DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA
prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu
| ŠUMARSKI LIST 10-11/1949 str. 15 <-- 15 --> PDF |
4. Gevorkiantz, Rudolf, Zehngraff, A Tree classification for Aspen, Jack Pine, .3. of Forestry, 1943-368. 5. Keen: Ponderosa Pibetree classes, Jörn, of Forestry 1936 i 1938i 6, Kraft: Zur Lehre von den Durcihforetuingen, 1884. 7, Kraft: Beiträge zur DuTchfomtumgs — und Lichtumgsifrage, 1(889. & Oellkers.: Walbau, III. 1933. 9. Pijahin, Agrobiologija, No 1, 1194)7. 10, Pearson: Age-and vigor classes in relation to timber marking, Jora. od Forestry 1946/663. 11. Petračić: Untersuchungen über die selbständige Bestandesaussbildung von Eiche, Buche und Föhre in Stärke und Nutzholz Güteklassen, München 1908´. 13. Petračić: Uzgajanje šuma. II.1—51/239, 13, Sokolov: Fitocenotičeskie tipi, Dokladi A. N. SSSR, 1947 (Toni LV. No 2/16 pruski), 14, Sukačcv: Demdrologija, Moskva 1936. 15. Tkačenko: Obščee lesovodstvo, Moskva 1938. 16. Wohlfarth: Ueber Baumklassenbiildung Allg. F. und J. Zeitung 1938. ....... ............. ........ . ...... ....... ..... .......... ....... .............. ........ ...... ....... .... ......... ....... ...., ... .......... . ...... ........ .... ....... .. ........, ... .... ........1. .....- (... + ....., ..... + ..., ...... ... + ...., ...... ... + ......, ...... ... + ..... . .. ..) ........... ..... ........., .. .......... ......... ............. ....... ............. ..... ............. ... ....... ....... ..... ......... .......... ..... ......... 6BI ........... . ................. ............. ............. OCHOBHBIX ..... ........ ... ...........1. ..... ........... ... ............. ............. ........, ...... ...... . ........ ...... .. ..... .............. ......... ... ....... — ...... ... ....... ............ . .......... .......... .......... .. ........... .......... ..... .. .. ....... .......... (............) ........... ......, ....... ..... ............ ........ . ........ ....... ^.. ...... .......... .. ....... ........ KpOHbi ........ ........., ....... .. ..... ....... ... ........ ...... . BBIC...> ....... . ... ero ........... ......... .............. ...... .. ............... ............. ........ ....., 6.. ............. . ............ .......: I. ....... — ....... .....1 ........, ...... ... ..... ...... .....1..1., ......... ..... ....... ........... II. ....... — ....... ...... ........ ........ ......... ..... ........ ........., .. ..... .......... ........1 (............ ...........), III. ....... — ....... ........... ........... ...... ....... ................... ...... .......... ... ........... ............. . ..... 6.1.. ......... ................. ............., IV. ....... — ... ................ . ........... ....... . .......... ......, ........ ....::..... .... ........ .........., . .... ............. ............. ........ ........ ....1... ......... V. ....... — ....... . .......1. ... ........... ....... .... ........, ... .......... ..... ............. .. ........... .. ........ .... a ........... .. .............. ..... .. ...........).... .... . .. ......... ............. .......... ...... ...... . ........... .. ero ..... . ...... ......... ... PROBLEM OF THE TREES CLASSIFICATION IN THE STAND The author gives the critic of Kraft´s classification of the trees, which in only an uncomplet survey of the events in the forest association. If we start from the fact that our mixed forests (beech + fir, fir + spruce, sessile oak -f hornbeam, sessile oak + chestnut, commun oak + ash and other) show mutual differences in their compositions, on sees to be necessary to make a determinate survey of classification for every cited typ separately. Therefore it would be necessary for basic typs of the trees, for the cited tvps of the stands to make the corresponding specifical classifications of the trees too. 333 |