106
J . ROGER BRAY AND EVILLE G O R H A M
from the canopy. Each pail was wired to two adjacent steel posts to
hold it level. The bottom of the pail was slightly above ground surface,
and was perforated to allow for drainage of rain and snow melt. A
copper screen was placed on the bottom of each pail to prevent tiny
litter particles such as bud scales from washing through the drainage
holes. Samples were taken at three or more irregular intervals during
the year, the major collection being made at the close of leaf-fall. A few
leaves blew into the pails in winter and early spring after the canopy
opened and leaf-fall was complete. These leaves were discarded from
the sample. All stem material in the pails was collected along with that
portion of any fallen stem lying directly above the inside perimeter of a
pail. All material of animal origin, including fecal matter, was rejected
from the sample. Samples from 1960 and 1961 were oven-dried at 70". I n
1958 and 1961 leaf samples were ashed in a muffle furnace at around
550°C for 24 h, to measure mineral content.
Litter-fall and ash content are shown in Table 11. The similarity of
leaf litter values indicates a rather uniform yearly production. Stem
data are much more variable.
TABLE I1
Litter Production in Glendon Hall Forest,
Toronto, Canada
Litter fall (metric tons/ha/yr)
1957 1958 1960 1961 Mean
Leaf, incl. bud scales, fruit 2.8
3.2
3.2
3-1
3-1
Stem, incl. bark
0.6
3.2
0.5
0.8
1.3
Total
3.4
6.3
3.7
3.9
4.3
(% d r y w t )
- 7.9
- 9.0 8.4
Ash content of leaves
B. WORLD REVIEW
Literature containing data on litter-fall was reviewed in Biological
Abstracts, Forestry Abstracts and miscellaneous journals. Coverage is
undoubtedly incomplete owing to the wide range of journals and annual
reports in which data of this kind are published. Biologists in areas for
which data could not be found were consulted for literature references
and for unpublished material. We are most grateful to many biologists
throughout the world who answered our letters of inquiry. The following
have very kindly supplied unpublished data or additional information
about published data: Dr D. H. Ashton, Dr J. Brynaert, Dr H. R. De
Selm, Mr A. Deville, Mr E. J. Dimock, Mr G. S. Meagher, Mr B. A.
Mitchell, Dr J. S. Olson, Dr A. M. Schultz, Dr L. J. Webb, Drs F. D.
Hole and G. A. Nielsen.
J . ROGER BRAY AND EVILLE G O R H A M
from the canopy. Each pail was wired to two adjacent steel posts to
hold it level. The bottom of the pail was slightly above ground surface,
and was perforated to allow for drainage of rain and snow melt. A
copper screen was placed on the bottom of each pail to prevent tiny
litter particles such as bud scales from washing through the drainage
holes. Samples were taken at three or more irregular intervals during
the year, the major collection being made at the close of leaf-fall. A few
leaves blew into the pails in winter and early spring after the canopy
opened and leaf-fall was complete. These leaves were discarded from
the sample. All stem material in the pails was collected along with that
portion of any fallen stem lying directly above the inside perimeter of a
pail. All material of animal origin, including fecal matter, was rejected
from the sample. Samples from 1960 and 1961 were oven-dried at 70". I n
1958 and 1961 leaf samples were ashed in a muffle furnace at around
550°C for 24 h, to measure mineral content.
Litter-fall and ash content are shown in Table 11. The similarity of
leaf litter values indicates a rather uniform yearly production. Stem
data are much more variable.
TABLE I1
Litter Production in Glendon Hall Forest,
Toronto, Canada
Litter fall (metric tons/ha/yr)
1957 1958 1960 1961 Mean
Leaf, incl. bud scales, fruit 2.8
3.2
3.2
3-1
3-1
Stem, incl. bark
0.6
3.2
0.5
0.8
1.3
Total
3.4
6.3
3.7
3.9
4.3
(% d r y w t )
- 7.9
- 9.0 8.4
Ash content of leaves
B. WORLD REVIEW
Literature containing data on litter-fall was reviewed in Biological
Abstracts, Forestry Abstracts and miscellaneous journals. Coverage is
undoubtedly incomplete owing to the wide range of journals and annual
reports in which data of this kind are published. Biologists in areas for
which data could not be found were consulted for literature references
and for unpublished material. We are most grateful to many biologists
throughout the world who answered our letters of inquiry. The following
have very kindly supplied unpublished data or additional information
about published data: Dr D. H. Ashton, Dr J. Brynaert, Dr H. R. De
Selm, Mr A. Deville, Mr E. J. Dimock, Mr G. S. Meagher, Mr B. A.
Mitchell, Dr J. S. Olson, Dr A. M. Schultz, Dr L. J. Webb, Drs F. D.
Hole and G. A. Nielsen.