tory. In every case the parties to the agreement try to get the best of the bargain, with the result that negotiations are drawn out for years; there is nothing permanent in the final agreement, and one State invariably gets the best of the bargain at the expense of the others.

In spite of above findings, together with the vote of the previous conference, the National Resources Committee Report now advocates the State compact plan. The final recommendation of the Committee is that no move be made to strengthen Federal antipollution laws, but that the Potomac River drainage basin be made an outdoor laboratory to demonstrate what can be accomplished by means of negotiations and active cooperation between the four States affected, viz: Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. It is suggested that administration of the project be placed in the hands of a committee of five members, one from each of the four States mentioned, the fifth to be a representative of the National Resources Committee. Estimated cost of the project, including all forms of domestic and industrial wastes, research, and administration, is $15,000,000. It must be borne in mind that no appropriation has been made. The document is merely a recommendation that such appropriation be made available. The success of the proposal hinges upon three factors: The personnel of the administrative committee, the securing of appropriations sufficiently large for the purpose, the ability to secure the necessary cooperation of the four States whose effluent effects the drainage basin.

The findings of the special committee's report are so important as to warrant a more constructive recommendation than is the case. The recommendation is more bureaucratic minded than action conscious. It is likely that a real conservation bill, calling for direct Federal control of the pollution problem will be introduced in the present session of Congress. Its sponsor will undoubtedly be Senator Lonergan, of Connecticut, who arranged for the original conference in Washington. Watch for this bill, you conservationists, you who believe in Dr. Theobold Smith's statement that "the American people must destroy water pollution or it will destroy us."

PRACTICAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

FRIDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 7, 1936

Chairman: W. L. MCATEE, United States Biological Survey. Committee: F. C. EDMINSTER, New York State Conservation Department, Albany, N. Y.; L. G. MCNAMARA, New Jersey Board of Game Commissioners.

PERMANENT FOOD AND COVER FOR WILDLIFE IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

(By N. W. HOSLEY, Harvard Forest, Petersham, Mass.)

(Preliminary comment: I would like to say that I have confined myself to the Northeast. What little knowledge I have on the behavior of these various plants is limited to the Northeast, and the main part of my observations have been in Michigan and Massachusetts.)

The improvement of the environment as a means of increasing wildlife is given by Leopold (5) as the last step in the sequence of measures used in any region. It is only during the last two decades that anything has been done with songbirds along that line in this country, and only during a much shorter time has anything been done for the environment of game species.

Although annual food patches have a very definite and valuable place in wildlife management, for some uses plantings with woody species have many advantages over those made with herbaceous materials. Many of the woody plants produce a large volume of food material per unit of ground area; they are especially valuable in erosion control; they require little care, and, what is most important, persist for years. Many woody species have a high ornamental value, and the conifers are, of course, the best group of cover plants.

Permanent plantings have many uses in wildlife work. In areas where clean farming is the rule and where woodlots are heavily grazed, they are very useful for both food and cover (3). In sections which are forested but which lack food, they are equally valuable. Where hardwoods cover large areas and winter protection is needed, coniferous plantings provide this and, at the same time, can be made to produce timber or Christmas trees. These permanent plantings can be made to serve as very effective escape covers in regions of heavy hunting. They are also favored nesting sites for both song and game birds, especially in farming areas. With the pheasant they also help to provide more crowing territories and hence increase the potential rate of increase on a given

area.

When the question of plant characteristics is raised, there is little information available. Most of the work done on the woody plants

has been either from the standpoint of timber production or of landscape work. With the conifers used in forestry there is fairly their good information available on the periods between seed crops, volume production, and so forth, but with the hardwoods this is practically lacking. The landscape approach in work with the shrubs and trees has been most concerned with colors, sizes, shapes, and soil requirements and, since they are not attractive ornamentals, many of our best food species are not considered. In other words, the information most needed from a wildlife standpoint has yet to be obtained with most species.

Whether a given plant is adapted to use at a particular location. depends on a number of things. The first question is whether it will be used by local wildlife. On many of the plants which are apparently ideal, there is no information. It seems dangerous to rely on foreign information as applying to our conditions. As an instance, European literature on shrub planting for wildlife almost universally recommends privet, but the writer has never been able to observe any bird or mammal eating the fruit and has only had records of the cedar waxwing using it. The next consideration is whether or not the plant will be hardy. Winter temperature is the greatest factor in deciding this. Such a textbook as Rehder's Manual of Cultivated Trees and Shrubs gives the zone limiting the northern range of each species and many of its other known characteristics. We must know whether a fruit-bearing plant will afford food when it is most needed by wildlife. In the Northern States the most critical time is, of course, in winter, and there is usually little use in planting a species, the fruit of which is all gone by summer or early fall. Also, a species which holds its fruit well into the winter in one region may lose it by early fall in another, so local information is very necessary. The woodbine holds its fruit well into the winter in southern Michigan, but never seems to do this in Massachusetts. To be of the most value for food, a species must fruit regularly and in sufficient quantity to be important. Whether the fruit decomposes early or, as in the case of some of the hawthorns, remains plump, firm, and bright over winter is another very important point. Competition for the available food increases as winter advances, and a fruit available in late winter or early spring is especially valuable. Many species will grow only on certain types of soil, but little is known about this phase. Some kinds of plants require cultivation of the soil or won't thrive in competition with grass and weeds. Since most of the observations have been made under more or less artificial conditions, we know little about this. Some species, of course, carry diseases or pests that affect agricultural crops. An example of this is the common barberry, which is the alternate host for wheat rust. The closely related Japanese barberry is immune to this rust.

Granted that we can grow a given species of plant, we are usually still in the dark as to the nutritive value of the fruits. We need for many species studies similar to those of Maynard and others on the values of various kinds of browse to deer (6). Generally speaking, the nuts such as the hickories, hazel, beechnut, butternut, and black walnut have a very low water content, about twice the protein content of corn, very high fat, and very low carbohydrate values. The

acorns and chestnuts are much lower in protein and higher in carbohydrate contents. These hard-shelled nuts are, of course, mainly limited to use by the squirrels. The few pulpy fruits on which analyses have been made show a high water content, a protein content similar to that of corn, varying amounts of fat, and carbohydrate contents approximately like corn. The available analyses are not strictly comparable between groups because they come from two sources and the methods of computing percentages are obviously different with the carbohydrates and apparently with water. The following table gives some of the available information on nuts and fruits with that for corn and grasshoppers given for comparison.

TABLE I.-Chemical composition of some fruits and nuts with corn and grasshoppers for comparison

These few analyses show that the materials covered are valuable foods for wildlife when considered from the usual standard of chemical make-up.

One of the greatest values of fruits to wildlife is apt to be through the vitamins or other special properties. Little is known about the vitamin requirements of wild animals or of the vitamin contents of any except the domestic fruits. However, from experiments with these it is reasonable to suppose that the other fruits are a good source of vitamin C. This regulates growth, digestion, and condition of the heart and prevents blood disorders and bone brittleness (8). Leopold also suggests that some fruits may be the source of necessary minerals and that others may act as astringents or vermifuges (5).

The use of a plant species as food by wildlife must be taken as an empirical measure of its value. The following table is an attempt to summarize some 52 references on food habits, including such outstanding pieces of work as that of Stoddard on the bobwhite quail, Kelso on the ruffed-grouse foods in the Northeast, the work of the New England Ruffed Grouse Investigation, etc. (4).

Some of the outstanding plants in this list have known characteristics which are very valuable from a wildlife-management standpoint. The black chokeberry, Aronia melanocarpa, usually bears only light crops, but a group growing on a cinder dump in a railway grade and loaded with fruit suggests its use on abandoned roadbeds. It can be propagated by dividing plants or from seed stratified 90 days at 32-41° F.

TABLE II.-Use of 45 more important northeastern woody plants by wildlife ["x" indicates known use]

The Japanese barberry bears regularly and heavily and does well on dry soils. It is a valued ornamental on account of its red fruit, which is held until spring. It can be grown from seed sown in the fall or stratified until spring.

The hickories, butternut, black walnut, and oaks require a long period in which to reach bearing age; but once this is reached, the