bo The Wild Legumes of Maryland. BULLETIN No. 100 OF, THE Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, COLLEGE PARK, MD. MARCH, 1905. THE CORPORATION. The Board of Trustees of the Marylat Agricultural College. ; 1 ee Agricultural (Station) Committee of ine Board of Trust ees. : oS GOVERNOR EDWIN WARFIELD (Ex-Officio)............. Annapolis, CHARLES H. STANLEY (Chairman)...... 5 cae ee hs oe ae .Laurel. a re CHARLES We.SUAGLE..2 539 Se Vesstedessess) te) Baltnmoreds DAV:D-CEIBERT. : 2... 4003 Fics ee See Clear Spring. - 3 MURRAY VANDIVER. | ...6 fc02 00% S5s 5 meee ee Havre de | Gr : ss CHAS. A. -COUNCILMAN 3.3 20 3. ov bg oie eee F. CARROLL GOLDSBORO: -. /.4.. 532 48 Be ee See Station Officers and Staff. HARRY J .; PATTERSON; B. S23 Hee SAMUEL S. BUCKLEY, D. V. S.....:.....- W.. TL. TALIAFERRO, BoA. > Foe eee CHARLES F. DOANE, M.S. Ag.......5.5.. J.B: S. NORTON, Me S252. eo eee te. F Be OV: GARNER. 64 S020 os bad. Se eee Farm Sheer tnseniieaa an zo . corder of Experiment THIS. B, SYMONS, MUSs.t<.4.4.c2e> aed Entomologist. Wa...Ni. Burr, Be 8.280272. ee Horticulturist. ae +S. FH /-BLODGETT;. Me Si. 2. RO Oe Me tore + Assistant Botanist. M.. N. \STRAUGHN,. M: Sex. .f ore... ee Assistant Chemist. . Ac B.GAnAN, Br Sota eee Assistant Entomologist Ee PS WALLS, Be 8h Sard Le teen Assistant Aran STEWART B. SHAw, B. S..... oe Pee Assistant Horticult JOSEPIU:R: OWENS; M. David. 2S Treasurer. HERBERT If. TIOWELG +23 24.2.5 527.3 te ees Clerk. THOS, HW BPE .: gods toss Oe ee Gardener. Line, eight cites’ nor rth ‘of Weshwneria Hse Bell Telephone— Weaskiniray, Directory Hie sees 42, Visitors will be welcomed ct all times, and will be given every oppot ort rtunit to inspect the work of the Station in all of its departments. exe B lame The Bulletins and Pevorta: of the Station will be mailed rally charge, to all residents of the State who request it. ADDRESS: _ oe ore AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATI ON, e College Park, 3 Mar, BS ie THE MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. BULLETIN No. 100. MARCH, THE WILD LEGUMES OF MARYLAND AND THEIR UTILIZATION. ' IBRAR'\ A NEW vor; By J. B. S. Norton and E. P. Walls. Bo ANIC UA KD FA The vaiue to the soil of the cultivated leguminous plants has long been recognized and they are now being used extensively, aside from their great feeding value, for adding to the nitrogen and humus con- tent of the land. The wild plants of this kind, next to the grasses and composites, form a larger part of our native flora than any other family of plants, and since many of them are closely related to the kinds doing best under cultivation it is reasonable to suppose that some of the. wild species are of value in the same manner as the cultivated ones. It is the design of this bulletin to furnish a list of the leguminous plants found wild in this State, showing the localities and kinds of soil and sur- roundings where they grow best, and indicating the ways in which they may be utilized, with suggestions as to the possible improvement of the more valuable species, experiments along this line being in progress now at this Experiment Station. Extensive collections and observations over the State as well as all available herberia and published records have been used as the basis of this work. In addition to our own observations some of the notes on uses, etc., have been taken from various standard works. UTILIZATION. The most valuable use of the wild legumes is in improving soil by means of nitrogen compounds produced in them from the assimilation of free atmospheric nitrogen in the noduies on their roots. For this reason their protein content is unusually high and they also then make most useful feeding stuffs. A few are trees and have valuable wood. Some have very ornamental flowers, while a few are bad weeds even poisonous. Oh. »Pelm ae NAG a 98 MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL EXPRRIMENT STATION. a RELATION OF LEGUMINOUS PLANTS TO SOIL FERTILITY. ner >" There seems to be an erroneous belief among those not thoroughly Nery “S conversant with the subject, that a legume will increase the fertility ae e any soil, by taking up nitrogen from the air, regardless of Srevalinana a conditions, and previous treatment of the soil ; and that all green ma- nuring crops are legumes. Therefore at the beginning it may be well to explain the soil conditions which are necessary in order that legumes | may gather nitrogen from the air, and also make a distinction between those green manuring crops which gather atmospheric nitrogen, and those which either consume or only convert the soil nitrogen, or, strictly speaking, the leguminous and non-leguminous green manures. — In order that a legume may assimilate nitrogen from the atmos- phere, the soil must primarily contain or be inoculated with certain ~~ bacteria, whose presence is manifested by the growth of nodules on the roots, through which it is believed that the atmospheric nitrogen is obtained. These germs are usually found abundantly in most well- tilled soils. : Any crop may serve.as a green manure, but leguminous crops possess a greater value for this purpose, than others, because they can obtain certain of their constituents from sources not accessible to all plants. ‘Therefore in order to show the value of legumes as green manure, it is necessary here to separate them from other green manur- a ing crops, which, instead of increasing the Supply of soil nitrogen, — actually decrease it. FERTILIZING POWER OF LEGUMINOUS AND NON-LEGUMINOUS PLANTS. The most important legumes available for use as green ma- nures, are crimson clover, red clover, cow peas, and soja beans. They are not only valuable on account of their nitrogen-gathering property, but their period and time of growth make them very convenient crops. The quantity of nitrogen which these-crops gather from the air, depends largely on the amount of nitrogen stored in the soil, for they will gather at least a part of their nitrogen from the soil, in preference to that of the air, unless starved of soil nitrogen. Therefore the exact amount of nitrogen which a plant gathers from the air, cannot be deé-lsaiae termined by the ‘content of nitrogen in the plant. But it has been de- termined by experiment that they do gather nitrogen from the air, ad store it in their own tissues which, by decaying, allow it to be used by other crops, which can obtain this valuable element only from the soil. For this reason, they can, by judicious growing, be made a very potent factor in the economical production of crops. The principal non-leguminous green manures are rye, buckwheat and mustard. They do not increase the supply of soil nitrogen, but by their time of growth, prevent the loss of this element by leaching, which is very liable to occur if the soil is left naked. They improve — the mechanical and physical condition of soils, and conserve the soil nitrogen. But while they retain the supply of nitrogen in the soil, they convert it from the immediately available to the less available organic THE WILD LEGUMES OF MARYLAND AND THEIR U'TILIZATION, 99 form. Therefore while the practice of growing these non-leguminous crops as green manures, is desirable, if wisely followed, it should be Fig. 1—Soy Bean—After Abel, Farmers’ Bulletin 121, United States Department of Agriculture. remembered that they do not add plant food to the soil, but only in- crease the organic matter. TUBERCLE PRODUCING BACTERIA AND METHODS OF SOIL INOCULATION. It has been stated above that in order for a legume to utilize the atmospheric nitrogen, a certain germ or bacterium must be present on the roots. This germ enters the young roots, and after locating itself, causes a multiplication of cells around it which produces the tubercles seen on such roots. This mass of cells remains soft and succulent, in -comparision with the rest of the roots, and is always sufficiently porous to admit the atmospheric nitrogen, which is abundant in all well culti- vated soils. The exact means by which the bacteria place the nitrogen of the atmosphere at the disposal of the plant is not thoroughly under- stood, but it is known that the tubercles are the dwelling places of the germs, through which the atmospheric nitrogen reaches the plant. 100 MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Bey; Because of the fact frequently observed that one kind of legume would not produce nodules in soil which abundantly supplied another — ea legume with these growths, it has been supposed that each legume re- ses quired a special and peculiar nodule organism. a | Efforts have been made to distinguish between these bacteria specifically, and separate names have been assigned to the microbes from nodules of peas, beans, clover, etc. Most investigators, however, it, Fig. 2—Peanut—After Abel, Farmers’ Bulletin 121, United States Department of * Agriculture. have been unable to discover any constant difference in the appearance and general characteristics of the bacteria of the various legume nodules, and the results of the most recent research on this question seem to prove that there is only a difference in variety and not in — species. : he Dr. Geo. T. Moore, of the United States Department of Agri- culture, Washington, D. C., in laboratory experiments, succeeded in producing nodules on a large number of legumes by inoculation with a single culture. Asa result of a great many cross-inoculations, made in _ every possible combination, Dr. Moore concludes, “that it was satis- — factorily demonstrated that it is possible to cause the formation of — nodules upon practically all legumes no matter what the source of the f N original organisms.” Nevertheless, it is certainly true that the bacteria seem to adapt themselves to the conditions surrounding the growth of a particular legume and, from a practical standpoint, it will be nec- essary, in order to obtain the best results, to use specific cultures or sources of bacteria for specific crops. 4 f ye yt , dot STEEN, eal ai. “or rs me i bat ‘ : a. ‘ Mu fs bs a f Lad ih ay AM Si TER wv, ; “a 7 ‘4d : - a THE WILD LEGUMES OF MARYLAND AND THEIR UTILIZATION. 101 Be ls But if these bacteria are absent, how are we to supply them? This ies ee one of the most important items to be considered in the growing of faa legumious crops. This process, known as soil inoculation, may be af- fected by applying the material containing the germs directly to the soil, f or by bringing the seed in contact with the inoculating material before planting. Soil from a field where a leguminous plant has been recently ; and successfully grown, is a good inoculating material for the € 3 _ same plant, in a soil destitute or deficient m the required form of bac- hea A terial life. er At the Kansas Experiment Station ii was found that soja beans _. ~~ - would not bear tubercles. They then proceeded to inoculate the Kan- 7 s sas soil with inoculated soil from the Hatch Experiment Station at Ambherst, Massachusetts. Of course, only a small area was inoculated at first, and from this more extensive inoculation took place. Two methods were used; first, the finely-pulverized, Massachusetts soil was placed directly in the hill; secondly, water was added to a certain quantity of soil placed in a suitable vessel. The soil was allowed to settle to the bottom, and the water was then drawn off and applied to the plants. From this TES aN is was determined that the best time to in- oculate a soil is at the time of planting a crop, and that it is better to — inoculate with soil directly than to use the extract. But both methods gave very satisfactory results. This practice was carried on, on a small scale, for several years, and then the soil thus inoculated, was used in a drill, as fertilizer, after being finely powdered, and applied at the rate of six hundred pounds per acre. This drilling method is an ideal way of inoculating the soil. There is a prevailing belief that all leguminous plants increase the fertility of the soil, but there are a few species of this family that d5 not gather atmospheric nitrogen; therefore, they do not increase the fertility, except by the addition of humus, and by improving the mechanical condition of the soil, which may be said of most plants. It is safe to say that only those legumes increase the fertility of the soil which bear tubercles on the roots, and those plants which do not pro- duce tubercles are not agricultural legumes, although they are prop- erly classed as Leguminosae. Practically all of the wild Maryland species examined have tubercles on the rocts, which goes to show that their specific germ, if any, is widely dist ributed in the soils, making ---—s inoculation in most cases unnecessary, uniess with an improved strain a: of bacteria to increase the yield. ss COMPARATIVE VALUE OF WILD AND CULTIVATED LEGUMINOUS PLANTS. Cras 4% vp) a . ° - gL ls ya, D4 - a d r be ih >, r ht 7 | wet 1 rt , In considering the use of a leguminous crop on cultivated land one would naturally turn to such cultivated kinds as are already well known es adapted to our farms; for example, red clover, crimson clover, al- _ falfa, cow peas, vetch, etc. Some of the wild kinds, how ever, might : e as valuable under cultivation, at least when the better strains ive been selected and improved. J 7 2 ae an, Se aes SD ee a ( i i > “ ) a ie Oo 4 inet. va ¥ ' 7 4% > , ‘y ¢ « - Orato MmeB eM Cos 3 ne ae 102 MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. But when we consider the large areas vf uncultivated land in land, where no crop is or will be grown under present conditio value of the wild legume in building up such land by adding humus nitrogen becomes much more worthy of consideration, especially remember the fact that the most of our waste woodland and fie e covered with a natural growth of leguminous plants, doing their we rk without a particle of labor on the part of the owner. On many thous and acres of waste land over one-half of the weed growth is composed of nitrogen gathering leguminous plants. If by any means tl Fig. 3—Cow-pea—After Abel, Farmers’ Bulletin 121, United States Department of Agriculture. 0 ae plants can be encouraged to grow on uncultivated land their value will be increased. The rank growing forms and those most rich in nitrogen or which seed themselves most rapidly could be introduced on places where they do not now occur, and might soon take the place of useless. weeds. A great many of these species grow with the greatest ease on — dry ry, sandy or sterile land where other plants would not succeed until _ the legumes had opened the way. Some like the partridge-pea, rab- ¥] bi -clover, and hop-clover, often cover the stubble fields with a spon- _ taneous growth in summer and thus add to their fertility. 4] OTHER USES. Bush-clovers, the wild true clovers, beggar-ticks, etc., form the most valuable part of the wild pasture of the woodlands, and the oc- currence of leguminous weeds in cultivated fields is not to be regretted as much as that of many other plants of less value to the soil. The seeds of many leguminous plants, for example, beans and peas, are good food materials; others contain valuable coloring matters and the bark of many is exceptionally rich in tannin; some are cultivated for ornament. Other minor uses will be mentioned under the individual species in the list to follow. FUTURE POSSIBILITIES. Many things remain to be determined regarding the useful quali- ties of the wild ‘leguminous plants. The herbage, roots and seed of the _ different kinds should be subjected to chemical analysis to determine _ their varied nitrogen content. They should be examined with reference to tlie presence of a greater or less amount of nodules on the roots. The most promising should be cultivated and improved from year to __-year by selection of the best for different purposes—hay, pasture, green - - manuring. seed, etc. Experiments along some of the more important of these lines are in progress at the Maryland Experiment Station. Sev- eral kinds are being grown and seed of the most promising kinds, like a ot some of the beggar-ticks, bush-clovers, and partridge peas, have been planted. me © w=, ie - ig iF) MARYLAND LEGUMINOSAE. Our wild leguminous plants are distinguished from other plants, first by their irregular flowers (usually with ten stamens) which more __or less resemble those of the pea and bean, although they may be much smaller, and often clustered in heads, which may be mistaken for a _ single flower, as in the clover. Exceptions are the cassias, honey lo- — cust, and albizzia, which haye regular flowers; the last two being trees a and the cassias being recognized by the finely divided, pinnate leaves and flat bean-like pods. A second characteristic of legumes is the compound leaves, with three or more leaflets, to each leaf, as in clover, or with many small leaflets arranged like the parts of a feather ( pinnate) as in the part- ridge-pea (see Figure 9). Sometimes the leaf ends in a tendril (as the ; ve rches) and in the lupine the leaves are arranged as in the clover but five or more leaflets together on the end of the leaf stalk. A peculiar swe llen joint is seen at the base of each leaf or leaflet by which they ei sig ete oa 2a Pa ey. | y 3 b ry ans a Gl. ‘ omy] s THE WILD LEGUMES OF MARYLAND AND THEIR UTILIZATION, — 108 104 MARYLAND AGRICULTURAI. EXPERIMENT STATION. fold up at night, etc. Exceptions in leaf form are the red-bud tree, which has a large heart-shaped leaf, and the rattle-box with entire leaves having arrow-shaped wings on the stems below each. As a third distinguishing mark, nearly all leguminous plants have more or less pea-like pods which, however, may be short and only one- seeded as in the case of clover or alfalfa. DISTRIBUTION IN THE STATE. The maps prepared from our notes and specimens show that while several species of Leguminosae are found in all parts of the State which Fig. 4—The dots show where introduced legumes have been found wild in Maryland. h MARYLAND ae x on ee Fig. 5—The dots show where native legumes have been found in Maryland. . THE WILD LEGUMES OF MARYLAND AND THEIR UTILIZATION. 105 have been examined, many more of both species and individuals occur in the sandy lands of Prince George and Anne Arundel Counties, and the southeast and central parts of the Peninsula than elsewhere. Very few species are abundant in wet lands; consequently marshy regions, like those of Dorchester and Somerset Counties, are not abundantly MARYLAND Fig. 6—The dots show parts of Maryland which have been explored botanically. trovided with them; the salt water is destructive to most legumes, especially some of the clovers. Neither «lo the mountainous sections =. = Ss woe oth Pa < + & ( iz | Jy ER MARYLAND. “at © Fig. T—Showing the proportion of leguminous plants in different parts of Maryland to the whole number of plants observed. The heavier shading denotes the greater abundance of legumes. This is based on our notes and collections from various parts of the State, which are not sufficient for more than a rough approximation. vat i nal Pe. Ke 106 MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL PXPBRIMEN* srarioy . “ in! ,< with rich soil seem so favorable to’ their growth, shoud ; of the State have their peculiar species which do well, and le some kind are found in every climate and soil. In many | Maryland legumes form from one-quarter to three-quarters. wild plants. N early all our clovers and related plants and sever: a leguminous species are natives of Europe and have been introdv tian, and run, wild here. Figure 4 shows that most of these as would be expected, in the parts of the State where there is traffic. It must be borne in mind that several parts of the State Figure 6.) have not been explored and this must be considered i terpreting these maps. so § ‘ HOW TO FIND OUT THE NAMES: . J If one is interested in the wild legumes growing on his fart ie is not familiar with the different kinds, fresh leaves, with flowers pods, if possible, can be put in an envelope or wrapped in paper mailed to the Experiment Station, at College Park, where the 1 na will be supplied for him. er The following comparison of characteristics and easily- eevee peculiarities of the different species has been devised as a key by whi +h any one unfamiliar with the plants may, with any one of our wild leg- - umes in hand, determine for himself the proper name of it. The figures — (Plate I.) of the leaves, etc., will also be helpful. After looking ee the plant in the key consult the catalogue of Speck for a more com- — plete description. Fig. S—Nodules on roots of alfalfa. Fig. 9—Partridge-pea. Fig. 10—Wild Vetch (Vicia angustifolia). 12—Bush-clover (Lespedeza repens) covering the ground; a beggar-tick in upper left band corner. late I—-Leaves and pods of legumes. I’ : PA . LASS te Ce Ceram. en. a he. ae , “ aK 6 am 1896, Ine Maryland Trees and Nursery Stock Law and other Information of Special Interest to Nurserymen and Fruit Growers. “ 43, Dec., 1896, Feeding Tests with the New Corn Product. “ 50, Sept., 1897, Rust and Leopard Spot, Two Dangerous Diseases of As- paragus. “ 51, Dec., 1897, Horse-Feeding Tests of the Digestibility of Oats, Corn, lay and the New Corn Product. “ 53, March, 1898, Special Investigation of the So-called ‘“‘“New’’ Horse Dis- ease in Maryland. “ 56, June, 1898, Wheat, Winter Oats, Barley and Lime Experiments. “ 58, Aug., 1898, The Hessian Fly and Wheat Diseases. “ 60, March, 1899, Some Diseases of Sweet Potato. “ 61, June, 1899, The Sugar Beet in Maryland. * 62, June, 1899, Experiments with Wheat, Corn and Potatoes. “ 63, Dee., 1899, Experiments with Feeding Pigs. “ 67, June, 1900, The Culture and Handling of Tobacco. ‘* 70, Jan. 1901, The Chemical Composition of Maryland Soils. — 2, Pe, 1901, Notes on Spraying Peaches and Plums in 1900. “ 72, March, 1901, Olservations on Growing Peaches in Maryland. “ 73, April, 1901, Suggestions About Combating the San Jose Scale. “ 75, June, 1901, The Effect of hydrocyanic-Acid Gas on Grains and Seeds. “ 76, June, 1901, Parturient Paresis—Milk Fever. “ 78, Dec., 1901, The Dehorning of Stock. “79, Jan., 1902, The Disinfectant Properties of Washing Powders. * 80, Feb., 1902, Acute Epizootic Leucoencephalitis in Horses. “ $2, May, 1902, Thinniug Fruits. “ 85, Aug., 1902, Alfalfa for Maryland. “ 86, Sept., 1902, The Influence of Preservatives ou the Food Value of Milk. “ 87, Noy., 1902, The Periodical Cicada, or Seventeen-year Locust. “ 88, May, 1903, Economical Methods for Improving the Keeping Qualities of Milk. “89, June, 1903, Baperiments with Potash Fertilizers. “ 90, Dee., 1903, Experiments on the Control of San Jose Scale. “91, Feb., 1904, Experiments with Nitrogenous Fertilizers. “ 92, March, 1904, Notes on Apple Culture. “ 93, May, 1904, Second Report on the Pithiness of Celery. “ 94, July, 1904, Methods for Keeping Milk and Butter Records. “ 95, Aug., 1904, The Character of Milk During the Period of Heat. “ 96, Sept., 1904, Sweet Corn Breeding, Growing and Curing for Seed. O71, Oct. 1904, The Relative Profits of Selling Milk, Cream and Butter. _“ 98, Nov.,. 1904, Ulome-Grown Protein for Feeding Cows. _ “* 99, Dec., 1904, Spray Solutions for San Jose Scale. Pngroduction <3 2358. 505.52 me ss pe eee AS ee £i Wiha. a es ae a a ee ee EGS The Relation of Leguminous Plants to Soil Fertility. . The Fertilizing Power of Leguminous and Non- t ecnenisoll PIR Ot6 so hs SA GU cho Se, oreeal Yh a Ho Bie C Tubercle Producing Bacteria and “Methods of Soil Inoculatic Comparative Value of Wild and Cultivated ig tia os ate te Ss , Futuge Possibilities 3.) 3200. .5 +. 4% 4A eee tre = Re Matylatid: Leguminosae ! >... 6 oS es a ee ae 3 HH Distribution in Maryland... 2.0... ccc cseevesevees ‘4 How to Find Out the Names: (2.7 1 oe SG Ua p> Explanation of Plate 1, 2 *-/ 2). Ye Reie> See es.