«

2

wee

aK.

ee a

y OF

f the 0

0

lit

erti

-

ffect of F

The E .

“fy \. t

2

7

tion

ransp

=

oS

y | © as

Bok, a a x

=.

ae *

creeshht os

“UN

ve

ILL. LIBRARY ~

ie

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY

Class Book Volume)

\DO M55

My 08-15M

% = = *

* +s i * iis So >k a a ea, ee ee ee ee ee ee Te OS Ts Ss a a a, ye ee ee ee a is

KO OK

THE EFFECT OF FERTILITY ON THE TRANSPIRATION OF THE OAT PLANT

BY

AMOS NEWLOVE MERRILL, B.S. (AGR. COLLEGE OF UTAH ’96)

THESIS

A

V

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT'FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRONOMY | IN THE

/ GRADUATE SCHOOL

) OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

1908

oO ©

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

June..1, 190 &

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY

b = r ‘anni 14 Newlove.Merrill

Amos ENTITLED ..._The Effect. of Fertility on the Transpiration. of the

Oat Plant s IS APPROVED BY ME AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF Master of Science

Instfuctor in Charge. FP M4 p : APPROVED: (grt & a <a

HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF Agronomy

Introduction

Escape of Water from Soils ]

[

ae

Influence of Fertilizers on the a a VWat+ar a VWF , Xn 4) Evaporation | Water from the Soi is

IS

Summary

Introduction PAs)

=) pth) ja ~<A _— tw t ae tn © ty + 1 tT — | v) es)

Appendix o6 Explanation of Plates 57 Plates 58

Explanation of Tables "7

REVIEW

Part I

OF LITERATURE

|

Se ee

Transpir

atTLe of the Oat Plant. Introduction.

In the arid and semi-arid regions of America, effort is being

made to find out ways and means of ing in the soils of the . tillable areas the largest possible amount of water that fall in the | ~ - - iw nA ~~ form of rain and snow. The experimentation described and discussed in this thesis was i undertaken with the intention of collecting additional data that i would be of value in the solution of this problem. ne Writer is indebted to Dr. Cyril G. Hopkins, under whose die rection the work was carried on, for many heipf suggestions he | ao : Mg eee! : z ; f has given, and to others whi in min WAYS, as: a worki out « S 3 i ~ MA 4 | the experiment. | ) De = A PE ON SY Escape of Water Soils. j Al ‘ik fe ae ais i = ge a 2 s ie | 2 ; ek water that finds i to a soil that is producing | h = : af that soi} ] S walt aanel weet fae Ee |} -faves that soil in three ways, namely, by dra ; evaporation Wy: } a .

o ss 7 > + ha 4.7 ae DC amont a : co f | from the surface of the soil, and by tran: tion of the p 3. Hi : i

: 4 =| ay S$Aant #+h +hea or 2Y ard £ + ‘ It is very evident that the greater part of this water must egeape | s fr th ent} 1 tore, te a 5 * . trom the soil if a waterelogged condition is to he a + de SBS e5 4 el Soe 4i we VU Vo co ° i © i of es= } /

Influence of Fertilizers

n the Evaporation of Water from the S01 Le p

W. H. Beal’ of the United States Department of Agricul’ "The belief is common that the moisture conditions of materially modified by the use of appropriate fertil izers pecially the application of common salt. It is claimed that use of such substances, the power of the soil to collect and moisture can be increased to such an extent as to make this

controlling the water supply of the soil of practical utility;

=~ + rr hiliawrswtnsa ~~ 99 Aw nh AGNnNNaA +c Waten ~ os 4 47 experiments potassium chlioride, supere-phospnate, potass ium

: ao, Se eon aes Do At) ~ 1 Vane ee "A A natli¢e sodium chloride, magnesium chloride, kainite, and carnal.

rate of 904 pounds per acre, lime at the rate of 12 bushels and barnyard manure at the rate of 28 tons per acre; and i periments kainite, magnesium chloride, super-phosphate, po chloride, sodium chloride, plaster of paris, potassium sul

potassium nitrate, sodium nitrate, and ammonium sulphate at of 500 pounds per acre; lime and unleached ashes at the rate 2000 pounds per acre, leaf mold and barnyard manure at the

40,000 pounds per acre.

| The evaporation from the pots was ascertained by weig

for 100 days, and in the plot experiment, by sampling twice

from October 19 to November 2. In consideration of th

_

the author concludes that"Experiments with soil in pots, tr:

the most rigid conditions

plots, where both evaporation and no decided effect from th

which unleached ashes were applied, than any of the others."

(‘ ee oe ae German investigator,

concluded that the application water supply of the soil and by the plants, but in his

from the increase of

and a corresponding is more than the

dry seasons the

as to partially or completely roots of the plants It

Wn

= Ol aa

on theoretical

M. tassium added. allowed

eficial

ar

a 4 nage

from

Without doubt, due to the conservation

that the action was not only’ confin

the plant as well. As it

to the loss of water

Von Seelhorst those who have

were not treated w:

came

which were treated, and that potassium and nitrogen fertilizers had a more retarding effect upon evaporation than phosphorus. Indeed, the effect of phosphorus fertilizer is very little. Under field con- ditions, nitrogen caused the plants to make a rank growth and, as a result, the soil was left in a more exhausted condition than when nitrogen was not applied. When yotassium and phosphorus were added this effect was not noticed. To this conclusion Hollring and Krav- kov add the weight of their investigations.

In this connection, however, it will be well to bear in mind that while nitrogenous manures accelerate the development of the

; tat :

parts above ground, at the same time, according to E. Gain, it stim- ulates the development of roots as well and thus enables the plants

to draw water from the subsoil

¢

of Wisconsin drew from his experiments. He found that the capillary

movement of moisture upward was 22.84 per cent greater under the in-

influence of distilled water. | | The writer just cited, about 1892, began to investigate the ef- | fect of barnyard manure on the water in the so 1. He found that | heavy applications of barnyard manure disturbed, for a few months, | | the upward flow of capillary water and allowed the surface soil to become dryer than when manure was not added. From several years'ex- periments, however, he found that the manure had but little effect | on the amount of water retained in the first six feet of soil; but | the amount in the first three feet was 34.41 tons per ere, or 11.09 | per cent greater than was found in soils not manured. From the fact that the manure had the effect of concentrating i the moisture in the first three feet of soil lead to the belief that,|

possibly, the evaporation from the ma

9 es! ro) fo —_

] @ (Qu 69] oO + Ae =

¢ la > ee Vuk 2 + Ler e would be greatey

fo test this, he sank two

in diameter and 42

inches deep into the soil of the field plots and in each of these ne placed about 600 pounds of soil. These were treated in every respect

+

the same, save that in one just 6 inches from the surface

» ~ ‘

=|

layer of manure was placed and 5 inches of soi the end of 105 days by actual weight he found that tne manured cyl- inder of soil had lost by evaporation 4.98 pounds per square foot more than the unmanured cylinder. This amounted to 108.5 tons per acre. Yet, in spite of this loss, the manured soil produced a far larger amount of corn than the unmanured, and at harvest time was only a fraction of one per cent dryer.

In another experiment the wetting of the surface of sand with

= D Qu + Dp 4 é oo D » a -) < ry) a D p

leachings from barnyard manure decreased was lifted 16 inches, and evaporated from the surface 49.65 per cent. 3! M. Whitney of the Maryland Experiment Station offers this ex- planation in accounting for the effect of fertilizers on soil moist-

ad -

< o < ~ 4 + * n of soil moisture

ure: |

"There is little doubt that the surface tensi

L@)

is very low, much lower than that of pure water. Salt and kainite, | on the other hand, increases the surface tension of water very con- siderably and raises it far above that of the soil extract. MThis probably explains the fact which has been often commented on, that | an application of salt or kainite tends to keep the soil more moist. By increasing the surface tension of soil moisture they increase the power the soil has of drawing water up from below in a dry season Ammonia and urine lower the eur ieee tension of water considerably 7 fen!

of soil extract, and far bel that below that,of pure water. This, probably, also explains anot!

ey eH LLLG i cCom=

mon observation that the injudicious use of excessive quantities of

i) a7) © = fj ~ A. pe ~ jor ae | Sf nw «) @ a ro) He

organic matter is liable to ‘burn out?

cause, by reducing the surface tension, water can less rapidly be

drawn up from below."

Influence of Soil Humidity on the Rate of Evaporation. From the data obtained in extended field investigations 2 3F Tu c+ 4 . i Lo ied ‘. a =e!

was accurately measured, Dr. Widtsoe of the Utah Station formuls

the following law:

s varies directly with

J

"The rate of loss of water from soi

initial per cent of moisture in the soil." 2 /3 . a | 9g 7. 2 3 2-

Dr. Livingston of the Carnegie Institute, in nis studies water relations of the desert plants, had occasion to investiga

this same subject. The following table is taken from data publi

by him.

Percent of Soil Moisture. Loss in Grams. 10 6.95 20 12.62

30 17.69 40 19.58

In connection with the total loss of water by evaporation, determined, also, the rate of evaporation at the beginning and the end of his experiment. The soil with a 10 percent moisture tent lost water very fast at the beginning but at the end periment the evaporation was very little. The soil with the 20 cent of moisture was quite uniform but grew gradually feebler, the soils with the 30 and 40 per cents of moisture lost almost

Same at the end of the experiment as at the beginning

| Effect of Fertilizers on Transpiration.

Those who have worked on this question have grown plant

in distilled water to which known quantities of plant food e

have been added, or in a soil substratum which had been fertilize

with weighed quantities of the fertilizers to be tested. In

| stances, sterile sand has been used and in others poor S012. / In 1894 R. Heinrich carried on some investigati

ont! to test the

transpiration of the oat plant in water culture, the solution con- taining varying amounts of plant food elements. The solutio.

formed according to the following formula:

c - f 4 Hg KPOg+ CaCl, +5 Ca&(NO;)+2 Mg SOy+ 2 Fe i

His results are shown in the following table:

Strength of Sol.% Total dry matter Amt. of H,0 for 1 g.dry substance 3 134 515 1 74 550 ¢) 5 a4 684 - 25 28 688 ol 18 629

4)

. J i D ES °C +

¢ 2)

> 5 =

With the exception of the .1 percent solution, served that as the concentration increased, the amount of water trans piredfor the production of one gram of dry substance decreased.

In the same article, the author points out that the amount of

transpiration of the oat plant varies, not only with the concentra-

tion of the nutrient media, but with the humidity of the atmosphere as well. Thus in a constantly humid atmosphere the oat plant trans- pired 102 grams of water for each gram of dry substance wh le ina | | dry atmosphere, the water required was 618 grams. In 1899 A. Pagnoul“tof Prance conducted transpiration experiment

He divided his pots into two series, one containing poor clay without

: ‘]

| fertilizers, and the other rich calcareous soil fertilized with ni-

+ RODE nee 8

trate of potassium and dried blood. The water content of the pots

Was kept constant and the same. From March 30 to June 21 fescue

grass was grown. On May 2, 27, and June 21 the grass was cut, dried,

| and weighed with the following results:

© am == 22 =o oP oo oD ow oD =

# Probably the chloride.

transpired for one Poor Soil

First period 35 days 1190

Second period 26 days 1053

Third period 27 days 1084

The analysis of the plant stored 46 killograms of water poor soil while

of one gram of nitrogen when

3 Deherain obtained

4

with different plants.

pots 60 killograms of exhausted doors and irrigated as required drained through was collected, ence between this amount

resent the amount that passed tha amount which

out affecting very

Raygras was grown

experiment.

gram

Good

ary s1

Soil

The following table gives a summary of his results:

1890 Pot Wat.added Drainage Wat.evap. Dry mat-harv. ~~" Wat.req. Jn 4 ’ : ; 0) ; a . P ; :

mreerert. S$ 37770 10650 27120 102 6120 266

Manure 4 3S7770 9900 27870 64 3840 436

leach.

ol

Manure 37770 8580 29190 65 3300 449

art.fert.

J

=)

Manure 37770 9068 28702 89 5340 S22

Poor 2 37770 8140 29630 65 3900 456 soil

Metetert. 3 37770 9050 28720 726 4520 399 || Art.fert. 4 37770 12410 25360 99 5940 256 Manure 5 37770 11920

leach.& art.itert.

25850 95 5700 272

; = hn | oe SO rey ace emit Lig J SDE et From the table just given we find first

‘ the New he a gue Tne Pe . rhe er ye — | ception, the plants grown in the pots to which fertilizers were added used considerably less water than the check pot. The exception oce- curs the first year in pot No.1. This probably is due to the fac

that the manure did not become thoroughly incorporated with the soi

for some time and thus its influence was not felt until the secc

ot felt until the second year. Second, the various fertilizers exerted a very different fluence on the amount of water used by the p considerable difference in the amount

4

the clover in the production of

fect that the plantsin the fertilized soil requir the production of one gram of dry substance than in the unfertilized soil, the amounts being, 250 to 300 grams and the unfertilized soil 4 BO gram of dry matter produced.

The results obtained by King (8) of Wisconsin general, the statement made concerning the

by different crops

The following table gives the results he obdta

Peas 1 >) LON

Potatoes 2 422. a “4 Ta toawv ¢hoe enama 21:1+hn Hisdgaehnean

Three years later the same author published

results of his experiments for a number of years,

: 5 7 ee = ES FS aR et 3 ay and in the plant house. The following is a t

Crops No. of trials Water req.-.per

Corn in field 8 2.433 Corn in plant house 44 Ze

Oats in field - 8 5

#Die Verdunstungs grosse pro g.Trockensubstan Ertragshohe und dem Bodenreichtum. Wahrend die Boden 450-600 gr. Wasser zur Erzengung von 1 g.Tr« dunsten mussen, genugen im nahrstoffreichen Boden &

## An acre inch is water enough to cover one and is equal to 3,630 cu.ft. and weighs 103.39

lal ate: ec ay T. dry sub. Crops No. of trials Water req. pe T. iry § acre incnes

Oats in plant house 12 4.535 Clover in field 24 5.345 Clover in plant house 22 Potatoes? in field FB 4.283 Potatoes in plant house 2.618

In 1850 J. B. Lawes (14) of the Rothamsted Station of Htngiand

|

performed an experiment in which he tested the amount of water re quired by different plants taken from the two orders, Gramineae, on the one hand, andLeguminoseae, on the other. These plants were transplanted into pots containing both manured and unmanured soil

and grown under extremely artificial conditions. ine following

ta o j- he 9 “| @M ~ ct 5 @ pe} ce C2 ~ Cc 2) tw G2 et) ong I ‘le Rp 4 | m e

Wheat 248 Barley 258 Unmanured Beans 209

Peas 25

Taver C zOVo!

Wheat 2

Barley 25

Manured with Beans mal Minera lManures Peas 21 Clover 22

orn 1M 0%

DH} OH

The results obtained by Lawes do not agree with those obtained by Deherain, King, and others which 1 shall give in another connec- tion. In explanation, it should be said, that the wheat and barley especially, did not yield readily to the transplanting and were s ly throughout the experiment. It is very probable, also, that the extremely artificial conditions under which the plants were placed had something to do with the results obtained.

op =? oe => Se => 22 oo oe os

# Potatoes did not develop normally and thus the difference.

In 1895 M. Maercker (17) tested the influence of crude potassium saltsupon the amount of water required by plants grown on the soil

which contained these salts in varying proportion. His experiments

cording to the amount of water given them. To the one, 60 percent

were conducted in pots. The pots were divided int two series, ac=- | of the water holding capacity of the soil was added, to the other,

27 per cent. The plant used in this experiment was white mustard.

The following table gives a summary of the results:

(rs rc ene ce EE NN A i ee

Salts Amount added. Comparative amount of water lbs. per acre. ied SULT OES.” Le

i ee 27%

None None 100 100

Kainite 890 90.5 des re

Kainite 1780 88.4 38.2

Carnallite 1780 91.9 68.9

Sodium chloride 1780 61.2 5

From the above data it appears that the addition of the sal

of both potassium and sodium decreases the transpiration of the plant

growing under its influence, especially when the soil moisture is

tow. These results are in harmony with the conclusions of Sachs, (28) published in 1880. He says: "More than twenty years ago I further confirmed the remarkable fact, already in part noticed b that the transpiration from leaves (of plants) may also be altered by the presence of material dissolved in the water which take up." | B. H. King (7) of the Wisconsin Experiment Station, while test-

ing the effect of applications of barnyard manure on the moisture of

the soil, observed that, while the manured soil produced a much larg- er crop than the unmanured, it contained almost as much moisture at |

it takes less water to

vy

produce a pound of dry matter on manured than on unmanured groun or else the manured soil has the power of supplying water to the corn

which the unmanuredsoil has not."

' i In 1896 M. R. Schroeder, Jr., (24) a Russian, published the re- sults of his investigations on the development and transpiration of barley under the influence of different degrees of humidity and of

fertility of soil. Since some of the details of the experiment re-

semble so closely my own, I give, in full, the French resume’ to- |

gether with the English translation: | "Development and Transpiration of Barley .

j = a in —midit<¢?. and CR igh Rca Leeidid dines Difference in Humidi ty ana ifferent Nutritive

The author compares the effect ifests the - wien 7 h hramsaaAadtt< At +h aan atwn sam ors +-F ha nn; infiuence of change in the humidity of the substratum with the core responding effect of change in the concentration of the nutritive soe=l

lution.

be | . ° on ) manst pa | 4 A } AY CF # "Developpement et transpiration de l'orge Dine 2 Hien F - 13 Parans Miaminite sous 1' influence de differente humidite',

et de differente capacite' nutritive du substratum."

SS

| "Resume' de l'article de M.R.Schroeder. L'autei

am

The experimentswere vessels filled with sterile sand.

The humidity of the sand contained in these vessels was a 8 follows: lst series 80%; 2nd series 40%; and 3d series 20% of the capacity of the sand for water.

The nutritive mixture was prepared after the formula of Dr.

Hellriegel (6.20 gr. KH, PQ) ee Titer. KC

29.90 gr. Ca (NO,), ).

The concentration of the nutritive mixture iz ev > Was? 4 A % of 19 f Fe ah of ,0f of oof lst series .6%, .4%, .3%, 2%, -1%; 2nd series .64, .44, «df, +H”

& ee | }oe m @ ry ar 49) mM he s tw S e (6 6) BY e QD SA > SA e 8 re law Pes tn @ ap m mn + @ as ct © D m + ©

wt 7

ventive stems was more pronounced as

ct 2y @o na | py ct 147) 9° mH ct pb’ @ m we r A ct wv & 4 By © $ r¢) 4) @ a4 — ey) ce a §nds t ¢

-- cr <q we rt) r=] fu a) (o) bis | ct SD 4) th Py) 3 St @ © P= © ct J = ¥ e) raat t © + 03) 4 bs it) (25 < 1) + ‘e) es c ty 3) «<i 1 10 {> €

Go 7S =p = Se co ow ow =

) t : 4; yy ye Sra) 1406 x ~~ | 1a ot ‘aa | eleyvee dans des vases en verre, remplis de sable sterile. L'humidite du sable, contenu dans ces vases, etait telle: I

iere serie 80% II serie 40% et III 20% de la capacite du sable pour l'eau.

Le melange nutritif etait prepare d'apris le Dr. (6.20 gr. KH, PQ,; 1.71 gr. KCl; 2, 19 gr. Mg SQ, 7H,0; 29.90 gr. Ca (NO, ),).

La concetration du

ces vases: dans

la I iere serie 6 0/00, 4 0/00, 3 0/00, 2 0/00, 1 0/00; II serie 6 0/00, 4 0/00, 3 0/00, 2 0/00; III série 12 0/00, 8 0/00, 6 0/oo, 4 0/00, 2 0/oo.

‘ Ces experiences permirent d'établir les conse:

Wanna a srantoaad * a) Me oe si uenc ~ S > | lvan ae

Ia developpement des tiges adventives etait d'tautaz

period was prolonged according as the plant had more wate disposal. The duration of the vegetative period was more | f salts contained in the soil was increased as the quantity of salts containé in the so In regard to the dimensions of the plant it was alway: that the greatest length of the stems, of the blades, and heads corresponding to the maximum of humidity and to

tion of salts in the soil. But the produce of the entire pl

dry matter following the augmentation of the humidity and tritive capacity of the soil.

As to the relative value of the harvest considered by ¢« of the plant we find that in the condition corresponding tc

est degree of humidity and to the greatest nutritive capacity

medium we gather twice the quantity of straw and grain that the contrary conditions.

U , = - < ln J a ae Ae Bec nonce que le taux des sels etait plus eleve pour un meme

s : bs a SEG Py FSA Sg) la sea cared midite: et pour la meme quantit®& des sels, la dures

/ ‘ vegitative etait d'autant plus longue que la

ju ap e avait pl \ ‘ “Gee a dy ox = AAT e % Nec @ sa disposition. La duree de la periode de vegetation etait tant lus longue e Lé uantite des sels conten dane le sf) } p b ~V 1s que a q ant L ‘ ae to) weap 2 —oUls S nu AG Lip a wig : 7 a i etait plus elevee. Quant aux dimensions des plantes on r ait toujurs 2 > > > 3 2 > 2 plus grande longueur de la t ,; du limbe et des epis corres

7 . Al hv sAdat+ 2 12 Watct.t- tok ~ a — en Im woe 7 « au maximus d'humidity et de concentration des sels dans aA,

v

Par rapport a la plante entiere et chacune de ses part:

= +L = 2 ’ ‘ State chaque fois pour la recolte en matieres seches, un sur

: 5 ° i 2 ° 3 , ; eee 4 3 ry Suivant l'augmentation de l'humidite et de la capacite nutrit Lid

+

=<

milieu.

—

Quant a la valeur

iy ili ll =~ A Se

The development of

of the humidity and of it was developed. The increased according to medium.

The general quant

as was the humidity and

~ 8 s+ 2 system

nutritive

increase

The quantity of water

matter varies insensibl:

medium. It gained as the

7 : + en at: : (.4%) and then decrease: directly with the quant

partie de la plante, on

2

au plus haut degre' d'

tive du milien, on recolt

gue dans des conditions

Minution de l'humidite

= Tey . Le deve loppement aes

suivant l'augmentation

~ ‘ la quantite genere + a = tant plus elevee, que 1

du substratum. la quantite d'eau

Variait insensiblement

: 2 ~ fon 5 a ie ee a, a7 milieu: elle seleve quay te el

avee

#9)

quantit

formation

surface

it was

an average

surface,

square cm. )

hours."

La moyenne de de matiere La moyenne 100% c.c. recouver

face libre recouvert

non? gr.

€n moyenne par 24 heures

rs Va

for

The avera

ot

cn Sc

CeCe

de surface fo

; ; +f une surface de 2000 ec.c

seches en 24 hours."

# It is com.

trey Ur

ot

reat thi

+3

Sa

seche

4)

fh

Hb

Influence of Soil Moisture

On the Transpiration of Plants.

There is a very close relationship between t! 2moun f taken in by the roots of a plant and the amount transp Y

the leaves. Within certain li

the stomata of the leaves, can regulate the transpiration stre If, however, water is withheld from a soil whi ck supporting there comes a time, sooner or later, when the water content ol

z unable

soil becomes so low that the plants are

4 7 L

supply their needs, and as a consequence the plants

found that the tobacco tabacum) behaved

7 ae p LaNnt

yery ferently when grown on various

tent. When grown in humus soil, wilting occurre

till the water was reduce

duction was as low as 1.5 per cent. Liebenberg (11) showed, he = SS ,) that the power the soils possess of withholding their water f

plants does not depend upon their absorbing power. The power of the plant to from a substratum humidity depends upon their adaptation. The wilting po

= os int,

(13) varies

to Livingston, between 5.5 and 13.7 per , Plants which do not wilt until the soil is reduced to 5.5 per its moisture content are especially suited, structurally, for

phytic conditions, while those moisture content of the soil

Hales (2) observed that greatest in wet earth.

Some few years (1879)

Bohm (2) found that as the water content

=p = => =. = =e =P =P oS

# Per cent of wet volume.

-18=

+he J++

OWever,

vO +) rom tn

of low

acrcoraing accord ing

+ “

|

1}

re= | | |

LU W | 4

——

| : | | |

transpiration of the plants growing upon

Hartig (2) grew oat plants from the

dle of August under such conditions that

the evapora

soil was controlled. The following table

results: Per cent of water 80-60: 60-40: 4 Total Transpiration g. 7394: 5556: Amt.of water for lg. dary sub.538 From the above table it is seen with the increase of the water content

production of dry substance, in proport

increased, in every case, as the water

From the data obtained from experiments wit

Sorauer (2) reached the same conclusions

that the per cent of nutrient material with a scanty supply of moisture.

Widtsoe(34) of the Utah Station,

a)

09

4, cr

in which known quantities of water could

that agrees with that collected by Har

gives the following table which shows

the amount of water in the soil and tha’

He grew wheat under field conditions anc

terminations with the following results:

Date Water in plan June 25th 77-29 June 26th j 17361 July lst 74.39 July 3rd 74.87 July 9th 72.61 July llth 71.63 July 12th 69.30 July. 13th 69.08 July 19th 67.24

July, 30th 56.22 oe

Prom the above table it is seen that when the per cent of water in the soil varies between 10 and 20 per cent the per cent of water

4

in the plant, for any given period of growth, is practically constant

and independent of the per cent of water in the soil.

ra]

| | The table is interesting, also, in that we get from it a cone firmation of the generally accepted belief that the per cent o1 wipe

|

in the plant becomes smaller as the plant approaches maturity.

Influence of Soil Moisture on Yield.

It often occurs that desert soils which are very rich in plant ) food elements produce but little or no vegetation, owing to the lim- ited amount of moisture they contain, while, on the other hand, soi very poor in plant food elements can be made far more productive, for a time at least, by a copious supply of water. Livingston (12) has shown that the amount of water which

through the plant during a period of active growth is a safe criterion

+e) = -) ~ 5 i¥) r oO 2 @ mn

in judging the amount of growth the plant is making. Whatever this | factor may be for ordinary soils, it is greatly modified by the ad- dition of fertilizers.

r= if

4 : ; A certain amount of water is absolutely essential for plant growth. The whole of this amount, in the case of the higher plants, i i is taken in through the rootsfrom the substratum in which the plant i is growing. | | J

The amount retained by a-soil for any length of time depends |

ordinarily, between 25 and 35 per cent in the surface soil in place,

"although: the coefficient determined in the laboratory gives about

50 per cent." These numbers are given in terms of weigh

Concerning the capacity of a soil for water, Gain, (4) on the authority of Wollny, gives the following "(1) A compact soil

loses more water by evaporation than a loose one, beca

lary spaces are smaller in diameter and more easily

surface the water in the deeper layers. On this acco

of a compact soil remains moist longer than a loo

pact soil has a greater capacity for water than a ]

it is less permeable. The capillary spaces are small

of water pores are increased, and the penetration of

subsoil is hindered. (3) A compact soil offers more

plant than a loose one."

It thus appears that the amount of water ina

tO a very great extent, by soil treatment. The amount a soil will

produce is very largely determined by the amount and

ements intended for the roots of the plants. That

far more effective when an ample supply of water is

+

pointed out by E. Gain, (4) and borne out by the in

others.

Hellriegel is quoted by Whitney (31)

with the following table given by Wollny (4) which

show the optimum water content for the production o

red

senting by 100 the quantity of water necessary for a complete sate ‘ii

7

uration of the soil he finds that the production of

barley varies with the different water content of th

Moisture in Soil. Yield

Per cent Grain . 80 8377

60 9.96 40 0.5]

as agreeing & >

n dry material. I

anne the cani LUS ‘ Cavist@=

conduct to the

wate i nto the Pnw +h Wa I \ e

ng not only as a | | | t LP nan A wa) ~ar aa | for the food ele |} 37 baat? ' ertiitizers are

dry matter in

Per cent Grain ¢g. Straw 30 5.73 8.70

20 Te to 5.50 10 hy | . 80 5 » OO ant: 2

This table shows that while the optimum moisture content for maximum yield of grain is 40 per cent, for straw it is 60 per cent. That the maximum yield of both grain and straw is not obtained with the same moisture content is nowhere better shown than in a system of farming where irrigation is depended upon to the water required by the plants.

A given moisture conten‘ season, or a constant humidity. If the above experimen peated under the two conditions, as regards moistu it is very likely that the results would not agree content were to be the average, short periods of lowed by copious watering which wou. result, if very beneficially to the p fluctuations in the water content.

Then, too, according to Mac Dougal, (19) t! life what are know as critical periods. In the of these periods occurs just as the heads are fil} conditions at this time results in adecrease in the

10° , 1a +#he eee - : produced, while the amount of straw produced w:

SS 2 ee

Previous soil treatment may influence very

may be collected on this question. For example

on

(15) found that the effect of fertilizers on yields

sG€asons were

as

Fertilizer used. Yield of hay per Hectar Deficit

Mineral fertilizer. No nitrates. 3625 6527 90

Nn . a tL’. No fertilizer. 795 —T O46 | Mineral fertilizer Nitrate of |

. : at a lower per cent of humidity t Hel 3 ind

+ 5) s] a 4 Cay ie | =e = Pee = m 2 other hand i very WwW vr, FE eY an he fi NE

: ae : eee am . ence of soil moisture on the growt of plant: The Sllowing auotae- |

5 ¢ 9 e = ie i D. ae ae i | | tion is»taken from this abstract: |

| | a a= : Py ; s ) "It is usually acc tha a) ease mn é | . / e

; ~ page: fe ~ 2 | es afk ea 2 2 = - |} the soil, the yiel straw incre ¢ ile e yie 1 I l=

by TF roe be z = a) wn oe 3 > be n 2 p oO —~< ; + @ Q, e) + ‘ a ; . D Pt ct ae ? D 4 J = ) 3 . j é 5 a

wheat during two years in which there was a steady rise in percentage

of grain with a increase in the amount of water in the soil." } :

o ya p a) H*) 0a ny 143) (Tt He i) ray) pa ct c - + ae 4) >| ct ly , v 5

b| ~~ 4 5 2 + vr ti — oe

i |

a re

of the water that finds its way to a soil mus’ eave t Soluble salts increase the power of the so while barnyard manure decreases it slightly, but caus

cation and a concentration of moisture in the rs

soil. "The rate of

> a he ae 2 hy a oe | 1] per cent of moisture in the soil.'

dry substance when growing in media in which the

—————————— hts <3 =

’ oh = rg a) bod ~ 49] os c+ t~ = a - f 41) an f a c ‘3 = e ) 3 7

present.

Di +f erent LPrOnSs r. oa eho A 4 tfe rent nvraaers« 7 nt 31008 erv Froren ] c a, + “ mel, " piants Unc Vv a Qi Let ld ye UALS , ; + af Artz eihetanrese wher 5rrnwn mwmNnde he ear gZiven amount of dry substance whe Zr ow ne Plants grown ina relatively | lL substra

<

freely than plant s frown ma re la ree Ls irv Wi et+ratiim

Jarger amount of water for the production of a given amoun

ao ik e | The amount of er in the soil ve es ¥ 1 the | 7 Wat and with previous soil treatment the variation, ord lbetween 25 and 35 per cent by weight in the first foot.

LON

m

EXPERIMENTA

EXPERIMENTATION.

L

As has already been pointed out, in testing the effect of fer-

Introduction. | tility on the transpiration of plants, one may employ either dis- |

+

i) tilled water, sterile sand or other sterile media to which h

1 added known amounts of the fertilizers; or one may use exhausted soil, g history of which is known and the composition of which has been )

determined by chemical and physical analysis. The soil used in this

experiment, while not what may be called an exhausted soil, was of

. The time of year in which the experiment was conducted made the

}use of the green house imperative in order that the proper light and |} heat relations might be secured. There is no reason to suppose, how-

}@ver, that the comparative results would be materially changed under

‘

low futility for the type. field conditions where the moisture is under control. The experiments : i

; : ae 9 : of King of Wisconsin™ show that when plants are grown the same time

of year in the green house and in the field the amount of water re-

Quired for the production of one gram of dry substance differs but

little.

History of the Soil.

The soil used in this experiment was a brown silt loam, a type

SSS NE omy

that is very common in the corn belt region. It was obtained from between plots 770 and 771 from the South Farm of the University of

Tllinois. These two plots are separated by a strip 8 1/4 feet wide.

nes

Plot 771 has received treatment but plot 770 together with the strip

mY Y¥

mas received no treatment, save cultivation. Previous to the year |

1903, at which time the station began its work upon it, the 1] |

725= 1 ai

been under a system of tenant farming and cropped principally to corn

and oats. The following table gives the yield of plot 770 from 1903 to 1907 inclusive: Year Yield

Corn. bu. Stover T.

| 1903 34.2 1.33 1904 35.6 1,50 1905 44.3 1.21

. 1906 53.2 9 1907 52-1 a rl Average 43.8 1.4

| It is assumed that the soil taken from the strip differed but

little from that of plot 770, the history of which has just been |given.

The soil was taken from the field the sixth day of November, 1907, in the following manner: Beginning at a place a few yards from the west side of the division,a strip of soil, averaging about one \foot in width and about three inches deep, was taken and placed into

Ja four-gallon jar. When the jar was ful

here and there into the box of a wagon which was driven alongside,

Care being taken to mix the soil at this handling. When sufficient s0il had been emptied into the wagon box, it was taken to the green jhouse and shoveled out into a pile by the door. From this pile it

Was shoveled into a half bushel can from which it was scattered along

jon a bench in the green house, thus insuring again a thorough mixing. |

JAt the time it was brought in, it contained just enough moisture to Make it handle easily. It remained on the berich in the green house wntil the end of the first week in December, at which time it was

Iplaced into four-galiton, glazed, earthen jars which were used in the experiment. Just before the soil was put into the jars, however, it

WaS passed through a sieve containing nine meshes to the inch. It

=

Was then placed into the jars and compacted by pressure from the hand.

-D6=

‘4 : ;

Wo effort was made to put the same amount of soil in each pot. Every

effort was made, however, to have the soil in

Juniform both chemically and physically. As the pc ts were filled they

Iwere transferred to another green house in which the experiment was i

Jconducted. The next day after filling, the soil in the jars was

jdampened down and allowedto settle until December 23rd. In the mean-

ee

time just enough water was added to the jars to keep the soil damp.

. Tasat ne ry JAs was anticipated, the soil in the jars settled somewhat. Just bero }

itaking the final weights, the jars were again filled to a mark about

Jone-half inch from the top with soil exactly the same as that already

jin the jars.

During the time intervening between December 25rd and 28th the f Jjs0il was removed from each jar, the jar was carefully wiped out, tne . drain hole carefully covered over with glass wool and a small piece

jof wire gauze, weighed and the weights recorded. Before replacing t Pp

jars, it was thoroughly mixed and a small samp!

soil into the |for the determination of the moisture content. by | 7 | About one-half of the soil was now returned to the jar. With i | 1

\the other half the fertilizers were mixed then this, too, was returned | :

#to the jar. Thus to only about the first five inches of soil was Jany fertilizer added. The pot and soil were now weighed and the dif- i

jference between this weight and the weight of the pot was taken as :

weighing.

| | \the weight of the soil plus the water it contained at the time of I ij

The average moisture content of the soil at the time of sampling || )

Was 19.25 per cent, but varied from 15.38 per cent in jar No.209 to e4.75 per cent in jar 303 . The exact moisture content of each jar at this time may be ascertained from tables I, II, and III.

]

Hereafter, whenever weight of soil is referred to, except other= |

ise stated, reference is made to dry, or water free soil.

The average weight of soil to the jar was 14303 grams, but varied \from 12858 grams in jar 306 to 15149 grams in jar 311. The exact Inumber of grams of soil in each jar may be ascertained by referring |to the tables just cited.

The soil was again allowed to settle in the jars and an attempt was made to keep the moisture content of all the jars at about 50 jper cent of the water holding capacity of the soil as this was cone isidered to be the most favorable for the decomposition of the organic Mertilizers applied and the germination and growth of the seed sub-

isequently.

\Physical: For the purpose of making a physical analysis of the soil,

jan average sample was set aside at the time the jars were filled. 4

From this larger sample two five-gram samples were taken, placed into shaker bottles which contained several hundred cubic centimeters

jof distilled water and about twelve drops of ammonia each. The bot-

\jtles were now placed in the shaker and agitated until all the soil

\fine sands were separated from the silt and clay, and from each other,

\Particles were separated one from the other. The coarse, medium and

\by the sieve and modified decantation method that is now employed in

\the soil physics laboratory of the University of Illinois. The coarse

jand medium silts were separated from the fine silts and clay and from i} /

Gach other by the centrifugal and modified decantation method. The

Ollowing table gives the results of the analysis as it was obtained

in duplicate:

Average |Hygroscopic moisture 2.61% 2.62% 2.61% Loss on Ignition 6.09% 6.09% 6.09% Clay and fine silt 17.28% 18.24% 17.76%

7 f 12 df 14.50% 12.50% 13.50%

7?

Medium silt lCoarse silt 34.41% 33.16% 33.78%

Fine sand 22.44% 25.17% 23. 80%

. 4 4 r of Medium sand 6.32% 6.32% 6.32%

nof = 4 a

|Coarse sand » 36% 35% 35%

Total 101.40% 101. 83% 101.61%

| Chemical: In determining the moisture content of the soil in the various jars two twenty-gram samples were taken from the sample ob- tained at the time the jars were last filled, or,in other words, forty grams ofsoil were taken from each jar. The moisture determina-

| tions were made in duplicate in the usual way. The resultsof these jdeterminations may be seen in tables 1, II, and IIl.

After the moisture determinations were all made, the twenty-gram

| Samples which had been used in these determinations were all put into

@ pan and thoroughly mixed, the idea being to get uniform, composite Samples of the soil in all of the jars for the chemical analysis.

The method employed in making this analysis was the same as that now

in use at the Soil Fertility Laboratory in the University of Illinois.

ac} b’ to] bm) f- fare cS | 40) m we += | —- Es rt) Rh ° hp a) ° <4 4 rm 08

table, which gives the results of the

chemical analysis, represent the total nitrogen, but only the amounts

of phosphorus and potassium which were extracted by digesting the soil Sample for ten hours at boiling temperature with Hydrochloric acid

With a specific gravity of 1.115.

RS i i 5 ee ee

Saar ae

I. Il. Average Lbs.per

|

) Per cent Per cent Per cent lst 7 inches | Nitrogen ae hy 2173 172 3450 |} Phosphorus »056 055 ~055 1119 | Potassium - 286 - 286 -286 5738

l}Insoluble matter 82.95 82.95 82.95

Dry matter 98.29 98.29 98.29

It will be remembered that it was stated in the foregoing pages

—

AD 1 Gy 4 an + Tay Se 1e¢ experiment unacr ais=

that partially exhausted soil was usedfor t

cussion. A comparison of the figures just given with those obtained

by analyzing a soil capable of producing 80 to 100 bushels of corn

}

\per acre, reveals the fact that the phosphorus and nitrogen are low

Wand thus are the limiting elements in crop production. The crucial itest, however, of the fertility of a soil is obtained when crops are Ngrown upon it. The fertility of this soil, therefore, may best be

|

ijgudged by referring to the history. It will be seen that the average

jof the crops produced in five years was 45.8 bushels of corn, only about half that produced on the best treated plots on the Illinois jexperiment Station farm. That the phosphorus and nitrogen are the

limiting elements is also evidenced from ready response this soil

—

A

ny

shows when treated with fertilizers containing these elements. Thi

act is brought out clearly by referring to either the tables or the

eee ceraphs in the appendix.

| # 2,000,000 pounds per acre.

Fertilizers Used.

Steamed bone meal which yielded about 13 per cent of total phos

i it1Vno=

phorus was used as a source of the phosphorus. For this

Bix grams‘of bone meal were applied to the pot which was

to 960 pounds per acre.

Fifteen grams per pot of dried blood, yielding 14 per cent ol Initrogen, served as a source of the nitrogen. If applied a his Rate in the field 2400 pounds per acre would be required.

The potassium and magnesium were applied in the form of the sul- phates. Three grams per pot, which is equiva jacre, were added. The magnesium was added, not because it was cone Isidered that the soil was deficient in this element, but rather for a jcomparison with the potassium. By the acid-scluble method the amount jot potassium obtained in the analysis of the soil was equivalent to 15738 pounds of potassium per acre. For a rough jassumed that the equivalent of only about one per cent of the total Jpotassium in the first 7 inches can, by practical methods of farming, be made available each year (4). On this basis 57 pounds would be \made available and this would not be sufficient for a large crop, for a 100 bushel oat crop requires something like 68 pounds of this

” ~~ 2 * .

element (4). This being true, this soil is possibly slightly defi-

jcient in available potassium. In fact the Illinois Experiment Sta- ition has found (4) that the addition of potassium does no crease the productivity of this soil, but, on the other hand, may Sometimes act disadvantageously.

4

The method of analysis employed gave all the nitrogen, and prace-

|

}

\tieally all of the phosphorus the soil contained. According to Dr. Hopkins (4) of the Illinois Ststion, it may be Cee estimated that he equivalent of about two per cent of the nitrogen and one per cent of the total phosphorus contained in the first seven inches of the S0il may be rendered available each year for the plant. Taking the

otal amount of nitrogen in the first seven inches of soil as 3450

pounds, and the total amount of phosphorus as 1119 pounds per acre,

according to the above calculation there would be about 70 pounds of

Initrogen and 11 pounds of phosphorus available per acre per annum.

‘Since it requires 97 pounds of nitrogen and 16 pounds of phosphorus

to produce a 100 bushel crop of oats or 148 pounds of nitrogen and

23 pounds of phosphorus for 100 bushel crop of corn, it becomes ev- Jident that these two elements are the limiting factors in crop pro- duction on this soil. From what has been said, it is plainly seen

that this soil is capable of producing only about one-half cf a

hundred bushel crop. Referring again to our history we see that the

actual average yield for the last five years is 43.8 bushels of corn,

| which is just such a crop as we might expect from our calculations | lana the results of our analysis. | | The manure that was added was well rotted, finely ground stable

i... that had been subjected for some little time to leaching. | | 162.5 grams of dry matter were added to those pots receiving manure | | }treatment. This amount is equivalent to 5 tons of dry matter per | | .

acre, or to 20 tons of average fresh manure. The legume that was added was the one year old red clover,and the}

material added represented the entire plant (roots and branches).

By referring to tablesl, II, and III the pots to which the var-

The amount added was the same as in the case of manure. | |

ious fertilizers were added may be ascertained.

General plan. .

The 66 pots, the total number used in the experiment, were di- Vided into three series with 22 pots in each series. The series dif- fered from each other only in the amount of water the soil contained. To the 100 series, 20 per cent to the 200 series, 40 per cent;

=o ee om om oe ot = ox or |

# That is, 20 per cent of the water holding capacity of the |

the soil was added. The pots were run in duplicates in

series. In order to ascertain the amount of water that evaporated from the soil the first two pots in each series were kept as checks.

To these six pots no fertilizers were added.

) The fertilizers were mixed with only the first five

: }

the soil, as has already been stated. About thirty days intervened between the time of mixing and the planting of theseeds. That the organic fertilizers had begun to decompose in the meantime and yielc |the fertilizing elements they contained for the use of the plants, is jevidenced by the acceleration in the growth of the seedlings as soon

as they became large enough to draw upon the soil for thei nutriment. This lead in growth was especially noticeable in those pots which con-

Itained the dried blood. The nitrogen in the form of the legume (Red

clover) did not show marked effect till about 40 to 50 days after

Planting. from this on to the ti

tive growth and the dark green

ance that plants were drawing upon the nitrogen

legume for the amount required for their vigorous growth. After about

50 days from seeding,

7

the general appearance of the plants

Si

in the pots which contained the dried blood seemed to

the fertilizer was going to be harmful. The plants were making good

vegetative growth, but the color was not that of healthy plants.

e

7

nhealthy color soon faded away, however, and the plants took on

Geep green color so characteristic of plants growing where an abundant |

Supply of nitrogen and moisture is available.

BOil. The average

of five trials with the soil in the pots a fOr planting gave z

44.4 per cent of the dry weight of the so ent was taken as total capacity of the soil for water. 20, per cents of this amount would therefore be 9,18,and 36 per c ee 2 1ly of the dry weight of the soil. These were the per Ba ale he standoard weich+

The effect due

| |

|

If

the three series.

equal parts and consider the

effects

of nitroge

only, the following diagram will represent th lst period end period Src

|

|

Prom this diagram it is seen that in the 300 series, in whic |

was 80 per cent of water, the influence of nitrogen appeared at once |

and reached its maximum at the beginning of the third period. In the |

200 series, which contained 40 per cent of water, the effect of the |

nitrogen was not so manifest until near the end of the first period | and reached its maximum somewhat later than in the 300 series; that

is, near the middle of the last period. While the plants in this ;

Series showed the same deep green rank appearance,the influence of .

the nitrogen was never so markedly evident as in t 300 se S.

The influence of the nitrogen was so slight for so long a time i

ff

in the 100 series that it was thought to be without effect. Near the i

end of the second period, however, after the plants in the other two q

; P|

Series had made the greater part of their vegetative growth, the plants

in those pots containing nitrogen

life and made a rapid

lob ad

s+

owth for a reached when the first heads began

gume in this series had bitte Dittle

eeries the influence was marked

seemed

we divide the grand perioc

Y

‘

ol

yen

+s L aiff ;

no

hea nave

The

auf. . £ a 2 eztect; whi.

maximum

e

toataken on

enough to be readily noticeabl

to the fertilizers was not equally apparent

new

e€

in

e

The results of this experiment confirms the generally accepted idea that nitrogenous fertilizers cause the pla green color and make a rank growth. This rankness of growth was in proportion to the amount of water the soil contained, being most ev- ‘ident in the soil with the highest per cent of water.

About the beginning of the third period some of the plants

the green house, (which, however, were not in this experiment)

affected with plant lice. To check the spread of this pest, the

house was fumigated with hydrocyanic acid gas. This gas discolc

parts of a few of the leaves of the plants in all the three series

It was noted, however, that the plants growing in tie : il to w

mitrogen had been applied escaped the action of the gas. Of all

plants affected those growing in the soil containing the applicat Of potassium alone suffered the most. In those cases where the .

fect was most noticeable it was not serious enough to interfere

ithe least with the results of the experiment.

In this experiment the oat plant was used. The variety was

= -

: ks

is generally known as the 60 day oats. Just before planting, the :

seed Was treated with a weak solution of formaldehyde for the preve

ion of smut (Ustilago avenae ). Pots from 302 to 306 inclusive

Were planted January 25 and the.remaining, two days later. The if ing was done in the following manner: About two inches of soil | removed from the pot and passed through a sieve containing four Ps to the inch. About one-half of this was again placed back int | he pot and carefully leveled. Upon this were arranged thirty plumy |

medium to large seeds. About half of the remaining soil was now t

ppread evenly over

he seeds, as was also the other half afterit

an ES i 1k

+

been passed through a sieve containing nine meshes inch of soil that now covered the seeds was snug

The advantage gained by thus carefully planting was that

: : 2 1 a + Tr which came up by capillarity was retained just benea th irface, thus insuring quick and uniform germination. By thus retaining t

} further applications till moisture, it was found unnecessary to make further appiications t

the plants had attained considerable size, well out of danger of any injury that may arise by reason of the soil cr sing upon application of water. By February 1, about ninety per cent.of the seed had produced vigorous plantlets. Ten days later, these were

thinned to eighteen of the strongest, best placed plants to the pot.

; y) ‘ PrP nnntente nf thea ~ 5+ 47 +he Tanta had establish the desired water contents of the pots until the plants naa

S| aE

become thoroughly established, as there was some apprehension that

"damping off" may occur in the 80 per cent moisture series, while the Plants in the 20 per cent moisture series may perish

The first weighing to ascertain the exact amount of water in the pots

Was made February 14. The pots of the 300 series was found to be de-

ficient in water, while the amount in the 200 series was slightly in ®xcess, and in the 100 series far in excess of the required amount. At this time the pots in the 300 series were made up to the required

Standard, that is, to 80 per cent. By March first, the excess of

Water had passed from all but two of the pots in the 200 series; but SO slow was the evaporation from the pots of the 100 series that it Was not until April first that the majority of the pots in thi

ies contain the required 20 per cent of m

oO

whe wm ct & ~ o e > Q i?) ¢

urate data were | Wept of all the pots in all the series from March first. The totals

| obtained for March in the 100 series represent the amounts of water

hat was transpired by the plants when growing in a soil which was

Se

Oo

a

EE Ses EA Ne

constantly decreasing from 35 or 40 per cent to the required 20 per cent. This lack of data the first month, that is, February, vitiated

the final results but slightly, for it was ascertained by check pots

that the amount of water transpired by the plants which were the most vigorous in the 300 series amounted, during the whole month, to no

more than 600 c.c., which was less than one-half the amount transpired in a single day by the most vigorous plants in the same series in May. After the pots were made up to standard weights, the approximate amount of water that was given off was returned daily. At leach week, the pots were weighed. In case there was a deficiency, which was nearly always the case, water was added to bring it to the standard; or in case there was an excess, which occasionally happened, | the amount was ascertained and no more water was added until the ex-

cess had time to pass off.

An examination of the tables which give the daily amounts of wa- ter added brings out clearly the fact that the amounts added from day to day were very inconstant. This was due to the changes in the weatl @r which were very frequent. When weather conditions were constant, the variations in the amount of water required for any one pot were very slight. During those days in which there was bright sunshine and drying winds, fully three times as much water was given off from

the pots of the 300 series as when the contrary condition prevailed

The plants growing under the influence of 40 per cent of moisture were| far less susceptible to these weather changes than were those under the influence of 80 per cent of moisture, while the plants under the

influence of only 20 per cent of moisture were far less suscepti

o’ JH ©

than either of the others. The plants growing under the influence

pf nitrogen were more influenced by weather changes than the others.

This was more especially true of the 300 series.

Yhe water that was applied was the ordinary tap water.

introduced from a graduate cylinder directly intc

pots by pouring it through a glass tube about 12 inches

inch in diameter which had been inserted into the cente

This allowed the addition of small quantities of water wi

turbing the earth mulch, in series 100, from the beginning

of the experiment, and in series 200 the greater part

It was found to be impracticable to add all of the wate:

tubes in the 300 series, so only a portion was thus added, the remain-

ing being poured over the surface. In this exper iment

water was taken as the equivalent of one gram of water.

Results of the Experiment.

An examination of the photographs in the appendix

nt s Ol t Cc Tory ang ‘4 > Gasa ne of the pots. L ithout dis-

through the

na np ran ne Ge Ue Os ives very con-

Vincing proof that the plants responded markedly to both the water

and fertilizer treatment. The plants growing under the

80 per cent of water in the soil produced more abundant

longer, better-filled heads than in the other two series

e€tative growth and head production decreased as the per in the soil decreased. The proportion of head to straw creased as the per cent of water in the soil decreased. also that the plants growing under the influence of onl

of water made slow growth and as a consequence used but

at amet . ~ LL intiiuence of

- The veg-

cent of water

The following tables give the amounts of water required by the plants

for each month

Pot No. 2 soil treat. None

March 678 April 604 May 1203 Total 2485 June 590

.QOOO ORD

t FO ie O h

ay) e ( ( n >

March 1562

} April 4610 ~ May 6453

me rOtal 12625 11: 56 June 279

eEeOues. L5415

| ne '@)|

3

Ox

Gr AD 4)

1j~2 O/C OO tn

)5 60

lam

n

March 4844 : 5652 April 9695 12208 | May 8393 14188 “Total 22932 52048 & | June mil 70 i L °s 520

Tn dn alata’ f Z2aiOtvart « 702 C VOUOS

Table 1 con.

otal Transpiration

Series 100

y us a! 9 9/ Te (f Pot No. ] 7 8 5 C 9 @) ) | Soil treat. Bale 22 | Mg.N.P. ||._|-=Mnr. Leg nt.) ae

March 826 1889 884 1003 1345 1013 665 1015 940 = 741

April 88 1083 1088 882 1298 1512 498 842 1033 583

fmm tole 4162 3612 3152 2602 3052 2142 2112 2052 1020 fee s020 9100 9960 9605 6595 8605 5495 6300 5770 3095 May fetoG i22868 15778 134735 10168 11978 8634 9363 9208 6233 meeet 209010 25550 27250 26230 1836 Yd

June 2ae660 1610 4110 3810 6 45 0¢ 24 5301 38 rota. 27970 eae 160 31360 30040 Kok 429 zt Loo i8” ok rf LO J 9890

March 5424 5168 4707 4583 5184 5132 5691 6082 5381 6187 April 9270 8935 16875 15150 14320 15960

May 12468 11193 27568 24838 35363 27468 12578 9208 19438 17163 Total 27162 26296 49150 44571 54867 48550 : 675 y¢ June ea00 2970 piece 13410 12750 12130 4980 meee tee rT

2 gh Zz NIO6« ad la ~ %O ere ry . : r O Total 31312 29266 6256 57981 67617 60690 33294

7

ka ee

cj

USD

The duplicate po

pearance, yet from the tables we ob

cases, quite different amounts of water.

therefore, it is necessary to take a uni

these units were

unit. A gram of dry substance produced unit. For the computing of the results

t

produced and how much water

chosen two units, namely, centimeters of of dry weight. To obtain results in terms of centime

experiment ran from

were well developed and the transpirati Slacken. To obtain results in terms of

lowed to mature and

pot were added together. By dividing th ber of grams (c.c.) of water used during

of grams of water requi sach

red for

found. The

following tables of results ber of heads to each pot and the soil

were

ha4 4 <r 2A 1 in tha 4 ULC Yy U a, LIi Thr nn . +} V v fal JCA annw aca ; Lm ty ana ascertain L mo y . " we + was requir i lie ahnadawt 8S genera LY Cnhos l & RTS OE SES eae ; 4 n tnis experiment 7 5 . = le ead) ‘ and heads produced and £ ma allies heed ters of heads proc A+ +his time Etats ALG Ulli L LINE Vil’ sy >* 4 rr re 4 uUrrent Was egi y= ~ 4 ln 4+ + bh rr ry welgntv tne crop

a 1 or 1 a | s total ee een the expe I

yeryv

ce +h¢ f yd =" ‘* S } wm, “vy i Tic - Ae sihid ed he ; - te née O ra 2D le . = Ps) He &

= umper

a 3 : cea is

ihe | me < tne nume=

° In Barh in cack = | 137N

ai nume

of Results.

Table

¢

Series 100.

Ot teh No.of Th leng th AV. lz Ue Av. Net. T.water G.wWe r red. a ~~ r (* og.

No. Treat. heads of heads of heads of plants ised ‘or +o Me Prod. C.M. C.M. C.M. G. Y

| j | 102 None 15 160 10.6 50 85 5 15 | 102 None 15 155 EOee 58 486 16 105 =P 15 18 [2 68 3092 5 103 =P 15 21 14 66 4139 9 104 =N 14 17 11.5 54 3922 ” 17 toe 6 14 13 10. 5 2395 17 105 K 15 2 13.2 6 3420 L? ” 906 XK 15 71 Lo. 5 6 y 106 NP 2 14.8 ; 9 19 106 NP 2 4. 6 ‘

mer KP 197 KP

n f

1G?

Ti}! Op no AP OOoONUUAIATIOWOWOONE

Mm rot OTD WOO

NMO-MTNMOONDOONEKAIAIDOOOO

ae

6 19 6 9 > 6 6 2 2 108 KNP 5 2 15. L6 L6 108 KNP 4 2 12. 6 16 } 109 MgNP 5 22 14.66 6 4 20 20 109 MgNP 5 57 14.5 6 1520 20 110 Mnr 5 17 11.66 5 2580 15 15 110 Mnr 5 19 12.66 5 3072 16 111 Legm vy 20 eo 6 3875 18 16 111 Legm 15 16 ng. 62 2144 14

el >

Pot.Soil No. Treat

ee

202 None 202 None 203 P 203 P 204 N 204 N S05 XK 205 kK 206 NP 206 NP 207 KP 207 KP 208 KNP 208 KNP 209 MgNP 209 MgNP 210 Mnr 210 Mnr 211 Legm 211’ Legm

No.of T.length Av.igt. Av.h T.We - heads of heads of heads of p used Prod. C.M. C.M. Se G 18 278 15.4 100 625 20 314 1S. Tf 95 1215 rs) SLY 15.8 110 5667 an 583 17.4 125 20 26 467 21.2 100 LS Las 30 495 16.5 100 17710 23 524 14. 94 13905 22 350 a a aS 114 19415 BW 628 16.9 124 25565 57 633 17.] LES 26410 20 379 18.9 120 25510 20 544 17.2 120 25550 S21 565 18.2 120 27250 28 Hi preg LS36 120 26230 22 419 19. ae Sy} 18365 26 489 18.8 120 200905 15 258 L7a2 125 T6272 x 359 i i a 110 EVES 29 422 16.8 Ly 17020 22 527 14.8 90 10348

on On

PS OA BD Oo

FPORPUDROOMORVRHPRIUOUOND Ww:

CN O

CN

on

H> Cy

>>)

op ~

ON —

CN

| t |

Pot No.

eee ee

302 302 303 303 304 304 305 305 306 306 307 307’ 308 308" 309 309 310 310 311 31r

It will be pretty general ag produced and also of a centimeter

his latter, howeve parable and more easil

is given.

Soil

Treat.

None None Pp

KNP MgNP MgNP

Mnr

Mnr Legm Legm

No.of heads Prod.

of

Le

C.M.

Av.igt

r\

U

>ve

f heads

a LT

18 33 16 2 22 16 39 39 15 2

16 284

L4 41 16 18 SL

29

a4 84 42 79 19 34 16 28 26 92 25 49

ob

re

Ye

This table

of hea

o

ne nn ee ee ede ed oe

==, bt

rn» I j Lat =—/ |... FY CU fF

growth.

In order

compared

Quired for the production o

OOANADRWRWOWONRIWOWOAMDMWOOAOMM

~

e

e

e

e

©

°

o

e

5 125 22932 68 5 120 17040 64 6 145 32048 74 3 ye) 20125 76 8 147 46690 60 1 150 44035 59 6 12 13785 5D 7 135 20080 70 6 L50 46421 53 8 150 49179 D7 145 27162 89 6 150 26296 82 152 49150 58 7 165 44571 719 2 150 54867 64 9 257 48550 64 5 148 28314 8] 9 140 25675 82 150 38412 fo) 6 150 36095 75 foregoing tables that there i duplicates in the number of h of water required for the production There are some irregularitie to make the results more neat the table of averages (Table the average amounts of water gram of dry straw and grain.

tS ee ee ee ap ee ee ne pe ore ee = Ta ble Ol averakes OL VW J 1g the amounvs VJ Waa US Go =

quired for a unit of growth and production under var

conditions of soil treatment.

Meireat.|None | P | NK _|NP | KP XnNP MeNP | Mnr,| Leg:

moo | 2 a A 5 2 unit cm ¢.cm cm cr cm cm < | cm On om f& cm

Je of alich.'dm: . 1-a.-mM-e : °OeMelleQe Le 2». Me Ue lile elle ° Ue ° eUe . . ARS Eee se a a ac Saari Nase tanta nee Sects A ence sorte ae bee Re fgg eed Face on Re ecemait Pace aoc pce etal bean O y.

mm wowo

o1 Ww

As

has vé«

duced Ullic Crop > a Q { a . iii contained iniiu a QLy l : m Lime Vi LICaAQAlILE e Re L c ) ~ 100 and 200 as ‘ series 200 and 3500. } Was cut June 5 ‘ 200 June Jy wf ter the plants e aly a y> g ana tNMe Welles Era ama & C S| ° The following ta gi

ment, pounds j Lc g amoun QL Wav GQ . Table Oe Ta Ri

Seri 100 Pot So 2 OO Grain S ~ te Ae Vi J G Gy c Ld Te No. Treat. P Pr 2 <P is fie ie 1G » 65 a ee %° i ° & e a SE de Ad eens oe od 10z N ; - i e 800 3 eS ~ 102 None Jet. oe) ate WV OLY mJe Y EUG KS P Ve +o) U - &uJYe U i300 ZO ¢ ) i 103 EP © 10 + a B0 40 Ss e) 104 N YVew +. “x itUe ve 30 ~ . wt of 104 N zteu J Y aoe 20 ~ a ‘ O 205 K eo i 19-3! 1040 326 060 205 <K Seo it) rae 1040 32 | + 8) NP .O e a f O Oe J U 80 YVmeed £00 106 NP Oet abe O 3 e | Beare fa = 0. ‘ =. 107 KP 6.< weo 29.6 100 a a ” KP 8. Pod 3 mOe al 4 is 5 F Fl |} 108 KNP 8. 7 LO UO fs ee = Ye ew 4 Oo 108 KNP 14% ive O ‘ ok ab © Vv / +10 J 109 MgNP g e 5 16.8 £0 eV re 20 4/edD = re 74 109 MgNP 10 AOe & hue L600 oO @) O JU 1i0 Mnr Jed Jeu LOS 880 Pde PNG 850 i) MY if 1O 8 L. Pe) 120 ce 5 rere) 02

i Legm le

111 Legm

en O1

° 4 2) D >) un ~

nor

un wwe 3

Jib ~~ =

TA + NO. OL

102 108 202 208 302 308

to CG

2 Set Roe © &

Se

we

e) sew

he averag Potas

ery mar

heads in each series was increased. is i: 1S]

series 100. The maximum amount of water for the production of one centimeter of heads was reached in each series unde! a” Aaa > this soil treatment. With this treatment t! plants "fired" but

this trouble came on somewhat later than when potassium was applied

oo ae ) a4 SY 7 } ry} “7 whe 7 r alone. f Potassium, nitrogen and phosphorus whe o i: 77 } * . 4 A Tne 1 r way,YNn y } ~ Wha tut - gave the maximum yield. fhe plants growir the of k &

the three elements in series 100 and 200 used but slightly m

water for the production of one meter of heads tl wa il by the plants growing in soil without treatment. In the 200 sries ? 3 | } , nawTn + nt Dae’ ~ PaOaMI TTT, © Ar 2 a Seay : however, the amount of water rec was consid bly in excess of | + - : Fae Lin ec A | Pe _ sw 7 Se " ~ TT 4 - 7 that required by the plants in the so alone. "Firing" of > plan oe - | ++ amaar y a 3 4 - + - ~ 7 - #) aid not occur under this soil treatment. {On the whe the magnesium rT + h 2 et ST een 7a 14 . > 43 7 5 | proved to be quite as effectual as the pc ssi when ied with [ nitrogen and osphorus. n each series the plants growing 1) a this treatment resemb] under the in i “MULLS J Lsle dS Fh } ' 4 54 Fo + at eal ew fluence of potassium ¢ 2a + ~ ; at o 4. . 4 a ena +) : : } It had no retarding effect on transpiration nor was its applicae- | J | ae Bie whet ae tion accompanied by early "firing." : ee as ; saa 49 ~~ «A ~ ; : The application of manure was accompanied, after a t: . bY an : aa . - “+ ad ul Le y ed . | | ; > * ” : increase in vegetative growth. f

Qc Ime — A 4 ~ 7 a =s, +e + he = 1 The legume Gave det ter resul 3 tna the ure. The |

™ 3 ~ i ’ YT) |S ate A 4 | { ; | | | fond 4. 3 ae TY mJ 1 _ entimeter of heads | = as = > mi. 2 increas ie Lnis .

increase is not proportional in the various

Ve 4

upply of water.

An increas<

s0il and uelaye

modifi

Burgerstein,

Die Transpiration Der Pflanzer 90 5-159.

on . a = 4 C2 s

e

\ FTF 4 wr VT a O_ pay Cc \ Be a e V ° ww ° 9 ° a K ng F. H. | t ; Wisconsin Sta. Re » 189 57-200. | 8. u " u 1894. 240-248, | 9. "1 rT) it 207 990, } | ee " " "i 890 7 = Or mai. Kohl, F. G. ) } ie Transpiration der Pilanze 1886, 82-86. ' } 12. Livings? B. EH. Botanical Gazette, 1905, XL, 178-195. ‘ ]

. 14. Lawes, J. B.

* Jour. Hort. Society, London, 1886, V, 38, alsa Rothamsted Memoirs, 1886, I. 15. Lawes and Gilbert

a3. " i" 1903% -XXXVIII, 67-71. ; . | min, ABTOR.«, 1875, 1; 2B) |

16.

a7.

18.

19.

20.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

|29.

Maxwell, W. Jour. Amer. Chem. Soc., 1898, XX, 469-485. Maercker, M. Jahrb. Agr. Chem. Vers. Stat. Halle, 1895, 15-16. Maercker, M. Chem. Centbl., Mac Dougal, D. f.

Plant Physiology, 1901, 6

Pfeffer, W.

Pagnoul, A. von

ul. Sta. Agron. Pas

Lor C?) 7 ) = nin L ww © 4 eT

Pagnoul, A. von.

Biederman's Centbl., 1900, XXIX, 96

rc

Schroeder ,M. R., Jr.

Annual Agricultural institute, Seelhorst, C. von

Journal Landw. 1901, IXL, 231-250 seelhorst, C. von

Jour. Landw. 1900, VIIIL, 165-177. d p] >]

Exp. Sta. Rec., XIII, 6

’ y Sachs, J. von. The Physiology of Plants, 1882, 252, also landw. Vers. Stat., NO56, 1, 203 Tucker, M. and Seelhorst, C. von.

Journal Landw.,

$0. Thorne, C. Ohio Exp.

Sl. Whitney, M.

Mary Sta. Rep., 1891, 249-296

o 2 . Wo 1 ] ny ; B 2

Yrtljschr. Bayer. Landw. Rat

53. Willard, J. Kans. Exp. 54. Widtsoe, John A.

Utah Exp. Sta.

APPENDIX

PLATES AND TABLES

eo wi

500 resp

re

100, 200, and

sent

aay:

repre 60

PLATE

Jha

16.0) §

PLATE

il.

wi

i “

\s » ro te ae ras

PLATE IV.

~_ Ae ~~ ie ——_ = Aa aew am - SS Wo eer

—

PLATE VI.

PLATE VII.

1 \ ly Sy Au \ \ 4

hy N

KF Wai

Wi i Avi

= aby

A

“’ Mi

TaN ¥ i Nt vif NN {i | ‘i

PLATE

, Why \ Wg , ly I) oY ij

4 f\ > ae UKs - may ; , Bilt a ) EON , tae y A

PLATE 1X.

W/L ,\ h\hs h 4 ! aa / \ \ 1) i ‘ .. et at a) a j/A 1 iL

LWT) iif A

MMM —\ \ 9! | ua Aa Bw Nit nd

" : “

Ps Fj So < an! Py

\i ' 4

4 eae a 4X i oh | y\N

PLATE XIil.

- —-% >» ——

ae aL Ie AN ih HN ih oi 4 yi p ZN HN

KATY b

|

N MAK hb | Mi ; ity oh

|

ee | | } | | }

PLATE XV.

Nj " ‘ \ \N). y ARK

Water

was weig!

in the varia represents of water to tube

letters

were growing and were

from the

numbers

i y Wve

Wt.of Pot

K.P.

K.N.P.

Table Il.

K. N.P. N.P. K.P. K.P. K.N.P. K.N.P.

Mg.N.P.

Mg.N.P.

Table

17615 20135 18400 19680 19910 19975 19740 19700 15400 18030 15655 18330 19670 16910 16625 16175 17745 18040

20250

18665

2 or

Weights.

Cc a4 peries o

Wt.of

Dry Soil ¢g.-

Water holding capacity

of Soil.

First test. No.of Pot Wt.of 301 13455

| Second test.

301’

| Third tent.

| Pifth test.

301’

Table V. j amounts of water added.

ries 200. -C. March.

4 Date 201 2 202 203 203 204 204 205

60 15 50 60 6 60 60 7 ) 50 130 140 130 66 100 400 190 & 16 2 40 40 § 80 10 15 60 40 80 1) 20 «ok 60 40 80 12 20 2 60 40 80 13 20 60 6 40 80 14 2 80 380 4 220 2 200 15 20 130 13 70 100 16 20 130 13 70 100 1” 50 130 13 70 100 18 20 | 130 13 70 0 100 19 20 2 130 13 70 100 20 a 130 12 70 100 a1 +50 7 60 22 ag #350 22 130 130 70 70 70 23 130 130 70 70 24 130 13 70 25 20 130 130 4 70 100 1 26 20 130 13 70 100 100 27 20 2 130 13 70 100 100 28 200 1 420 290 500 410 29 S06 20 «90 160) 150 1 100 100 100 30 20 100 3 S16. -240. 115 315 110 . 120 31 20 100 100 210 210 115 115 110 110

eer a —— veining

Po ws

ws OA

=) I fot ad fad fund pad FJ f-J Cp) eel meal ell peel SA ell ell ell seed all

Pr.» Pot fed YF _ @ WO OD OW Ww

fad fund Poo fy)

ere er ner er _

Total 516 540 2090 1785 3470 4630 2260 2770 2980 3170 451

Total Transp .##528 1562 1257 2042 4102

# Excess. ## Obtained by subtracting average evaporation (528) from check pots from the totals.

Table V con. Daily amounts of water added.

200. @.c. March:

207 207° 208 2 209

60 1000* 60

130 100

500 150

100 50

10 80 50

11 80 50

12 80 80 50

13 80 188 50 14 350 135 15 135 135 7.) 6186 )«(135 7 155 135 18 135 135 aon) 2as5 «6155 20 135 372 sis 312 «160 22 160 160 23 160 160 24 160 160 26 160 160 26 - 160 160 27 160 160 28 700 620 29 200 200 30 230 230

51 0-230 23

Total4840 4690 4040 3680 3130 2 2640 2580 1548

TOt. 43512 4162 3512 3152 2602 2142 2112 2052 1020 Trans.

# Excess. | ## Obtained by subtracting the average evaporation (528) from the |

Lai

check pots from the totals.

Table V1. Daily amounts of water added.

Series 300. C.C. March.

Pate 301 301’ 302 302’ 303 303 304 304 305 305° 306 306

| | 1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 |

3 150 160 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 8 350 364 918 890 610 890 950 570 770 790 860 9 75 75 180 180 180 160 180 210 120 170 170 170 10 75 75 180 180 180 160 180 180 180 170 170 170 11 75 75 180 180 170 170 180 180 175 175 170 1970 12 7 75 180 180 170 170 180 180 175 175 170 170 13 75 75 180 ,180 170 170 180 180 175 175 170 170 | 14 130 132 80 #120 200 200 230 60 130 140 156 158 | 15 85 85 170 50 180 180 180 180 170 170 170 170 | 16 eee 170 170 160 180 180 180 170 170 170 170 | 19 85 85 170 170 180 180 180 180 170 170 170 170 18 85 85 170 170 180 180 180 180 170 190 170 170 | 19 85 85 170 170 180 180 180 180 170 170 170 1970 | 20 80 80 170 170 180 180 180 180 170 170 170 1970 | 22 #60 #60 404 #100 540 370 290 140 250 350 310 366 | 22 60 60 200 200 220 220 190 190 185 185 200 200 | 23 60 60 200 200 220 220 190 190 185 185 200 200 | 24 60 60 200 200 220 220 190 190 185 185 200 200 25 60 60 200 200 220 220 190 190 185 185 200 200 26 60 60 200 200 220 220 190 190 185 185 200 200 27 60 60 200 200 220 220 190 190 185 185 200 200 28 290 340 1620 830 1950 1250 1390 1250 1150 1500 1540 1570 29 70 50 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 30 70 70 350 350 400 400 350 350 350 350 400 400

$1 _ 70 70 350 350 400 400 350 350 350 350 400 400

Tot. 2475 2551 7347 4945 8155 6965 7125 6755 6200 6960 7171 7329 Tot. 2503 4844 2442 5652 4462 4622 4252 3697 4457 4668 4826 Trans .#

i # Excess. / = = 1 ## Obtained by subtracting the average evaporation (2503 c.c.)

| from the check pots from the totals.

aaa

able VI con. Daily amounts of water added.

S er j es o O O > G . G . Mar ch .

307 “ 308

LOG... 100 165 185 860 100 aro. 2° 175 170 c 175 180 ‘ L175 180 LYS 180 175 202 250 186 190 180 190 180 190 180 190 180 ] 190 SG. 2 190 500 500 230 220 Zou 29 220 2350 220 230 220 250 220 230 220 1680 1680 15 250 250 420 420 420 420 420

Sores ere ee ee

NYNNNNMNNN FE I! IW { BAe) : i. WNNOMNONNONENONNAD! on ot on OF OT oo © Oo 2 &>«

Tot. 7927 7671 7210 7086 7687 7635 8196 8585 7884 8690 Tot. 5424 5168 4707 4583 5184 5132 5691 6082 5381 6187 Trans.

| Table VII. Daily amounts of water added.

Series 100. C.C. April.

Seer 9Os 101 102 102 103 103 104 #%4104° 105 105° 106

1 $5 35 45 15 5 2 mam” a6 45 5 15 3 #194 #40 #100 #125 35 40 #286 #230 #30 #75 4 40 40 5 35 35 40 40 40 40 40 6 35. 3 40 40 40°°..40 +40 7 35 35 40 40 A 40 40 8 [ese 46 40 30 30 40 40 40 9 Seawss 40 40. 30. 30 40 §40 40

10 144 24 100 125 150 150 90

11 £40 40 40 40

12 40 40 40 40

13 25 25 60 60 66 40-66

14 40 4G” ° GO 60 50 50 50 40 50

15 2 5 4 i 60 50 46 40 540

16 woe eG 6k) = 5006C(C5O0CCOCtiC«d 1

air 60 86300 |—(26 125 #100 100 56 50 #110

18 fo #95 #25 #55 55 #42450 50 50 70

19 fo 26 85 55 55 50 56 50 70

20 io) 85 «295 «+55 55 50 50 50 50 90

21 Toss 65 55 #55 56 50 50.50 70

22 26425 3 eC eC a: ne 70

23 mete) -6506«Cid5S 55S (50 CU 50 CSOCOs«*éK'D

24 12 40 150 120 50 195 60 ~84

25 te 46 30 #65 65 50 #«50 55 75

26 Mme 40 30 65 68 50 50 25 55 95

27 [me 40 30 #65 65 80 50 235 55 °75

28 a 30 40 3 66) 65 50 50 5@ 65 “75

29 meeego 40 30 #65 65 50 50 50 55 5

Beene 2G) «640 = 50 S65 65 85050 S'S 55 75

Tot. 254 190 826 660 1620 1570 900 760 1116 1100 1514

Tot. 222 604 438 1398 1348 678 538 894 878 1292

Trans .##

# Excess. ## Obtained by subtracting the awerage evaporation from e eo a qe Ve

g@eeegae 6. On) trem the tote tg pa

-82-

——-——— <= Rea ——— —_ —— — 2S Se =

Table VI1. con. Daily amounts of water added.

100% C«Ce Aprids

ez 2 5 4 5 6 8 9

40

40 A.

45 : ] nage, 72. 73

50 E

50 2 65

50 : 5] 51.5 5 50

50 57

10 59 _—i+BA

Poeue 22110 1505 1310 1104 1520 1734 2 125 805. 62.5 60..7

i Tot. 888 1083 1088 882 1298 1512 9 10: 583

| Trans.

Table VIII. Daily amounts of water added.

Series 200. C.C. April.

Date 201 201 202 202 203 203 204 204 205 205° 206 206°

1 Poe «35 «C35 C75 C5 2C 40 0S 40 40s 40«s110—s 600 2 foe 40 40 % 7 40 40 40 #40 115 65 3 265 100 205 575 200 450 565 725 595 4 Beeeeeo) 100 100 210 210 115 115 110 150 325 325 5 Sopee@ 200 100 210 210 115 115 110 150 325 325 6 Seeeegersoe 100 210 210 115 115 110 150 325 325 7 8 9 10

50 20 100 100 210 210 115 115 110 150 325 325 50 20 100 100 210 350 115 115 110 150 325 325 20 ,20 100 100 210 350 115 115 310 150 325 ,325 #50 #50 200 100 475 300 168 450 #75 335 #60 #250

ris 120 110 250 350 125 165 160 175 325 100 12 120 110 250 350 125 165 160 175 325 325 13 15 15 200 175 375 500 200 300 275 325 500 500 14 20 20 425 400 550 650 425 300 500 300 650 650 15 20 20 120 110 250 350 125 165 160 175 325 325 16 M7) 355 110 250 360 125 165 160 1795 325 .325 17 #145 #76 150 100 400 250 350 300 580 345 100 18 195 170 350 365 200 225 150 270 400 340 19 195 170 350 365 200 225 160 270 400 340 20 20 20 195 170 350 365 200 225 160 270 400 340 21 20 20 195 170 350 365 200 225 160 270 400 340 22 50 20 195 170 350 365 200 225 160 270 400 340 | 23 20 20 195 170 350 365 200. 225 160 270 400 340 | 24 #70 430 310 300 570 490 320 100 620 750 560 | 25 20 200 190 50 400 240 250 160 320 450 380 | 26 20 200 190 350 400 240 250 160 320 450 380 | 29 [so 100 95 175 200 120 125 80 160 225 190 | 28 20 20 100 95 175 200 120 125 80 160 225 190 | 29 20 20 200 190 350 400 240 250 160 320 450 380 30 20 20 200 190 350 400 240 250 160 320 450 380

Tot. S60 410 4995 4270 7965 9875 54035 6200 4305 7625 11095 9995

Tot. 385 4610 3885 7580 9490 5018 5815 3920 7240 10710 9610 Trans .##

aD ow oe we c= os oe us oe

# Excess.

## Obtained by subtracting the average evaporation from the check pots (385 c.c.) from the totals.

Date 207

Trans.

Table VIII.

1 90 2 90 3 560 4 325 1 5 325 6 325 ” 325 XB 325 9 325 lo #2025 12 100 is 325 13 500 14 650 | 15 325 16 325 17 80 18 330 19 330 20 330 21 330 22 330 23 330 24 600 25 370 26 370 27 185 | 28 185 29 370 | 30 370

207"

90 90 560 325 325 325 325 325 525 #225 100 325 500 650 325 325 90 330 330 330 330 330 330 500 360 360 180 180 360 60

cone

Daily amounts of water

208

50

50 655 250 250 250 250 250 250 275 260 260 580 580 260 275 500 360 360 360 560 360 360 600 420 420 Z10 210 420

Series

420

/

208 209 50 50 50 50

500 325

250 200

250 200

250 200

250 200

250 200

250 200

250

260 200

260 200

580 350

580 540

260 200

219 - 200

$25 105

560 260

360 260

560 260

360 260

560 260

360 260

600 500

420 300

420 300

ai 150

2L0° E50

420 300

42 300

Soa

200.

/

209

50

50 500 200 200 200 200 200 200 500 200 Pag WS) 360 540 Pag 25 475 300 300 300 300 300 300 820 570 i A) 185 185 370 370

on oe =e == as oe

210

275 140 140 279 275

= == = oe

C.C. April.

added.

Tot. 9425 9485 10345 9990 6980 8990 5880 6685 6155 3480 61.5 Tot. 9040 9100 9960 9605 6595 8605 5495 6300 5770 3095

iTable IX. Daily amounts of water added.

Series 300. C.C. April.

/ 4

|Date 301 301° 502 302 303 303 304 304’ 305 305 306 306° 2 "30 30 gou. -i25 £50, 150 125 i205 .LA5 125 150: (250 2 40 50 125. 125 LGO* C15 feo i Er ae D0 £25 150 Iso 3 150 130 555 3500 550 100 690 575 100 245 710 660 4 70 70 550 350 400 400 550 S50 2350 550 400 400 5 70 70 e0@:' 350 400 400 350 350 S50 550 400 400 6 70 70 550 350 850 250 550 550. 350 350 400 400 7 70 70 550 350 400 350 350 $50 350 350 400 400

1 8 70 70 150 «250 B00" 150 150 150 “150 150 200 200 | 9 70 70 550 350 400 350 350 350 350 350 400 400 | 10 50 50 230 #350 308 #150 600 500 #485 #250 665 640 | mi 70 70 350 400 250 550 350 100 420 420

|] 12 70 70 550 300 400 350 400 400 300 500 420 450

| 13 70 70 BOG e500 92200 500 1200 1260 300 300 1400 1400

| 14 70 70 Sac rolo £200 1000 11240 1200 350 550 1300 1300 | 15 70 70 550 300 400 350 400 400 300 3500 225 450 || 16 70 70 550 300 400 350 400 400 300 300 225 6450 | 17 500 250 700 #300 560 300 #250 oO 800 480 || 18 90 90 450 300 500 100 630 630 100 360 700 708 | 19 90 90 450 300 500 400 630 630 300 560 700 700 20 90 90 450 300 500 400 630 °630 300 560 700 700 | 2l 90 90 450 930 500 400 630 630 300 360 700 700 22 90 90 450 300 500 400 630 630 300 360 700 700 | 23 90 90 450 300 500 400 630 630 300 560 700 700 24 290 250 1060 6001 600 700 2500 2000 520 900 2100 2330 29 1Z90 .120 550 420 660 440 900 900 350 450 900 900

| 26 20° 120 550 480 660 440 900 900 350 450 900 900] at 60 60 180 190 220 150 300 S00 120 150 300 300

28 60 60 180 190 220 >) 150 300 300° «i120 150 300 506 29 120 120 550 480 660 40 900 900 350 450 900 900 ¥50 120 120 550 480 660 440 900 900 350 450 900 900 1 Tot.2840 2720 124759735 14988 9460 18370 17515 7560 10115 1916519480 1 .et. 2780 9695 6955 12208 6680 15590 14735 4780 173355 1638516700 Trans.##

22 S32 cp SO as = = =e =

# Excess.

i# Obtainedby subtracting the average evaporation from the check pots (2780 c.c.) from the totals.

Table IX Con. . Daily amounts of water added.

Series 300. C.C. April.

Temp.

Date 307 307. 308 308 309 309 310 310 311 #«311’Soil* | 2 eee tee 155 #155. 155 155 125 125 155 155 56 755 155 #155 #155 155 155 125 125 155 155 56 3 265 340 725 705 565 #500 500 380 500 £595 64 4 420 420 420 420 420 420 380 380 420 420 61 5 420 420 420 420 420 420 380 380 420 420 68 6 Seeeeeeee 400 420 420 420 380 380 420 420 65 ” 375 975 420 42 ae0- 450 380 -386 . 420 420 60 8 150 150 200 200 200 200 150 150 200 200 54 9 S¥5 375 420 420 '420 420 380 380 420 420 61

10 #75 #50 500 125 290 425 75 ; 168 125 60

11 375 375 420 420 420 420 580 380 t20 420 58.5 | 12 375 375 420 420 420 420 380 3580 420 420 66 113 500 B00 1250 1250 252 1250 1200 1200 .1250. 1250807 |14 700 700 1500 1300 13500 1300 800 800 15300 1300. 67.5 15 375 575 420 420 420 420 380 580 420 420 59 | 16 375 375 420 420 420 42 580 580 420 420 58.5 N17 420 190 640 140 320 620 90 #250 45 #350 57

H18 450 440 700 650 650 700 500 250 600 200 63 | }19 450 440 700 650 650 700 500 475 600° 575 | 120 450 440 700 650 650 700 500 475 600 575 67 21 450 440 700 650 650 700 500 475 600 575 69 |22 mee, 440 «©700)«©6 3650)«3= 650. +700 «#3500 ) «(47 600 575 70 123 450 440 700 650 650 700 500 475 600 575

}24 1060 .1030 2550 2210 2300 2050 800 100 1780 1380 70 25 540 520 900 860 860 880 540 480 780 690 65

26 540 520 900 860 860 880 540 480 780 690 64 }27 Meer i? 500 285 285 295 180 160 260 230 57 28 feeeed?5 300 285 285 295 180 160 260 230 58 29 540 520 900 860 860 880 540 480 780 690 57.5 30 540 520 900 860 860 880 540 480 780 690 55

——

a re

mouse te ooo 117125 19655 17930 17100 18745 12825 11165 16373 15235 61.7 WTot. 9270 8935 16875 15150 14320 15960 10045 8385 13593 12755 Trans.

Tab 1 e DOF

+ - - m de os sd ere ‘ nhaAa Daily amount: Ol Water aade I < 7 = ve NS) © 00 CeCe. Ve : / , / / / ‘

1 #46 #46 42 74 #25 #150 94 #50 2 4 40 65 65 50 50 55 75 70 3 40 40 65 65 50 50 55 75 70 4 20 20 O7 Dif 25 25 3 57 35 5 SO 380 # £37 59 95 25 23 7 -S5 6 mo 10- 40 40 #465 657 50 5 50 55 75 7 7 : TO 40 40 657 65 #«2350 50 8650 spt «695ht | ICG 8 #50 #30 #75 #1257 + #25 9 1 10 824 65 65 50 3655 75 70 10 1 ‘ 40 40? 65 65 75t 50 55 75 70 11 10 10 407 40 65 65 75 BO 5 56 15 70 12 76 10 #4«60 75 102 Gae-1 18 75 75 88 2° “308 13 me 20 46 #50 #£«65 65 75 50 8 50 55 75 70 14 mee go 40 #50 £465 65 75 50 ~—s«#B*C 55 "5 70 15 17 S06. 84 194 70 204 116 210 «66 | 16 me 10. 4 4 65 65 75 50 50 55 75 70 lame we 20 40; 40 65 65 75 50 50 55 75 70 | 18 ie. 2 80 100 13 150 150 100 100 110 150 a4e¢ 19 te. 3 a 65 65 75 5 50, | 355 5 70 20 meesto)60O6UdGOlC«CaGCC“(<é‘éiSCOQNsCd2L 75 75 78 108 105 2 [erro 60 60 98 98 107 75 75 78 108 105 2 656 456 70 #80 130 170 #475 58 24 164 95 23 M7 20 55 #65 70 5 60 6 66 80 ~=s 8&5 90 24 if ~10 3 83 105 105 90 90 87 120 125 135 | 25 meoeete” 83 83 105 105 6G 87 120 125 135 | 26 je 20 55 55 70 175 60 60 65 £80 85 90 | 27 Te 320 #55 55 70 38075 50 66 “65 _ 80 85 90 Tot. 190 190 1393 1360 1916 1981 2050 1085 1800 1781 2331 2055 | Tot. 190 1203 1170 1726 1791 1860 895 1610 1591 2141 1865 |

Trans 2?

# Excess.

t Date the first head appeared.

#2? The total transpiration was obtained by subtratting the number of c.c. of water which evaporated from that check (190 c.c.) fror

the other totals.

Table X con.

fal RA pee ray) pat pe F ~

Series 100 c.c. May.

Date 107 107’ 108 108’ 109 09 LO O° S > y 50 12 72 #100 ia #75 64 50 2 50 60 50 5 5 70 50 50 ¥: 56.5 3 50 60 50 46 65 70 50 50 50 4.0 59.5 56.5 4 25 30 25 23 2 35 5 25 25 20 64.5 6 5 25 30 25 23 3 35 5 25 25 20 64.5 61 6 50 60 50 45 65 70 50 50 50 AO) 60 60 7 50? 60 50t 45 65t 70t 50 50 50 40 58 68 8 #50 154 #125 50 72+#100 5 62 G 50 55 A5 65 70 50 50 74 68.5 10 50 5Or 55 45%t 65 70 50t 50 yr ee 83.5 ! 13 50 50 55 45 65 70 507 50 50 40 ” 77.5 | 12 75 75 2 68 97 105 75 75 75 60 84 85 13 50 50 55 45 65 70 50 50 50 10 76 74 14 50 50 55 A5 65 70 50 50 50 40 84 84.5 15 160 354 196 136 200 200 72 50 50 83 93 | 16 50 50 55 45 55 70 50 5C 50 40 86.5 85.5 1" 50 50 55 45 65 70 50 50 50 40 8 79.5 18 706 100 110 990 130 140 100 00 00 80 67.5 74-5 19 50 50 55 45 65 70 50 50 50 40 16.5 70 | 20 75 75 78 63 97 105 75 75 75 60 14 at 75 75 78 63 97 105 75 75 75 60 85 90 2 55 360 155 245 80 140 #50 "@ 193 7 70 2 70 100 70 80 80 80 60 60 75 60 80 78 24 195 150 105 12 120 120 90 90 105 90 88 92 25 feet bO 105 120 120 12 90 90 105 90 9 9° 2 70 100 70 80 80 80 60 60 75 60 79 89 2 70 100 70 80 80 80 60 60 75 60 80 91

r

| Tot.1610 2671 1881 1722 2001 2185 1607 1505 2092 1060 SO... 5 -73:.6 Tot.1420 2481 1691 1532 1817 1995 1417 1215 1902 Trans. |

= 7

Table XI.

~

Daily amounts of water added. Series 200 c.c. May

Date 201 201 202 202 203 203 204 204 205 205° 206 7 4125 #40 250 100 #550 200 300 525 350 175 700 2 200 190 350 400 240 525 260 200 45( 3 200 190 350 400 250 250 60 200 450 4 100 95 175 200 120 125 O » 100 1285 5 10 100 Seei7s) 6800 120? 125% 130t 100 225 6 10° 100 Seeery750 200? 120 125 130 100? 225 7 10 100 mares 200° 120 225 1350 100 125 Seeewro #20 225 115 #835 150 320 590 150 200 650 9g 2007 190 490 240 250 200 320 450

10 2 190 400 240 250 200 320 450

10 20 20 200. 190 400 240 50 200 320 50

12 20 Saeenoon 270 252 600 360 375 300 480 675

1 20 aa eam 61996 1795 400 240 250 200 320 450

14 20 BO 200 190 400 240 50 200 320 450

15 ae 660 $40 47150 760 720 900 725 600 900

16 20 20 200 390 400 240 250 200 320 550

17 20 SO 200-4 190 300 400 240 250 200 320 450

18 20 20 400 380 600 800 480 500 400 640 900

19 20 aoa 200 190: 300 .400 240 250 200 320 450

20 20 2 goo 265 450 600 360 375 300 480 675 21 20 eo ovo 205 450 600 360 375 300 480 675 22 100 #40 200 400 #175 400 600 720 650 800 880 23 20 20 3500 300 400 500 400 400 350 450 600 24 20 a0 450° 450 600 750 600 600 525 675 900 25 20 poe 4690 450 600 750 600 600 525 675 900 26 20 20 300 300 400 500 400 400 350 450 600 27 20 eo S00 300 400 500 400 400 350 450 600

Tot. 400 365 6835 6455 632711910 879010035 7915 991515055, Tot. 382 6453 6073 594510528 8408 96535 7533 9533146731

Trans.

Ge ee ee me ce ee

# Excess, *Date the first head appeared.

-S0-

Table X1

Daily amounts of water added.

Temp. meee? 207 #208 208 209 209 210 210 211 211 Soi 1 450 500 500 500t 500T 575 #75 5 200 200 60 2 370 360 gon) 420° 300 «#29570 #375 300 300 125 58 Seem o60r 420t 420 300 370 375 00 300t 125% 57 meeeieG = 210 210 150 i1s5t 187 150 150 175 60 meeeeeeeieo 210 210 150 185 187 150 150 75 58 ete 210 "210 150 185 187 150 150 75 60 nts 210 210 150 187 187 150 150 175 65 8 42 450 500 335 340 # £560 150t 200 135 62 mmeeeeseo 420 420 300 370 275 300 300 150 64. Deeaeer s60 420 420 300 370 275 300 300 150 77 Semen s6O 420 420 300 370 275 300 300 150 72 12 555 540 630 630 550 555 312 450 450 225 82 Meeeewo, 560 420 420 300 370 375 300 150 150 74. 14 370 360 420 420 300 370 375 300 190 150 82. meeeeee 900 910 940 72 900 550 800 780 660 91 fewera 560 420 420 300 470 275 300 300 150 81 17370 #4360 420 420 300 370 2758 300 300 225 77 } 18 740 720 840 ,840 600 740 550 600 600 450 74 ameeewe 560 420 420 300 370 375 300 300 150 71. } 20 555 540 630 630 450 525 562 450 450 225 82 | 21 555 540 630 630 450 525 562 450 450 225 86 |} 22 360 560 580 41 640 740 400 620 720 770 70 23 600 600 650 650 450 450 380 400 400 350 74. 24 900 900 925 925 625 625 570 600 600 525 86 25 900 900 925 92 625 625 570 600 600 525 89 26 600 600 650 650 450 450 380 400 400 350 86 27 600 600 650 650 450 450 380 400 400 350 86 To12550 12670 14160 13855 10550 12360 9016 9745 9590 6615 73 T.12168 12288 13778 13473 10168 11978 8634 9363 9208 6233

Trans.

tT Date the first head appeared.

a

Table XI1l.

Daily amountsof water added.

“! , = Zz WV Series 300 c.c. Mav

201’ 302 302’ 303 303 304 304 305 305

oO ct GW oO a

#40 #250 #475 #400 #300 #1 1 550 480 660 440 900 900 350 450 120 550 480 660 440 900 900 350 450 60 295 240 320 220 450 450 175 225 60 Syeeneego. S20 220 450 450 175 225 50 4 60 60 450 450 450 450 60 Sov 240 3520 200 450 450 175 225 450 450 #100 #650 350 150 910 320 #150 L120" 2350 350 660 44 900 900 350 900 120 120 350 480 660 440 9007 900 350t 120 120 350+ 480? 660t 440%t 900 900% 350 12 16° 525 720 990 660 1350 1400

on

OLPONMrHODOMWIOOLUN-H ist on © Poh —S Pp 3 oO Soin © © 2

HPHH Ree

120 12 $50 480 660 440 13550 1550 350 <)

fee teo 65650) 6©6480)6©6660)6«3©6440 1350 1350 350 45

210 Seeone 500 500 355 1860 1660 105 Seeeeeorste0) 7OO -700 540 290 900 900 350 450 Seem 220 S50 350 660 440 900 900 350 450 feeeeee 220 700 600 1320 880 1800 1800 700 900

19 120 120 350 350 660 440 900 900 350 450 | 20 120 120 525 525 660 660 1350 1350 525 1 221 120 120 350 350 660 440 1350 1350 350 | 22 175 40 860 240 660 320 1330 1060 #50 23 120 120 400 350 660 500 1200 1200 24 120 120 600 525 990 "50 1600 1600 |} 25 120 120 600 525 990 1750 1600 1600 ae 20 120 400 350 660 500 1200 1200 1 27 120 120 400 350 660 500 1200 1200

101 on W

cnen do vo

JN

T. 2665 21201078510035165 70113 752886027440 77001068027 2 To, 2092 8393 764314188, 89832647825048 5308 8288253682" Trans.

Table XII on.

Daily amounts of water added.

A hay T

| ta 207 307° 308 308 309 09" 10 oO * ‘Coit.g 1 1 #550 215 500 150 575 000 50 8 | 2 540 520 900 850 860 880 540 180 780 Te) 54

3 540 520 900 850 860 880 540 480 780 690 5€

4 270 260 450 425 430 140 270 240 390 545 5 1 5 270 260 450 425 430 40 270 240 390 5 57.5

6 450 425 430 390 5 0.5 | 7 650 260 450 425 430 76 40 390 5 64

8 600 360 1200 550 1210 50 150 300 61.5

9 520 900 850 860 540 480 780 690 65 |10 520 900 850 860 540 480 780 690% 6 411 a 520t 900 850 860 540 480¢ 780 690 70 112 1000 780 1300 1275 1290t 770t 720 1150T 1035 85 13 540 520 1350t 1275+ 1290 520 480 780 690 73.5 14 «~95400=— «45520 1350 1850 1290 540 80 780 690 81 15 1580 340 2600 850 2310 940 370 1600 1430 87.5 16 540 520 900 850 860 540 480 780 690 80 17 540 520 900 700 360 540 48 780 690 75 18 1080 1040 1800 850 1720 1080 960 1560 1380 72 19 540 520 900 1275 860 540 480 780 690 73 20 820 780 135 71275 1290 810 480 70 1035 70 21 540 ef0° 1350 1275 , 1290 540 480 L70 1035 89 Beeetveo 450 1500 1400 138 670 #180 1020 540 68 23 520 52 1200 1200 1200 600 480 800 700 71 24 780 780 1600 1600 600 900 720 200 1050 81 25 780 780 1600 1600 1600 900 720 1200 1050 B4

6 520 S20) 1200 1200 - 1200 600 480 800 700 84 27 520 520 1200 1200 1200 600 480 800 700 80

- 14860 13585 29950 27230 37745 29860 14970 11500 21830 19555 7

- 12468 11193 27568 24838 35363 27468 12578 9208 19438 17163

rans.

; : he a = es See eS —

4

aes Be}

lag se ae

le XIII.

LOO

OO: @'S'O1e'o Jie Oo '@'o'0'O'©

o>) oO

dL 4 : ir Ex CesSe

DOGO Goo o'o'©

So o:o'o

00

~S

_

)

>

OWS Bes)

—~ ¢

Se

© ¢

OO

} ~\/

f\

UU

Vay

iv\ry

{ ){)

0)

Ld AN

@)

0

VC) Ot) J SJ Cr) J ( ‘\C> ate } (){ \ ) )

Ui WW)

AN ava

VU VU ae fr

O OO

y YU

-

=~

ACO

IAG)

lata’

WU

ae fata

NC ae

J VY

VU ata

OO 0

VO 6)

JU J

0 0

yy U

in

>nddT

rn

tnm ¢ YU {

OO000

om oo ¢ JI ¢

as

ODO WD! nono nh Oo ho So) mae 59 1 OM 05 O 3 (<i) i cas he oO 2 © (& Me Kw lm Ie)

J |-

Oo OF

+ © ct ct my. C

e

HHRIF- AS

e re |

NY ¥ ye

W7

a Ki OK OK TA STAINSTA SATAN : ry, RR KK we * Ne eee OC 1 TA TAIT TA ATA GTA TAS Kk FASTA STA TA Nig ee ee ee ee 5 STAI ATTA Se Se a SS SS as Ss ZEEE SL > Ny he SSK Sk AIS EN a ee a ee a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee | CUNEO MONON MONTINI OTTO ee ee ee ee TR STE MATTE RT ATE TE ST, ST RT TT, TSI TT | SST SS Se STs Sn, Sn, Ss Sn Se ST Sn Se. Ss a ee ee ee w I STA NAIA eS SS OS ee ee ee ee a se Se Se ST ST Ss a Sn a ee ee ee ee I OS IS OS ONS OS ORS OS IRS ORS ?* SO IS ON eS OS IS OS eR wa 5 I i a a a a ea a KR SK he OK OTK OF OF OR KOK OK ORO

UNIVERSITY OF

Dil

IN