Maryland free press., 1862-12-05
influence OF Shade on Soils.

1t is claimed by many that shade exerts
positively fertilizng influence on the soil.-
Our correspondence and exchanges bring us,
every few months, statements and inquiries
like these
Nj once visited friends plantation in
Alabama, and on noticing certain spot on
barren hill where the Gotten was quite luxuri-
ant, l inquired the cause The proprietor
knew of nothing, only that heap of pine
poles had lain there for two years befor the
land was plowed and put into cotton. He
thought the shade of the poles had caused
deposit from the atmosphere, and enriched the
soil.
P.-I once spread rye-straw over four rods
square of ground, and after letting it lie from
October till the next April plowed the land,
and the yield from that portion was much
greater than from the adjoining land. have
seen similar effects produced by piling lumber
for year or more on piece of ground also,
from brushheaps lying in the same way.
S.-Can you tell us, sir, why forest-lands
which have been growing timber for centuries,
do not become exhausted? The annual depos-
it Of leaves does something, Of course, to keep
up its fertility, but not q great deal Why
should it not be ascribed, chiefly, to the per-
petual shading of the ground? If you ask far
mers who raise fax and spread it ON the land,
whether the grass is more luxuriant under the
flax, they will answer yes. And why so, un-
less the shading of the soil produces it? Nor
thern stones of hills a'ss--~ao oriey are much in
'tne Shade?
Wit is frequent practice of southern
farmers, Immediately after cutting their clover,
to topdress with long manure, eaf-mold, dried
peat ETC. Virginia farmers often SOW peas af-
ter wheat, and very many ascribe the beneficial
effects of this practice to the shading of the
soil by the peas.
We might multiply such facts and opinions
from many parts of the country, but these will
suffice. Now, is there any foundation in fact
and science for these opinions? We think
there is. Not that there is fertility in tho ei,,
rle 0isete, put In certain effects produced by it.
II there. We're fertility in mere shade then the
north side of every building and high fence
would be richer than the other sides, which is
not the fact. But this much is true viz. if
you cover the ground with some porous mate
rial, as straw, brush, leafinold etc., it prevents
the evaporation of moisture from the soil. il
,condenses certain volatile and useful gases from,
the atmosphere, through the agency of dew
and RAM and it promotes the rapid decornpo-
ahl Il.
Its surface. Hence one reason why mulching
trees and plants is often SO beneficial. But
this, we believe, is the extent to which shade
fertiizes any soil.
Many of the effects commonly ascribed to
shading the ground may be accounted for in
other ways. The boards, brush, logs, straw,
leaf-mold, ets., with which the soil is sorne-
times covered, decay more or less while living
on the ground, and impart fertility to it; and
leaves and other perishable materials which
lodge about them, slowly decay and leave fer
uilzing deposits behind them. If it be true
(which we somewhat question: that the nor
thern slopes of hills are richer than the SOUTH
ern may not the constant freezing and thaw-
ing Of the south side in winter, with the atten-
dant washing away of fertility by SHOWS and
rains, be the chief cause of their exhaustion?
And as to peas and clover, and the like, benc-
fitting land by their shade, we should rather
ascribe it to their absorption of ammonia and
carbonic acid from the atmosphere through
their ample foliage, and then their being turned
under as green manure. Or if these crops
are mostly fed out to stock on the farm, they
generally find their way back into the field,
and that in more savory and stimulating con-
ditiona f.n ....