≠est regulation department of the Institute, he was sent to work as an assistant forester at the Lisino Ex≠perimental Training Forest District. One time directors of the district included I. G. Voinyukov, F. K. Arnold, N. V. Shelgunov, D. M. Kravchinsky, N. P. Kobranov, M. M. Orlov, and M. Ye. Tkachenko. Anuchin soon became a district for≠ester. With the scientific guidance of M. M. Orlov he pub≠lished his first articles on setting prices and calculating the cost of timber products.52

In 1929, Anuchin became the chief specialist of the Scien≠tific Forest Committee of the Central Forest Administration of the Narkomzem RSFSR and moved to Moscow. In 1935, he defended his candidate's dissertation, in 1939 his doctoral dissertation and was made a professor. In 1944, he became the chairman of the department of forest mensuration and for≠est regulation of the Moscow Technical Forest Institute (now the Moscow State Forest University) and remained so until his death forty years later.

Anuchin actively worked at high-level administrative po≠sitions and was continually drawn by work at higher educa≠tional institutions.xxxvi

In 1956, Anuchin became a correspond≠ing member and in 1966 an academician at the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. He worked as an academician-secretary at the Academy 1960-1965.

Anuchin addressed many world forest congresses (USA, Spain, Austria), interna≠tional conferences, symposia and seminars. He was an honorary member and laureate of a number of foreign academies and uni≠versities (Finland, Hungary, Czechoslova≠kia).

During the course of his fifty-year aca≠demic career Anuchin trained a large num≠ber of forestry and forest industry special≠ists. He leant his scientific guidance to the preparation of over forty candidate and doc≠toral dissertations.

Anuchin published over 250 works.53 His textbooks, books, and references pro≠vided a reliable guide for many generations of forestry stu≠dents and practitioners.

Anuchin's great contribution was recognized with the high≠est awards of the USSR: the Order of Lenin, two Orders of the Red Banner of Labor, the Order of Peoples' Friendship and many other medals.

Anuchin played a visible role in developing the theory and practice of forest mensuration, sustainable forest use, forest organization, and development of the theories of forest utili≠zation and harvest maximization.

The period between the late 1940' to the early 1960's again saw heated discussion of the principle of sustainable use. The censure of the Orlov school, to which Anuchin and only a few others remained faithful, had its impact on the debate. In defending the principle of sustainable use against periodic use, Anuchin decided to appeal to public opinion about the fate of the country's forests. He and his colleague Ye. 0. Lopukhov turned to the already famous writer L. M. Leonov. Leonov's novel The Russian Forest (in the magazine Znamya) - for which the author received the Lenin Prize in 1957 - appeared at the end of 1953 and gave birth to new discussion. The mission had been accomplished; the theory of sustainable use gained public support.

Anuchin contributed a great service when he introduced the theory of sustainable use in Principles of Forest Legisla≠tion of the USSR and Union Republics (1977).

Anuchin's major works include Grading and Marketing Tables (seven editions). Forest Mensuration (five editions, translated into many languages). Forest Regulations (two edi≠tions), The Theory and Practice of Forest Organization (1977), Forestry and Nature Conservation (1979) and Problems of Forest Use (1984).

Nikolay Pavlovich Anuchin died on June 7, 1984 unex≠pectedly at a general institute meeting when he descended from the podium after his speech. On the same day, his eldest daughter, Galina defended her doctoral dissertation in chem≠istry.

xxxiv The author of the article, V. K. Teplyakov, was Anuchin's last Ph.D. student.
xxxv TheMTFI, which opened in 1919, employed such important scientists and academicians as S.A. Chaplygin, M. V. Shuleikin, A. F. loffe, 0. Yu. Schmidt, N. N. Luzin, V. N. Obraztsov, D, I. Vvedensky, M. A. Lavrentiev, V. K. Arkadiev, V. P. Bushinsky, N. A. Kalugin, professors N. S. Nesterov, N. S. Zherebov, L. M. Perelygin, V. E. Vetchinkin, N. N. Buchgoltz, Ye. Ye. Uspensky, N. P. Kobranov, G. M. Tursky, Yu. V. Engelgard, and others.
xxxvi Anuchin was the assistant director of the Siberian Technical Forest Institute in Krasnoyarsk (1938-1943), the director of the main forestry office of the USSR Ministry of Forest Industry (1943-1948), assistant director of the Moscow Technical Forest Institute (1949-1960), director of the All-Union (national) Scientific Research Institute of Forestry and Mechanization (VNIILM, 1960-1971).
In the 1960's, Anuchin practically directed the work at Gosplan USSR on providing state expertise for determining the size and location of logging sites. The most important project where he provided expertise was the creation of the new five-year plans for the nation's economy between 1965-1975.
He actively participated in the work of the forestry section of the commission of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the USSR Committee for Science and Technology to develop variations of complex programs for scientific and technological progress and its social and economic consequences for 1976-1990.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Manual on Forest Unit Management at the Mines of the Ural Range Based on Principles of Forest Science and Efficiency. 1830. St. Petersburg, Ministry of Finance Publications.
2. Klimov,V. I. 1950. Aleksandr Yefimovich Teploukhov in: Forestry, No. 4.
3. Surveys and Preliminary Organization of the Forest on Private Estates. 1840. Forestry, Part 3, Book 3. p. 323-395.
4. Instructions on Forestry: Forests, Logging, Forest Cleanup, Deforestation. Rural Discussions. Readings for students of the Marino School of Applied Agriculture and Trades. 1842. Talks XII-XV, St. Petersburg.
5. Forest Organization on Country Estates. Manual for Stewards, Foresters, Land Surveyors. 1848. Compiled by Aleksandr Teploukhov, Corresponding Member of the Imperial Free Economic Society. Publication made possible by a grant from the Free Economic Society, St. Petersburg, VII. 225 pp., with five tables.
6. ē A short description of forest practices at the Perm entailed estate of the Stroganovs, 1859.
ē A look at forestry on the industrial estates of Countess N. P. Stroganova, 1859.
ē A historical look at forestry practices at the Perm common estate of Countess N. P. Stroganova, 1881.
7. Thinning and Selective Cutting. 1848. Forest Journal, No. 27. p. 209-214.
8. Depletion of Water Sources after Clearing the Soil of Forest Growth. 1942. Forest Journal, Part IV, Book 1. p. 126-127.
9. Detailed Instructions on Simple Methods to Mechanically Break Down Forest Soil. 1850. Forest Journal, No. 16, p. 126-127, No. 17, p. 129-132, No. 18, p. 137-139.
10. Advantages and Disadvantages of Cleaning Up Deadfall, Brushwood, and Other Litter in the Forest. 1850. Forest Journal. Issues 2 & 3.
11. Polyakov, A. N. 1991. An Outstanding Figure in Forest Mensuration and Regulation (on the 175th Anniversary of the Birth ofVargas de Bedemar). Forestry, No. 11. p. 46-47.
12. Forest Journal. 1846. Nos. 1 & 2.
13. Vargas de Bedemar, A. R. 1850. The Study of Forest Stock and Growth in the Stands of the St. Petersburg Province from 1843 to 1848. St. Petersburg. First publication: Vargas de Bedemar, A. R. 1848. The Study of Forest Stock and Growth in the Stands of the St. Petersburg Province from 1843 to 1848. Forest Journal, Nos. 45,47,48,49.
14. Polyakov, A. N. 1993. 130 Years of the Experimental Forestry Estate TSKhA: An Overview. Moscow, VNIITsLesresurs, 2-26 pp. (Silviculture and Forestation, Issue 5), p. 2.
15. Schwappach, A. 1909. The Study of Mixed Stands. Forest and Hunting. No. 5.
16. Polyakov, A. N. 1994. The Patriarch of Russian Forestry; On the 175th Anniversary of the Birth of F. K. Arnold. Forestry, No. 6, p. 16-17.
17. Arnold, F. K. 1858. Forest Mensuration. Course of In≠struction at the Forest and Survey Institute, St. Petersburg, VI, 276 pp. and 26 tables (2nd edition, 1868, VII, 282 pp.
18. Arnold, F. K. 1893. The Russian Forest, 2nd edition, St. Petersburg. A. F. Marks Publishing, Vol. 1 - xvi, 325 pp., + 79 pp. of appendixes; Vol. 2 - xx, 705 pp. with appendixes, 17 plates and 125 wood engravings; Vol. 3, 585 pp. and 425 drawings.
19. Anuchin, N. P. 1950. Aleksandr Felitsianovich Rudzky in: Leading Figures in Russian Forestry, Issue 2. Mos≠cow, Goslesbumizdat. pp. 30-49. 20. Rudzky, A. F. Forest Mensuration. St. Petersburg.
21. Rudzky, A. F. 1877. Forest Regulation.
22..Rudzky, A. F. 1899. A Brief Summary of Forest Regulation. St. Petersburg.
23. Rudzky, A. F. 1888,1893. Guide to the Organization of Russian Forests. St. Petersburg.
24. Rudzky, A. F. 1897. The Forestry Reference Book. St. Petersburg.
25. Rudzky, A. F. 1881. Discussions on the Forest. St. Petersburg.
26. Forest Journal. 1880. Petrograd. No. 1, p. 45.
27. Polyakov, A. N. 1993. Famous Names: V. T. Sobichevsky. Forestry. No. 3, p. 41-43.
28. Polyakov, A. N. 1993. 130 Years of the Experimental Forest Estate of the TSKhA: An Overview. Moscow, VNIITsLesresurs, 2-26 pp. (Silviculture and Forestation, Issue 5).
29. The Importance of Tapping Coniferous Trees in Forest Practice as a Secondary Use of the Russian Forests. 1869, Moscow, Moscow Agricultural Society. Russian Agriculture.
30. ē In addition to those mentioned above: Innovations in Using Form Factors to Determine the Stock Volume. 1873. Forest Journal, Issue 3.
ē The Present State of Harvest Rotations and Forest Man≠agement Practices. 1873. Russian Agriculture.
ē On the Question of Size of Tree Stem Thickness Classes When Determining Stock Volume. 1878. News of the Petrovski Agricultural and Forest Academy.
ē Materials for Forest Statistics Collected at the Petrovski Forest Estate. Forest Journal.
31. Eitingen, G. F. 1950. Mitrofan Kuzmich Tursky in Leading Figures of Russian Forestry, 2nd edition, Mos≠cow, Goslesbumizdat. p. 50-55. Vostryshev, M. A. For≠estry Giant in: Moskovskaya Pravda, April 25, 1996.
32. Tursky, M. K. 1871. Tables for Forest Mensuration. Moscow. 8 editions.
33. Tursky, M. K. 1877. Models of Forest Management. Forest Journal, No. 1.
34. Tursky, M. K. 1892. Forestry. Moscow, V. Marakuyev Publishers. 356 pp.
35. Tursky, M. K. 1886. Organization of the Nikolsky For≠est Estate. Moscow.
36. Tursky, M. K. 1885. Determining Timber and Branch Volume, Moscow. 4th edition.
37. Tursky, M. K. 1954. Moscow. Forestry, 6th edition.
38. Tursky, M. K. 1872. New Forest Growth after Log≠ging. Agriculture and Forestry, August.
39. Tursky, M. K. 1871. Some Observations on Account≠ability on Forest Management for 1868. Agriculture and Forestry, October, p. 113-125.
40. Works of Professor M. M. Orlov and their Significance to Forestry (on the 100th anniversary of his birth). 1969. Scientific Works of the LLTA, No. 129,
Leningrad, 160 pp. Materials of the conference dedicated to the 125th anniversary of the birth of M. M. Orlov. 1993. Mos≠cow, VNIILM. 54 pp.
41. Orlov, M. M. 1923. Forest Mensuration, Petrograd, New Village. 420 pp.; Orlov, M.M. 1929. Forest Men≠suration, 3rd edition, reedited and supplemented, Leningrad, Forestry and Forest Industry. 532 pp.
42. Orlov, M.M. 1910. Auxiliary Forest Booklet, For For≠esters, Forest Surveyors and Forest Owners, St. Peters≠burg, A. F. Marks Publishers. 193 pp.; Orlov, M. M., Auxiliary Forest Booklet. For Mensuration and Techni≠cal Calculations. 1931. Moscow, Leningrad, Selkolkhozgiz, 8th edition. 729 pp.
43. Orlov, M.M. 1907. The Okhta Forest Estate Under the St. Petersburg Forest Institute. News of the Forest In≠stitute, Issue 16. p. 1-170.
44. Orlov, M.M. 1927. Elements of Forest Practice. For≠est Regulation, Vol. 1. Leningrad. Forestry, Forest In≠dustry and Fuel. 428 pp.; Planning Preparation for For≠est Practice. 1928. Forest Regulation, Vol. 2. Leningrad. Forestry, Forest Industry and Fuel. 326 pp.; Forest Prac≠tice Planning, 1928. Forest Regulation, Vol. 3. Leningrad. Forestry, Forest Industry and Fuel. 348 pp.
45. Orlov, M.M. 1930. Forest Management as the Fulfill≠ment of Forest Regulation Planning. Leningrad. For≠estry and Forest Industry. 491 pp.
46. Orlov, M.M. 1931. Recurtent Issues in Forest Regula≠tion (1927-1930). Materials for the Review of Forest Regulation Technology Issues. Leningrad. Forestry and Forest Industry. 171 pp.
47. Orlov, M. M. 1911. Principles of Forest Preservation in Russia. Report to the Russian National Congress of Forest Owners and Managers for the Discussion of a Protective Forest Zone. St. Petersburg. 69 pp.
48. Orlov, M.M. 1931, Forests of the USSR: A Statistical Review. Moscow, Leningrad, Gosnauchtekhizdat. 95 pp.
49. Orlov, M. M. 1983. Water Conservation and Protec≠tive Forests and Forest Parks, Organizing and Imple≠menting Practices. Moscow, Forest Industry. 88 pp. 50. Orlov, M. M., 1928. Forest Mensuration. Petrograd. p. 8.
51. Marchenko, A. G. 1916. Use of Pine Undergrowth at the 'Ruda' Forest Estate in Collected Articles on For≠estry in Honor of 25 Years of Professor M. M. Orlov's Work, Petrograd. p. 163-170.
52. Anuchin.N.P. 1928. Setting Prices for Timber Prod≠ucts. Forestry and Forest Industry, No. 2, p. 19-26; Anuchin.N.P. 1929. Methods of Calculating the Base Price of Timber Products. Forestry and Forest Industry, No. 2/3, p. 33-41.
53. Anuchin, N. P. 1984. Bibliography of Agricultural Sci≠entists. Moscow, VASKhNIL. 32 pp.


<< Preview page Table of Contents Next page >>


Share |
Back to top of this page Back to Homepage

Mail us!

id=