Forestry Experimental Stations: Russian Proposals of the 1870s

Forestry Experimental Stations: Russian Proposalsof the 1870s

Anastasia Fedotova∗

Abstract. The first forestry experimental stations in Europe appeared in the 1860–1870s. Russia also haddraft proposals for such stations around this time. Discussions about forestry experimental stations beganin the 1870s, soon after the Forestry Society of St. Petersburg was established with the support of theForestry Department. Leading experts in forestry proposed that two ‘central’ experimental stations (at theForestry Institute and Petrovskaya Agricultural Academy) should be established and that these should belinked to a further 20 ‘local’ stations. The proposal described in detail the organization of the stations,especially the meteorological department, the model for which was the Bavarian forest-meteorologynetwork created by Ernst Ebermayer. The Russian proposal also contained new ideas on how to studysoil moisture dynamics under the forest canopy. Despite productive discussions the network of Russianforestry experimental stations never materialized – probably because of the Russo-Turkish war. Theinstitutionalization of forestry experimentation eventually took place in Russia in the 1890s. This was inresponse to the 1891–1892 drought and famine, which prompted the organization of the so-called SpecialExpedition under the supervision of Vasily Dokuchaev.

Keywords. Experimental stations, forest meteorology, Forestry Department, Forestry Society of St.Petersburg, Russian Empire, scientific forestry

In 1844 Victor von Graff, the creator and head of the Velikiy Anadol’ forestry steppe district(one of the most famous in the history of Russian forestry) petitioned authorities in St.Petersburg to send meteorological instruments. With the meteorological data Graff wantedto demonstrate how the new forest plantations could improve the harsh and dry climate ofthe surrounding steppe. The requested meteorological instruments arrived at Veliky Anadolin 1848. They were delivered by a graduate of the Lisinski forestry school.1 The young manwas trained by academician Adolph-Teodor Kupffer, the creator of the first meteorologicalnetwork in Russia. However, the conditions in Velikiy Andol’ were severe, and Victor Graff(according to the memoirs of his colleagues) liked his forests more than the people who hadto plant the trees under his supervision. Soon Graff requested to transfer Kupffer’s student‘to one of the distant northern forestry districts under the strict supervision of its head’since the boy, who had been the best student in his class and earned Kupffer’s personalrecommendations, had allegedly ‘misbehaved from his first day in Velikiy Anadol’. In 1852

∗Department for the history of evolution theory and ecology, St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute for theHistory of Science and Technology, Russian Academy of Science, Universitetskaya naberezhnaya, 5/2,St. Petersburg 199034, Russia. E-mail: [email protected]

Centaurus 2014: Vol. 56: pp. 254–274; doi:10.1111/1600-0498.12070© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Pte Ltd

Forestry experimental stations 255

Kupffer taught another young man from the same forestry school and sent him to work withGraff. But soon the new arrival asked to be transfered elsewhere since he felt that he was noteducated to an appropriate level to conduct scientific meteorological observations. Forestryschools gave only basic education and the boy found it difficult to understand the meaningof the manipulations he produced. Graff wrote with irritation to St. Petersburg that, in hisopinion, no special scientific training was needed to record readings from meteorologicalinstruments. But the young man insisted on his transfer to another place of service.2 Graff,as the head of a forestry district, had too many duties and too little spare time to conductregular meteorological observations personally. As a result, his idea for a meteorologicalstation that would demonstrate the beneficial effect of new forest plantations on the steppeclimate was not realized.3

Strictly speaking, Graff (like other researchers in the natural sciences at that time) didnot have an adequate research program for meteorological observations of this type, butfor our story it is more important to understand the role of those responsible for makingobservations.4 In fact, the earliest meteorological stations that were able to provide (anddid provide) data on the environmental impacts of forests were created in Russia byDokuchaev’s Special Forest expedition in the 1890s. The work of these meteorologicalstations showed how important it was to have enthusiastic, well-trained observers, whoreceived decent salaries and were respected by their colleagues.5 Only such an employeecould carry out the same meticulous manipulations day after day, month after month,at desolate stations in the wilderness. However, this paper discusses not the famousDokuchaev stations of the 1890s and their important results for environmental studies, butthe unrealized proposal of the 1870s. This perspective demonstrates that the ideas realizedin the 1890s had been proposed by Russian foresters in the 1870s, at the same time as thestudy of the environmental impact of forests was beginning to be taken seriously in otherEuropean countries. The delay in Russian forestry environmental studies was, therefore,not down to the ‘backwardness’ of Russian science, but the lack of substantial researchfunding for Russian naturalists before the 1890s.

Some scholars have recently argued that observations of the devastating effects ofdeforestation, especially on tropical islands, opened the way for the rise of environmentalconsciousness among Europeans.6 By the early 19th century Europeans had begun toconsider the impact of forests on their local climate. Many famous scientists of thatage, like Alexander Humboldt in Germany and François Arago in France, contributedto the debates by referring to their travel observations or by providing general theorieson the mechanisms of the climatic impact of forests. The reputations of these scientistsconsiderably enhanced the credibility of the argument that forests could affect climate,even though its acceptance was far from universal both within the academic communityand among the wider public, as factual proofs remained slim while evidentiary standardswere not yet well defined.

In the second half of the 19th century the Russian Empire actively developed, first, itsindustry (meaning that the cities consumed much more wood) and, secondly, its grain trade

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Pte Ltd

256 A. Fedotova

production in the steppe zone. These developments meant that the forests were destroyedmost rapidly where it was particularly noticeable – along rivers, near settlements and in thesouthern Black Earth provinces.7 This destruction provoked a discussion: why do we needforests (other than for wood)? Forest-advocates replied that forests were beneficial to theclimate. During most of the 19th century, ‘climate’ was a very loose term that was closer toour notion of ‘environment’ than to the modern term with the same name. The discussionof the ‘climatic’ impact of forests implied not only their influence on temperatures, windsor rainfall but also on soil erosion, hydrology, shifting sands and even on hygiene.8

The debate over the impact of forests on ‘climate’ was a long one, and never reacheda resolution. Indeed, even today, scientists argue about the forests’ ability to alter envi-ronmental conditions. From a contemporary point of view, some of the discussions ofthe 19th century seem baseless, as different authors had different understandings of theterm ‘climate’. They also used as evidence data that contemporary researchers wouldconsider invalid. But, rather than devaluing the early observations, these factors actuallymake the results of particular interest to scholars of the history of scientific ideas, as theresults and associated discussions chart the transition from speculation to strictly scientificevidence. Realization of proposals for experimental forestry research stations (and moregenerally – the institutionalization of environmental research in forestry) depended lesson the scientists, but upon availiable funding and govermental and social support. It wasthe lack of the latter that resulted in Russian forestry science lagging behind the researchefforts of its Western European counterparts.

The unrealized Russian proposals of the 1870s reflected not only the influence ofthe ideas of European forestry science (many Russian foresters considered themselvesadherents of their German- and French-speaking colleagues),9 but also highlighted somebroader trends. First, the move to a greater reliance on ‘solid scientific’ data comparedwith the first half of the 19th century. In the course of the debates in the 1860–1870s,step-by-step research programs (and instruments) were elaborated and criteria wereselected to meet the standards required for truly scientific discussions.

Second, during the same period the first experimental stations to be established in Europeemerged as structures where the primary duty of employees was scientific research. Thisform of research institution was something new. Research institutions in life and environ-mental sciences as we know them today had just begun to take form in the 1860–1870swith the establishment of botanical or physiological ‘institutes’ at German universities,and the emergence of marine biological, meteorological, agronomical and forestry exper-imental stations.10 One of the driving forces behind this new breed of scientific institutionwas the development of techniques for meteorological observation, and the new wave ofinterest from governments (including the Russian state) in meteorology.11

When we discuss the earliest forms of research organization we can see that the situationwas most difficult not for the fundamental sciences or the university milieu, but for thoseworking with applied knowledge. In the Russian Empire, for example, experts in the naturalsciences held high level jobs in the ministries, including the Ministry of State Domains



(MSD).12 These scientists were involved in various committees and commissions. One ofthe most important tasks of the MSD from the 1830s onwards was the inventorying ofnatural resources – forests, soils, etc. But in most cases this work should be consideredas the cataloguing of information rather than scientific research.13 Officials from theMinistry sought to accomplish most of this kind of work internally, and it was only inexceptional cases that the MSD called on professional academicians outside the Ministry.These specialists who carried out surveys on behalf of the MSD cannot really be seenas scientists in the strict sense of the word, but more as competent officals. Most oftheir time was consumed with bureaucratic routine, not scientific research. What is evenmore important is that the main aim of the studies and surveys made at the request ofthe governmental agencies was not the development of science, but the optimization ofresource management. In the middle of the 19th century, scientific works produced byforestry or agricultural MSD officials were a by-product of their main activities.

Third, scientists from St. Petersburg and Moscow contributed to the development of theenvironmental studies. At that time, there was no standard for meteorological observations,and the methods as well as intruments improved every year. Russian foresters in the 1870sproposed an innovative way to assess the impact of forests on climate humidity: insteadof sophisticated measurements of rainfall, humidity and other meteorological parametersthey suggested that it might be better to monitor the soil moisture directly. This methodlater proved to be effective and gave a lot of valuable information about the environmentalimpact of vegetation.

In the 1860s Russian authors used logical deduction or historical arguments as the foun-dation for their discussions on the assumed beneficial effects of forests on the ‘climate’.14

In the early 1860s two well-known specialists in agriculture and forestry – Feodor Arnol’dand Feodor Batalin – opened a disscussion on the pages of the Zhurnal Ministerstva gosu-darstvennih imushchestv (The Journal of the Mininstry of State Domains).15 In his piece,Arnol’d assumed without any empirical evidence that the cold north wind might becomewarmer by up to 10∘C if it passed through the wide forest belt.16 His opponent – FeodorBatalin – did not object to Arnol’d’s opinion about the beneficial effects of forests for cli-mate, but mostly criticized his arguments as insufficiently substantiated. Around this timethere were similar debates going on throughout Europe. In 1870 the prominent botanistMatthias Jakob Schleiden published a popular book on the subject, ‘Für Baum und Wald’.In botany Schleiden is considered to be one of the founders of ‘the inductive method’and a critic of natural philosophy, but in this book he used arguments typical of ‘old’ sci-ence – historical evidence and logical speculation. Like Arnol’d, Schleiden faced criticismfrom his peers.17

Many Russian forestry experts and publicists believed that forest protection andafforestation were necessary for the welfare of the state and its citizens. They also (fol-lowing European models) stated that the state treasury would have to pay for this. Sinceforest protection and afforestation were expensive measures, these specialists (as well aslandowners and the public) called for some intial studies that would provide substantial


258 A. Fedotova

and solid data. They felt that it would take more than historical arguments and speculationto convince the government to make such a large investment. In order to gather the data,accurate instrumental observations and experiments were necessary. However, it was notuntil the 1870s that a coherent research program emerged.

In 1871 the union of Russian forestry specialists – the Forestry Society of St. Petersburg(Lesnoe obshhestvo v Sankt-Peterburge) – was created. This was a totally new ForestrySociety, which is not to be confused with its predecessor of the 1830–1840s – the Societyfor the Promotion of Forestry (Obshhestvo dlja pooshhrenija lesnogo hozjajstva). Theold Society for the Promotion of Forestry existed between 1832 and 1845 and was anappendage of govermental agencies. Its task is reflected in the title – the popularizationof ‘modern’ or ‘rational’ forestry, and its funding came from central government. In 1845it was transformed into a department of the Free Economical Society,18 and by 1851 itsactivity had ceased totally.19

The new Forestry Society was founded two decades later without any governmentalsupport. It was an entirely independent union of professionals that gathered to discusstheir specific issues. During its first decades the Forestry Society emphasized that it ‘didnot ask and did not receive’ any governmental subsidy (unlike many other Russian learnedsocieties) and subsisted only on membership fees and members’ donations. Of course,many of the officials of the Forestry Department20 were members of the Forestry Society,but they did not have any special privileges as a result of their position in the Department.The activities of the society proved quite successful. Up until the end of the Imperialperiod the society was the most authoritative organization in forestry science in Russia,and it was responsible for publishing the Lesnoi zhurnal (Forestry Journal, 1871–1918).21

From the start, forestry research (so called the experimental) stations were discussed bysociety members both in meetings and in the pages of the Lesnoi zhurnal. Many membersof this professional community believed that forestry required special institutions in whichexperts could conduct scientific research (Figure 1).

1. European Forestry Experimental Stations

Scientific research about the environmental role of forests started in the French- andGerman-speaking countries. The early investigations were carried out by hydro-engineerson rivers in the mountains.22 In the mid-19th century foresters and meteorologists startedto produce comparative meteorological observations under the forest canopy and in openplaces. At first these were just ‘single action’ projects – one scientist produced parallelmeasurements of air temperature in the open place and under the forest canopy for 12or 24 hours. These results attracted considerable attention in Europe and in Russia. Forexample Dmitry Kravchinskii prepared a comprehensive review of European researchon this topic for a wide circle of Russian foresters. He summarized and annualized theresearch programme, the techniques and the results of E. Belgrand (1853, 1854), A.-C.Becquerel (1853, 1865), etc.23



Fig. 1. The first issue of Lesnoi zhurnal (August 1871).

In the late 1860s Ernst Ebermaeyr (1829–1908) created the first special forestrymeteorological network in Bavaria. This network provided long-term studies, and becamea model for similar stations in Prussia, Sweden, Austria and Switzerland. Later, in 1898the International Association of Forestry Stations celebrated Ebermaeyr as the ‘father offorest meteorology’. Foresters in distant Russian provinces were able to read about themain results of Ebermayer’s network as well as other European meteorological networks inLesnoi zhurnal, which published timely reviews. For example, in 1873 Alexander Rudzkywrote a detailed review of the results of Ebermayer’s meteorological network24 and in 1877a comprehensive overview of the results of Anton Müttrich’s meteorological network inPrussia and Alsace-Lorraine was published.25

The question of how to organize observations on climate and forests in Russia gainedattention of Lesnoi zhurnal and the Forestry Society after it was raised at two congresses:the First All-Russian Congress of forest owners and foresters (Moscow, 1872) and the Inter-national Congress of Agriculture and Forestry (Vienna, 1873). The Second All-RussianCongress of Forest Owners and Foresters (Lipetsk, 1874) also addressed this issue.

In 1872 in Moscow the First All-Russian Congress of forest owners and foresterstook place within a broader framework of a Polytechnic Exhibition.26 Among otherpresentations, the questions: ‘To what extent are experiments and observations needed;


260 A. Fedotova

in what way and on what basis should they be made?’ were discussed. The Congress askedthe Forestry Society to develop a research program, to raise funds and to help organize anetwork of forestry research stations.

The discussions at the Vienna Congress of Agriculture and Forestry, which took placewithin a broader framework of a World exposition (Weltausstellung), were also of greatinterest to Russian foresters. Here proposals were made for the coordination of researchactivity and the unification of research programs at different experimental stations andnetworks. The hope was that such coordinated efforts would make it possible to compareobservations gathered from stations in different regions (this was especially importantfor the meteorological observations). The Congress adopted resolutions on internationalcooperation in forestry and agricultural experimental work, and on the unification ofobservation programs at the numerous meterological and experimental stations in Europethat worked independently.27

2. Other Proposals for Research Stations in Russia

In the 1870s the idea of creating experimental stations was in the air. The RussianEntomological Society28 had discussed the possibility of setting up experimental stations tostudy pest insects,29 while agronomists (mostly from Moscow and the southern provinces)had put forward several proposals for experimental agricultural stations and agronomicalmeteorological stations.30 Both the agronomists and entomologists came up with ideasthat were similar to those proposed by foresters: the Russian Empire needed to establishspecial institutions – ‘research’ or ‘experimental’ stations – where professionals would beengaged primarily in research work in order to achieve successful economic developmentlike that of Europe and the USA. These proposals emphasized the need to hire well-trainedand well-paid personnel. Well-trained specialists were needed as they would have to carryout various sophisticated observations in the field and experiments in laboratories. Theirwork had to be well paid as often it would be meticulous, routine and monotonous. Authorsrepeatedly noted that no one would agree to do these tasks on a voluntary basis. Unlike‘pure scientific’ research that was often carried out by wealthy independent naturalists, theproposed observation and experimental work would certainly require financial support.

The suggested stations had to be located in different provinces, so that the investigationscould better reflect the diverse economic and natural conditions of the Empire. Theproposal also called for the establishment of a central institution that would coordinatethe research program for the regional stations. The hope was that the state treasury wouldprovide funding for the stations.

Some of the proposals are very interesting in terms of how scholars formulated theproblems, and how they anticipated the research to be conducted. But the first thing thatattracts attention to the forestry proposal, in contrast to the proposals for the entomologicalor agronomic stations, is that the Forestry draft was much better designed. Foresters in the



1870s knew what they wanted to study, and what tools and what staff were necessary toaccomplish the task. The entomologists’ and agronomists’ proposals, by contrast, weremuch more primitive and unclear.

3. Discussions of the Forestry Society

Between 1873 and 1877 forestry research stations were discussed in the pages of Lesnoizhurnal as well as at meetings of the Forestry Society. Specialists analysed the experimentsand results of European stations and the need to create such a network in Russia.Lesnoi zhurnal published dozen of papers and reviews on this topic; every year severalpresentations were made at Forestry Society meetings.

In 1873–1874 the Society was in a difficult position. On the one hand its membersactively discussed the issue of forestry experimental research stations, while on the otherthe Society had no money to build such stations. For this reason the Council of the Societyrefused to make any formal resolution on this issue.31 In 1875 the Forestry Departmentprovided a solution. It officially offered to the St. Petersburg Forestry Institute (Figure 2) todevelop a proposal for the forestry experimental stations (the Forestry Department and theForestry Institute overlapped to some degree, and as noted above experts from both wereactive members of the Forestry Society). The Council of the Institute chose a commissionof professors: Fedor K. Arnold (forestry), Dmitry A. Lachinov (physics and meteorol-ogy), Nikolay S. Shafranov (forestry) and Ivan Borodin (botany and dendrology).32 TheCommission proposed a network of two central stations (one at the Forestry Institute nearSt. Petersburg and the other at Petrovskaya Agronomy Academy near Moscow)33 anda number of local stations. It was assumed that the central station would consist of fivedepartments: forestry technology and statistics; meteorology; plant physiology; forestrychemistry and physics; forest zoology. The meteorological departments were to makedetailed observations on how forests affected the climate of the surrounding area and viceversa – how climate affected the forests. It was proposed that the head of each departmentshould be a professor of the Forestry Institute/Petrovskaya Agricultural Academy. Fiveof them would constitute the Board that was the main governing body of the Station. Thefirst (St. Petersburg) central station at the Forestry Institute was supposed to coordinatethe work of local stations in the north-western part of the Empire, while the second centralstation at Petrovskaya Agronomy Academy would oversee the work of local sttations inthe south-eastern part.

Local stations were to consist of one or two departments (forestry and meteorological,with the meteorological department as a mandatory part) situated in the so-called modelforestry districts in different provinces of European Russia. The proposal determinedthe funding necessary for the equipment of these stations and their annual budget. Thesmall budget meant that observations had to be provided by the head of each forestrydistrict or by his assistant. This undoubtedly was the weak part of the proposal – foresters,especially in the ‘model’ forestry districts were usually overworked. However the salary


262 A. Fedotova

Fig. 2. The main building of St. Petersburg Forestry Institure (today – St. Petersburg Forest TechnicalUniversity).

for conducting the meteorological observations corresponded to the wages received byobservers at meteorological stations subordinated to the Main Physical Observatory.34

Professors of the Petrovskaya Agricultural Academy near Moscow also made someproposals at the request of the Forestry Department, which were compiled and published bythe professor of forestry Vasily T. Sobichevsky.35 The ideas of the Moscow professors werenot too different from those of their colleagues from St. Petersburg – they complementedsome of the details of the St. Petersburg proposal and clarified the place of the Moscowforesters in this future experimental network.

The proposals that were discussed at the Forestry Society in 1873–1874 were ratherunderdeveloped. In the 1870–1880s most of the drafts for any research institution proposedby a public organization to the government had a description that was very short andfollowed a common format: the research they planned to carry out—whether it wasabout the forest’s influence on climate, pest control or agricultural experimentation—wasdescribed as very important, although few details would be given. The authors of theseproposals insisted that the government should allocate money because this research wouldbenefit the whole state and its citizens, although once again there would be little data toback-up the claim. It was also common for the writers of the proposals to be vague abouthow they would spend the money or the organization of the program. They simply askedthat the given sum be provided. Once the money was provided they would be able to decidewhat kind of research could be carried out.

In contrast, the proposals made by the professors of the Forestry Institute and Petro-vskaya Agricultural Academy in 1875–1876 described in detail the research programs, thetools and the necessary staff – especially of the meteorological department. For example,the list of proposed meteorological observations included:

• The temperature in the open space and under the forest canopy at a height of 5 feet36

above the ground and also within the tree crowns;



• The diurnal temperature swings in the forest and in the open space;• The temperature of trunks at breast height37 and the top of the tree in comparison with

the temperature of the air and soil;• Rainfall under the forest canopy and in the open space (rain and snow);• The amount of rain and snow which do not reach the soil but remain on the crowns

and evaporate into the air;• The amount of water seeping into the forest soil with the forest litter and without, as

well as in the open space at a depth of 1, 2 and 4 feet;• The amount of water absorbed by the soil and evaporated again both in the forest and

in the open space;• The evaporation from open water, both in and out of the forest;• The amount of moisture evaporated from soil of 0.5 foot deep, saturated with water

in the forest and in the open space;• The soil temperature at the soil surface as well as at a depth of 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 feet in

the forest and in the open space; etc.

Thus, the program described very clearly the kind of meteorological observations thatwere to be conducted in order to make them comparable with the results produced byEuropean stations.

Before the establishment of the stations it was suggested that the heads of the forestry andmeteorological departments should visit Prussian, Saxon and Bavarian forestry experimen-tal networks to learn more about their research and to purchase the necessary equipment.As the equipment would cost less than in St. Petersburg, the savings would cover the costof the foreign travels.

In contrast to the Bavarian stations, the Russian meteorological program excludedlysimeters (an instrument for measuring the amount of water that infiltrates the soil).Professors of the Forestry Institute concluded that the Bavarian method provided doubtfuldata on the impact of forests on soil humidity.

In the 18th century and the first half of the 19th century it was believed that forestscould attract rainfall. These views were supported by theoretical speculations made bynaturalists and physicists on how the vegetation could affect atmospheric phenomena.38

The data obtained at the Bavarian stations from the lysimeters and evaporimeters forcedEbermayer to conclude that forests did significantly increase the humidity of the air andsoil. Ebermayer’s conclusion about forests and climate humidity significantly extended thelife of the old hypothesis. But the technique he used had a significant disadvantage – it didnot take into account one very important factor – the evaporation from the huge surface ofthe trees’ leaves. As an alternative to this method, Russian foresters suggested the directmonitoring of moisture in the soil, instead of the evaluation of the discrete components inthe soil moisture balance by a mixture of complex and subtle techniques. They suggestedthat the soil samples should be weighed in their ‘natural’ state and then weighed againafter drying until the samples had reached an absolute dry state. Thus, a researcher was


264 A. Fedotova

able to calculate the amount of moisture in the soil by extracting the second number fromthe first.

The first attempt to apply the Russian method was made by Ludwig Bark (1835–1882),who replaced Victor Graff as head of the Velikiy Anadol’ forestry district and was an activemember of the Forestry Society. In 1878 Bark requested funds for analytical balances andsome other devices ‘for carrying out scientific research on the humidity of different soils’.39

The Forestry Department approved the expenses, but Bark soon left Velikiy Anadol’ and hisplans remained unrealized. In 1882 Alexander A. Izmail’skii (1851–1914), an agronomistwho collaborated with Vasiliy Dokuchaev and his team, published the results of his ownresearch, Soil Moisture in Relation to Its Cultural Condition. Later, in the 1890s, heproduced a more elaborate treatment of this problem.40

Izmail’skii’s experience clearly demonstrated a number of problems that Bark wouldhave encountered if he had conducted his own experiments to measure the annual dynamicsof soil humidity.41 Monitoring the annual dynamics of soil humidity proved to be a verydemanding task. Izmail’skii made a breakthrough in this field by managing to work out aconsistent research program that precisely defined all the technical issues involved, fromthe choice of sites where soil samples were to be collected up to the final analysis of data.With the support of a few students he was able to analyze about 6000 samples.42 Bark, asa head of the forestry station, would have had no spare time for regular observations ofthis kind.

The Russian naturalists, agronomists and foresters of the 1880–1890s used this directand relatively simple method to determine the annual dynamics of soil moisture in naturalplant communities and on arable land. Through this technique they discovered that moremoisture evaporated from land covered in vegetation than bare soil, and even more moistureevaporated from forests with their vast leaf surfaces.43 During the warmer seasons forestsdid not moisturize the soils but rather pumped water from them.

By the late 19th century meteorological research data had to conform with the require-ments of the European meterological networks.44 This is probably one of the reasons whythe professors of the Forestry Institute and Petrovskaya Academy were so specific in theirproposals and were able to write up their findings. The research programs and scientificequipment for the other four departments outlined in the proposals made by the professorswere more general. They tended to just list the scientific and applied problems zoolo-gists, botanists or ‘forestry technologists’ could study (in principle) at the experimentalstations and what were most relevant for the development of domestic forestry. The workof these departments depended on the narrow specialization of their leaders. This made itimpossible to determine, for example, which aspects of the physiology of woody plantsthe plant physiology department would study, before the head of that department had beenappointed.

It would be wrong to suppose that it was much easier for forestry specialists thanfor agronomists to create an experimental station proposal because they could simplycopy Ebermayer’s Bavarian experimental network. There were plenty of agronomic



experimental stations in Europe that could have been used as models, and likewise inthe USA entomological services had started to develop. Nevertheless, the Department ofAgriculture and the Scientific Committee of the MSD in 1870–1880s did not considercarefully proposals of entomological or agricatural research stations made by publicorganizations. The drafts were simply returned with the comment that the idea wasunderdeveloped. For instance this was the kind of answer given by Iosif Porchinskii45

when the Regional Entomological Congresses of the Southern Russian provinces in the1880s repeatedly offered to set up special institutions for applied entomology.46

In contrast, the Forestry Department did send the first drafts of proposals for forestryresearch stations written in 1873–1874 to experts for revision. This show of interest sug-gests that the Russian foresters had a more professional organization than the agronomistsor applied entomologists at the time.

But, despite the initial positive response and productive discussions, the proposal was setaside and neither the minutes of the Forestry Society nor the Council of Forestry Institutemention the proposal after 1877. The sum necessary for the stations was not excessivelylarge. Two central stations and 20 local ones would cost about 19,000 rubles a year, thesame annual budget as that given to the famous Velikiy Anadol’ model steppe forestrydistrict in the first half of the 1860s.47 However, in 1877 the Russo-Turkish war startedand the government introduced austerity measures. At least one author implied that thenetwork had not been established due to lack of funds in the treasury.48

Futhermore, it cannot be said that there was a complete and absolute consensus aboutthe benefit of the network among the foresters. Some were not sure that such institutionswere necessary. They stated that ‘learned foresters’ who were interested in science werefree to make any research they liked in their spare time.49 That was not only the opinionof some foresters but also specialists in other fields of applied knowledge. For example, in1870s and 1880s infestations of insect pests caused South Russian grain producers to sufferhuge losses, and local authorities organized special Regional Entomological Congresses(1881–1889) in order to develop effective measures of pest control. Most of landlords andeven some university professors at those Congresses were of the opinion that a specialinstitution for the study of insect pests and/or a stable position for an applied entomologistwas a luxury. They believed all research and experiments could be conducted by universityzoologists in their spare time.50

The discussion about forestry experimental stations in the 1870s provides us with anexample of how inefficient it could be for volunteers to gather data. The Forestry Societyattempted to organize observations in accordance with the Society’s budgetary constraints.It sent 14 pairs of rain gauges to 14 foresters and amateur naturalists in different provincesof European Russia who volunteered to conduct the observation of rainfall under the forestcanopy and in open spaces. A professor of Kharkov University, the meteorologist YuriyMorozov, promised to process the data.51 But no results were ever published. There aretwo probable explanations for why Morozov never published results. Either he didn’t getsufficient data from observers or the data that Morozov received did not show the clear


266 A. Fedotova

positive impact of forests on rainfall. Both interpretations have merit. While it might seemthat it is easy to make rainfall observations, to make them on a day-to-day basis over manymonths is very hard and tiresome. Not many people would do this kind of observationfor free. Also, if the data Morozov received did not match his pre-existing assumptions(Morozov believed that forests could attract rainfall) he may have decided he needed amore detailed study, and that preliminary results would only undermine the conservationistpoint of view.

I have not encountered any discussion of additional proposals for forestry stations inthe 1880s, and there probably were none. Agronomists and entomologists presented draftproposals for experimental institutions many times. They even received some support fromzemstvos (local administration) and learned societies in the 1880s.52 But, at the state level,the institutionalization of experimental work in agronomy and entomology occurred evena little bit later than in forestry.53

All the same it would be wrong to assume that the discussions on forestry in the 1870shad no effect on the organization of research at the Forestry Institute and PetrovskayaAgricultural Academy. In the 1870s, there was an active meteorological station in theLisinskiy forestry district and between 1872 and 1876 the Lesnoi zhurnal published its data.The aim was to explore ‘the impact exercised by climatic phenomena on the growth rates oftree species and the results produced by forest improvement’.54 In 1878 Pavel Kostychevsucceeded in organizing an agricultural chemical station at the Forestry Institute.55 In 1879Anatolii Fadeev, professor of agriculture at Petrovskaya Agronomy Academy, started hisregular meteorological observations, and so began a continuous series of meteorologicalobservations in Moscow. In addition to standard weather observations (temperature,humidity, precipitation, wind, cloudiness, etc.) he conducted observations relevant tovegetation: on solar radiation, evaporation, sunshine duration, soil temperature, etc.

The idea to organize meteorological observations based on volunteers’ data was also notcompletely abandoned. By the early 1890s there were several voluntary pluviometrical56

networks in the Russian Empire. However, their programs were extremely simple (gath-ering information from just one rain gauge), they were created to gather regional mete-orological data relevant to agriculture, which was important for most of the population.Alexander Klossowski (a professor at Novorossiiskii University in Odessa) created such anetwork in the southern provinces of European Russia, as did the Ural Society of Natural-ists in Perm province and the Livonia Economic Society in the Governate of Livonia. Eachof them collected data from several dozens of volunteers, and the only contribution fromthe state was the free shipment of meteorological data by mail.

4. Conclusion

One of the most important changes that occurred in forestry science in the 1870s (inparticular through the discussion of proposals for forestry experimental stations) was the



revised attitude to the standards of scientific evidence. In the eighteenth and the firsthalf of the 19th centuries naturalists and writers widely relied upon historical data, thatis they relied on qualitative evaluation. By the mid-19th century forestry specialists hadbegun to discuss the need to organize so-called solid scientific observations – to conductmethodologically consistent instrumental observations of clearly measurable quantitativeenvironmental parameters. Experts gradually stopped arguing about the theoreticallypossible impact of forests on the ‘climate’ (actually on the environment) of huge regions,and began to produce data on the impact of a particular forest (or forest plantation)on specific quantitative meteorological parameters at that particular site. The scientificinstitutions and experimental stations, that were still very new at the time, facilitated thiskind of work.

As noted in many recent papers, too often we take for granted our modern structure ofscience where people are paid for their research. But the modern research institute is quitenew. For several centuries university professors were paid for their teaching and experts ingovernment agencies were paid for their experience, not for conducting research. Whileit might seem strange to us that the well developed proposal ommissioned by governmentto construct forestry experimental stations was not realized, for the foresters of the 19thcentury it was still a new and even strange idea whose time had not yet come. In the1840–1850s, one of the most famous Russian foresters, Victor von Graff, was not readyto appreciate the work of meteorological observers and thought that he could make anypeasant boy do this work. Similarly, many foresters in the 1870s still considered the routinework of the observer as something that anyone could do in passing and believed that it wasworth neither a release from other duties, nor decent pay.

Another conclusion to be drawn from the study of the discussions at the ForestrySociety: though the Russian foresters’ professional community was on the Europeanperiphery, Russian foresters were well informed about the success of scientific forestryin French- and German- speaking countries. Professors at the Forestry Institute andPetrovskaya Agricultural Academy not only regularly visited their foreign counterpartsbut were also well acquainted with European literature. They carefully translated andreviewed this literature, making this information available to their counterparts in the mostremote corners of the Russian Empire. Most of the leading Russian forestry experts wereassociated at some level with the international forestry science network. In the 1870s theywere actively trying to stretch the European network of observational and experimentalstations to the Russian Plain. These proposals also suggested an original way to solve thequestion about the effect of forest on soil moisture, which subsequently proved to be a verysuccessful method.

The forestry experimental station proposal was not realized in the 1870s but neitherwere the proposals for agronomic and entomological research stations. And if agriculturalresearch could rely on public or private patronage (as occurred in the 1880s), the forestersrelied solely on state funding. The state bureaucracy only began to show real interest in theearly 1890s, when forestry experimentation in Russia was finally institutionalized.


268 A. Fedotova

NOTES

1. Lisinskiy forestry district is located in the vicinity of St. Petersburg. From the early 19th century ithas been the principal site for the practical training of students of the Forestry Institute. In 1835–1888there also existed a two-year Lisinski forestry (secondary) school for foresters and rangers that taughtpeasant boys.

2. Russian State Historical Archive (Rossiiskii Gosudarstvenniy Istoricheskii Arkhiv, here-after – RGIA), collection (fond or f.) 387, inventory (opis’ or op.) 2, file (delo or d.) 22244;op. 1, d. 317. About Victor von Graff and the early history of the famous Velikiy Anadol’ forestrydistrict see: Red’ko (1994). Red’ko’s book, based on a large volume of archival materials, describesGraff as a forester and an individual, his passion for natural sciences, his extreme commitment inhis work and his inability to get along with people. The latter was even acknowledged by his friends(and may partly be accounted for by his ill health). Along with his dedication to his work, thisoften led to conflicts both with subordinates and superiors. In his book Red’ko gave the informationabout the conflict with the abovementioned young men – graduates of the Lisinksiy forestry school:Lev Nikiforov and Grigor’ev. Peasant boys (usually orphans) who were sent to the forestry schoolsand then to remote provinces of the Empire, where they too often failed to adjust to local socialconditions and became inveterate drunkards. This was known as the persistency problem, and waswidely recognized as a serious issue by primary and secondary forestry schools in the 19th century,as well as other schools that taught peasant boys at state expense.

3. On the attempts to organize the meteorological observations on the potential climatic impact ofartificial afforestation in Velikiy Anadol’ between the 1840s and 1880s see: Loskutova (2012a) andFedotova and Loskutova (2015).

4. The Vasily Dokuchaev Special Expedition (Special Expedition of the Forestry Department onTesting and Inventorying Various Methods and Techniques of Forestry and Water Management inRussian Steppes under the Supervision of Professor Vasiliy V. Dokuchaev, 1892–1898). See: ForestryDepartment (1894–1898).

5. See for example: Adamov (1894) and Filonenko (2000).6. See for example: Grove (1994, 1995) and Rajan (2006).7. On deforestation of the European part of Russian Empire see, for example: Tsvetkov (1957) and Moon

(2010, 2013). On the history of Russian forestry see for example: Red’ko and Red’ko (2002) and Brain(2011).

8. See for example: Locher and Fressoz (2012).9. In the second half of the 19th century, as before, any Russian scientists had to speak fluently 2–3

European languages – otherwise professional activity was not possible. But in addition by this timeRussian naturalists actively translated the works of their Western colleagues – in order to make themavailable to a wider audience. As for the topic of our discussion the famous book of George PerkinsMarsh ‘Man and Nature’ (1864) was published in Russian quite soon in 1866, as well as quite a fewbooks on deforestation in different states and regions.

10. On botanical or physiological ‘institutes’ at German universities see, for example: Cittadino (1990).On first marine biological stations see, for example: The Naples Zoological Station at the Time ofAnton Dorn (1975), Kofoid (1910) etc.

11. On the progress made in the late 1860s – early 1870s by meteorology (both in terms of the organizationof meteorological networks and in terms of the design of new instruments see the classical monographof Khrgian (1970). On the first attempt made by the Ministry of State Domains to organize themeteorological network in European Russia in the 1840s see: Loskutova (2012a).

12. The Ministry of State Domains (1837–1894) controlled government-owned lands and anyother government property in the Russian Empire.

13. For example in the late 1830s and early 1840s governmental agencies and the Academy of Sciencesorganized a special commission and an expedition to study the influence of forests on the shallowing



of rivers in the Volga region. Using today’s standards of scientific research, we cannot consider thetask set before the expedition feasible. See Loskutova (2012a,b).

14. See for example: Kostychev (1876), Fedoseev (1957) and Loskutova (2012b).15. Batalin (1860), Arnol’d (1861a,b), Batalin (1861a,b) etc. Feodor Batalin (1823–1895) was the editor

of the most important state sponsored agronomical periodicals: ‘Zhurnal Ministerstva gosudarstven-nih imushchestv’ and ‘Zemledel’cheskaya gazeta’ (Newspaper of Agronomy); since 1870 he was amember of the Scientific Committee of MSD. Feodor Arnol’d (1819–1902) was the famous specialistin forestry science, a professor at the Forestry Institute in St. Petersburg.

16. Arnol’d (1861a).17. Schleiden (1870) and Zobov (1871). Alexander F. Rudzky translated Schleiden’s book in 1873:

Schleiden (1873). A. Rudzky (1838–1901) later became the influential forestry specialist, known asthe author of several textbooks. From 1876 he was the professor of St. Petersburg Forestry Institute,in 1877–1880 – the editor of Lesnoi zhurnal (Forestry Journal).

18. Vol’noe ekonomicheskoe obshchestvo, the first learned society in Russia (created 1765), for most ofits history receiving significant government subsidies and administrative support. See for example:Bradley (2009).

19. On the Society for the Promotion of Forestry created as an appendage to the governmental structuresand on the role of the ‘old’ society in the debate on the forests, rivers and climate see: Loskutova(2012b). With a government subsidy the Society published its Lesnoi zhurnal (Forestry Journal,1833–1851) for the popularization of the ‘rational’ forestry. See: Fedotova (2011b) and Bejlin (1962).

20. The Forestry Department (Lesnoy Departament, created 1843) was a part of the MSD, responsible forthe most of state forests.

21. Lesnoi zhurnal (like the Forestry Society itself and unlike most of scientific journals in Russia) existedwithout governmental subsidy. It was well respected, therefore in Soviet times forestry specialistsmade a few attempts re-create it. In addition to the Forestry Society of St. Petersburg, in 1883 theMoscow Forestry Society was created, but it was not so active or so well known. See: Fedotova(2011a,c) and Bejlin (1962).

22. See for example: Andreassian (2004).23. Kravchinskij (1876). Dmitry Kravchnskij, a student of the Forestry Institute later became the

influential forestry specialist, known as the author of several textbooks.24. Rudzkij (1873).25. Müttrich (1877a, b). Anton Müttrich (1833–1904) was probably the second (after Ernst Ebermayer)

leader of the German forest meteorology during 1870s to 1890s. Ebermayer’s scheme was the basisof his meteorological network, but the program of observations was wider.

26. The 1872 Exhibition was an important public event; its exhibits formed the basis for the Polytechnicand Historical Museums in Moscow. See: The Society of Devotees… (1872) and The PolytechnicMuseum (1922).

27. See: Agrarischer Congress (1873). Agricultural and forest meteorology were the main subjects ofdiscussion at this congress. Marine meteorologists felt that their interests were ignored and proposedto convene a separate congress. See: Rykatschew (1873). That was done in 1874 in London.

28. The Russian Entomological Society was created in 1859 and it still exits in St. Petersburg. The mainactivity of the Society focused on insects’ taxonomy and biogeography. Although some prominentmembers of the Society were also highly respected specialists in the applied entomology, the Societynever achieved any substantial success (and actually it could not) in the field of applied entomology.The activity of the Society included collecting insects, discussion papers and publishing the journal;sometimes it sent collectors to distant regions. But it never had any funds to conduct the kind ofexperimental work that is crucial for applied entomology.

29. St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Science, f. 724, op. 1, d. 80 (‘Aboutthe establishment of entomological stations in Russia, K. Gernet, 1873’). On applied entomology inRussia in 19th century see: Loskutova and Fedotova (2015).


270 A. Fedotova

30. In Moscow the issue was discussed at the Moscow Agricultural Society and Petrovskaya AgriculturalAcademy, in the south provinces – at the Society of Agriculture of South Russia. See, for example:Morozov (1875) and Elina (2008).

31. ‘Actions of Forestry Society’, Lesnoi zhurnal, 1873, no 1, p. 46–47; ‘Actions of Forestry Society’,Lesnoi zhurnal, 1874. no 2. p. 55–62.

32. Red’ko and Red’ko (2002). Perhaps only one of them – a botanist Ivan Borodin (1847–1932) – isknown not only as a scientist and organizer of the scientific research, but also as a public figure, inparticular as a conservation and environmental theorist. However, in those years, his career has onlyjust begun. See: Manojlenko (2005).

33. The two main institutions in Russia that offered higher education in forestry at that time.34. The Main Physical Observatory (Glavnaja Fizicheskaja observatorija, nowadays the Voeikov Main

Geophysical Observatory) was created in 1849 by academician Kupffer in St. Petersburg to superviseall state meteorological stations. By 1872 the system subordinated to the Main Physical Observatoryincluded 26 meteorological stations. See: Khrgian (1970).

35. Sobichevskij (1876). During his teaching at the Petrovskaya Agricultural Academy (1865–1881)Sobichevsky organized some experiments on afforestation methods.

36. 1 foot= 0.3048 m.37. 1.30 or 1.35 m. Many of the characteristics in forestry statistics are linked to this parameter (for

instance, diameter at breast height).38. First of all, forests create a barrier for winds and, secondly, they affect the air temperature and humidity

by evaporating water. However, although such an effect does exist, the assessments made by scientistsin the first half of the 19th century were not supported by instrumental measurements and experiments,and later proved to be inflated.

39. RGIA, f. 387, op. 3, d. 24745, l. 319.40. Izmail’skii (1882, 1894).41. See correspondence between V.V. Dokuchaev and A.A. Izmail’skii: Nauchnoe nasledstvo, vol. 2

(Moscow, 1951).42. Izmail’skii (1894).43. Izmail’skii (1894), Morozov (1902), Otockij (1905) etc. See also: Fedotova and Loskutova (2015).44. The standardization of methods for meteorological observations was not achieved in the 1870s, but

the work in this direction was moving fast. For example, the Main Physical Observatory unified thespecifications of observations in Russian meteorological stations, switched to the metric system andthe Celsius scale in the late 1860s and early 1870s.

45. Iosif Porchinskii (1848–1916) was the leading expert on pest insects of the MSD (1875–1916) andthe Secretary of Russian Entomological Society (1874–1896).

46. RGIA, f. 398, op. 51, d. 16586 (On the study of pest insects in Russia, 1887), pp. 10–13; op. 53,d. 17172 (On the study of pest insects in Russia, 1889), p. 65; f. 1287, op. 4, d. 1381 (On theextermination of grain beetle in the southern provinces of Russia, part. 6, 1885–1886) pp. 257–259etc. The special Bureau for Applied Entomology was created in 1894 and Porchinskii became its firsthead. By that time entomologists and agronomists in the southern provinces of the Empire had createda few provincial agencies for pest research and control that were funded by both public and privatemoney.

47. Red’ko (1994); RGIA, f. 387, op. 2, dd. 23078, 20058; op. 3, dd. 24743–24745.48. Krauze (1878, 1880). On the poor situation with state finances and with tax collection in 1860–1870s

see: Pearson (1989) especially pp. 247–257. This hypothesis is supported also indirectly: MarinaLoskutova in her unpublished dissertation ‘Russian Provinces in Search of Development: the Mak-ing of the Secondary School System, 1860–1880s’ (2000, Central European University, Budapest)showed that in these years all petitions to create new schools at government expense wererejected.



49. See for example the comments of Ernest Shenrok on the presentation of A. Rudzkii on experimentalforestry stations at the Forestry Society Meeting (Lesnoi zhurnal, 1874, no 2, pp. 55–62). Ernest I.Shenrok was an official of the Forestry Department, and since 1883 – its vice-director.

50. Borisov (1874) and The Pest Incest Commission… (1881).51. Shafranov (1874, pp. 5–6); ‘Actions of Forestry Society’, Lesnoi zhurnal, 1875, no 1, p. 115–116;

‘Actions of Forestry Society’, Lesnoi zhurnal, 1876, no 1, pp. 99–100 etc.52. In the 1880s the Regional Entomological Congresses took place in South Russia. The Odessa

Entomological Commission, which was funded by the southern provinces local administration,conducted field and laboratory research on pest insects. On organizing of the first experimentalagricultural institutions in the 1880s – early 1890s see: Elina (2008).

53. In 1892 the Special Expedition dispatched by the Forestry Department was organized, see: Filonenko(2000) and Fedotova and Loskutova (2015). The first state institutions for experimentation inagronomy and applied biology were created in 1894 when the new Ministry of Agriculture and StateDomains was created together with Special Bureaus for its Scientific Committee.

54. Turskii and Shafranov (1876, p. 121).55. RGIA, f. 398, op. 42, № 13693 (On the opening at the Forestry Institute the agricultural chemical

station). Pavel A. Kostychev (1845–1895) was one of the most important figures in soil science in thelate 19th century in Russia. In the 1870s he taught agronomy in the Forestry Institute.

56. Pluviometer= rain gauge.

REFERENCES

Adamov, N. (1894) Meteorologicheskie nabludenia 1892–1894 godov [Meterological observations of1892–1894], Trudi Osoboy Ekspedicii, snarayzhennoi Lesnym Departamentom pod rukovodstvom V.V.Dokuchaeva, Nauchnii otdel [Proceedings of the special expedition dispatched by the Forestry Departmentunder the supervision of V.V. Dokuchaev, scientific part], Vol. 3, issue 1, pp. 235–242.

Agrarischer Congress (1873) Verhandlungen des Agrarischen Congresses. Nach den stenographischen pro-tokollen zusammengestellt im kaiserlich-königlichen Ackerbau-Ministerium (Wien: Hof- und Staatsdruck-erei).

Andreassian, V. (2004) Waters and forests: from historical controversy to scientific debate, Journal of Hydrology,291, 1–27.

Arnol’d, F. (1861a) Zametka [A note]. Zhurnal Ministerstva gosudarstvennih imushchestv, part 76, book 4,miscellaneous, pp. 153–162.

Arnol’d, F. (1861b) Otvet na zametku g. Batalina v ZhMGI za aprel 1861 [A response to Batalin’s note]. ZhurnalMinisterstva gosudarstvennih imushchestv, part 77, book 1, miscellaneous, pp. 59–69.

Batalin, F. (1860) Neskol’ko khodyachikh polozheniy russkoy lesokhozyaystvennoy statistiki’ [Some commonideas of Russian forestry]. Zhurnal Ministerstva gosudarstvennih imushchestv, part 75, book 3, miscellaneous,pp. 156–166.

Batalin, F. (1861a) Zametka po povodu zametki [A note about the note]. Zhurnal Ministerstva gosudarstvennihimushchestv, part 76, book 4, miscellaneous, pp. 162–169.

Batalin, F. (1861b) Otvet na otvet [A response to the response]. Zhurnal Ministerstva gosudarstvennih imushch-estv, 1861, part 77, book 1, miscellaneous, pp. 69–74.

Bejlin, I. G. (1962) Ocherki po istorii lesnyh obshhestv dorevoljucionnoj Rossii [Essays on the history of forestrysocieties in pre-revolutionary Russia], (Moscow: Goslesbumizdat).

Borisov, V. M. (1874) O vrednyh zhivotnyh i nasekomyh juzhnogo kraja i sredstvah ih unichtozhenija [On pestinsects of southern region and ways to exterminate them]. Trudy IV S’ezda rus sel’skih hozjaev v Har’kove vdekabre 1874 g. [Proceedings of the IV Russian agronomy congress], Odessa, pp. 196–245.

Bradley, J. (2009) Voluntary associations in Tsarist Russia: science, patriotism, and civil society, (Harvard,London: Harvard University Press).

Brain, S. (2011) Song of the forest: Russian forestry and Stalinist environmentalism, 1905–1953 (Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh Press).

Cittadino, E. (1990) Nature as the laboratory: Darwinian plant ecology in the German empire, 1880–1900,(Cambridge: Cambridge University press).


272 A. Fedotova

Elina, O. Y. (2008) Ot tsarskikh sadov do sovetskikh polei. Istoriia sel’skokhozaistvennykh opytnykh uchrezhdenii,XVIII – 20-e gg. xxv. [From tsar’s gardens to Soviet fields. A history of experimental agricultural institutionsfrom the eighteenth century to the 1920s]. 2 Vols. (Moscow: Egmont-Russia).

Fedoseev, I. A. (1957) K istorii diskussii o gidrologicheskoj i klimaticheskoj roli lesa [To the history of the debateover the impact of forests on climate and hydrology]. III nauchnaja konfercija aspirantov i mladshih nauchnyhcotrudnikov. Sbornik dokladov [Proceedings of the III scientific conference of the PhD students and juniorresearchers], Moscow, pp. 94–110.

Fedotova, A. A. (2011a) Lesnoe obszhestvo v Sankt-Peterburge [Forestry Society of St. Petersburg], Biolo-gia v Sankt-Peterburge. 1703–2008. Enciklopedichesky slovar [Biology in St.Petersburg. 1703–2008. Ency-clopaedic dictionary] (St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoria), pp. 276.

Fedotova, A. A. (2011b) Lesnoi zhurnal (1833–1851) [Forestry journal, 1833–1851], Biologia vSankt-Peterburge 1703–2008. Enciklopedichesky slovar, (St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoria), pp. 277–278

Fedotova, A. A. (2011c) Lesnoi zhurnal (1871–1918) [Forestry journal, 1871–1918], Biologia v Sankt-Peterburge1703–2008. Enciklopedichesky slovar, (St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoria), pp. 278.

Fedotova, A. A. and Loskutova, M. V. (2015) Forests, climate, and the rise of scientific forestry inRussia: from local knowledge and natural history to modern experiments (1840s – early 1890s),Phillips D. and Kingsland S. (eds.) New perspectives on the history of life sciences and agriculture,Archimedes series (Heidelberg Germany; New York USA; Dordrecht Netherlands; London UK: Springer)(In print).

Filonenko, I. E. (2000) Osobaia ekspeditsiia [The special expedition], (Moscow: Prima-Press-M).Forestry Department (1894–1898) Trudy Osoboi ekspeditsii snariazhennoi Lesnym Departamentom pod

rukovodstvom V.V. Dokuchaeva [Proceedings of the special expedition dispatched by the Forestry Depart-ment under the supervision of V.V. Dokuchaev], Vol. 1-4 (St. Petersburg: Ministry of Agriculture and StateDomains).

Groeben, C. (1975) The Naples Zoological station at the time of Anton Dorn, (Napoli: Emilio di Mario Press).Grove, R. H. (1994) A historical review of the early institutional and conservationist responses to fears of

artificially induced global climate change: the deforestation-desiccation discourse, 1500–1860, Chemosphere,29(5), 1001–1013.

Grove, R. H. (1995) Green imperialism: colonial expansion, tropical island Edens and the origins of environ-mentalism, 1600–1860, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Izmail’skii, A. A. (1882) Vlazhnost’ pochvy v sviazi s yeyo kul’turnym sostoianiem [Soil moisture in relation toits cultivation state], (St. Petersburg: tip. V. Demakova).

Izmail’skii, A. A. (1894) Vlazhnost’ pochvy i gruntovaia voda v sviazi s rel’efom mestnosti i kul’turnymsostoianiem poverkhnosti pochvy [Soil moisture and ground water depending on the topography andcultivation state of the surface of the soil], (Poltava: Tip. L. Frishberga).

Khrgian, A. K. (1970) Meteorology: a historical survey, (Jerusalem: The Israel Program for Scientific Transla-tions).

Kofoid, C. A. (1910) The biological stations of Europe, United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 440, 1–359.Kostychev, P. A. (1876) Sposobstvuet li razvedenie lesov unichtozheniju zasuh? [Could the afforestation reduce

droughts?], Otechestvenniye zapisky [Annals of the Fatherland], 3, 1–33, 2nd pagination.Krauze, E. (1878) Napravlenie i organizacija lesnogo opytnogo dela [Direction and organization of forestry

experimentation]. Zapiski Obshhestva sel’skogo hozjajstva Juzhnoi Rossii [Proceedings of the AgriculturalSociety of South Russia], March, pp. 88–106; April, pp. 128–143.

Krauze, E. (1880) Esche o napravlenii i organizacii lesnogo opytnogo dela [Again on direction and organizationof forestry experimention]. Zapiski Obshhestva sel’skogo hozjajstva Juzhnoi Rossii, March, pp. 170–178.

Kravchinskij, D. (1876) Vopros o vlijanii lesa na klimat [The problem of forests impact on the climate], LesnoiZhurnal, 6, 25–54.

Locher, F. and Fressoz, J.-B. (2012) Modernity’s frail climate: a climate history of environmental reflexivity,Critical Inquiry, 38(3), 579–598.

Loskutova, M. V. (2012a) Svedenija o klimate, pochve, obraze hozja𝚤stva i gospodstvujushhih rastenijah dolzhnybyt’ sobrany… »: prosveshhennaja bjurokratija, gumbol’dtovskaja nauka i mestnoe znanie v Rossi𝚤sko𝚤imperii vtoro𝚤 chetverti XIX v. [Information about climate, soils, the ways of economy and dominant plants



must be collected… : enlightened bureaucrats, Humboldtian science, and local knowledge in the RussianEmpire ca. 1830s–1850s], Ab Imperio, (4), 111–156.

Loskutova, M. V. (2012b) The influence of river shallowing is just an unsubstantiated hypothesis: applied researchand governmental policies in forest management in the Russian empire in the 1830–1840s, Studies in theHistory of Biology, 4(1), 9–32.

Loskutova, M. V. and Fedotova, A. A. (2015) The rise of applied entomology in the Russian empire:governmental, public and academic response to insect pest outbreaks, in the 1840s–1894, Phillips D.and Kingsland S. (eds.) New perspectives on the history of life sciences and agriculture, Archimedesseries, (Heidelberg Germany; New York USA; Dordrecht Netherlands; London UK: Springer)(in print).

Manojlenko, K. V. (2005) Ivan Parfen’evich Borodin, 1847–1930, (Moscow: Nauka).Marsh, G. P. (1864) Man and nature or, physical geography as modified by human action, (London: Sampson,

Low, Son & Marston).Marsh, G. P. (1866) Chelovek i priroda [Man and nature] (St. Petersburg: N. Poljakov & Co).Moon, D. (2010) The destruction of woodland in the Steppe Region, 1760–1914, Studies in the History of

BiologyStudies in the History of Biology, 2(4), 51–65.Moon, D. (2013) The plough that broke the steppes: agriculture and environment on Russia’s grasslands,

1700–1914 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Morozov, Yu. I. (1875) O neobkhodimosti ustroistva sel’skokhoziaistvennykh meteorologicheskikh stantsii v

Rossii [The need for the organization of agricultural meteorological stations in Russia]. Trudy IV s’ezdaRusskikh sel’skikh khoziaev v Khar’kove v dekabre 1874 g. [Proceedings of the IV Congress of Russianlandowners in Kharkiv], Odessa, pp. 117–139.

Morozov, G. F. (1902) Istorija kul’tur v Hrenovskom boru (1849–1899) [The history of reforestation inKhrenovsky Forest, 1849–1899]. Trudy Opytnyh lesnichestv [Proceedings of the Experimental ForestryDistricts], No. 1, pp. 167–214.

Müttrich, A. (Hrsg.) (1877a) Jahres-Bericht über die Beobachtungs Ergebnisse de rim Koenigreich Preussenund der Reichs landen eingerichteten forstlich–meteorologischen Stationen. Ersrer Jahrgang. Das Jahr 1875,(Berlin: Springer).

Müttrich, A. (1877b) Jahresbericht über die Beobachtungs Ergebnisse de rim Koenigreich Preussen und derReichs landen eingerichteten forstlich–meteorologischen Stationen. Ersrer Jahrgang. Das Jahr 1875, LesnoiZhurnal, 2, 120–122.

Otockij, P. V. (1905) Gruntovye vody ih proishozhdenie, zhizn’ i raspredelenie. Gruntovye vody i lesa, preimush-hestvenno na ravninah srednih shirot [Groundwater, its origin, life and distribution. Groundwater and forests,mainly in the plains of the middle latitudes] (St. Petersburg: Gerold).

Pearson, T. S. (1989) Russian officialdom in crisis: autocracy and local self-government, 1861–1900 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).

Rajan, S. (2006) Modernizing nature: forestry and imperial eco-development (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Red’ko, G. I. (1994) Polkovnik Korpusa lesnichikh [The colonel of forestry corps], (Kiev: Ukrainian Forestry

Ministry).Red’ko, G. I. and Red’ko, N. G. (2002) Istorija lesnogo hozjajstva Rossii [The history of Forestry in Russia],

(St. Petersburg, Moscow: Izdatelstvo MGUL).Rudzkij, A. (1873) O vlijanii lesov na klimat: po povodu sochinenija doktora Ebermajera. Bibliograficheskoe

obozrenie [The impact of forests on climate: the study by Dr. Ebermayer. Biliographical review], LesnoiZhurnal, 2, 81–113.

Rykatschew, M. A. (1873) Weitere Fragen zur Verhandlung für den Meteorologen-Congress zu Wien, ZeitschriftÖsterreich für Meteorologie, 8(13), 193–203.

Schleiden, M. J. (1870) Für Baum und Wald. Eine Schutschrift an Fachmaenner und Laien gericht, (Leipzig:Engelmann).

Schleiden, M. J. (1873) Les i klimat [Für Baum und Wald], [Russian Trans. by Rudzkij, A] (St. Petersburg:Forestry Society).

Shafranov, N. S. (1874) II Vserossijskij s’ezd lesohozjaev v Lipecke (Soobshhenie sdelannoe v Lesnom obshhestve21 sentjabrja i 5 oktjabrja 1874 g. [The second all-Russian forestry congress in Lipetsk (Presentation madeat the Forestry Society meetings, September, 21 and October, 5, 1874)], (St. Petersburg: Forestry Society).


274 A. Fedotova

Sobichevskij, V. T. (1876) K voprosu ob ustrojstve v Rossii opytnyh lesnyh stancij [To the problem of organizationof the forestry experimental stations in Russia], Lesnoi Zhurnal, 5, 47–56.

The Pest Incest Commission of the Odessa District Zemstvo Executive Board. (1881) Khlebniy zhuk. Protokolyi doklady osobogo soveshchaniia predstavitelei zemstv, sozvannogo dlia obsuzhdeniia voprosa o khebnomzhuke v Odesse 28 fevralia – 6 marta 1881 [Grain Beetle. Minutes and papers of the special consultationsamong Zemstvo representatives convened for discussing the question of the Grain Beetle (Anisoplia austriaca)in Odessa on February 28 – March 6, 1881], (Odessa).

The Polytechnic Museum (1922) Piatidesiatiletie Politekhnicheskogo muzeia v Moskve. 1872—1922. Kratkiiistoricheskii ocherk [The fiftieth anniversary of the polytechnic museum in Moscow. 1872–1922. A briefhistorical overview] (Moscow: Tip. MKKh).

The Society of Devotees of Natural Science, Anthropology, and Ethnography. (1872) Obshchee obozre-nie Moskovskoi politekhnicheskoi vystavki [General overview of the Moscow polytechnic exhibition],(Moscow: OLEAE).

Tsvetkov, M. A. (1957) Izmenenie lesistosti Evropeiskoi Rossii s kontsa XVII stoletiia po 1914 g. [The changeof forest cover in European Russia since the late seventeenth century up to 1914], (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo ANSSSR).

Turskii, M. and Shafranov, A. (1876) K tablitsam meteorologicheskikh nabliudenii, proizvodimykh na Lisinskoiuchebnoi dache [To the tables of meteorological observations made at Lisinskiy training forestry district,Lesnoi Zhurnal, 3, 121–125.

Zobov, N. M. (1871) Klimaticheskoe vlijanie lesa [The impact of forests on climate. Review of the book SchleidenM. J. Für Baum und Wald. Eine Schutschrift an Fachmaenner und Laien gericht. Leipzig, 1870], LesnoiZhurnal, 3, 28–40.


Forestry Experimental Stations: Russian Proposals of the 1870s

Documents

Transcript of Forestry Experimental Stations: Russian Proposals of the 1870s