close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

POTASH AVAILABILITY STUDIES IN PENNSYLVANIA ORCHARD SOILS. II. A COMPARISON OF SOIL ANALYSES AND FOLIAR DIAGNOSIS FOR DETERMINING THE POTASSIUM STATUS

код для вставкиСкачать
The Pennsylvania State College
The Graduate School
Department of Agronomy
Potash Availability Studies in Pennsylvania
Orchard Soils II* A Comparison of Soil Analyses
and Foliar Diagnosis for Determining the Potassium Status
A Thesis
■by
Ellsworth Chisolm Dunkle
Submitted In partial fulfillment
of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
August 194-0
Approved:
^ /{ (
//
//
/ /
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
3
Foliar Diagnosis
Soil Potash Availability, Factors
Effecting
3
11
Origin and Maturity
11
Organic Matter Content, Quality of
Organic Matter and Degree of Erosion
13
Structure and Texture
15
Moisture Status
16
Fertilizer Treatment
13
Content of Other Ions
20
MATERIALS AND METHODS
26
Description of Sites
27
Methods of Sampling and Analysis of
Sample s
49
Chemical Methods
51
DATA AND DISCUSSION
53
Foliar Diagnosis
53
Soil versus Leaf Analyses
71
Soil Organic Matter and Available Potash
82
Rapid versus Routine Procedure
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX
Acknowledgments
Bibliography
Summary of Sites and Analyses
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
INTRODUCTION
The importance of potash in orchard fertilization has
been in conflict in the literature for a number of years
(16, 17, 62, 63, 70, 74-) •
Certain experiment stations
(62, 70, 74) have found benefits from its use while others
(17, 63, 16) claim no returns,,
Absolute proof of profits
from the use of potassic fertilizers must be obtained from
long time field trials.
However, as soils differ In the
amounts of available potassium
they contain and fertility
in general, such proof can not approach an absolute character
unless trials are instituted on all the major soil groups of
the area concerned.
This type of procedure is long and ex­
pensive.
Pending the setting up of field trials and for the pur­
pose of better determining where field trials should be
located this work was conducted.
It Is the purpose of this
work to determine not only what areas in the major orchard
sections of Pennsylvania might benefit by potash additions
but also how methods of soil and foliar analysis may be
applied in the future in dealing with similar problems. This
has involved a comparison In Elberta and J. H. Hale peach
orchards of sites of varying vigor and a study of foliar
analyses of these orchards, together with a study of the
potash availability of the soils concerned.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
This method has revealed indications as to the causes
of the condition of the orchard and the nature of the ratios
of nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash equivalents in the
foliage of healthy vigorous orchards.
By the use of soil
and leaf analyses the total expression for soil potash avail­
ability, the amount in the plant, can be compared with diff­
erent potash levels in the soil.
This permits an approxi­
mation as to the lower range of potash for normal growth
in the soil group concerned.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3c
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Measurement of the potash availability of a soil is
a problem complicated by a great many factors.
Direct
measurements of availability by chemical means have been
advocated for replaceable and water soluble potassium
(26,95), the potassium fixing power of a soil (95) and the
potassium releasing quality of soils (11).
Each of these
has been offered by the respective workers as a solution to
the discrepancies of the other methods.
Still none by
virtue of their nature can reveal the summation of the effects
of other factors in growth on the uptake of potassium by the
plant.
Use of the crop itself as a measure of the potash avail­
ability has appealed to the author as an essential tool in
determining the availability of potash in the soil.
Thomas and Thomas and Mack (79,SO,83,84*85,37,89,90,91)
in a long series of articles have adapted and enlarged the
principle of foliar diagnosis as outlined by Lagatu and
Maume (42) and used it in studies of the nutrition of crops
held under controlled fertilizer experiments.
In their bulle­
tin (90) published to enlarge the principles of this method
they point out that soil and plant tests are both valid only
when used in a comparative sense.
They carry the statement
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
further and claim that if one soil contains less of an
available nutrient than another which has been found to respond
to that nutrient used as a fertilizer, then even greater re­
sponse should be obtained from the former.
In this statement
Thomas has left unquestioned the fundamental that makes soil
tests so cumbersome.
If all other factors in growth were
constant, his statement would be true, but such a condition
is the exception rather than the rule.
Soils of different
geological parentage vary as to depth, drainage, permeability,
and contents of the other nutrients as well as rate of change
of these nutrients from the unavailable to the available con­
dition.
These factors complicate our soil analyses and make
comparisons valid only between similar soils.
This same
problem confronts the worker in attempting field trials as
already mentioned.
It is assumed by the author and in accord with the prin­
ciples outlined by Thomas (90) that a healthy vigorous plant
on any soil should, provided physiological age of the tissue
sampled is identical, present a similar analysis for the
nutrient entities.
It may be assumed therefore that under
similar climatic conditions the sum total of the factors
affecting growth which vary from soil to soil may be better
estimated by foliar diagnosis with regard to any single plant
nutrient than by chemical determinations of that element on
the soil Itself.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
"
The principles of foliar diagnosis as outlined by
Thomas and Thomas and Mack embrace the fact that the amount
of the nutrient in a single soil or nutrient solution (90)
bears a direct relationship with the percentage of the same
nutrient in leaves of identical physiological age.
The work
of Hoagland and Chandler (35)3 Batjer and Degman (7) and also
Fraps (26) confirms this.
The application of any one nutrient
to the soil (90) increases the percentage of that material
in the leaf to a degree dependent on the character of the
soil and its interaction with the fertilizer.
The increase
is also in accord with Liebig’s law of the minimum (79) in
that the omission of one entity results in a lesser uptake
of the two added where the soil is distinctly limited in its
supplying power of the element omitted.
Actual uptake of nitrogen, phosphoric acid or potash is
not the only important consideration in foliar diagnosis.
Thomas terms this uptake as the quantity of nutrition and
expresses it as the sum of the percentages of the dry weight
of tissue for these three entities.
Balance between the
nutrients is expressed as the percentage of the equivalent
weight of the element or its anhydride of the sum of the
equivalents of all three elements.
red to as the
This expression is refer­
"quality of nutrition" and bears a position
of equal importance to that of intensity.
Satisfactory
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
yields are not obtained unless balance in the plant is main­
tained,
These considerations have in Thomas and Thomas’and
Macl&work tied themselves closely together in an explanation
of the differences in yields of potatoes, corn and apples
in fertilizer experiments.
Thomas (79) writing in support of Leibigfs law of the
minimum has postulated an explanation of Legatu and Maume* s
anomalous findings.
These results indicated higher uptake
expressed as percentage of dry weight of tissue of nitrogen,
phosphoric acid and potash where they were applied with one
element omitted over that obtained by an application of all
three.
Thomas claims that due to the large supplying power
of the soil for all three elements no apparent adherence to
Leibigfs law occurred.
However, Leibig*s law under these
conditions should explain only an equivalent utilization of
the element in incomplete fertilizer with that where the
element was applied in a complete mixture.
It does not ex­
plain why the percentages in the dried tissue were actually
higher in incomplete applications than where complete ferti­
lizer was used.
cation ion
Certainly by reference to the same publi­
antagonism in the soil could not explain this,
and actual concentration changes in the soil solution under
normal fertilizer applications are but slight and frequently
undetectable analytically.
figures actually fail.
It would seem that here percentage
Yields on vines treated with incomplete
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7.
fertilizers were reduced due to lack of balance and this
reduction in yield in all probability was accompanied by a
reduction in growth.
If growth were reduced, then the actual
uptake of elements applied in incomplete fertilizer might
have been no greater than in those nourished with complete
fertilizer, even though percentage figures tended to give
the opposite impression.
Similar findings are reported by Frear and Erb (27) on
the Jordan fertility plots receiving potash alone where growth
was less than the check plots and percentages of potash in
the crop were notably increased.
Here actual uptake probably
was not as great as on the completely fertilized or manured
plots.
However, if Leibig’s law is violated in fact, then
it is not in purpose, for with luxury consumption even if the
uptake of the element is not limited by the element in lowest
concentration, still the efficient utilization of that element
is so limited.
Luxury consumption is revealed by balance as
shown by comparison with a high yielding or vigorous plant.
Such comparisons also permit logical interpretation as to
what entity or entities need to be supplemented.
These can
not reveal whether, when such supplementation is made, the
plant can benefit further by applications of the elements that
do not appear to be limiting in the original analysis.
responses might be anticipated in many cases.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Such
8.
Hoagland (34-) in a discussion of the absorption of
mineral elements by plants has pointed to the evidence re­
vealing the utilization of energy by roots in the uptake of
minerals against a concentration gradient such as occurs
between soil and root or culture solution and root.
The
source of this energy, he points out, may be ultimately de­
pendent on the presence of the minerals and nitrogen.
Thomas (80) reports for the apple that low amounts of nitro­
gen, phosphoric acid and potash were found in trees receiv­
ing no nitrogen.
This being the case a vicious
-cycle is
established and actual cases can occur where nitrogen, phos­
phorus and potassium may all appear limiting.
are not solved by foliar diagnosis.
Such cases
Certainly if the energy
required for uptake of the elements is limited by a single
element then this energy reduction may mask the identity of
that element.
Bartholomew and Janssen (6) point out that with potash
deficient tomato plants a wide range of applications produced
vigorous plants of identical quality and yield.
These plants
were greatly different in respect to the composition of the
ash and balance was not destroyed until very low potash con­
centrations were reached.
This would indicate a range for
the tomato with regard to potash.
In all plants such a range
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9.
might he anticipated and when employing foliar diagnosis
we must use an area rather than a point in graphical ex­
pression for the region of optimum balance.
This region
can be expected to vary with the other factors in growth.
Thomas (80) for apple disagrees with this in a statement
that the ratios in which elements are absorbed diverge to
only a small degree when plants are optimum with respect to
growth and reproduction.
In this experiment potash when added
in complete fertilizer reduced growth and reproduction in
cultivated trees.
balance.
Thomas ascribes this to a disturbance of
These results are not too convincing for no such
results were obtained under sod where we would anticipate a
still greater reduction due to a great competition for nitro­
gen even though uptake of potassium was somewhat less.
Batjer and Degman (?) who worked with young apple trees
in sand cultures under varying concentrations of nitrogen,
phosphoric acid and potash report that by holding two nu­
trients constant and varying a third, responses in growth
were noted.
This was demonstrated for increasing concentra­
tions of all three elements.
Growth was measured by leaf
area, dry weight and height.
These results were in accord
with the law of diminishing returns.
Phosphate requirements
were met at very low concentrations and the authors conclude
that actual reduction in growth, due to lack of phosphorus,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10.
is not likely to occur in most soils.
Requirements for
nitrogen and potash were met at sixty ppm.
Figuring soil
moisture at twenty per cent this would represent a figure
roughly of 16 ppm of soil.
Responses to nitrogen in growth
were greater than responses to potash.
The authors claim
that as nitrogen is our limiting element in most orchards,
responses to potash could not he anticipated in actual prac­
tice until nitrogen was no longer limiting.
In this work
also the authors point out that definite indications of
deficiency need not occur to obtain responses.
This work
also indicates that neither the content in the leaves and
hark of nitrogen or potash was significantly changed hy
variation of the other element.
This seems from observation
of the data to hold better in the case of potash than in the
case of nitrogen.
Here too, absolute amounts undoubtedly
would change the picture.
It Is realized that the method of Thomas and Mack (90)
could be improved by Inclusion of all factors in growth.
Evaluation of these factors is the difficulty in this pro­
cedure.
The method used has been chosen because it appears
reasonably thorough and workable.
Though the author has felt that a foliar analysis may
be more enlightening when taken alone than any single chemi­
cal determination on the soil, still when taken together, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11.
two supplement each other.
A knowledge of the factors
affecting the potash status of the soil and that status
itself can in the present study reveal the likelihood of
potash response in those cases where foliar diagnosis
points to all three elements as needing supplementary
treatment.
Such a knowledge also can in the future "be
applied in making practical recommendations in the field,
when we assume that the primary cause for low vigor in or­
chards is nitrogen.
Factors effecting the potash availability of a soil
are (1) origin and maturity,
(2) organic matter content,
quality of organic matter, degree of erosion, (3) structure
and texture,
(4 ) moisture status, (5) fertilizer treatment
and (6) content of other ions.
These factors are interre­
lated and difficult to separate hut here they will he dis­
cussed from the literature under the headings named.
(l)
Origin and Maturity
Plummer (60,61) has shown the variations in rate of
hydrolysis of several of the potash minerals and has shown
differences in the availability of potash in these minerals
to plants.
least.
Biotite was the most effective and microcline the
Hartwell and Pemher (102) have shown the potash in
finely ground feldspathic rock to he practically unavailable
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12.
to plants.
Curry and Smith (101) imply that the lack of
response to potassium on granitic soils as due to the nature
of the parent minerals.
Braezeale and Briggs (99) state that
the hydrolytic product from orthoclase is not available to
plants until treated with mineral acid.
They claim a com­
plex solute molecule is formed hy this mineral on weathering
that is not available to the plant until broken down.
Volk (94-) has revealed wide differences in the potash
fixing power of many of the soil minerals.
Gorbunov (3S)
reports greater fixation of potassium in the Tschernosem
soils than the podsols.
Bray and DeTurk (11) have in con­
sidering the factors affecting the rate of release in soils,
considered important those variations which determine the
rate of weathering of the potash mineral.
These include the
amount and kind of such minerals and their relative ease of
weathering and the intensity of the weathering process.
These
factors do not explain entirely the potash status in certain
cases.
The potash fertility of the southeastern United States
is not high and apparently this region gives our extreme in
weathering conditions.
Soils high in illite, the least re­
sistant to weathering of the potash minerals according to
these workers are not higher but frequently lower in exchange­
able potash than adjacent soils low in this mineral.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13 .
The work of McCool and Millar (4.8) considers maturity
or degree of weathering and its effect on soluble substances
released as measured by freezing point lowering.
Arid and
semi-arid soils showed a very slow rate of release.
Soils
of intermediate precipitation excelled in this quality over
soils found under extremes of precipitation.
Soils formed
largely by decomposition processes were nearly double in
rate of release of those formed by disintegration.
Subsoils
under all conditions showed a very slow rate of release.
(2) Organic Matter Content, Quality of Organic Matter
and Degree of Erosion.
Dunkle, Merkle and Anthony (22) found a relationship
between organic matter and exchangeable potassium and also
a distinctly higher level of replaceable potassium in surface
soils as compared to subsoils.
The latter is in accord with
the findings of Thornton (92) on a wide variety of soils,
though the author states the tendency for lower potash in
subsoils as measured by the Neubauer is not as striking as
the similar tendency of phosphorus.
Conner (18) from the
same station later states that the need for potash is not
much greater in Indiana subsoils than surface soils.
Conrey
and Schollenberger (19) have pointed out the gradual decrease
of exchangeable potash with depth in the profile of the
Clermont silt loam.
The works on factors effecting the raw­
ness of humid subsoils have indicated in some cases that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14.
lack of available potash in the subsoil may be contributing
to this condition (4.9 , 5 3 , 5 5 ) .
The work of McCool and Millar (4-8) mentioned above
indicates that the rate of release of minerals from subsoils
is very slow.
Volk (94-) studying fixation has shown greater
fixing power in eleven out of fifteen subsoils.
He alwo re­
ports a greater fixing power for the finer separates.
Under
humid conditions these finer separates accumulate in the
subsoil due to eluviation from above.
Joffe & Kolodny (39)
report also higher fixing powers for subsoils.
They also
attribute an increase in total potassium of the nB n horizon
over the nCn and ,TE ,T horizons to the fixation by the. finer
sep -r: tes.
Undoubtedly, in humid regions a relation between organic
matter and available or replaceable potassium is due in the
main to the fact that this determination reveals the degree
of intermixing of surface and subsoil.
Lamb (4-3) has discussed the old conception that soils
being high in total potassium, would not need potash additions
provided the activity of the soil solvents was maintained
by organic additions.
This view has been expressed by
Collison (17), although exceptions such as the case reported
by Sears (67) appear in the literature, the question of
potash availability is a complicated one and certainly ex­
ceptions do not disprove the importance of organic additions
in maintaining the potash status of a soil.
complished is a matter of conjecture.
How this is ac­
Certainly the potash
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
in the crop residues and manures added is important,
still
the solvent action of organic acid formed on the soil
minerals can not he entirely discounted.
Doubtless both
factors are important.
In 1919 Jensen (37) studied the effect of decomposing
residues on the solubility of soil minerals.
His work
indicated greater release of minerals by active organic
residues than by thoroughly decomposed materials.
Wander
and Gourley (96) working on the penetration of potash in
soils found penetration to lower layers was greatly enhanced
by a straw mulch.
This could as well be a problem of mois­
ture as one of organic activity.
(3)
Structure and Texture
Volk (94-) and Joffe and Kolodny (38) have reported
greater fixing powers for the finer soil separates.
In addition to these findings studies of rooting habits
(8,9,31,73) of crops have shown soil structure to be of
primary importance.
These factors also control moisture
supply, aeration and temperature of a soil (14 ,15 ,65,66
40,97), which are important factors in root development.
Dunkle, Merkle and Anthony (22) have pointed out that trees
on soils low in potash but highly permeable contain as much
potash as trees on heavier soils that contain greater amounts
of exchangeable potash.
This is undoubtedly due, both to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
greater affinity of the heavier soils lor potassium and their
unfavorable effect on root development.
Thomas (78) points out that the views on the relationpower
ship of root system and feeding/are not absolute.
This is
undoubtedly due to variance in method of measurement of
root extent.
(4.)
Moisture Status
Drying has been described as essential to potash fixa­
tion by the workers in this field (30,38,94) though Wood
and DeTurk (ll) claim that soils held over long periods of
time do fix potash without drying.
Certainly frequent drying
out of the soil should accelerate this process.
Wander and
Gourley (96) who worked with potash penetration under a straw
mulch as compared to cultivated ground, obtained great pene­
tration in the former case and but little in the latter.
Undoubtedly, this was due to the high moisture status obtained
under the mulch as well as to any direct solvent effect of
the organic decomposition products.
Here we find another
way in which it is possible for organic matter to influence
potash fertility.
Steenkamp (103, 104, 105) has studied drying as it
affects the exchangeable bases in a soil.
He records in­
creases in exchangeable potash on drying in three soils and
a decrease in three soils.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17.
This author states that the greater the amount of
adsorbed bases the greater the increase in exchangeable
bases on drying of highly weathered soils.
On unweathered
soils, decreases in exchangeable bases occur on drying.
These effects are questionable since Hissirik's procedure
was used.
This involves a deduction of the bases removed
in the second extraction from those obtained in the first
extraction.
Figures are not given to show the amounts re­
moved by these extractions.
Hence, "where a change occurred
on drying of the soil, were more or less bases removed in
the second extract of the dry soil as compared to the wet
one?
Emmert and Ball (24.) studied the effects of soil mois­
ture on the availability of nutrients to the tomato.
Their
results showed a higher uptake of potash in plants on dry
soil.
TJnese results are, however, expressed in parts per
million of the sap.
Differences were slight and the abso­
lute amounts are not given.
The authors, themselves, con­
clude that there is little difference in the uptake of potash
under varying moisture conditions.
Their data do
^ot justify
even this conclusion.
The moisture status of the soil plays an equally im­
portant role by its effects on root growth.
The feeding
area of the plant can be definitely influenced by the moisture
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18.
status of the soil.
Roa (65) obtained with sorghum in
soils, 1.8 and 20 per cent above the wilting coefficient
one and a half times the root volume, one and two-thirds
the root weight and two and one half times the root numbers
and area in the dry soil.
Weaver (97), Roa (65) and many
others have shown an increase in top to root ratio in wet
soils as compared to dry soils.
Such factors can not be
overlooked in influencing the ultimate availability of soil
potash.
This applies within limits and is well illustrated
by Thomas (79) explanation of Wollny* s and of Hellriegel*s
experiments.
Growth is shown to be a parabolic function of
water supply.
(5)
Fertilizer Treatment
Schollenberger and Dreibelbis (71) report that the potash
status of the soil is little influenced by fertilizers not
containing potash.
The increase of potash has been marked
on plots receiving potash alone or in incomplete mixtures.
This is in accord with the conception of Thomas described
above.
Leibig1s law of the minimum would appear to apply
here in that utilization of the potash has been restricted
by other elements that are limiting.
Sixteen tons of rotted
manure in a three year rotation raised the level of potassium
in the soil, while eight tons failed to do so.
Six years
discontinuance of complete fertilizer on one plot resulted
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19.
in a potassium status similar to that found on a soil never
fertilized.
Of the potash applied and not removed in crops
in this experiment only about one-fourth remained in the sur­
face soil.
The balance might be attributed to either leach­
ing or fixation in the non-exchangeable form by the surface
or lower horizons of the soil.
Merkle (52) has obtained similar results on the Jordan
plots.
Appreciable changes in exchangeable potash occurred
only under potash applications.
His results showed a tendency
toward increase in exchangeable potash with increasing appli­
cation of manure.
These differences, however, were insigni­
ficant and applications were equivalent to those at the Ohio
Station.
DeTurk (20) at the Illinois station reports results
in agreement to those obtained by Merkle with regard to the
effect of manure on the exchangeable potash.
He finds, how­
ever, increases in the potash soluble in boiling normal nitric
acid.
It would appear that in this case potash from manure
not used in larger crop yields had been fixed by the soil.
Fraps (25) reports no increase in exchangeable potash
due to additions of inorganic salts and hence fertilizer place­
ment can not be overlooked in consideration of the effect of
treatment on potash availability.
It has long been known
that roots branch more profusely in rich soils than poor soils.
Weaver (97) found that roots in contact with a fertilized
layer branch more profusely and that fertilization actually
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20.
tended to delimit penetration to lower layers.
Pettinger
(56) found that nitrogen supplied to nitrogen deficient soils
tended to increase root growth.
Fertilizer applications can
modify the character of the root system and such an effect
could well affect the absorption of potash by the plant.
(6)
Content of Other Ions
The effect of other ions on potash availability has two
considerations.
These are the effect of other ions on the
exchangeable potash of the soil itself and their effect on
the uptake of potash by the plant.
Lamb (43 )
discussing the
availability of soil potassium considers this subject by
both approaches in a consideration of the effects of calcium,
though he presents no experimental evidence of his own in
regard to the latter approach.
The work
the effect of
described above (71,52, 20, 25)
in regard to
fertilizer treatment shows that under the
conditions of these experiments only applications of potash
bearing fertilizers has altered to any measurable degree the
replaceable potash status of the soil.
Merkle (52) has shown
that liming additions to very acid plots have left practically
unaltered his values for exchangeable potassium.
Workers with fixation (39,94) report increased fixing
powers for potash in limed soils.
Bray and DeTurk (11)
studying release made the statement at the reading of their
paper that calcium even in traces did not allow release.
statement is not included in the published article.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This
21
Abel and Magistad (l) made a study of release in pot
experiments on Hawaiian soils continued over twenty—five
months and used
nine crops, five of soybeans, one of rice,
\
one of Sudan grass and two of sorghum.
In all pots the up­
take of potash was greater by far than the total amount of
exchangeable potash in these soils.
Martin (50), Fraps (26),
Gedrois (28), Hoagland and Martin (36), all have shown in
pot experiments that the amount in crops exceeded the decrease
in the replaceable potash.
Crops from limed soils in this
Hawaiian experiment exceeded those from unlimed soils in both
growth and amount of potash removed.
This might be ascribed
to greater growth as postulated by Plummer (60,61) rather
than to any direct effect of lime on soil potash.
Trials
with non-legumes and fallow soils gave similar results.
The
authors suggest that with alternate wetting and drying of the
soil such as occurs in the fallow plots, some potash goes into
solution from non-replaceable sources and that on drying the
concentration of potash in the soil solution increases and
some of this material goes into the exchange complex, which
would have been increased by the increased alkalinity.
This
build up of exchange capacity is in accord with Matteson’s
results (51)•
Their results are not at variance with the
equilibrium conception advanced by Bray and DeTurk (11).
Hoagland and Martin (36), Page and Williams (58) and Bartho­
lomew and Jansen (5) advanced similar speculations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22.
Bray and DeTurk (11) postulate that the existence of
an equilibrium between the various forms of potash in the
soil and show that with heating they get a release or fixa­
tion of potash that correlates with previous treatment and
original potash level.
For example a Rothamsted pasture
originally low in potash showed a release from the check
plot on heating.
Such reasoning applied to the work of
Abel and Magistad would indicate that these soils contained
concentrations of exchangeable and adsorbed potash below
i
concentrations required for equilibrium and that lime actually
accelerated such an equilibrium.
However, Volk (94) and
Joffe and Kolodny (39) obtained increased fixation with
potash additions to a limed soil as measured by leaching.
Harris (30) reports similar results for their procedure but
no difference between fixation in limed and unlimed soils as
measured by the Neubauer.
tween pH and fixation.
He also found no relationship be­
This could have been masked by the
condition of Bray* s postulated potash equilibrium in the
three soils.
Certainly the reasons for results similar to
Volk* s are not capable of satisfactory explanation by more
than a statement that lime catalyses Bray’s equilibrium.
MacIntyre and coworkers (45, 45, 47) report from lysimeter studies that lime and magnesia reduce potash leaching
from areas treated with organic matter and potash salts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23.
These leachings are, however, enhanced by excessive addi­
tions of lime and magnesia.
This might he explained on the
basis of increased exchange capacity of the soil with in­
creasing pH.
Excessive additions by the law of mass action
could well force potash out of the adsorbed state.
Volk (94)
used applications equivalent to three tons of calcium hydroxide.
Such applications could well force potash into the soil solu­
tion in
a condition that would actually facilitate fixation
or leaching.
Joffe and Kolodny (39) base their conclusions
on the fact that soils higher in alkaline earth bases fix
more potash.
Of the soils used it would appear that predomi­
nance of finer separates is a quality common with the occurrence
of calcium and magnesium.
Volk (94) attributes greater fix­
ing powerw to the finer separates.
From the work mentioned above, it would seem that ions
other than potassium itself little effect the exchangeable
potash status of the soil.
Calcium, the predominant ion in
the soil solution, appears actually voider field conditions to
enhance release and fixation or speedup the equilibrium be­
tween replaceable and non-replaceable potassium though litera­
ture does not permit any certainty in this statement.
Lamb (43) and Thomas (78) state that other ions, parti­
cularly calcium may interfere with the uptake of potash by
the plant.
They point out that potash increases cell permea­
bility and that calcium may decrease it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24-*
Ehrenberg (23) claims a decrease in potash in the
plant due to liming.
Sears (67) claims lime is responsible
either for low availability of potash in soils or low uptake
of the element by the plant.
Responses were obtained in this
case from potash applications and still greater responses were
obtained from straw applications.
The effectiveness of the
straw was no doubt due to the reduction in nitrates in these
soils as well as the increase in potash.
Sear!s problem
undoubtedly was one of poor balance between nitrogen and
potash as well as calcium and potash.,
Treatments which tended
to rectify these conditions increased yields.
Thomas (86,88)
shows an optimum balance in the plant between the bases.
This work does not, however, prove a deleterious effect of
lime on such balance and the optimum treatment was manure
plus lime.
Abel and Magistad (1) showed greater uptakes of potash
on limed plots and higher yields.
Apparently this age old
lime-potash question bears answer in the degree of liming.
Brown and Maclntire (12,13) on the Pennsylvania experiment
plots find a depression of water soluble potash due to lime
and Maclntire (4-4) found a similar depression in the potash
composition of wheat.
These plots were limed excessively and
though Merkle (52) later found no such differences., it is
possible the excessive applications of lime may binder potash
uptake by decreasing the relative proportion of that element.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25.
It would seem that application of Leibig's law might serve
best to clear this dilemma of conflicting results all ob­
tained Tinder different conditions and by different methods,
A sane view might be that applications of lime sufficient for
good growth may enhance potash uptake, while excessive appli­
cations by disturbance of balance may increase the potash
requirements of a plant or decrease its absorption of potas­
sium.
From the literature it is even more apparent that soil
tests in themselves are no absolute critera of the availability
of an element to the plant.
It is through a combination of
Foliar diagnosis and soil tests that the author has attempted
to obtain a clearer picture of potash availability in Pennsyl­
vania orchards.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Since comprehensive field trials on the effect of
potash applications in peach orchards are lacking, it seemed
essential prior to the establishment of such trials to con­
sider by means of foliar diagnosis and soil analysis the
potash status of Pennsylvania orchards.
To do this peach
orchards in varying degrees of vigor were selected in order
that comparison of soil analyses and foliar diagnosis find­
ings between sites in the different states of vigor could be
made.
Vigor of the site was determined by terminal growth
and observations as to trunk size and general appearance.
These observations were made with the assistance of N. J.
Shaulis and C. 0. Dunbar.
Three to five trees in the orchard
were selected for sampling and numbered.
Trees were chosen
which seemed to have the same apparent vigor as the whole
orchard.
Orchard sites were chosen with the following questions
in mind.
(l) Is the orchard commercially important or is
the orchard managed according to practices prevailing among
commercial growers?
(2) Can a past history be obtained with
regard to cropping previous to planting, cover cropping,
fertilizer practice and the effects of drought and winter
injury?
(3) Are the varieties desired grovm in the block?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
(4) Does the orchard hear comparison as to vigor either
within itself or with other blocks sampled?
(5) Is the
orchard near its peak of production , that is from five to
twelve years?
Variations were taken from this where field
observations seemed to justify such a procedure.
(6) Is
the orchard located on a common orchard soil type?
The sites selected were well distributed in the area,
consisting of a cross section of the intermountain and
piedmont regions.
This area includes the southern tier of
counties in Pennsylvania, running from Franklin County east.
Exceptions to the above conditions were tolerated where
field observations rendered them of minor importance to the
comparison at hand.
Description of Sites.
Site #1.
Raffensperger Bros, of Arendtsville, Adams County.
This site is a five year old Elberta block in very high
vigor.
Terminal growth ranged from five to twenty inches.
The orchard is located on Penn loam that has been moderately
eroded and slopes from 0-5 per cent.
This soil ranges in
depth from two to four feet, is subject to drying out and
runs together during a rain.
was used for general farming.
Prior to planting, the field
In 1937, 1938 and 1939, broad­
cast applications of two hundred pounds of sodium nitrate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28.
and an equivalent amount of twenty per cent superphosphate
were made.
In the two years preceding the orchard was inter­
cropped with corn and no fertilizer applications were used.
The block has been clean cultivated.
by
This site was sampled
orees numbered one, two, three and four in the summary
tables.
Surface soils were sampled at seven inches, subsoils
at nine to eighteen inches.
Trees numbered six, seven and eight were also sampled
in this orchard on an adjacent three year old block.
treatments for 1937, 1938 and 1939 were the same.
is shallower than in the above block.
The
The soil
The slope is five to
eight per cent and erosion has been severe.
In 1939 the
orchard was twice cultivated and then a mulching trial started.
Tree six received a heavy sawdust mulch, tree seven was a
check tree, and tree eight was mulched heavily with straw.
Factors not mentioned in regard to these trees were identical
with the five year old block.
Site #2.
G. W. TCoser, Biglerville, Adams County.
This is a six year old Elberta peach block in very high
vigor.
Terminal growth ranged from five to eighteen inches.
Later reports indicated that the quality of the crop on this
block left much to be desired.
Edgemont gravelly loam.
The orchard is located on
Erosion has been moderate and the
slope is five to eight per cent.
The soil appears deep,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29.
well drained and permeable to rains.
Surface soil samples
were taken to eight inches and subsoil samples from twelve
to eighteen inches.
summer covers.
general farming.
The site has received a variety of
Prior to planting the orchard was used for
The fertilizer treatment has been annual
applications of nitrogen about the tree plus the following
supplementary treatments.
In 1938 the site received one
two-horse wagon load of manure to fifteen trees.
This amounted
to a four to five inch covering from the branch spread to
within a foot of the tree.
In 1937 five hundred pounds per
acre of sixteen per cent superphosphate were used, while In
1936 an equal application of Kainite was made.
This site
was sampled by trees nine and ten.
Site #3.
Oliver Heacock - Adams County.
This site is adjacent to site two.
The soils are simi­
lar and tree samplings were made within a hundred feet of
the above site.
This is an interplanted apple and peach
block and the trees are eight years old.
The vigor is low
and the owner ascribes this to cyanamid injury in 1937.
Terminal growth is two to eight inches.
Fertilizer treatment
has consisted entirely of nitrogen applications.
planting the orchard was used for general farming.
covers such as millet have been used.
Prior to
Summer
Surface soils were
sampled to six Inches, subsoils eight to twelve inches.
site was sampled by trees twelve, fourteen and sixteen.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
This
30.
Site #4Fred Greist - Florodale - Adams County.
This is a ten year old J. H. Hale block in moderate
to low vigor.
inches.
Terminal growth ranged from three to eight
The orchard is located on Bucks gravelly loam.
The soil
is shallow and droughty and moderately eroded.
Prior to
planting the area was used for general farming.
Annual nitrogen treatments have been substituted or supple­
mented as follows.
In 1939 three to four hundred pounds
per acre
of
a 10-6-4 were used.
per acre
of a 10-5-0 were used.
manure applications were made.
year, was in sweet clover.
1935 and 1938 light stable
The orchard, until its sixth
Since that time cultivation and
summer covers have been used.
was a fair stand of millet.
In
In 1934 three hundred pounds
At the time of sampling there
The orchard was sampled by trees
seventeen, eighteen and nineteen.
Surface soil samples were
taken to seven inches, subsoil samples from eleven to fifteen
inches.
Site #5.
William Oyler - Gettysburg R. 3 - Adams County.
This is a seven year Elberta block in moderate to high
vigor.
Terminal growth ranged from five to twenty inches.
The orchard is located on Bucks gravelly loam that is moder­
ately eroded and slopes from three to five per cent.
This
soil is less droughty than that occurring on the previous
site.
Prior to planting the field was used for general
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31.
farming.
Fertilizer treatment has been nitrogen only.
Cultivation with summer covers of millet or Sudan have
been used.
There was a poor stand of Sudan grass at the time
of sampling.
Surface soils were sampled to eight inches,
subsoils from thirteen to nineteen inches.
This site was
sampled at trees twenty-one, twenty-two and twenty-four.
Tree twenty-two was slightly lower in vigor than the other
two.
Site #6.
Harvey Oyler - Gettysburg R. 3 - Adams County.
This is a twelve year J. II. Hale block in low to moder­
ate vigor.
Terminal growth varied from two to seven inches.
The orchard is located on Lansdale loam.
Erosion is moderate
to severe and the slope is two to seven per cent.
appears very droughty.
for general farming.
The soil
Prior to planting the field was used
The fertilizer treatment has been nitro­
gen only and in 1939 the trees received one and a half pounds
per tree of a 10-6-4, which was still visible on the ground
at the first sampling.
Cultivation and summer covers are
used and a poor growth of soybeans was on the ground at
sampling.
Surface soil samples were taken to seven inches
and subsoils from twelve to seventeen inches.
This block
was sampled by trees twenty-five, twenty-six and twenty-seven.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32.
An Elberta block was also sampled on this site.
Con­
ditions of the two blocks were identical except that the
Elbertas, a hardier variety, made a terminal growth of two
to nine inches.
This block also received a light applica­
tion of manure in addition to the treatment received by
the Hale block.
This block was sampled by trees twenty-
nine and thirty.
Site #7.
S. L. Baltzley - Gettysburg R. 3 - Adams County.
This site consists of two fourteen year old blocks,
one of Elberta and the other of Hales.
moderate vigor.
inches.
The blocks are in
Terminal growth ranged from four to twelve
The soil is Lansdale loam that has been moderately
eroded and slopes from five to twelve per cent.
This soil
like the ones preceding is shallow and droughty.
Prior to
planting the area was used for general farming.
In the last
four years, the site received one application of manure and
three applications of a 10-6-4-.
Cultivation in the spring
with weeds for summer cover is the tillage practice used.
Surface soil samples were taken to nine inches while subsoil
samples were taken from thirteen to eighteen inches.
The
site was sampled for Hales at trees thirty-two and thirtythree and for Elbertas at trees thirty-four and thirty-five.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33.
Site #8.
Edgar McDannel - R.D. Biglerville - Adams County.
This site is a seven year old Elberta peach orchard
in moderate vigor.
twelve inches.
Terminal growth ranged from four to
The orchard is located on Mont Alto gravelly
loam that has been severely eroded and slopes from five to
ten per centi
The soil ranges in depth from six to ten feet
and is less droughty than surrounding shale and sandstone
soils.
Prior to planting the field was in general farming.
Fertilizer treatment has consisted entirely of nitrogen,
except for an application of manure in 1939.
clean tilled.
The orchard is
Surface soils were sampled to five inches and
the subsoil from ten to sixteen inches.
This site was
sampled at trees thirty-seven, thirty-eight and thirty-nine.
Site #9.
S. L. Baltzley - R. D. Gettysburg - Ortanna Farm Adams County.
This is a nine year Elberta block in low to moderate
vigor.
Terminal growth ranges from three to ten inches.
The soil is Porters silt loam that has been moderately
eroded and slopes from zero to five per cent.
The soil is
reasonably deep and not as droughty as the shale soils but
more so than the soil of site eight.
Fertilizer treatment
and tillage practices have been identical with site seven.
Surface samples were taken to six inches while subsoil
samples were taken from ten to fourteen inches.
The site
was sampled by trees forty-one, forty-two and forty-three.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34.
Site #10.
A. W. Geigley - Fairfield - Adams County.
This is a fourteen year interplanted block of apples
and Elberta peaches.
The peaches have a terminal growth
from two to eight inches and are in low vigor due to severe
winter injury in 1936.
The soil is a Porters silt loam that
has been severely eroded and slopes from five to ten per cent.
The soil is very droughty.
general farming.
The soil was previously used for
The owner in 1938 and 1939 used eight
pounds per tree of a home mixture that approximated 4-15-5.
Previously he used only nitrogen, phosphoric acid and lime.
The site is cultivated only lightly and has almost a sod
in the tree rows.
Rye and vetch are used as a fall cover.
Surface soil samples were taken to four inches and subsoil
samples from six to twelve inches.
The site was sampled at
trees forty-five, forty-six and forty-seven.
Site #11.
Frank Miller - Waynesboro - Franklin County.
This is a twelve year old Elberta block in very low
vigor with terminals from three to eight inches.
The soil
is Dekalb gravelly loam that has been severely eroded and
has a seven to nine per cent slope.
droughty.
orchard.
The soil is shallow and
No record of treatments could be obtained for this
The surface soil was sampled to six inches and the
subsoil from eight to fourteen inches.
Trees sampled were
forty-nine, fifty and fifty-one.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35.
Site #12.
D. M. Wertz - Waynesboro - Franklin County.
This was a nine year old Elberta block in moderate
vigor with terminals from three to eleven inches.
The soil
is Duffield silt loam that has been severely eroded and lies
on a three to seven per cent slope.
The moisture status of
this soil is better than those previously sampled.
Prior
to planting the site was used for general farming.
Ferti­
lizer treatment has been limited to nitrogen.
Tillage prac­
tice has been clean cultivation with a fall cover.
soils were sampled to four inches,
twelve inches.
Surface
subsoils from seven to
The site was sampled with trees numbered
fifty-three, fifty-four and fifty-five.
Site #13.
Chas. Lowery - Mont Alto - Franklin County.
This site is a six year old orchard consisting of a block
of J. H. Hale and a block of Elberta.
The orchard is in
moderate to high vigor, the terminals of the Hales being four
to twelve inches and of the Elbertas five to eighteen inches.
The soil is Murrill sandy loam with a slope of zero to five
per cent and only moderately eroded.
good.
The moisture status is
The land was used previously for general farming.
The
orchard has gotten manure once in three years but no other
fertilizer.
Tillage practices are clean cultivation in the
spring followed by a summer cover of weeds.
were sampled to six inches,
inches.
Surface soils
subsoils from eight to fifteen
Tree numbers sampled were Elberta;
sixty, sixty—one
and sixty-two; Hale; fifty-seven, fifty-eight and fifty-nine.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36.
Site #14.
K. G. Meister - Chambersburg R. 6 - Franklin County.
This is an eight year old Elberta block in moderate to
high vigor.
The soil is Duffield silt loam that slopes from
three to five per cent and is moderately eroded.
status of this soil is good.
for general farming.
pounds of a IO- 6- 4 .
only.
The moisture
Previously the site was used
In 1938 and 1939 trees received five
Prior to that the owner used nitrogen
The owner claims better tree conditions from this ferti­
lizer change.
Tillage practices include cultivation in the
spring followed by summer and fall cover.
Surface soils were
sampled seven Inches and subsoils from nine to fifteen inches.
Trees sampled were sixty-four, sixty-five and sixty-six.
Site #15.
This is another orchard of Mr. Meister*s and is an eight
year J. H. Hale block In moderate vigor.
The soil is Hagers­
town silty clay loam and rock outcrops are frequent.
soil Is droughty.
farming.
This
Previously this area was used for general
The fertilizer and tillage practices are identical
with site fourteen.
Surface soils were sampled to four inches
subsoils from seven to thirteen inches.
sixty-eight,
Trees sampled were
sixty-nine and seventy.
Site #16.
This number was omitted in the numbering of sites.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37.
Site #17.
W. 0. Bingham — St. Thomas — Franklin County
This is a nine year old Elberta orchard in high vigor
with five to fifteen inch terminals.
The soil is Murrill
gravelly loam that slopes from zero to five per cent and
is moderately eroded.
The moisture status is good.
The
fertilizer treatment has been nitrogen only until 1939 when
low grade potassium nitrate was used.
Tillage practice has
been clean cultivation with a fall cover.
Surface soils
were sampled to eight inches, subsoils from eleven to seven­
teen inches.
Trees sampled were seventy-two, seventy-three
and seventy-four.
Seventy-four ’’a” was a diseased tree.
Site #18.
This is another of Mr. Bingham’s orchards, which is an
eighteen year old Elberta and apple block, previously in low
vigor.
At present the vigor is low to moderate and terminals
are four to twelve inches.
The soil is Berks shaley loam; it
is very severely eroded and slopes from five to ten per cent.
The soil mantle is very thin and non-existant in some places.
Water is no doubt the limiting factor in this orchard.
Until
three years ago this orchard received no fertilizer,since
that time it has received nitrogen alone.
is practiced.
Clean cultivation
Surface soils were sampled to four inches,
subsoils from six to nine inches.
Tree numbers from this
orchard are seventy-six, seventy-seven and seventy-eight.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38.
Site #19*
Gillian Bros. - St. Thomas - Franklin County.
This is an eight year old interplanted orchard.
El­
berta trees in very high vigor with terminals from five to
sixteen inches were sampled.
The soil, Murrill loam, is
moderately to severely eroded and slopes three to five per
cent.
The moisture status of this soil is not as good as
site seventeen and may give drought injury occasionally.
Previously, the area was used for general farming.
The
fertilizer treatment has been nitrogen alone except for five
pounds per tree of a 10-6-4 in 1936 and 1937.
Clean culti­
vation with a fall cover of rye is practiced.
Surface soils
were sampled to four inches,
inches.
subsoils from nine to twelve
Tree numbers are eighty, eighty-one, eighty-two.
Site #20.
C. Earl Brown - St. Thomas - Franklin County.
This is a fourteen year old interplanted block.
Elberta
trees in moderate to high vigor with terminals of three to
twelve inches were sampled.
The soil is Hagerstown clay loam
that has been moderately eroded and slopes from four to six
per cent.
The moisture status is good.
Fertilizer treatment
has consisted of ten tons per acre of manure annually and
lime additions.
In 1939 the orchard received three pounds
per tree of an equal mix of sodium nitrate and low grade potash
nitrate.
The area grows excellent summer and fall cover crops.
Previous to planting the site was used for general farming.
Surface soils were sampled to six inches,
to thirteen inches.
subsoils from nine
Tree numbers for the site are eighty-four,
eighty-five and eighty-six.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39.
Site #21.
This is another orchard of Mr. Bingham*s.
The orchard
is a six year Elberta block in high vigor but rather spotted.
Terminals were from five to seventeen inches.
The soil is
Berks shaley silt loam that has been severely eroded and
slopes from zero to five per cent.
droughty soil.
This is a shallow
Previous to planting the area was used for
general farming.
The fertilizer treatment has been nitrogen
only and clean tillage followed by a summer and fall cover
is practiced.
Surface soils were sampled at four inches,
subsoils from seven to twelve inches.
Tree numbers for this
site were eighty-eight, eighty-nine and ninety.
Site #22.
H. W. Skinner - Reed Orchard - Chambersburg Franklin County.
This is a ten year old Elberta block in high vigor with
terminals from six to fourteen inches.
The soil is Murrill
loam sloping about five per cent and moderately eroded.
moisture status is reasonably good.
used for general farming.
The
The area was previously
For six years prior to 1939
applications of two pounds per tree of a 10-6-4- were used.
In 1939 nitrogen alone was used.
the summer and fall.
Cover crops are used during
Surface soils were sampled to five
inches, subsoils from nine to fifteen inches.
The tree
numbers for this site were ninety-three, ninety^four and
ninety-five.
Tree ninety-two was suffering from borer injury.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Site #23.
Bream and Heeb - Chambersburg - Franklin County.
This is an eight year Elberta block in moderate to low
vigor with terminals of two to eight inches.
shows considerable shade effect.
wilty clay loam.
The soil is Hagerstown
It is but moderately eroded and slopes
from three to five per cent.
ably good.
The orchard
The moisture status is reason­
The orchard was planted on newly cleared land.
The fertilizer treatment has been nitrogen alone.
The till­
age practice has been clean cultivation with a fall cover.
Surface soil samples were taken to four inches, subsoil sam­
ples from nine to fourteen inches.
Tree numbers for this
site are ninety-seven, ninety-eight and ninety-nine.
Site #24.
Clayton Miller - Marion - Franklin County.
This Is an interplanted orchard including eight year
old Elbertas of moderate vigor with terminals two to ten
inches.
Shade effect was noticed in this orchard.
is Hagerstown silt loam with frequent ledges.
is two to five per cent and erosion slight.
is shallow and droughty.
cleared ground.
The soil
The slope
The soil mantel
The orchard was planted on newly
It has received two three hundred pounds
per acre applications of sixteen per cent superphosphate in
the last eight years and annual applications of five pounds
per tree of nitrate of soda.
The orchard is in sweet clover
that is disced every two years.
to four inches,
Surface samples were taken
subsoil from nine to twelve inches.
Tree
numbers were one hundred and one, one hundred and two, one
hundred and three.
One hundred and two was slightly higher
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41.
in vigor than the rest.
Site #25.
Wilmer Breem - Biglerville - Adams Coiinty
This consistes of a small nine year Elberta block and
a similar eight year J . E. Hale block.
The Elbertas are
in moderate to low vigor with terminals from five to twelve
inches while the Hales are in moderate vigor with terminals
from two to ten inches.
The soil is Penn loam with a slope
of about three per cent and moderately eroded.
droughty.
farming.
The soil is
The orchard site was previously used for general
The fertilizer program has included ample use of
manure with occasional small applications of nitrogen.
orchard is clean tilled.
The
Surface soils were sampled to six
inches and subsoil from nine to eighteen inches.
Site num­
bers are Hale one hundred and six, one hundred and eight,
one hundred and ten.
Elberta one hundred and five, one
hundred and seven and one hundred and nine.
One hundred and
five was in moderate vigor.
Site #26.
Lloyd Garretson - Arendtsville - Adams County.
This is a nine year old Elberta peach block in moderate
vigor with four to twelve inch terminals.
The soil is Mont
Alto stoney loam with a slope of five to eight per cent and
severely eroded.
The moisture status is not excellent but
not of the poorest character.
The area was previously used
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42.
for general farming.
During the first seven years the
orchard received annual applications of manure and nitrogen.
In 193S and 1939 only nitrogen applications were made.
orchard is clean cultivated.
The
Surface soils were sampled to
six inches, subsoils from eleven to sixteen inches.
Tree
numbers are one hundred and twelve, thirteen and fourteen.
Tree one hundred and thirteen is moderate to high in vigor.
Site #27.
Raffensperger Bros. - Arendtsville - Adams County.
This is a fourteen year old block of Elberta and J. H.
Hale peaches of moderate to low vigor.
Hale terminals were
three to seven inches, Elberta’s three to twelve.
The soil
is a badly eroded Penn loam on the crest of a knoll.
is a very droughty soil.
general farming.
This
The area was previously used for
During the last four years this orchard
has received only nitrogen.
Since planting the orchard re­
ceived liberal applications of bone meal and five applica­
tions of muriate of potash one pound per tree.
The tillage
system has varied between two cover crops a year and clean
cultivation.
This site was sampled for Hales at trees one
hundred and sixteen and eighteen and for Elbertas at trees
one hundred and seventeen and nineteen.
Surface soils were
sampled to five inches, subsoils from eight to fourteen inches.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43.
Site #28.
Worley Nursery - York Springs - Adams County.
Tills is a seedling nursery located on Penn loam.
The
slope is zero to three per cent and erosion moderate.
The soil is subject to drought.
a comparison.
The site in itself presents
Sample one hundred and twenty-one comes from
a newly cleared fence row.
Vigor here is high.
Sample one
hundred and twenty-two comes from a former corn field; here
growth is negligible.
Sample one hundred and twenty-three
comes from a former potato field that was heavily fertilized
with a 4-8-7; here growth is moderate but spotted.
are adjacent.
The areas
Surface soil samples were taken to eight inches
Site #29.
Howard Anderson - Stewartstown - York Covinty.
This is a twenty year old peach block.
Samplings
were made from Elberta trees in moderate vigor with three
to twelve inch terminals.
ious in this orchard.
Spray injury was exceedingly ser­
The soil is Chester loam with a slope
of three to seven per cent.
The soil is severely eroded but
still deep and loose and has a good moisture status.
The
treatment has been nitrogen only with occasional applica­
tions of a 10-6-4.
The first two trees sampled have had a
straw mulch for six years.
The last two trees received simi­
lar treatment except the mulch has been disced in July during
the last two years.
Surface soil samples were taken to seven
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
inches, subsoil samples eight to twelve inches.
The tree
numbers for the site are one hundred and twenty-four,
twenty-five, twenty-six and twenty-seven.
Site #30.
Russell Shaw - Stewartstown - York County.
This is a five year old peach and apple orchard.
variety sampled was Shippers late red.
The
Samples were taken
from potash treated trees one hundred and thirty-one and
one hundred and thirty-two and from check trees one hundred
and twenty-nine and thirty.
This was one of the potash defi­
cient orchards described by Dunbar and Anthony (21).
The
treated trees were in moderate vigor while the check trees
were in very low vigor.
Tree one hundred and twenty-nine
was also infested with borers.
Terminals were five to fif­
teen and three to eight inches respectively.
Check trees
have received only nitrate of soda, while the other treated
trees received in 1937 five hundred pounds per acre of a
4-8-10 plus three pounds of nitrate of potash and four pounds
of nitrate of soda per tree.
The application of 4-8-10 and
nitrate of soda was repeated in 1938.
potassium nitrate was used.
with a su m m er* cover of weeds.
In 1939 low grade
The orchard is clean cultivated
Perviously to planting the
area was used for general farming.
The soil is a severely
eroded Chester loam with a five to twelve per cent slope.
The moisture status is fair.
seven inches,
Soil samples were taken to
subsoil samples eight to twelve inches.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45.
Site #31.
Harry Anderson - New Park - York County.
This orchard is a very high vigor twelve year old
peach block.
J . H. Hale and Elberta trees were both samp­
led and terminals were five to fifteen and seven to twenty
inches respectively.
The orchard is located on Chester loam
which is only slightly eroded and has a slope of not over
three per cent.
The moisture status is good.
previously used for general farming.
The site was
The orchard has re­
ceived consistant applications of complete fertilizer and
nitrogen.
For the last two years the orchard has received
a straw mulch which is disced in in the spring.
Surface
soils were sampled to six inches, subsoils eight to fourteen
inches.
Hale trees are numbered one hundred and thirty-five,
thirty-seven and thirty-nine.
Elberta trees one hundred and
thirty-six, thirty-eight and forty.
Site #32.
Bence Kaufman - York - York County.
This is a twelve year old Elberta block in moderate
vigor with three to twelve inch terminals.
The orchard is
situated on Herendon gravelly loam sloping from three to five
per cent and eroded moderately.
The soil is droughty.
to planting the orchard was used for general farming.
Prior
Formerly
the site was heavily cultivated and fertilized only with nitro­
gen.
More recent treatment has included complete fertilizer
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and cover crops of crimson clover and orchard grass.
Surface soils were sampled to seven inches, subsoils from
nine to fourteen inches.
Tree numbers for this site are
one hundred and forty-two, forty-three and forty-four.
Site #33.
This is an adjacent block of Kaufman*s of practically
the same age as site thirty-two.
The vigor of the Elberta
trees is high with terminals from five to eighteen inches.
The soils are similar except in this case the slope is five
to eight per cent.
Past history and treatment has been the
same except that cover cropping has not been as intense.
The surface soil was sampled to five inches and the subsoil
from seven to fourteen inches.
The numbers for trees on
this site are one hundred and forty-six, forty-seven and
forty-eight.
Site #34.
H. L. Shank - Lancaster R. 6 - Lancaster County.
This is an eight year old Elberta block in high vigor
with five to eighteen inch terminals.
The soil is Herendon
gravelly loam which is moderately eroded and slopes from five
to eight per cent.
status.
ing.
The soil is fair in regard to moisture
Prior to planting the area was used for general farm­
The owner depends largely on manure though in 1939 he
applied six hundred pounds per acre of a 2-12-12.
is cultivated followed by a weed cover.
The orchard
Surface soils were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sampled to six inches,
inches.
subsoils from seven to fifteen
Tree numbers for this site are one hundred and
fifty, fifty-one and fifty-two.
Site #35.
E. E. Vogel - Lancaster - Lancaster County.
This site
Elberta and J.
is an eight year old peach block where both
H. Hale were sampled.
Vigor was moderate
to low; terminals were five to seventeen and four to twelve
inches respectively.
Though currert growth was good, growth
in previous years was slight.
The orchard is on Herendon
gravelly loam with a slope of three to seven per cent and
severely eroded.
The soil appeared droughty.
The trees get
annual applications of about three pounds per tree of nitrate
of soda and occasionally some superphosphate.
is clean cultivated.
The orchard
Surface soils were sampled to five inches
and subsoils from seven to twelve inches.
Tree numbers for
the site were J. H. Hale one hundred and fifty-four and fiftyfive; Elberta one hundred and fifty-six and fifty-seven.
Site #36.
Linvilla Orchard - Chester - Delaware County.
This is a
Elberta and J.
ten year old interplanted block in which
B. Hale were both sampled.
The trees were in
moderate to high vigor with terminals from five to fifteen
inches.
The Hale trees had suffered some from winter injury.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The soil is Chester silt loam with no slope over three
per cent and only slightly eroded.
moisture status.
The soil has a good
Fertilizer treatment has "been only nitro­
gen and very little of that.
a summer cover is used.
The orchard is cultivated and
Surface soils were sampled to eight
inches, subsoils from eight to thirteen inches.
Tree number
are Hale one hundred sixty-three and sixty-four.
Elberta
one hundred and fifty-nine, sixty and sixty-one.
Tree one
hundred and sixty-one is a weak tree.
Site #37.
Westown School - Chester County.
This is a twenty year old Elberta block in moderate to
good vigor with five to fifteen inch terminals.
The soil
is Chester silt loam with less than three per cent slope and
slightly eroded.
The moisture status is good.
treatment has been nitrogen alone.
are used.
Fertilizer
Spring and fall covers
Surface soils were sampled to eight inches, sub­
soils from twelve to eighteen,inches.
Tree numbers for the
site are one hundred and sixty— six, sixty-seven and sixtyeight.
Site #38.
Russell Worthington — Lionville — Chester County.
This is an eleven year old Elberta block of low to
moderate vigor with three to twelve inch terminals.
The
soil is Chester gravelly loam with a slope of three to five
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
per cent and severely eroded.
is very questionable.
Tree one hundred and seventy-two
is entirely on subsoil.
for general farming.
The moisture status here
The orchard previously was used
Nitrogen is the only fertilizer used.
Tillage consists of four to five cultivations followed by a
summer cover.
Surface soils were sampled to five inches
subsoils from eight to fourteen inches.
Tree numbers for
the site are one hundred and seventy, seventy-one, and
seventy-two.
It should be mentioned here that at the second sampling
during the middle of August, severe drought was hitting
many of these orchards.
The most spectacular cases were
sites one, eleven, twenty-four, twenty-seven, thirty-three
and thirty-four.
Methods of Sampling and Analysis of Samples.
Soil samplings were made with a spade.
Surface samples
were taken about each tree just outside the branch spread.
A surface sample for a tree consisted of three to four evened
slices of surface soil taken about the tree.
These slices
were composited and removed to the laboratory for study.
Subsoil samples consisted of a composite of the subsoils from
each tree.
Such samples were taken at two enlarged holes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
where surface samples were to be taken for the tree.
Sub­
soil slices and then surface soil slices were taken.
A
gap of at least two inches was allowed between surface and
subsoil samplings to omit any indefinite layer.
cases this gap was necessarily larger.
In some
The subsoil slices
from all trees on a site were composited and removed to the
laboratory.
Deviations from this procedure were rare and
only occurred where conditions made a different procedure
seem more advisable and comparable to previous samplings.
Leaf samples were collected from each tree for which
soil samples were taken, at the middle of the current year’s
growth.
feet.
Samplings were taken at a height of six to seven
Damaged leaves were avoided.
A leaf sample from a
tree consisted in most cases of fifty leaves.
Seedling
trees and low vigor foliage necessitated larger samplings.
Two samplings were made, one during the period from July 17
to 22, the other from August 15 to 17.
Soil samples on removal to the laboratory were air dried
and thoroughly mixed.
A portion of this material was sieved
through a one millimeter screen; the balance was stored.
Leaf samples were dried in the oven at 100°C.
Records
of dry weight were taken but it was not found necessary to
use these figures in this study.
The dried leaves were ground
in a steel mortar and stored for analysis in metal pill boxes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51.
Chemical Methods
Leaf samples were analyzed for nitrogen, phosphoric
acid and potash.
Weights of samples for analysis were ob­
tained as follows:
oven at 100°C.
Ground leaf material was dried in the
The sample tins were closed and then put
in a desiccator to cool.
The quantity of material desired
was weighed out in a weighing dish as rapidly as possible
and then the leaf material was transferred to the proper
vessel for the analysis in progress.
a problem in this regard.
Leaf material presents
Air dry weight varies with humidity.
To weigh a large number of samples such as were used in this
study out of weighing bottles involves an excessive number
of calculations and added time in weighing.
As the require­
ment of the work is accurate analyses for comparison and not
absolute amounts the method employed appeared to fill these
requirements.
Nitrogen on these samples was run by the Kjeldahl-Gunning
method (4.) to include nitrates.
Phosphoric acid was run by
Richard and Godden* s (64.) modification of the PembertonHeumann method.
Potash was run by the cobalti-nitrite method
as described by Milne (57).
In the latter case samples were
ashed and the residue taken up and digested in hot water and
filtered to remove the greater proportion of the alkaline
earth bases.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Soil potash was determined in the normal ammonium
acetate extract buffered to pH 5.0.
Twenty-five grams
(25 grs.) of soil were extracted with four hundred cubic
centimeters (4,00 cc.) of extractant by a series of four
equilibrium leachings.
The leachate was evaporated to drydried,
ness taken up again in watenj/ and finally baked over a gentle
bunsen flame to remove the last traces of ammonia.
The
residue was taken up in ten cubic centimeters (10 cc.) of
half normal acetic acid, digested on the steam bath and
filtered.
The filtrate was evaporated to dryness and the
residue treated according to Milne's (57) method.
•Organic carbon was determined on hundred mesh soil by
the chromic acid titration procedure of Schollenberger (72)
as modified by Tuirin (93) .
the quinhydrone electrode.
pH values were determined by
The soil water ratio used was
Just sufficient to make the soil a fluid consistancy and
in no case was the ratio greater than one to one.
Rapid tests
for potash were run on a quarter normal sodium acetate one
to five extract in accordance with the method outlined by
Bray (10).
Comparisons were made with standard solutions.
All quantitative tests were run in duplicate and where
satisfactory checks were not obtained, further determina­
tions were run.
In leaf studies where variations occurred
within the sites and between samplings, analyses were re­
peated to insure the certainty of such variations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DATA AND DISCUSSION
Since there is a lack of experimental plots with
trees receiving a variety of treatments with regard to
potash, orchards in low and high vigor were selected.
It
was hoped that, when these were studied by the method of
foliar diagnosis, it would be possible to establish both
an ideal quantity and quality level of nutrition from among
the orchards of high vigor.
It was also hoped that some
explanation for the low vigor of other orchards might be
revealed by comparing the quantity and quality of nutrition
of the latter with the ideal as found in high vigor sites.
It was presumed that orchards showing high vigor could not
be notably deficient In any element.
The data and their discussion will be presented under
the following subdivisions into which this work has divided
itself:
(1) Foliar Diagnosis,
(2) Soil Potash versus Leaf
Potash, (3) Soil Potash and Organic Matter,
(4) Rapid versus
Analytical Procedure for Potash.
1.
Foliar Diagnosis
The principles ontlined by Thomas and Mack (90) for
foliar diagnosis have been employed In this study for the
purpose of determining the ultimate potash availability of
soils in the southeastern orchard areas of Pennsylvania.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Foliar diagnosis examines quantity and quality of nutrition
in leaves of identical physiological age throughout the
season.
Resultw must he taken in a comparative sense and
for study an ideal quantity and quality of nutrition must
be established.
Sites 1, 2, 19, 22 and 31 were all classed as very high
vigor sites.
Site 34- was classed as a high vigor site.
Of these sites, thirty-one was outstanding both in uniformity
and growth, current and past.
Data for these sites are
recorded in the appendix table 1.
Average analyses for each
of these sites were compared and the quality of nutrition
is shown graphically in figure I.
is given in table 2.
of the other sites.
picture.
The average of the data
Sites 1 and 2 fall out of the range
Trees on site 1 do not present a uniform
Tree 4- which was omitted from the average of the
site closely approximates the quality and quantity of nutri­
tion of the four other vigorous sites.
It is possible that
since these are young trees, the divergence from the other
sites may not have revealed itself in apparent vigor.
Older
trees on this site could not be classed as very high vigor
trees.
Site 2 is not within the range of the other very high
vigor sites.
Apparent vigor in this case has been misleading.
The crop in 1939 was of poor quality and in 1940
trees
themselves are showing a rather poor condition.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In choosing the assumed optimum range of quality of
nutrition, sites 1 and 2 were discarded.
On the remaining
sites, it is apparent, from the graph, that the percentage
of nitrogen in the N P K unit varies from 77 to 82 per cent,
phosphoric acid from 4.5 to 7.5 per cent and potash from
12.5 to 18.0 per cent.
The area delimited by these percent­
ages has been chosen as the area of assumed optimum balance.
;
From these same sites with the exception of 34, ideal
quantity
|
|
i
l
of nutrition can be seen to range
cent.
between 6.5 and 7.0 per
All analyses of the sites used fall In these ranges.
Trees 80 and 93 were just without
these ranges on the first
sampling.
sampling these also fell
However, at the second
with the ranges of optimum quantity and quality of nutrition.
In table 2 and figure I, the average low vigor site
figures are given together with the divergence of these figures
from the optimum.
It Is apparent here that balance between
nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash and quantity of nutrition
can reveal differences between the extremes at least.
Potash
for the very high vigor sites ranged between 2.20 and 2.65
per cent of the dry weight of
sites the range was .3 to
the leaf, while on low vigor
3.0 per cent.
Further discussion of the sites will deal with each site
separately as compared to
the assumed optimum range of nutri­
tion described.
all sites are given in appendix
table 1.
Data for
Figure II shows average of NPK units for all sites
and table 3 gives the average analyses for these sites.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
'
t
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
%
Table 2*
------ i r ~
Site
K 2O
No.
Leaf
The Quality and Quantity of Nutrition
as Revealed by Foliar Analyses of High
Vigor vs. Low Vigor Orchards.
Composition of N^K
Unit
% N
% P 2O 5
% k 2o
Quantity of
Nutrition
S
Very High Vigor Sites:
1
%.
19
22
31
31
(Hale)
0.94
3.72
2.60
2.63
2.44
2.19
85.6
7-2.95
78.0
78.55
79.0
80.3
7.7
5.75
5.3
4.35
6.05
6.3
6.7
21.3
16.7
16.6
14.95
13.4
79.6
6.9
13.5
6.16
73.2
74.2
67.5
86.3
6.25
6.6
20.55
19.2
7.9
7.7
24.6
6.0
6.72
5.85
5.52
4*77
5.09
8.03
6.66
6.72
6.78
6.65
High Vigor Site:
34
2.04
Low Vigor Sites:
10
3.02
2.52
11
30C
2.77
.31
3
I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Site 1 has already "been diwcussed in regard to
assumed optimum nutrition.
This site has been classed as
a very high vigor orchard.
Trees one, two and three on
both samplings fall out of the area of optimum balance. The
trees all are high in nitrogen as compared to potash.
tensity of nutrition is low.
In­
Trees four and six fall within
the assumed optimum balance area and fall Just below the range
of optimum intensity.
Trees seven and eight are out of opti­
mum balance in the first sampling but due to a decline in
nitrogen and increase in potash 011 the second sampling, they
approach the optimum at that time.
optimum quantity of nutrition.
These trees never reach
By way of explanation of the
difference between apparent vigor and foliar diagnosis find­
ings in this case, it can be pointed out that older trees do
not show the vigor revealed by these younger trees.
Since
trees are perennials it may be logical to expect that the
ill effects of improper balance and level of nutrition will
not reveal themselves immediately.
Mulch treatments on this site are too recent to justify
any conclusion as to their effects.
Site 2 is the second case where apparent vigor was not
revealed by differences in foliar diagnosis from the assumed
optimum.
In this case, however, later findings have shown
the vigor of this site to have been misjudged.
Nitrogen here
is low in proportion to potash while quantity of nutrition is
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
r
Kl
O
O
O
nA
o
f.o
U-n
f-i
O
''J
•T ^
.**J
i
tN
» V*.•
*N
—
^.*0
••
-• «Q
,S ®
flO• »' • .^*1
..
r-i
(71)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
,i
58.
Table 3.
Average Composition of Leaves for
Each Site Studied.
T H
r~~
Site No. :K2Q Leaf: % N
NPK Unit"
:
' % %20
1
2
3
4
5
.94
3.72
3.02
2.28
2.68
85.6
72.95
73.2
78 .15
74.65
7.7
5.75
6.25
6H
7H
7
8
9
10
1.75
2.57
2.25
2.22
1.01
2.52
11
12
13H
13
H
15
j
:
Sum
6.3
6.7
21.3
20.55
15.35
19.05
5.09
8.03
6.72
6.31
6.25
80.55
76.0
74.52
75.95
82.65
74.2
6.95
6.55
7.45
6.3
8.7
6.6
12.5
17.45
18.03
17.75
8.6 5
19.2
5.54
6.40
5.50
5.46
4.39
5.85
2.77
2,2.1
1.25
“ 1.70
3.10
2.70
67.5
77.85
83.5
80.05
74.45
76.35
7.9
6.55
7.5
7,75
5.45
5.0
24.6
15 •6
9.0
12.2.
20.1
18.65
5.52
5.98
5.29
5.55
6.96
6 •34
17
18
19
20
3.37
1.83
2.60
3.31
74.6
78.25
78.0
71.95
4*95
7.5
5.2
5.3
20.45
14.25
16.7
22.75
7.69
5.33
6.66
6.78
21
22
23
24
25
2.76
2.63
3.23
2.34
3.70
77.45
78.55
72.4
79.75
66.7
5.35
4.85
5.65
4.25
6.9
17.2
16.6
21.95
16.00
26.4
6.9C
6.72
A • /0
O’
0
2$H
26
27
29A
29B
3.22
2.44
.96
3.10
2.82
71.7
77.75
86.0
71.3
73.5
6 .65
5.95
6.7
6.5
6.45
21.65
16.30
7.2
22.2
20.05
6.90
6.5
6.11
6.98
6.35
4.78
6.53
6.38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
%
Table 3. (continued)
----- ----- •
fo
*
Site No. :K20 Leaf: f N
NPK Unit
: % P 2O 5 S £
m
•
k
20
30C
30T
31H
31
32
.81
1.13
2.19
2.44
2.10
86.3
85.25
80.3
79.0
77.5
7.7
6.85
6.3
6.05
5.85
6.0
7.9
13.4
14.95
33
34
35H
35
2.19
5.3
6.9
6.1
6.2.
15.1
13.5
2.37
2.52
79.6
79.6
79.1
77.3
36
36H
37
38
2.54
2.72
2.29
2.22
76.75
75.35
77.0
75.85
5.8
6.1
6 .65
6.85
17-45
18.55
16.35
17.3
2.04
16.65
14.8
16.5
: Sum
4.77
5.26
6 .65
6.78
5.35
6.00
6.16
6.73
6.51
6.28
6.47
5.98
5.54
%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
l
60.
way above the optimum.
It is anticipated that heavier
applications of nitrogen might be beneficial.
After the
poor quality crop in 1939 the grower stopped all treatment
In
194-0. Deleterious effects are
Site 3:
in
This is a low vigor orchard.
figure I to be out of balance.
tion Is good but the quality poor.
are variable.
to potash.
very apparent.
It is shown
The quantity of nutri­
Analyses on this site
As in site 2, nitrogen is low in proportion
The low vigor of this orchard can not be en­
tirely attributed to fertilizer treatment.
Cyanamid burn­
ing caused severe injury from which the site is Just re­
covering.
Apparently, the grower's nitrogen only program
is Justifiable in this case.
Site 4.:
This site is moderate to low in vigor.
ses are variable but consistant between samplings.
Analy­
All
samples approximate closely the optimum balance range.
Trees 18 and 19 are low in quantity or intensity of nutri­
tion.
It would appear here that moisture rather than nutrients
was the limiting factor.
Site 5:
to high vigor.
This orchard was classed as having moderate
At the first sampling, nitrogen was low in
proportion to potash, while at the second sampling potash
had declined to bring better balance.
Intensity was optimum
at the first sampling and low at the second.
From this it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61.
would appear that slightly heavier applications of nitrogen
may be profitable.
Potash itself is apparently not limit­
ing in this orchard despite the decline in percentages be­
tween the first and second samplings.
Site 6:
This orchard is in low to moderate vigor.
Two of the J. H. Hale trees (25 and (26) appear in optimum
balance at both samplings though intensity is questionable.
Apparently nitrogen could be increased here.
This is even
more certain in the case of Elberta tree 29.
Two trees
(26 and 30) are low in potash.
The carbon percentages for
this site show these trees to be on eroded areas.
potash content of the surface soil is low.
The
Here potash in
addition to nitrogen may be of benefit.
Site 7:
This orchard is in moderate vigor.
34 and 35 show good balance but low intensity.
Trees 32,
The soils
are moderately well supplied with potash and here nitrogen
is probably the reason for the intermediate vigor.
Tree 33
appears more than adequately supplied with potash and undoubt
edly needs greater nitrogen treatments.
Site 8:
This site is moderate in vigor.
good but intensity is low.
Balance is
Here nitrogen appears limiting.
It is of interest here to point out that C. 0. Dunbar has
attempted potash treatments on this site and to date has
obtained no visible response.
Analyses of soil and leaves
would indicate ample potash supplying power of the soil.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62.
Site 9:
This orchard, is low to moderate in vigor.
Analyses show lack of both quantity and quality factors.
Nitrogen and potash are both low.
low for potash.
Site 10:
Soil analyses are very
Response to both elements might be expected.
This is a low vigor orchard.
damaged in 1936 by winter killing.
condition might be anticipated.
not good.
Trees were
Despite this such a vigor
Balance and intensity are
Low amounts of nitrogen are the cause of these
conditions.
The grower has been using a 4-15-5.
mixture would not seem advisable in this case.
Such a
However, as
the cover is but lightly cultivated, this mixture might
produce results in the amounts used if competition for nitro­
gen were reduced.
Site 11: This orchard is in very low vigor.
is no doubt lack of nitrogen.
lowest found in this study.
The cause
Nitrogen analyses are the
Treatment with nitrogen might
have been of benefit in the past.
At present the trees
appear beyond redemption.
Site 12:
This site is in moderate vigor.
Balance is
within the optimum range except for tree 53 at the first
sampling, due to a low nitrogen content.
Intensity appears
slightly low, possibly because of a low nitrogen content
though here an explanation of vigor is rather uncertain.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63.
Site 13:
This site is in moderate to high vigor.
Potash analyses for the soil are low and in three out of
the six cases nitrogen and potash are out of balance as
compared to the optimum.
in all cases.
Intensity is lower than optimum
Both nitrogen and potash may be of benefit
here though nitrogen alone might bring about increased potash
uptake.
This site is one where we might anticipate returns
from potash.
Site 14.:
This site is in moderate to high vigor.
tensity is optimum.
In­
Balance here as revealed by the NPK
unit shows nitrogen lower in relation to potash with which
the soil is well supplied.
Nitrogen appears to be limiting
but not seriously so in this orchard.
Site 15:
This site is in moderate vigor.
Here, too,
potash and nitrogen are slightly out of balance, but not
to a degree that would explain the difference between this
and the above site.
Here moisture is no doubt a limiting
factor.
Site 17:
This is a high vigor site.
Intensity or
quantity of nutrition is exceedingly high.
Balance approaches
the optimum range but does not achieve it.
Nitrogen is slightly
low in relation to potash.
The diseased tree from this site
shows optimum balance and intensity.
vealed here.
The cause is not re­
Nitrogen is comparable to adjacent trees while
potash is slightly lower but it increased from the first to
second sampling s .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64.
Site 18:
This is a site low to moderate in vigor.
Balance lies within the optimum range hut intensity is low.
The site was previously in very low vigor.
The present
condition of the soil would indicate an orchard in which
moisture is the limiting factor.
Site 19:
This is a very high vigor orchard lying in
the optimum range with regard to quality and quantity of
nutrition.
Site 20:
This is an orchard in moderate to high vigor.
Here quantity of nutrition is satisfactory but quality shows
nitrogen slightly low in relation to potash.
This orchard
has received heavy manure applications and this displacement
of balance is a characteristic tendency in heavily manured
..orchards.
The lesser vigor on this site can be attributed
to lack of balance.
Site 21:
This orchard is in high vigor; quality and
quantity of nutrition are optimum.
The orchard is spotted
in vigor and here the moisture status of the soil governs
vigor and yield.
Site 22:
This is a very high vigor orchard that is
optimum in regard to nutrition.
Site 23:
This orchard is in moderate to low vigor.
Intensity of nutrition is high.
to potash.
Nitrogen is low in relation
Here nitrogen is apparently limiting although
close spacing is also partially responsible.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Site 24.:
This orchard was optimum with regard to
quantity and quality of nutrition at the first sampling.
Second sampling leaves were distinctly abnormal.
Moisture
and close spacing account for this orchard* s divergence
from optimum vigor.
Site 25:
The J. H. Hale trees in this block (106,
108, 110) were in moderate vigor.
Intensity of nutrition
was high but nitrogen was low in relation to potash.
How­
ever, the divergence from balance here was much less than
in the Elberta trees (105, 107, 109).
These trees were in
moderate to low vigor with the exception of 105.
Tree 105
though balance was comparable to the other trees had a higher
amount of nitrogen than either of these trees.
limiting here.
Nitrogen is
This orchard also shows the tendency of
heavily manured orchards with regard to balance,
which is
high potash in relation to nitrogen.
Site 26:
Trees 112 and 114 on this site were in moder­
ate vigor while tree 113 was in moderate to high vigor.
All
trees are in balance with regard to the nutrients but tree 113
shows a greater intensity of nutrition.
Soil potash is high
and it seems logical to attribute lower vigor to nitrogen
though no absolute proof is offered.
limiting here.
Moisture may also be
It is interesting to note how two years dis­
continuance of manuring and use of nitrogen alone has eradicated
all traces of manure treatment as revealed by NPK unit.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66.
Site 27:
vigor.
Trees on this site are moderate to low in
These are the older trees mentioned in a discussion
of site 1.
These trees are all low with respect to quantity
of nutrition.
They differ in respect to quality.
Trees 116,
117 and 119 are out of balance with regard to nitrogen and
potash.
Potash is low and appears low in the soil.
presents a different picture.
Tree 113
Here nitrogen is low and pot­
ash higher, balance between the two falls in the optimum
range.
tree.
Potash in the soil is distinctly higher for this
Here in three cases potash appears limiting, while in
all cases nitrogen is also limiting.
Site 28:
This site is a vigor comparison carried on
in a seedling nursery.
The high vigor area from the fence
row gave the best growth.
This is sample 121.
The low vigor
area (122) is a former corn field and the intermediate area
(123) is an old potato field that received potassic ferti­
lizers.
The data of this site is summarized in table 4 .
Here
100 leaves were collected from twenty—five seedlings in each
area.
Site #29:
This site is in moderate vigor.
high in relation to nitrogen.
is optimum.
Potash is
The intensity of nutrition
Here nitrogen is limiting.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
■CD
o
O5
Table 4.
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
•
•
•
•
:Iflgms. K 2O:
Mo. :1Q0 grs. x %
:soil
s M
worley Nursery - Vigor Comparisons
Jjlrst Sampling
Leaf
:
Unit
x %
X %
X %
iP205 8K 2O s Sums M
X %
:
:
X %
X %
sP20^;K20 : M
second Sampling
•
•
X %
t fo X
s %
•
xP20^ sK20 s Sum
• M
Leaf
Unit
s
* %
•
*p2°5 •
%
k
2o
121 : 12.3
:4.37:(.28) s2 .53s7 .l8 s82 .6 s 3.1 :14.3:3.86: .50:2.40* 6.76 #
• 79'.2* 6.1 X 14.7
122 :
6.0
:2 .92 :(.20 )*1.05*4 .17*87 .2 : 3.4s 9 .4 *3.55: .45sl.25* 5.25 •
• 84,.8* 6.3 s
123 :
9.2
:4.23s .43 *2 .29*6 .95 *81 .9 s 4 .9 *13.2 *4 .22* .6l*2.l6s 6.99 s 80,
.8s 6.9 s 12.3
8.9
The difference between samples 123 and 121 i3 undoubtedly moisture status even though
potash is slightly lower in the former case, sample 122 is low in both nitrogen and
potash and would undoubtedly respond to both. Soil potash in this case is low.
O'
-4
1
68.
Site 30:
This orchard presents a comparison of Dun­
bar and Anthony1s (21) treatments.
Potash treated trees
131 and 132 were in moderate vigor while check trees (129
and 130) were in low vigor.
borers.
Tree 129 was infested with
Balance was poor in all trees and quantity of nu­
trition low.
Here it might be noted that potash treated
trees had taken up greater amounts of nitrogen than untreated
trees.
All of these trees declined in nitrogen and potash
in the leaf at the second sampling.
This would indicate a
translocation of potash to other regions of the plant.
potash was not noticeably changed by treatment.
Soil
The conclu­
sions of Dunbar and Anthony in regard to this site are sub­
stantiated by this study.
Site 31:
This is a very high vigor orchard and is
optimum with regard to quantity and quality of nutrition.
Site 32:
This orchard is in moderate vigor.
Leaves
at the second sampling were abnormal due to drought.
Bal­
ance is disrupted by low nitrogen content which has brought
about a lower intensity of nutrition.
Heavy covers are used
on this site and in no doubt caused lowered nitrogen status
and a more critical moisture status.
Site 33:
This is a high vigor orchard.
quality of nutrition are optimum.
abnormal due to drought.
Quantity and
The second sampling is
Moisture here was limiting also.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69 .
Site 3 A ’
This is a high vigor orchard.
optimum and intensity slightly below optimum.
Balance is
This is a
manured orchard that does not reveal the high potash charac­
ter of other heavily manured orchards.
No explanation of
this can be offered other than a complete miss of the block
this year in the spreading of the manure.
Site 3 5 •
This site is in moderate to low vigor and
moisture rather than nutrients are limiting here.
Site 36:
This site is in moderate to high vigor. Tree
161 is a weak tree.
Intensity is slightly lower than opti­
mum on this site and nitrogen is slightly low in relation
to potash in the Hale leaves.
gen.
The weak tree is low in nitro­
Nitrogen differences may cause lower vigor in this case
though the method does not offer an entirely satisfactory
explanation.
Site 37:
The orchard is in moderate to high vigor.
Here intensity is slightly low.
This holds better at the
second sampling as potash and nitrogen have both declined.
Here explanation of vigor by this method is difficult.
No
doubt age of the tree makes both apparent vigor and foliar
diagnosis difficult to evaluate.
Site 38:
This site is in low to moderate vigor.
gen and moisture are limiting.
Nitro­
Potash is low in tree 172
which by observation and carbon analysis was noted to be
subsoil.
Potash in the soil Is low and trees on eroded soils
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70 »
of this type would probably show returns from potash if
nitrogen were no longer limiting.
the case in the Shaw orchard
on
This was found to be
similar soil (site 30).
Comparison of fertilizer treatment in this study with
foliar analyses is not feasible as application of potash
have been small and the practice of short duration in most
cases.
Manure treatments, however, were in five cases of
sufficient duration to warrant consideration.
Heavily
manured sites are represented graphically in figure 3.
These orchards were manured over a long period.
Orchards
receiving light and infrequent applications of manure are
shown also.
With the exception of sites 26 and 3U> the
heavily manured sites fall without the area of optimum
balance in the direction of high potash in relation to
nitrogen.
On site 26, manure has been discontinued two
years and nitrogen used alone.
Site 34- received light an­
nual applications that are supplemented by a fertilizer low
in nitrogen.
It can be observed that potash is in no case
low under heavy manure treatment.
In cases where manure
treatments have been excessive, additional applications of
nitrogen also appear advisable.
Such excessive applications
are rare and those included, required thorough searching.
Light and infrequent applications appear to have had little
effect on the NPK equilibrium.
Quantity of nutrition on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
o
o
0)
CO
C
o
O
to
o
o
CO
•rH
rH
O.
O'
P<
o
<
<.■” i -i
•03
IT\
57
4J
UO
1
o
rH
0)
P
• f—
o
ch
c
w
p-r
P
,P
4->
o
CO
a~>
5D
fl
P
CD
!>
oj
p
P
57
:C
o
co
i/l
a
o
■rH
4 -3
.7
CO
o
o
o
a>
P
75
W)
•H
(H
H
o
rH
a,
r-1
P,
O
a>
P
75
57
o
o
a
~3
I
—I
o
£
rt
a>
w
to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71.
the heavily manured sites ranged from 6.16 to 8.03. This
includes the optimum range and exceeds it by a full per
cent.
Phosphorus in the leaf throughout this study showed
but small variation and it is assumed in accord with the
literature (7) that with tree fruits phosphate deficiencies
are very unlikely.
2.
Soil versus Leaf Potash.
A comparison of potash in the surface soil with the
amount in the leaf and the NPK unit gave a relationship
which is illustrated in figure 4-
The first sampling with
potash expressed as percentage dry weight of the leaf and
percentage of the NPK unit gave correlation coefficients of
•493 £ .066 and .531 £ .063 in a comparison with potash in
the surface soil.
For the second sampling the relation be­
tween percentage in the leaf and the amount in the surface
soil was .373 £ .075 and for the unit the coefficient of cor­
relation was .43 £ .07.
According to SnedecorTs modification
of Fisher’s tables (98) the value for least significance is
.174 and the higlily significant value is .228.
These are
values which we may expect due to chance if the characters
are not correlated.
The values obtained here are well above
.228 and we can conclude that the correlation is signifi­
cant and that a relationship exists between the two characters
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
o
W
-v>
c
0)
o
8
0
12
16
20
Mgms. K 2 O Exchangeable per 100 gms. Soil
Figure Lf.
#
Soil Potash versus Leaf Potash, First Sampling
28
32
In the review of literature the author has discussed the
factors affecting soil potash availability.
In this
determination none of these factors have been held constant
and still the relationship between the amount of potash
in the soil and the amount in the leaf shows significance.
This is in accord with the findings in the literature (7,
35, 26, 90) discussed above.
Variety sub-groupings were made for J. H. Hale and
Elberta on the first samplings.
The correlation coefficients
for J. H. Hale samples were .64-4 — .115 between percentage
potash in the leaf and the amount of potash in the soil and
.533 £ .139 between the percentage potash in the NPK unit
and the amount in the soil.
The value for least signifi­
cance here is .338 and for high significance .496.
gave a coefficient of .429
Elbertas
£ .033 between percentage in the
leaf and the amount in the soil, with a least significant
value of .205 and a value of .267 for high significance.
From these figures it is apparent that the relationship was
not improved by the use of variety subsorting.
It was not
considered necessary to carry this subsorting further as a
study of the relationship between the first and second samp­
ling gave, using every third value, a coefficient of corre­
lation of .354
±
0.4 0
between the percentage potash in the
leaf at the first and second samplings and a coefficient of
•904 +
.028 between the potash percentage of the NPK units.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A study of the average amounts of potash in the leaf
expressed as percentage of dry weight and as percentage of
the NPK unit for the site as compared with the single subsoil
determination for the site showed no relationship.
Table 5
shows these values as compared with values obtained from
leaf and surface soil averages of the site.
From these results it is apparent that averaging values
for the sites has not materially altered the significance of
the relationship between potash in the surface soil and the
amount of potash in the leaf expressed as percentage dry
weight or percentage of the NPK unit.
No relationship could
be found between potash in the subsoil and potash in the leaf.
From this evidence which shows that potash in the leaf is
materially influenced by potash in the surface soil but not
by potash in the subsoil we may infer that the feeding zone
of these trees for potash is largely in the surface soil.
Most of these trees have been fertilized by banding nitrogen
on the surface soil.
As mentioned above (97) fertilizer
treatment causes concentration of roots in the zone of place­
ment and frequently delimits
ing in lower layers.
extension or intensive branch­
This common treatment no doubt explains
the relationship between exchangeable potash in the surface
soil and potash in the leaf.
su^scil sampling valueless.
Such findings do not render
Subsoil samples give an estimate
as to the ultimate level of exchangeable potash to which the
soil may be eventually reduced by erosion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74-
Potash.
nO
H*
O
no
Soil
ana
lr \
•H*
Potash
o
H
+1
u
rH
+1
O
IT\
■H-
UN
Leaf
between
-dO
no
•
H
a
03 fci
O
no
ON
no
-r-i
w
I
3 5
>
ra
03
cS
•P <u
g H?
H 3 «♦
•H O
O *rH
w Ch •
-Q -H C3
sd
CO bo •
•H CO
CO
••
3
!?•
Kelationship
cr\
no
O
no
•
tf\
rH
rH
cH
•
a
H-
+1
+1
+ 1 4-1
H-
1— t
u
Table
no
ON
nO
CM
•
rH
rH
UN
CM
O-
CO
rH
nj
CN.
CM
•• •« •*
rH
H
O
W
\
»
w •
0 2
iS P il
• 0
•«
03 O
H rH
•• • •
Ch
'H
Ctf
Q)
oJ
Q>
Hi
O
M
M
O
CM
M
C
[3
O
CM
«
w
as
o t=>
CM
W
CM
CM
Hi
I
1
2*
S3
K4
nH
HH
rH
CO rH
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75.
An attempt to eliminate the variables influencing the
relationship between soil and leaf potash also involved
subsorting by soil series or soil series groups.
Here it
was possible to reduce to a more constant condition variables
such as structure* permeability, moisture supply* and soil
supplying power of potash.
In all cases this did not meet
with success but in such cases the failure could be attributed
logically either to number in the subsorted group or to the
close similarity of sites In regard to soil potassium or both
This was true of the Hagerstown Duffield group* Porters*
Berks and the Edgemont Herendon group.
In the Hagerstown and
Duffield group the lowest percentage of potash In the leaves
at the first sampling was 2.10 per cent and the lowest value
of potash per hundred grams of soil was 7.3 milligrams.
From
this It seems logical to conclude that factors in growth
other than potash are far more likely to be limiting in this
soil group.
The Triassic shale and sandstone Penn Lansdale
and Bucks subsoil had sufficient numbers to permit a varietal
subsort also and so Elberta trees only were used in this com­
parison.
Data for this treatment are shown in table 6 and
graphed in figures 5 and 6.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
i-> a
fl
.0
U
u
<„»
4'>
<.«
0
/ .0
‘X
*T
8
12
4
Mgms. K 2 O per 100 gms. Soil
16
20
.0
is
v.
r
0
V-'
(0
0
0
20
16
8
Mgms. K^O per 100 gms. Soil
Figure 5. Soil Potash versus Lc'f Potesh, Elbert a
on Penn, Lsnsdole end Bucks.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
/
■>
p
faO
gms* Coil
to
o
;J
rH
3uf[dniT?g pu oo ag
iJ
to
Mgm?. K; 0 p-T;’ 100
.—>
rH
‘ ^.puQ sdH 023. duso J a d
rH
CO
-H-
C\i
co
9
M
H
SufidniBg IsJTd '^+Tufl 3dN 0^3 ^uao .iad
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76.
X
JU
<D
H
K
-d
a
CM
O
x5
xi
m
a
O
•
g
1
I
UN
o
•H
O
«
UN
CO
CO
CO
»
m
CM
UN
A
00
.NJ
•
ON
X
CO
O-
s*
M
rH
ID
0
a5
•
iH
CM
P
CM
fH
Hi.
X
£
<+
Q)
O
O
i
CM
•
I
r-i
O COH
X
* on«H
03
eo
<U
(D
P
UN
•
«
•
UN rH
»
K
co >co
CM
UN
(15
-p
01
Q)
P
rH
05
P
Q)
5
H X
•
IN -
CM H*
CM
±
rH °•
lA
CO
^CM .
*
CO
•
UN
N UN
•
UN
UN
IN UN
•
xO
UN
H-
O
UN
CM
,3
CSC
-r~l
rH
Xi
CO
05
-p
o •
P4 ir
-a
l
i—1-H
•H O
O 72
CO
d
cd
o
•H
«H
•H
a
to
*H
.75
•M
> 2
- «
<H
aJxJ
<u
Hi 3
CO o
o
o
rH
03
INUN
*
(NUN
•
II
O
H-1
•
•O
UN
•
•
xO
UN
sd-
•
-P
•H
«•
i—1
co
UN
o•
as
o
UN
O
•
+8
+8
0
H-l
c
3
O
Oo
P
o
•
+
nJ
<D
rH
xO
CO
CM
O
CO
OO
CO
rH
*4-
m
C
•H
co
Xi
xO
03
cd
ID
I—I
rrt
Eh
tiO
••
•
»
75
CO
in
d
UN
-p
•H
1
\
O
N1
w
••
t> w
a
CO
UN
co
xO
o
C$
X
•p
C\Jco
w s
• hOH
0?
So O
^oco
-r-t
■
••
O V iO
CM 03
-P
-P
•H
•H
S O 'H O
CMO CM Cj
o
Pi
CM !§
oM
w <1>M
i-H !*t _ t-H
II
&
>i
••
ft
PM ^
CO (—4
rH
CM
CM
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
The relationship between surface soil and leaf potash
here has been shown to be much closer than that obtained
without subsorting.
Similar subsorting without the exclusion of varieties
was done on Murrill soils.
These intermountain soils are
derived from mountain debris and outwash over limestone.
These relationships are shown in table 7 and illustrated
in figures 7 and 8.
The improvement in the relationship between surface
soil and leaf potash here is questionable though it appears
that such an improvement has occurred.
Subsorting without regard to variety was done on Chester
soils.
These results are presented in table 8 and illus­
trated in figures 9> 10 and 11.
The relationship here has not been improved by sub­
sorting, however, the slope of the curve has been obtained
and from its nature explains in part this poor relationship;
The slope of the curve is slight and increases in leaf
potash with increased soil potash are only slight.
The slopes of the curves determined in these orchards
on the subsorted soil groups reveals the availability of
potash on these soils.
Comparison of the slopes of curves
of percentage potash in the leaf with potash in the soil
are used here though comparison with percentage potash in
the NPK unit curves reveals similar differences, though slopes
of the curves are all much larger.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
so 1.1.a
Murrlll
on
l'otaoh
Soli
va.
Loaf
7.
‘
ififolo
-P
o
.
o . o_
J H °- ,5
»-v
r— i
o >^
o
- H N- N
-A '^N |— t
t
I
:o ^
r~i
<H
OJ
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
hO
C,
•H
rH 0
Q,
a
•H
0
CO
CO
-p
•H
2
C
m
tj
Q
V-3
O
cv
M 1
.0
4->
C
o
CO
a.
3
0
Mgms.. KjO per 100 gras. Soil
Figure 7.
Soil Potash versus Leaf Potash on
Murrill Soils.
8
20
r'»
•H
16
t.
0
4
3
0
Mgms. K-C per 100 gms. soil
Figure 8.
Poll Potash versus Leaf Potash on
Murrill 8oil.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
0
/O c
■i
I
'i
••
o
8.0
12.0
16.0
20.0
<c4.0
Mgms. K 2 O per 100 gms. Soil
v>
c
0
••
0
•\
4-0
3.0
16.0
20.0
Mgms. K 2 O per 100 gms. Soil
Figure
Soil Potash versus Leaf -otash on
Chester Soil.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
.0
.0
12.0
8.0
16.0
20.0
Mgms. K 20 per 100 gms. Goil
Figure 10.
Soil Potash versus Leaf Potash on
Chester Soil.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
/
20.0
•H-L
12.0
16.0
20.0
24..0
Mgms. K 2 O per 100 gms. soil
Figure 11.
1:11 Potash versus Leaf Potash on
ChO'scor Soils.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
^
o-
79.
M
M
3
>-)
xi
rH
O
•
1
U \
ON
r \j
•
o
CO
O '
o
rH
vO
t—1
H
■o
ON
rH
1>-
ri
o
o
|X
,Et
o
c
o
r~*
03
Gj
nF
O
a
o
O
•
••
o•
«
1
K
1
M
UN
ON
.N1
CM
On
co
ON
ON
•
rH
r \i
•
•
rH
NO
CM
UN
NO
CM
UN
-O
CM
UN
M
cn
03
PS - f t
rH u3
Cd -H
>
U
nO
CM
UN
•
•
£
ro
o
H
-i->
O
PH
4^*
•H
•H
Fh
•H
O
33
K
t
H
03
<13
1
CM
ft
O-
3
1
+5
•
1
H
03
C3
CM
CM
ON
•
CM
CM
•nF
ON
o
•
1
CM
ON
•
rH
o
e
1
•
1
-H
O
rH
O
•
l
ON
CM
•
.
»
o
a
K
CM
ON
nF
*
*
m
ro
rH
rH
O ')
1
—1
SP • •
ro
•
•
«
•
CM
fcO
03
•rH
««
CO
<H
ctf
03
•
• il
03
••
CO
o
rH
CM
U
r—1
<H
•
rH
ON
ro
i—1
+
+
+ 1
+1
U N
fO
*
1
OfH
On
U
n
•
n
•
1
r o
rH
o"3
NO
CM
UN
•
•
CO
O'—
UN
CH O
CM CD
cm
ro
3^. 03
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80.
Slopes on the Penn, Lansdale and Bucks curves are
,53-.03x and .27~.01x.
The slopes on Murrill soils are
.62-.05x and .56-.Q4x, while the slopes of Chester soils
were .29-.14X.
The Porter's soil though not a large
enough sample to correlate gave sufficient points to deter­
mine slope.
The equations of these lines were:
First Sampling per cent leaf vs, soil potash Y = .672 +
«lx dy/dx = .1
n
"
ft
Tf
unit vs. soil potash Y = 6.98 +
.65x dy/dx = .65
Second Sampling per cent leaf vs. soil potash Y = .77 +
0.87x dy/dx = .09
»’
"
n
,T
Unit vs. soil potash Y = 6.47 +
64x dy/dx = .64
The slopes of curves of percentage potash in the leaf
versus potash in the soil are .1 and .09.
are all exceedingly flat.
These curves
Greater numhers may increase these
slopes to some degree.
It can be pointed out here that slope values of soils
such as the Murriil which show only a slight decrease with
increasing values of X (milligrams of potash per 100 grams
of soil) indicate soils in which low concentrations of ad­
sorbed potash are no indication of low availability.
True,
exceedingly low concentrations may be limiting as would be
anticipated from the nature of the function but the so-called
"threshold concentration of potash" for such a soil would
be less than for one where the curve had a more gentle slope
that diminished more rapidly with increasing values of X.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81.
The slope of the Chester group presents in determining
leaf and soil potash relationships, a picture that is opposite
to that presented hy the Murrill soils.
Here the slope is
gentle and diminishes rapidly with increasing values of X.
Here is a case where high exchangeable soil potash should
not be indicative of satisfactoiy potash availability.
This
soil has a higher threshold concentration for potash.
It is
not surprising that potash deficiency symptoms have been
found on this soil and corrected by potash applications.
Low potash in such a soil would give the extreme in low
potash availability.
Similarly the Porters soil curve, which
has been computed as a line, gives a very gentle slope of .1.
This is another soil series upon which deficiency has been
noted and corrected by potash application.
Slopes for the Penn, Lansdale and Bucks series of the
curves showing leaf and soil potash availability, do not
agree well for first and second samplings.
These soils are
droughty and the second sampling on these soils was abnormal.
On this basis we ’/fill consider only the slope for the first
sampling curve.
The slope of this curve .53-.03x is close
to that obtained for the Murrill soil.
Here too, low con­
centrations of adsorbed potash in the soil are not absolute
Indications of low availability.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82.
From this consideration it may he concluded that low
adsorbed potash in soils of the Penn or Murrill type can
not he considered unusual and that low potash in such soils
is not an indication of deficiency unless confirmed hy foliar
studies and response.
Soils of the Chester and Porters groups
may he limiting with regard to potash at higher concentrations
of adsorbed potash than either the Penn or Murrill.
3.
Soil Organic Matter and Available Potash.
Upon examination of the carbon content of surface soils
as compared to the exchangeable potash, a relationship is
apparent.
The correlation coefficient between percentage
carbon and the exchangeable potash of the surface soil is
.69 ± .05; values of significance for this relationship are
.174- to .228.
This relationship is significant and shows a
marked degree of association between the two factors.
This
relationship is in accord with the findings of Dunkle, Merkle,
and Anthony (22).
Here the association is more marked as
the area considered did not have such a wide variety of soils
and also because subsoils were not included in this study.
Subsoils showed no relationship between organic carbon and
exchangeable potash.
was .115 + .160.
Here the coefficient of correlation
Further examination is needed.
Subsoil
carbon and potash are both low and when broken into classes
small enough to reveal differences, no relationship is ap­
parent.
Availability here doubtless is influenced by other
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83.
factors mentioned above.
However, in surface soils potash
lii
availability is normally higher than7subsoils (22).
Erosion in these orchards caused mixing of the surface and
subsoils to varying degrees.
Carbon analysis vary with
the degree of this intermixing.
Here we have materials low
in potash availability mixed with materials high in avail­
ability.
The car "h)on analysis shows to a reasonable extent
the degree of such mixing.
reason for the relationship.
Ho doubt this is an important
This emphasizes the importance
of erosion as affecting potash fertility of these orchards.
As organic carbon has shown a marked association with
adsorbed soil potash and as the latter has shown a moderate
to marked association
with potash in the leaf, comparisons
were made between
per cent carbon in the soil and the per­
centage potash in
the leaf at the first sampling and per­
centage potash in
the NPK unit at the second sampling.
As
might be anticipated the association was less though still
significant.
An equal association with that revealed by
soil and leaf potash could not be anticipated unless a very
high degree of association existed between carbon and avail­
able potash.
Percentage potash in the leaf correlated with
organic soil carbon gave an
of .295 + .C79.
nr n value for the first sampling
Percentage potash in the NPK unit correlated
with organic soil carbon for the second sampling gave a value
for tTrn of .203 + .C84 .
The range of significance for these
values is .174 to .228.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
H -
4. Rapid versus Routine Procedure.
A comparison of the rapid Bray method and the long
procedure did not yield very encouraging results for the
"short cut artist".
The degree of association was marked,
the correlation coefficient was .714- ± .039.
accord with previous findings (22, 29).
This is in
For large numbers
the test may yield satisfactory information or used singly
may be better than a pure guess.
Still the variation exper­
ienced makes it highly unreliable. If we assume that a hundred
and twenty pounds per acre of replaceable potash is a range
below which potash may be limiting, forty-nine samples out
of sixty fell within this range.
Of t h e eleven samples
above this range, six exceeded it by sixty pounds, three by
one hundred and twenty pounds, one by a hundred and eighty
pounds and one by two hundred and forty pounds.
Similarly
of the the seventy-seven samples shown to fall within this
range by the rapid test, twenty-eight exceeded it.
Of the
twenty-eight only twelve exceeded it more than sixty pounds
and only two more than a hundred and twenty pounds.
The
place of such a test is in preliminary survey work or in the
field where recommendations are to be made using the test
as a supplement soil history.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Study of the potash status of thirty-seven south
central and southeastern Pennsylvania orchards in varying
states of apparent vigor wns
made hy the methods of foliar
diagnosis and chemical analysis of the soil.
These methods
reveal nitrogen to be the primary factor in determining the
degree of apparent vigor.
Potash appears to be limiting
or as a possible limiting factor after nitrogen requirements
are met in eight of these orchards.
These conclusions were
drawn from comparison of orchards with very high vigor sites
in regard to percentage nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash
in the leaf and in regard to the balance between the equiva­
lents of these elements.
Chemical analysis for exchangeable
potash extracted by normal ammonium acetate pH 5.0 were used
to supplement foliar diagnosis data.
Availability of potash in the various soil groupings
is expressed mathematically as the first derivative of per­
centage potash in the leaf expressed as a function of ex­
changeable potash In the soil.
The slope of the curve so
determined permits evaluation of high and low potash status
of the soil concerned.
This treatment was possible due to
numbers for only four soil groups.
For Penn and Murrill soils
it was found that low soil potash is not Indicative of low
availability.
However, where extremely low values, 1 to 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86 .
milligrams in the case of Murrill soils and 3 to 6 for Penn,
occur, potash can he limiting and this has apparently occurred
in two cases.
High availability of potash is not revealed
by high amounts of exchangeable potash in Chester and Porters
soils.
Low soil potash, below six to seven milligrams of
potash per hundred grams of soil, appears as a more certain
indicator of low availability in these cases.
This would
indicate that soils with lower first derivative values are
more likely to exhibit returns from potash though here
availability of application might be more uncertain.
Manured sites where applications were extreme, tended
to show a disturbed balance with high potash in relation to
nitrogen.
Such sites tended to be high in intensity of
nutrition, which is the sum of percentages of the dry weight
of the leaf of nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash.
Phosphorus showed but little variation in leaf analyses.
Study of soil potash and leaf analyses for potash re­
vealed a moderate but significant degree of association when
all analyses were considered.
This association was expressed
by correlation coefficients of .4-93 (percentage in the leaf
first sampling),
.531 (percentage in the NPK unit first samp­
ling), .373 (percentage in the leaf second sampling), and
•4-3 (percentage in the NPK unit second sampling.).
The re­
lationship was not materially improved by subsorting on a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
variety basis.
Subsorting on a soil series group basis
improved the association from moderate to high in two cases
and rendered it unchanged in a third.
Subsoil showed no relation between exchangeable potash
in the soil and potash in the leaf expressed as percentage
dry weight or percentage of the NPK unit.
From this it is
concluded that to a large degree the feeding zone of the
roots of commercial peach orchards in this area lies in the
surface soil with regard to potash at least.
Exchangeable soil potash showed a marked to high degree
of positive association with percentage carbon in the soil.
The coefficient of correlation is .69 + .05*
This is at­
tributed to the relationship between percentage carbon and
degree of intermixing of surface and subsoils.
Such find­
ings emphasize the importance of erosion as influencing
potash fertility of orchards in this area.
Rapid procedures showed a marked association with the
routine procedures employed.
It is pointed out, however,
that erroneous conclusions with regard to potash level in
the soil may be more frequent by the ”short” method than by
longer determinations.
It is recommended that field trials be started on series
that have been definitely indicated as questionable with
regard to potash.
If responses are obtained, then trials
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38.
on less questionable areas should be instituted, if no
responses are obtained on questionable areas, then the
possibility of response is dubious
able areas.
,c>n such less question­
Soils of questionable potash adequacy are among
the Chester and Porters group.
*
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to acknowledge the kind assistance
and invaluable criticism and advice rendered by Dr. F. G.
Merkle during the pursuance of this work.
Grateful acknow­
ledgment is also given to Mr. N. J. Shaulis, Mr. C. 0.
Dunbar and Dr. R. D. Anthony for their assistance with the
choice and evaluation of sites.
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Abel, F.A.E. and Magistad, 0. C.
(1935)
Conversion of soil potash from the non-replaceahle to replaceable form.
Amer. Soc. Agro. 27: 4-37-44-5.
2.
Ames, J. W. and Simon, R. H.
(1924)
Soil potassium as affected by fertilizer
treatment and cropping.
Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 379.
3.
Anderson, M. 3. and Noble, W. M.
(1937)
Comparison of various chemical quick tests
on different soils.
U.S.D.A. Misc. Pub. 259.
4.
Assoc. Office Agr. Chem.
(1930).
Official and tenative methods of analysis.
Ed. 3. Washington, D. C.
5.
Bartholomew, R. P. and Janssen, G. (1931)
The rate of absorption of potassium by plants
and its possible effedt on the amount of
potassium remaining in soils from applications
of potassium fertilizers.
Ark. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bui. 2o5.
6.
Bartholomew, R. P., Watts, V. M.
and Janssen, G.
(1933)
The effect of variations in the nutrient
media upon nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
content on plants with special reference to the
tomato.
Ark. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bui. 288.
7.
Batjer, L. 0. and Degman, E. S. (1940)
Effects of various amounts of nitrogen, potassium
and phosphorus on growth and assimilation in young
apple trees.
Jour. Agr. Res. 60: 101-116.
3.
Beardsley, G. E. and Cannon, W. A.
(1930)
Note on the effects of a mud-flow at Mt.
Shasta, on vegetation.
Ecology 11: 326-36.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9.
Boynton, Damon
(1937)
Concerning the pore space in two orchard
soils of different productivity.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 35: 315-19.
10.
Bray, R. H.
(1932)
A test for replaceable and water soluble
potassium in soils.
Jour. Amer. Soc. & g r o , 24.: 312-316.
11.
Bray, R. H. and DeTurk, E. E.
(1938)
The release of potassium from non-replaceable
forms in Illinois soils.
Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. Proc. 3: 101-106.
12.
Brown, B. E. and
The relation
eonstituents
Penna. State
33.
Bro?m, B. E. and Maclntire, W. H. (1911)
An investigation of the causes of variation
in soil fertility as affected by long con­
tinued use of different fertilizers.
Penna. State College Ann.Rpt. 1910—11. 113-129.
14*.
Cannon, W. A.
(1923)
The influence of temperature of the soil on
relation of roots to oxygen.
Science 58: 331-332.
15.
Cannon, W. A.
(1925)
Physiological features of roots.
Carnegie Inst. Washington Pub. No. 368.
Maclntire, W. H. (1911)
of certain water soluble soil
in plots 16-24-.
College Ann. Rpt. 1910-11* 102-113.
16.
Chandler, R. F.
(1934-)
A study of the effect of various potassium
carrying fertilizers on the growth and yield
of apples and peaches.
Amer.Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 32 (V. 33) 160-63.
17.
Collison, R. C.
(1937)
^
Potash and phospnorus in relation to organic
matter in New York Orchards.
N.Y. State Agr.Exp.Sta. Bui. #697.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18 .
Conner, S. D. (1935)
Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium require­
ments of Indiana Surface soils and subsoils.
Jour. Amer. Soc. Agro. 27: 52-56.
19.
Conrey, G. W. and Schollenberger, C.J. (1927)
The effect of weathering on exchangeable bases
as shown in the Clermont silt loam profile.
First Int. Cong. Soil Sci. 2: 212-229.
20.
DeTurk, E. E.
(1938)
Changes in the soil of the Morrow plots which
have accompanied long-continued cropping.
Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. 3: 33-85.
21.
Dunbar, C. 0. and Anthony, R. D. (1938)
Two cases of potassium deficiency in peach
orchards in south central Pennsylvania.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 35 s 320-325.
22.
Dunkle, E. C., Merkle, F.G., Anthony, R.D. (1939)
Potash availability studies in Pennsylvania
orchard soils.
Jour. Amer. Soc. Agro. 31: 438.
23.
Ehrenberg
(5-919)
Das kalb - kali - Gesetz.
Landw. Jahrb. 54* 1-159.
24.
Emmert, E. M. and
The effect of
of phosphorus
Soil Sci. 35*
25.
Fraps, G. S.
(1916)
The effect of additions on the availability
of soil potash and the preparation of sugar humus.
Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 190.
26.
Fraps, G. S.
(1929)
Relation of the water-soluble potash, the
replaceable and acid-soluble potash to the
potash removed by crops in pot experiments.
Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 391.
27.
Frear, W. and Erb, E. S. (1918)
Condition of fertilizer potash residues in
Hagerstown silt loam soil.
Jour. Agr. Res. 15* 59-81.
Ball, E. K. (1933)
soil moisture on the availability
and ootassium to the tomato plant.
295-306.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28.
Gedroiz, K. K.
(1931)
Exchangeable cations of the soil and plant I.
relation of plant to certain cations fullysaturating the soil exchange capacity.
Soil Sci. 32: 51-63.
29.
Griffith, G.
(1938)
Comparison of rapid tests for soil nutrients
with laboratory- analyses.
Jour. Soc. Chem. Ind. 57: 211-212.
30.
Harris, Harry C.
(1937)
The effect of lime on the availability and
the fixation of potash in soils.
Soil Sci. 4.4.: 265-275.
31.
Havis, Leon (1938)
Peach tree root distribution.
Ecology 19: 454--4'62.
32.
Higbee, H. W. et al.
(1932)
Soil survey Franklin County, Pennsylvania.
TJ.S.D.A. Bur. Chem and Soils.
33.
Hoagland, D. H. (1931)
Absorption of mineral elements by plants in
relation to soil problems.
Plant Physiology 6 : 373-88.
34*
Hoagland, D. R. (1932)
Mineral nutrition of plants.
In Luck, J.M. ed., Ann. Review of Biochemistry
V. 1, pp. 618-636. Stanford Univ.
35.
Hoagland, D.R. and Chandler, W.H. (1932)
Some effects of deficiencies of phosphate
and potassium on the growth and composition
of fruit trees under controlled conditions.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 29s 267-71.
36.
Hoagland, D. R.
and Martin, J. C. (1933)
Absorption of potassium by plants in relation
to replaceable, non-replaceable and soil solu­
tion potassium.
Soil Sci. 36: 1-35.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37. Jansen, C. A.
(1917)
Effect of decomposing organic matter on the
solubility of certain inorganic constituents
of the soil.
Jour. Agr. Res. 9: 253-263.
33.
Joffe, J. S. and Kolodny, L. (1936)
Fixation of potassium in soils.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 1-192.
39*
Joffe, J. S. and Kolodny, L.
(1937)
The distribution and fixation of potassium
in the profile of Brown podzolic soil and
sandy podsols.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 2: 239-41*
40.
Kimmgr, E. and Marsaille, D. (1937)
fiber einige
^klogische TJrsachen unterschied
licher Entroglaistunge ber den applsorten.
"Schoner von Boskoop und Goldparmsnte"
Gortenhawiss 10: 447-575.
41.
Lagatu, H and Maume, L.
(1924)
E* tude par 1*analyse periodique des feuilles
de l 1influence des engrais de chaux de magnesie
et de potasse sur la sigre.
Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. 179: 932-934*
42.
Lagatu, H. and Maume, L.
(1932)
Application du diagnostic foliare: il suggere,
contrbl et limite* le redressement alimentaire
d Tune vigne mal nourrie.
Comp. Rend. Acad. Sci. 1941 312—814*
43.
Lamb, John Jr.
The availability of soil potassium
Soil Sci. 40: 365-81.
44*
Maclntire, W. H. (1911)
The influence of fertilizers on the composition
of wheat.
Penna. State College Ann. Rept. 1910-11: 173-193
45.
MacIntyre, W. H. and Sanders, K. B.
The fixation of the potash of green manure
by limiting materials.
Soil Sci. 29: 109-117.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4,6.
Maclntire, W. H., Shaw, W. M., Young, J.B.
The repressive effects of lime and magnesia
upon soil and subsoil potash.
Jour. Agr. Sci. 20: 4,99-510.
47.
Maclntire, W. H . , Shaw, W.M., Young, J.B.
and Robinson, B. (1936).
The effects of 12-year residues of lime
and Magnesia upon the outgo of subsequent
additions of potash.
Jour. Amer.Soc.Agron. 28:202-215.
48.
McCool, M. M. and Millar, C. E. (1920)
The formation of soluble substances in soils
taken from widely separated regions.
Soil Sci. 10: 219-235.
49.
McMiller, Paul R.
Some notes on the cause of unproductivity
of "raw" subsoils in humid regions.
Soil Sci. 7: 233-36.
50.
Martin, J. C.
(1929)
Effect of crop growth on the replaceable
bases in some California soils.
Soil Sci. 27: 123-136.
51.
Mattson, Sante (1932)
The laws of soil colloidal Behavior IX.
Soil Sci. 34-: 209-240.
52.
Merkle, F. G. (1934)
Base Exchange studies on Pennsylvania
Jordan field plots.
Soil Sci. 38: 37-64.
53.
Millar, C. E. (1925)
The availability of nutrients in subsoils.
Soil Sci. 19: 275-285.
54-
Millar, C. E. (1925)
The feeding power of plants in different
soil horizons.
Jour. Amer. Soc. Agro. 17: 150-156.
55.
Millar, C. E. (1933)
Availability to corn of nutrients in the
A 2 and B horizons of Hillsdale loam.
Jour.Amer. Soc. Agro. 25: 416-426.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56. Miller, E. C.
(1938)
Plant Physiology
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
57. Milne, G.
(1929)
Cobalti-nitrite method of estimating
potassium in soil extracts.
Jour. Agr. Sci. 19: 54-1-552.
58. Page, H. J. and Williams, W. (1925)
Studies on base exchange in
Rothamsted soils.
Trans. Faraday Soc. 20: 573-85.
59.
Patrick, A. L.and Bennett,
H.H. (1924)
Soil Survey of Adams County,
Pennsylvania
Topographic and Geologic Survey Bui. C 1
Penna. Dept, of Forests and Waters.
60.
Plummer, J. K.
(1918)
Availability of potash in some common
soil-forming minerals. Effect of lime
upon potash absorption by different crops.
Jour. Agr. Res. 14: 297-315.
61.
Plummer, J. K.
(1921)
The effect of liming on the availability
of soil potassium, phosphorus and sulphur.
Jour. A. S.A. 13: 162-171.
62.
Poole, R. F. and Gardner, MF.
(1939)
Peach Studies.
6lst Ann. Rept. N. C. Agr. Exp. Sta. 1938
pp. 4 3-4-5.
63.
Potter, G. F. and Percival, G. P.
(1938)
Availability to apple trees of potassium
applied on the surface of sod mulch orchards
in New Hampshire.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 34- (v * 35): 335-38.
64.
Richards, Marion B., and Godden, William (1924)
The Pemberton-Neumann method for the
estimation of phosphorus.
Analyst 49: 565-72.
65. Roa, V. P.
(1938)
Response of sorghum to high and low
soil moisture.
Bui. Torrey Bot. Club 65: 413-20.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66.
Russell, E. J.
(1927)
Soil conditions and plant growth.
5th Ed. Longman's Green and Co. Lond.
67.
Sears, 0. H.
(1930)
Relation of nitrates in soils to the
response of crops to potash fertilization:
I. Factors contributing to the unproductiveness
of alkali soils in Illinois.
Soil Sci. 30: 325-347.
68.
Shaw, C. F. et al (1912)
Reconnaissance Soil Survey of Southeastern
Pennsylvania.
U.S.D.A. Bureau of Soils.
69.
Shaw, C. F. et al (1912)
The Soils of Pennsylvania.
Penna. State College Bui. #132.
70.
Shaw, J. E.
(1934)
Fruit tree fertilizers.
Mass. Agr. Exp. sta. Bui. 305.
71.
Schollenberger, C. J. and Dereibelbis, F.R. (1930)
Effect of cropping with various fertilizer
manure and lime treatments upon the exchange­
able bases of plot soils.
Soil Sci. 29: 371-94-
72.
Schollenberger, C. J. and Dreibelbis, F. R. (1931)
Determination of soil organic matter.
Soil Sci. 31: 483-86.
73.
Stephenson, R. E. and Schuster, E. E. (1937)
Physical properties of soils that affect
plant nutrition.
Soil Sci. 44 : 23-36.
74-
Thomas, Wallace (1928)
Leaf scorch on fruit trees.
Jour. Pomol. & Hort. Sci. 6: 243-SI.
75.
Thomas, Walter (1929)
Balanced fertilizers and Leibig's nlaw
of the minimum” .
Sci. 70: 382-84-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76. Thomas, Walter
(1929)
Study of certain phases of the interre­
lationship between soil and plant I:
Availability of mineral plant nutrients
in relation to the degree of dispersion.
Soil Sci. 27: 249-70.
77.
Thomas, Walter (1930)
The conception of balance with respect to
the absorption of nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium by plants and the influence of
level of nutrition.
Science 72: 425-27.
78.
Thomas, Walter (1930)
The feeding power of plants.
Plant Phys. 5: 443-489*
79.
Thomas, Walter (1932)
The reciprocal effects of nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium as related to
the absorption of these elements by plants.
Soil Sci. 33: 1-20.
80.
Thomas, Walter (1933)
Absorption, utilization and recovery of
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium by
apple trees grown in cylinders and subjected
to differential treatment with nutrient salts.
Jour. Agr. R es. 47: 565-581.
81.
Thomas,Walter (1934)
Misconceptions relative to the mineral
composition of plants.
Science 80: 587.
82.
Thomas,Walter (1936)
Mathematical expression of equilibrium
between nitrogen and phosphoric acid in plants,
Science 84 : 422-423*
33.
Thomas,Walter
Foliar Diagnosis: principles and practice.
Plant Phys. 12: 571-599.
34.
Thomas,Walter (1938)
Foliar Diagnosis: Its relation to the optimum
nutrition of the potato.
Plant Phys. 13: 677-94*
with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35. Thomas* Walter and Mack, W. B.
(1938)
Foliar Diagnosis: Nutritional differences
affecting the yields of potatoes from
similarly treated plots.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 36 : 573-89.
86.
Thomas, Walter
(1938)
Mathematical expression of equilibrium
between lime, magnesia, and potash in plants.
Science 88: 222-223.
87.
Thomas, Walter and Mack, W. B.
(1939)
Foliar Diagnosis:
The influence of the soil
on the action of fertilizers.
Plant Phys. 14.: 75-92.
88.
Thomas, Walter (1939)
Foliar Diagnosis: Physiological balance between
the bases lime, magnesia and potash.
Plant Phys. 14-: 699—715.
89.
Thomas, Walter and Mack, W. B. (1939)
Foliar Diagnosis in relation to development
and fertilizer treatment of the potato.
Jour. Agr. Res. 57: 379-4-14*
90.
Thomas, Walter and Mack, W. B.
(1939)
Control of crop nutrition by the method of
foliar diagnosis.
Penna. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 378.
91.
Thomas, Walter and Mack, W. B.
(1939)
Foliar diagnosis study of the effect
of three nitrogen carriers on the nutrition
of zea maze.
Jour. Agr. Res. 59: 303.
92.
Thornton, S. F.
(1935)
The available phosphorus and potassium contents
of surface soils and subsoils as shown by
the Neubauer method and by chemical tests.
Jour. Amer. Soc. Agro. 27: 4-6-51*
93.
Tuirin. J. W.
A new modification of the volumetric method
of determining soil organic matter by means
of chromic acid.
Pedology 5-6, 36, Russian with English summary.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94-
Volk, N. J.
The fixation of potash in the difficultly
available form in soils.
Soil Sci. 37: 267-287.
95.
Volk, N. J. and Truog, E.
A rapid method for determining the readily
available potash in soils.
Jour. A.S.A. 26: 537-54-6.
96.
Y/ander, I. W. and Gourley, J. H.
Available potassium in orchard soils as
affected by a heavy straw mulch.
Jour. A.S.A. 30: 438-44-6.
97.
Weaver, J. E. (1926)
Hoot development of field crops.
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
98.
Love, H. H.
Application of statistical methods to
agricultural research
Commercial Press Limited, Changsha, China.
99.
Breazeale, J. F., Briggs, L. J.
(1921)
Concentration of potassium in orthoclase
solutions not a measure of its availability.
Jour. Agr. Res. 20: 615-621.
100.
Briggs, L. J. and Breazeale, J. F.
(1917)
Availability of potash in certain orthoclase
bearing soils as affected by lime and gypsum.
Jour. Agr. Res. 3: 21-28.
101.
Currey, B. E. and Smith, T. 0.
(1914)
Granitic soil potassium and its relationship
to the production of hay.
N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 170.
102.
Hartwell, B. L. and Pember, F. R. (1903)
Feldspathic rock as a source of potassium.
R. I. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. #129.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
o <no oo o. cysnoft
O
CO Q4CO
•
ft O ft
M
•• M
N
«•
u\ir\<fr
• • • * • #
0
0
0
0
0
•
0
^ CD
Fl O
pf nJ
Analyses
CO c«
Xl
to
xl
•r*i
£
CD
>
1
co
0
ft
• , Q
•• •« •+ •• H
•
M
•* ««
••
• •
\r\CM 43• ft •
0O
CM ft
QnCO OOlfN
iH ft ft ft
M »• •• M
•• •« ••
lr\mo
on 00 ft CN•
• • •
♦
• •
•
1.
Table
1
o
ft
14
••
• • • »
mm
•
m
m
••
••
mm
•
••
•
•• •• •* ••
CD
0*1
P
j
CD
•
•
•
ft
CCN ^ ej- l f \
I * * • «• ••
tS ftO O
iou so co
«
cm
O
•
O
• •
•
O
•*
ft
••
•
•
•
•
«» •• *•
•H
n
•
•
•
o• o• 01
•
• • • • t«
crsvO 4O
IfNsO O•
•
•
r o n 'v r o r o
• ■ *« ««
ft CM 00^}-
o
*
D.J O-CO
vO C4-0
•
mm
•vO C4-CO
tD-O•% ••
04 ft
CO CM
• •
C4-CO
O-1
—1
Cf•sCO
•
•«
40 ft O
•• •• «•
NO ' T C T 'O
sO 4 0 O - 4
O
•
• •
u
CD
02
o
•• •• «•
•
mm
r o CM
sO lr\U4
0 0 0
O O O O
CD
40
CM ^ C4-
CM ft O
••
O'4'CCVX) Crs
U 'x lr N t r x ^ r
:M
•• •• ••
•
mm
•
CM O O -lT N
O O -0 4 C 0
ft
i4
CM
<D
ft
•-O
••
CO no
mm mm
uo uo
U-4-LT,
ft ft
o*• oft*
o~co
• •
n o no
•• •«
04O
mm
mm
40 IN-
• •
no^f-
ft
‘H
e« eft •• O
M-CO O 03
ft ft ftp
CO
*3- P
ft« •• ••
CT\ ft CO
70
ft ft ft
ft ft 04
CM CM ft
>> «••«««
ft ft•-o-ir\
• •
ft
a>
40 40 40
t>
M
cd
ft CM C4fH
hO • • •
CM CM no
+3 o-c— (r—
o CM ft OO 4
a
• ^• •
<D
xG
40 40
hO
•« «• «•
tJ
CO 4^ 4^O• 0400
• •
••
c3
■P
fH
(D
^3
••
•«
no CM CM
•• •« ••
0 0- 0-
4^• ft ft
0•ft0••0••
O 40
OftOftft
ft
CO
O
O
cn
ft
=tl
no n o no
ee 8* ••
CC 40 U-\
ft ft ft
•OJO oCM CM ft
•• •• ••
X> 4 *
ft ft ft
lr4lr\40
•• •• ••
t •* • •
iiO
02
O
o
hO
•H
t>
r=
o
mm
04 4^-10
o~cooo
u
mm
mm
mm
O O O O O
«•
» H
CM
ft
ir V L r \X r \V r \ir \
• •,Q
p(
ft CO
[>-4*
O CM
CM CM
ft
fH
U M N
M
ft
tt
sO 40 03
ft
CO CO I N f t
CO CO CO CO
fH
CD
•5^
M
0
M
0 0 0
• «
>> U M r \
O
•• •• ft*j ft •% •«
CD
CTv vh
1-3 O• O• CM•OO• O-O-CO
• •
• • •
>
OO-M- O- •=*00
Oj no CM
t
C
4.t>u
CO CO CO o •« •• ftft •• 0-cooo
■A* l« ••
o
bD
a, l r \ 04 f t n o
IT\o^0-0
+a 00 ft
f t f t
CD
n
o
t
f
40
• •
• • •
• • • •
c
o
vO lr\m
ir \U M r \lf\
O-CO
ctf M •« •• ••
-p
CO CM
00 f t O -4
O
40 CO 40
fH
bo no 04
CM CM CM f t
40 40 40
• • • •
• ft
CD
fH iH rH C\J
n o no
CM ft ft
X
<»% •• •• ••
••
ft
I vO 40
r“l CTn
*5 I«—TInIt—T{NI
04Q4C^
Tn^
4^• ♦ • •
ft ft
•
•
•
0}
+
>
O O
0 0 0
O O O O
•• »• •• ••
s-> M ••
o X ) ^ 0-^0 0 4 0 CM o f t 0 4
o
ft 00 Oft coirs
• ft
• •vO•CM•
* • •
nimo"'
01
rn m c o rn
n O rO
•• •• •• ••
M ftft
• « »• ••
H * [> - H CM
40
• •
• • • •
• •
•
ft
l r \ r O H * c\J
O ft
rOO
^
o CM CM
cH
1
—1
•• M •« ••
•• *•
0
« • »• • •
o~»0'0
O
no ft
rHCO
02
• •
• • • •
♦
•
•
w CO O -C O -0 c^-00 0s
40 40
o
1
« •• M ••
fH
ft
ft VT4
C O ^ 0400
1T\0
40
*a
ss.
*•
U ~ \ 0 - a 0 <~o
••
ft4-1
•
!>>
CO
•ft
summary
•
^ ^ ^40 PSO ro^
M
« «
ft
ft ft ft o o
n o o o no
UOsO C--40co
• • • • •
4*-^ ^ 4^-sj-
•
taO o U M n
•H
CM f t
M
04 4^ ■
’d" O 03 VOOO-O
ft
M
•
t> *• •• ••
xl o~
qD
•
•H no ft
ft
-H
CO
O-C^O-40
Appendix
u
o
O
ftvO
•H
M ««*••• O
ft
•
•
««
so sO U>ir\lr\\rNsOvO
fn
0
bO
•• M
1AO
CO COM- lr\4d-
•
40 O O O
4)- CM O'
0
M
ft ft
•• H
U M r M r \ U M r \ \ r\ U M r v
M
of sites and
H
•
IrsvO 0
0 \ 0 O'■JO o
^
C M 0 4 0 0 C M O O f t <’r'
•
nJ
M
CM v j- o
Olr\4}-
C T ' O 0 4 CM v O O O O '
• • * • • • • •
•M- O CO
o
o
o
Cd
(D
Xi
• • •
H M ’lO
0-0-0•• •• ••
n'coco
O CO CO
• • •
0 - v O vO
fH
a>
>
*i—t
ft
o
•ft •• ••
ft CM O-
'M•' ft
O• •
mrocxj
f—jro
• • «
••
••
••
no
0•« 0••0••
<D
•P
•H
VO
CO u o o o
1-f
1
nOlTN
t ft ft
n O n o co
mm
•• ••
CM -4- O
ft 1
—Ift
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ON IN-nO O
UN UN CM H 4
4
4
CM tN-O CN
4
rl H H
u
SO
M
44
rO O O rr
O rO ^ O ri
•
•
•
•
o
o
-p
M •• •• M
sO
•
M •• M CO
>
•
o
•
4 4
§
3
••
44
•
W
4
O
O
O
4 4
44
O
ftft
4 4
0
4
u
o
tsO
o
>
ctf
1H
b O
CO
4 4
44
.o
155. .CM
wtft
•ft f
Ttf
0
CM
fH
.—
3
rj
■H
P
g
o
o
_
_
•
44
0
rH
XJ
Co
o
G
PQ
I
0
73
GJ
44
O
CO
4
4
0
-p
g
0
IN- <0 rOC/3
xl
r l rH
o
•ft M M
fn
H vO
4
4
O -
O
4
O -
n
iH rH iH
• ft
ftft
••
tN -C O rH
4
4
4
S
o
p
£
o
O
O
O
O
•
4
l~3
44
O
4
4
M
ftft
44
4
4
••
iH
U N O ON
CN-O-ON
• • •
HO lr\lf\
«« •• ••
C O CM
i>-o o
ft ft ft
CM CM CM
»« •• «•
CNlTNlTN
^• ^• •
o o o
•ft f
tft
co m o
0
>
rH
•
U3
o
H
-H
4 4
4
4
4
O
4 4
£j
0
P
ctS
44
4
rtf
O
4
s
H" IN-UN
rH
rH
4 4
44
m m m
U N U N sO
44
b D
••
••
4
4
4
CM CM CM
o
44
44
•
O
o
02
Xl
at
44
4
4 4
-a
4
44
1
••
•«
1
CO
P
m
•H
0
G
ch
• ••
xs
o
0
C R CM
W J -H
•
fn
44
44
4
4
44
44
4 4
UN
44
4
4
44
44
fH
•« ••
ft
/H*
4
o
44
<1?
r H
> >
O
4
44
44
44
4
m
4
44
44
4
m
44
O
n
H
4
UN
O
O
s O
U N
4
1
4
O
n
O
4
ctf
ft
X j
ft
ft
ZJ
m
I N44
i O r H
IN-
n
44
0)
r H
> >
O
ftft
O
•
w
o
ftft
ft ft •
rororo
44
I N4
0
p
•H
C/3
0
rO
r— 1
C M
44
o
4
r o
44
1
— 1 U N
4
f
4
o
*
O N C O
r H
44
44
o
o
o
4
v O C O v O
*
I N - C O
02
44
ft «
44
3
c m
ft
H -
1N -
( N - C O
I N-
x l
N O
U 3
44
s O
44
H "
44
C O C O
1
ft ftft
*
o
4
O
4
ftft
O N
*
O N
4
H D
N f
• ft
> i
ftft
co m
lT\rH
O
•
ft
w
•
CM rH
••
••
CO H•
••
rororo
ftft
H
■ O
(OO O n
O CM CM
4
0
4
44
*
o
•
U N
fH
CM
44
4
o
44
U N
ft
I N - C O
4*
44
ft
4
CM O
44
O N
•
•=sj
•ft •• ftft
r O H H O
ft
ft
4
= « =
*4
U N
C O
4
r H
4
O CM CO
U N U N 'T
r l
44
r H
4
44
o
o
U
*
o
4 4
ctf
p
H - C N - '-O
r H
i— i
•f t ftft ftft
4
CM H. ro
*4
r o r o r o
*4
44
44
4
r o
44
H O
O CM O
rOCNfO
CM
O N r H
o
i— 1 i— 1
*
*
T$
H- H- U N
• ft •
o
C M
H "
4
4
1
44
tft
V T v nO
o
H "
*
C N - nO
1
i H
4
U N
4
4
•ft
o
44
44
CO CO
CM CO
ftft
•
o
4 4
CM O
CM
44
*4
u
N O '-O
44
44
CM CM
*
o
4
UN H-
02
4
«ft
C J N C O
4
4
o
t3
:
C O
4
i
—I
O
4
OJ O
•ft ••
C O O N
4
0
44
n
4
unco
D
0
O N
4
o
4
40
« «
3
H - o
H "
73
44
44
H
4
rHCO O
C M
ftft
C N - C N - C N 44
44
44
•ft
0
P
P
g
H *
4
44
H" UN
IN-CO
U N H " UN
02
r O C M
44
44
4
m
O
n
O
o
XS
f
O N nO
4
4
O O ' C O
4
*
-
CM CJNCO
U N H - H"
4-2
•H
CO
4
o
O
n
44
u n u n h
ftft
4
■C H v O
si
'Sst. CM
H
• ft
H "
4
CM CM rH
H
<
44
0 0 4
O N O ON
r o
4
x l
0
vO O
c O o O
4
4
44
4
4
h
ctf
x !
r O
44
r o
4
i
C n
4
r H
O
O
I N - r o
4
4
44
44
ctf
i—1
44
IN— i—I
44
O -
44
o
i H
o
IN-IN-
4
44
44
•ft ••
o
ONUNCO
O-CO cnO n n O
m
4
r O C M
44
44
s
U
4
o
44
4
C O xO CO
ONOCO
4
4
rH nO
fs
44
0
n
o
rf
( H
O N O ' f H
ft
OT
4
4
CO CNr H
p
UN CM CM
44
4
4
o
44
H- C T ' O
IN- IN-CO
o
H
O
i
cm r o
4
I
4
o
0
44
O ONCO
N-vO nO
c
cj
fH
— 1 rH rH
(
44
H 4
44
p
co com
44
4 4
• G
CM r o
4
U N s O IN-
1
t—
44
CM vO CM
P
••
44
n o n u N .
4
4
4
M
4 4
•
CTNUN 73
o
44
o co no
0
CQ
O -v O
0
44
CM
4
44
u
rH
4 4
UNO
44
ft ft ft
ra
<r cm lr\
• • •
44
rH
•H
ON
44
onunh -td
4
0
H -
bO
O
4 4
4
4
44
U
G
4 4
O
rH rH H
rH CM H* ro !
44
COCO O '
IN-H" rH
«3
X |
4 0
O
u
NO IN - nO
CO
UN U N O IN -tN -lN -
t o
rH
1
o
SS. CM
W
u>
, o
V3. CM
•ftP•4•
4 4
O N iH
Un c o O
IN-IN-CO
4
o o o
U N
o
44
44
IN-0O o
Eh
K
•H
X5
G
0
Pf
4 4
4
4 4
O
rH rH CM
4
MD UN UN
ftft
44
W
44
rH
02
A4
4 4
4 0
o
UN UN UN
> >
r H
0
44
o
0
4
44
• H
ctf
vO sO NO
rH
4
O - nO O '
• NO
UN
4
rH rH O
4 4
4s
j
-
O
-H
44
44
4
•
44
t>
rOU\H
I— I
O
M
rH rH rH
* 4
4 4
rO H ro
4
CN-tH IN-H-
-p
co H- <o
UNO
UN\0
0 > tC M p
xi
o
•
,44
4
U N U N O UN
rH rH CM
-p
0
44
N O
«•
o
44
•
4
UN
O IN-On
•
o
•
ONrH O CO
rH rH fH
O
hD
rH iH ON O
0
xl
44
, G
O
fi
O
-H
p
4
r l rH H
44
4
4
CM O- ON
• ft
b O
• H
H
sO
0
4
' O v O ^ O
• •
M
M
o
O O O O
UN UN O O
CV)
fH iH
44
4
u
>
I— I
4
O UNO O
I S O N O UN
• H
>5
4
i—I r l i—I
M
c
CMUN0O c"
U N CM UN CM
UN tJ-sO V
4
H "
4
U n
4
o
o
44
0
P
•H
73
44
On CM
CJN ro
*
•
OJ ro
44
44
•
o
IN-CO O n
i— 1 i
— 1 t— 1
r H
INI
H -
U N O
IN-
CM
CM
CM
CNJ CM CM
CO O
CM r O
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
rH rOUN
t> -ro
4
9
rH
rH
44
99
•
•
Pi
nO
44
••
•
4
*4
u
o
04
04
o
•
4
O
rH
CM
rH
04
4
Un
ON CO
••
44
^ o
rH
ro
I
O
CM
o
p
1 (Continued)
Table
0}
W
o
44
••
••
0 -U N
»•
nO
•
•
CO
•
o■ o• •
iH UN
ro
rH
IP
4
4
CO
\r>
nO
o
COCO
r H rH
• • ••
44
4
•
vO ^O
cm
m
4
4
UNMD U n
44
44
44
44
44
4
COCO
44
O -U noN
rOH- ro
4
44
4
O
44
4
O
p
rH
5-r
ro
p
u
o
FU
■O
3
r-i
44
4
44
4
44
4
rf
P
Li
d)
r
—I
4
H
44
4
'T NO O '
4
4
4
H44- H4 4' 4 4
N O
O
o
o
4
4
rH tH
44
44
44
O CM H"
vO nO U~ .
4
4
4
O O O
44
44
44
4
4
com
44
44
H 'O IN
4
4
0
C O C O ON
M
44
H CM rH
CO
4
4
4
44
44
4
H- 0 -0
44
4
44
COCM rH
44
o
CO NO O44
44
4
CO UNvO
GNO O
a
4
4
4
44
IN O O
44
CO CO CO
4
H
4
O r1 CM
cm
r l
4
ON ONCO
4
44
44
O N O nUn
CM no CM
4
44
00 O ro
p
r<OxO U \
44
O ro
^
•
°
p
ca
ON CM H-
44
o
rH rH
44
no
o
co
« • 99
44
4
44
nO
i
0 - 0 nO
•
44
o
4
U n U N nO
O-O-O-
O
P
r H CO
O -U N
CM O
ctf
u
n
Cn-OO o
•rl
CM CM CM
p
n
CO
UNO
• • •
CM CM
n
rH O ro
4
4
ONiHsO
4
CM
0
CO
rH
CM O -
••
44
CO rllf\
4
00 CO
•
CM
44
(M O O
corn
O
M
44
a
rH
O O O
O
U U
Un U
I—I
44
UNsO
•
^ 1 2
44
P
&
4
4
44
44
4o
r l H
44
H U n n .
4
4
4
u n H•
•
44
4
CO tH rl ra
4
4
4 jQ
roUNro 0
^ 0 0
4
4
4
O N CM N f
o• • o• •
Ha
H
*4
H-
cm
O N CO
■sj
4
4
•H
O
I- ! O ' 01
•
4 ,0
rH
44
n
U n U N U n UN
■H
44
ro t v
•4
rH
CO
4
UNO-
ro
X5
O
ctf
Fi
CO
>
ro
ro
4
vO nO UN
O - nO
» 0 vO
O
a>
5-<
H
tH
•*
»•
to
c o c o o-
F4
««
„
O
NO
I—I
•
ON
o
44
O-C'-
•*
O
44
o
H " nO
•
•
^
4
nO
o
O nO - O ' m
•P
o
••
•
OJ
R
4
nO
ro
rH
4
a1
^o
P4
•• «•
O
3
rH CO
)
•ri
O
ro
rO rH
H CM
„o
M
4
nO
o$
O- rH
S&. cm
4
nQ
4
44 44 44 4
O
U
UNU N UN U N
U
99
*•
ri
o
tsO
4
rH rH rH
ro
T 1
O
CJ 0}
CO V i
••
4
r i
p
£> -H
03 ro
i ro
O
O UN UN
iH H
H
CM M -CO H
U N O -U N U n
•
o
o o o
O
rH rH
*»
M
4
»
H
44
N O v O NO
O UN
8 rH
P
44
O O rr
T i
IM
•
H- ro rH
nO
O
4
rl H O
O UN
CM UN
W
H' O n CM NjCM O CM nn
noCM rr
CM rO
4
44
OO vO U N
44
NO NO
4
4
4
NO CO CO
Appendix
FM
••
••
••
>
>
ro
rH
N5
P
iH
CO
•
••
• •
ro
••
C5
••
1—1Cs*“
C O CM
n3
•
•
FQ
sO
o-
44
44
U N O c n in
-
CO
u
44
p
H-
H-
P
to
IP
U N UN
H" U N
4
O -
=tfe
ro
I
«•
••
rH
O -
cp
ro
p
CM CM
ro
CM :
ro
O
4
O
H" UN
ooro
44
O
f” |
4
4
•H
*•
n
4
ro
1
—1
C*3
i-=>
tH
n3
4
M
44
44
4
44
4
4
4
44
C^OO O'
r o r l'M
4
4
•M4
CO
44
44
nO
44
4
4
rH rH
44
44
rH tH r - i
1
O'
n o UN UN
P
•H
4
4
O O O
44
44
CM rOCM
44
4
4
sO CM --O
H- COCO
44
o~»h -U^>
O
4
O O O
44
C '- o
4
44
44
rOCM O
rO rH
CM CM CnJ
O U n CM
H" H" cO
4
co co co
44
OnoO
4
4
u n cm iH
P
rH CM iH
44
CO
44
rH CO Cn-
4
CM \0 --O
44
H" vO
CO
44
4
4
o o
44
4
rno-OC-O-O-
••
Hr
T}
44
4
U N nO U
44
CM r H
p
o
P
On rO
•H
!25
C
n3
u n u n
CM roj
o
.&. CM]
Pi
iH
0 -0 -.
44
CM CG ro
O rH
•
rH O H- O
*3*
u>
44
«•
CM Q\
44
44
On O O '
CM O 'C C
4
4
4
CM CM CM
73
rH OJ n o
M M M-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
p
o
3
U
55. Ctf
o
♦C 99
CM CM CO CO
ac^Hln
« « • •
U N rH v£> lf >
U N r i- CM vO
• •■ • •
r H OJ CM
rH rH rH O
• * 44 •« H
O -
Pt
M M
rcJ
•ri
Pi
ri M
«
M M
:H
rO -H
ri o
CP CP
M
-• M
UN
o
>35. CM
PH
•• M
35.3
«• ••
P
CP
•• M
O
35. CM
w
•• M
03
o
ri
u>
o
35. CM
PH
H->
ri
o
o
0
rH
'rt
35.3
•• M
O
*-a
«■ ••
U>
o
35. CM
Ph
M M
•H
s5.3
•• 44
Sum
03
c
0
p.
3
ri
4
•• 44
o
35. CM
••MM
U>
j o
>5. CM
Ph
i •• ••
I
155.3
I«« •%
1
•
1
.2
;*h
•
f
•
v o vO O M r s
fH
o
bl)
•rH
t>
•• e* m
ro
&=
o
t O IO U % 02
*A
t
1
o
iH
P
rH
•H
CP
to
u
a2
-p
fH
O
3
i
ri
-p
fH
0
3
i—1
3
i
>»
+3
ri
O
o
02
O'
XS
■<
1
>>
0
rH
b!)
•H
0
o
•
tl9»
•
<
o
•H
0
o
H
ft
>
£
O
•
• •
t O v O le v
rH U M O
sf como
to toco
• • M M
0 0 rH O n
O 'VO
lT•\ • •
M
o
•
•
•
• • M M
u
t-mro
o
H-m H
•
•
•
M
••
••
OOO
0-00
o
M
••
i—1
o
>
ri
ft
5
ri
M
<L>
•
ri
-P
ft
0
3
3
1
rH
•
M
a
•
•
O O O
O vO O O
CO O - r H
•rH
CM CM r O
••
•
M
t o r i ’
•
4
4
M
O- ( O U N
M- M- M4
4
4
O O O
M
M
M
ri- CM ri'
CM E O t O
c
M
M
•
M
M
M
VTn o i s
M- H- ri­
*
••
ri- r o r i CO r i" r o
•
•
M
•
■ v O v O IN
» • •
CM CM CM
••
O O
I—1
•H
co
vu
H
H
t
M
H-3
fi
0
5
•
CM
O O O
•«
••
O 'O
•
CM
rH
••
U N U N ri
O- CM rH
• •
•
rH CM CM
«•
•
3
M
•ri
-10.ri•
• •
••
•P
•«
c
•ri
pH
OVCOCO
•«
M
•
«
M
•
O
O
•
vO vOv O
«•
D
fH
o
bO
•H
>
O O O O
ir\o o crv
CM CM rH CM
o
■P
••
rH
ri irvXrv
0
-P
•tH
■n
3
bO
•H
3
M M W W
vO
•
m
rH
H
-H
M •• •• o
Ir.rOH- 02
• • •
o t>— c— r i
rH
CP
•••«••
rn-M- CO
• • •
vo lr\Xc\
p H iH rH
•• « w
cOrl o
• • •
vO vO vO
0
+3
Ctf
fH
0
3
O
i
|
o
rH
xi
ri
ri
in
••MM
H- IT'O• • •
O-cO CO
0-0-0M M M
rHCO Ho a i m
• • •
0 v O 0
M M M
O H C M
m m m
• • •
CM CM CM
•4 44 44
iTisy Mj
^
• • •
O O O
44 44 44
\0 i— IsO
CVJ IfMTv
a
CM C '- O
•«
ri
ri
3
ri
-p
fH
0
P
rH
• • M M
•ri U n U n
fH
0
•H
+H
CM CM CM
*
rH
'Kj
r-i
i
CO CO UN
rH
•H
-P
rH
•rl
0-0-00
• • •
M
0
i
H
ra
o
rH
M
CM CM CM
I— I
‘tr—
0
-P
•
M
UNCO O• « •
COCO t o
••
CO O O O
f O H - H"
• • •
••
O
M
lr\O ' O
•
CM CM CM
••
••
co m v \
•
o-o m
••
rH rH
vO to O-
M
M
O- O -a v
•
•
OO O 'CO
U M r \v O
«•
•
CM CM CM
•
C v G 'O
•
M
M
UN CM UN
••
•
•
M
rH sO
»•
M
ONCO l-TV
•
t o t o c o
••
•
C O p IO
••
O -C O fH
CM
M
#
ununvO
C'Umco
••
O
ri
fi
0
•ri
o
02
O
• • •
l r \ C '- v O
M
M
CO O - v O
bO
rH O CO
CM CM H
M
•
M
M
•
M
c o m On
• • •
O -r-l
•
M
rH vO O - 02
r-i
O -C O o
• • •
CM CM ro
^
M
rH
•H
H- rH CM
CM CM CM
vO CO CM
CM CM CM
•<*
«H
•«
rnir\ro
CO
M
U M rv trv
M
CM CM CM H
ON nO rH
•••«••
rH OO vO
U N
• • •n
H W
pH rH tH
o
O 'CM O V P
H rH
CO
rH CM CM -P
M
o
bo
C O O O fJ
co• to
to
• •
oo a-to
M
fH
O
bO
-H
s>
o
• • • ,o
••
•
rH
Q
•H
—
••
i
M
M
O O O O
OOOO,
o lr \U M r \
CM CM CM rH
M
vO O -v O UN
W M M M
M
1 0)
fH O
ri ri
CP <P
44 #4
M
fMo Crwo
CM rH ri" Oi
• • • «
r 0 \ f \ 0
OJ CM 0 0 CM
w
30 \0 r—i O
•^Ooo m o
4 4 4 4
H O r l H
M M M M
o O Q O
r'OH- ^ rH
• • • •
0-C--0-0M <• «• M
rno">P~)
44 44 44
CvJ
4 4 4
H H H
44 44 44
O- Ir\ (j\
9 ♦ •
CO^O^
44 44 44
r-iMDvO
• • •
H-co crv
0-0-0M •• M
O'VO CO
CM CO rH
• • •
■LrVLTNvO
••••••
CO O ' O
Orlri
• • •
CM CM CM
M •• ••
rOvO <d« • •
o o o
M «• ••
c o o m
\D m i r .
• • •
CM c o r n
••
M
<•
m H
Vr\
rH
rH
•H
fH
ft
ri
i
i
0
rH
ri
3
•
3
•
h>
i
•
o
o
C
•H
rH
1
fn
3
1
>>
ri
0
£
o
tH
•
0
ri
3
•
rn
rH
0
•r-i
•Si
CO vO CO
CTvrH O'
4 4 4
O r l O
•*•«••
OCf\0
CT' d"» vj• • •
vO vO vO
M *« *«
O O O
u^lrvirv
pH rH rH
44 44 44
ro
44
44 44 44
CM 00 CO
• • •
CM o'! CM
44 44 44
U\vO h
• • •
M3 00 CM
rH
44 44 «•
CM
r-i
• • •
D--C^O*4 44 «4
m o co
4 4 4
vD ^ O
O O C O 00
•• «• •«
CM OvcO
O r-i cm
• • •
lr\lr\lrv
M M M
O O'O
Q \ r*t O• • •
O rH H
•• •• •«
p H CM O
\r.lT\lm
• • •
O O O
M M ••
p H CQ CO
HO H- ro
• • •
m m m
•• •• M
lr,cG rn
• • •
sO0 m
i—i
M M ••
CO M n CM
• • •
o- o - a o
M M M
O- O-CTv
• • •
Vtn M a c O
C O C O CO
•• M M
O CO -o
CM CM H• • •
Xrvtrvu-N
M •• «•
-M- COCO
O v O' C^• • •
O O pH
•« •• ••
(O -0 M O
Xx-vln.lrx
• • •
O O O
•• •« ••
on m m
nO to p I
• • •
m r o m
M
*■ ••
C'-co O'
u-vtrNirN
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a
o
,a
feS. ?
rH
a
o
W
ft
•M" o
a
o
520
•H
>
ft*
O
M
O
ftft
a
bD
o
OJ O
•
U N OJ
•
o
M M
» H
-H
a o
CO 02
m
I0
a o
a a
CO <H
ft •
p
0
p
cd
a
<o
XJ
o
a
U n o
O
o
iH CM CM fH
rn
u>
o
f4
ft
ft
•H
m m m o
U
n
a
o
p
O N ro
o
« •
•p
ftUn o o ^
M •• M
p
cd
a
0
tJ
o
a
1
•
•
siV^
•
*
CO U 3 OO
xi
p
ft
0
Si
•
ft
ft
ft O N O N
O O M N
H
M M M
o -=t CO
CM O
CM
• ft ft
xS
ft
0
•H
4H
ft
m
u>
o
C&. CNJ
ft
M
csS
p
a
0
ft ft ft
ft ft ft
M M M
O - CM
U\H- U N
ft ft ft
sq
O
O
M
O
«9
cd
p
a
0
a
ft
a
M
•
•
M
n c o
•
SS.J2}
«•
0
CO
CO
m
a
0
S=
o
ft
•
W•*
a
ft
o
o
«•
o
U
n
•
•
••
m
-O U N
cm O-
•
•
OJ
••
M
••
•
••
•
o
•
M »«M
•
O
O
fc
ft O c^
cm
m
o n
•
>>
cd
ft
o
>%
p
ft
■H
02
a
&
O
a
0
02
•• •• ••
OnnO
CM
O NO UN
*
•
•
ft ft ft
8P
w
i
0
ft
cd
ON CM CM
M
M
M
O n rH OQ
m
f t ON
O O O
•
••
M
•
a•
ft
M
M
i
•
o
o
a
•H
ft
a
H
•
•• •• ••
•
miTSlTN
O-O-O•« *<a •%
•H
ft NO O
CM O CM
• • •
rH
0
p
a
•H
0
•« • • ••
0-0 ft
•
p
0
o
W
O-tOOmc N O
•
•
•
mcM m
••
••
at
• • %
O O O
•« M •»
OJ CM O
0
p
ftvOIN
• • •
m m m
•H
£0
CO
O f t CM
O nO O
t
•
0
a
O
U N Om
s
0
o
ft
f t U N UN
•
ro
rH
•
m
P
CM N O C O
M
ft ft ft
•
t
lr\cvi
C ^ O -C ^
C\J O ') 0's
C \ l O ON
•
•
•
ft
•• M •• M
Ono m c N
•
•
•
nO O - nO
M M
M M
ONO
•
O
ft
UN
nO
•
•
•
f t UN
UN
M « I « t <4
o o
UNUN
CM m
m
o
O
CM
m
ft
•
OO
::
a
o
UO
•H
h'
ft
si
hO
ft
ra
••
M «• O
•
•
• S
o o
a
m m co
on
O C-n. nO
•
•
•
O n O -C T s
ft ft ft
M M M
f t nO o
•
•
•
U N f t UN
M M M
C X 'C ^ f t
•
•
•
U N IN lA
ft
On
UN
ft m ft
•
*
♦
NO nO nO
• • %• •*
nO C O O
nC U N (N •
•
«
CM CM CM
M M M
-O
UN
m m m
•
•
•
O O O
• • •« •«
O -O N O
ft m ft
•
•
•
m m m
M M M
f t nO o
•
« •
GNnO O
f t f t CM
ft
•H
w
1
rt
0
o
rH
>>
ft
ft
0
t>
0
a
w
ft
ft
•H
a
H
i
0
P
a
0
,o
ft
i
•
o
o
a
•H
ft
f t C N ft
« • •
UN f t UN
ftUNO
O
NO nO
ft
muNft
•
•
•
nO nO nO
M
M
Cn- nOCO
C^UNCO
•
• •
CM CM CM
••
ONCO
m m m
•
•
•
O O O
M M **
ft ft ft
CM -O CM
•
•
•
••
o
•
w
•
UN
ft
0
P
•H
03
O O O
u n o
un
CM f t
CM
\Q
C\J
•
M
CO
t> •
nO
M
o
Un
MM
vO
•
rH
r l
•rH
«« a* M M O
O - sO O 03
*
•
•
jQ
U N U ng O
a
CO
M M
M M
OO NO UN O n
•
•
• •
O f t CMnO
CM CM CM f t
M M M M
nO nO H - O
•
•
• •
H- nJ- nJ- o
M m aa m
oo f t f t
•
•
• •
*u m m t > .
O -C — CN^C—
at • • »« «•
CM t>-U N NO
H- u n m o
•
•
•
•
C '- t N - C '- O
• • • • •* ••
O O O CM
H UN U N O
•
•
•
•
m m m cM
•• •• M M
OOOO U N O m m m n
•
•
•
•
O O O O
•• M •• M
H- m h - o O O H UN
•
•
•
•
m m m m
M •« • • M
m o cno
« •
« •
ONCO ON-si­
ft ft ft ft
«• • • • • ••
O UN CM CM
• •
•
•
Un U n U n O no
f t
M M
CM U n On
•
•
•
UNCO
O-C-n- O — 4^ ••
O -U N nQ
M
UN
O - O N O
rn o *
'
«
nO
• •
«« * • " m oN vO
•
•
*
UNU N UN
•
••
UNM0
0
P
cd
a
0
X*
o
••
m
•
0
o
C\J
M
\r\lrMr\
U , U \ U N
P
•H
25
+ « » •» *
m ft ft
O-CO
CM CT'CO
CO ( N t N
CM
ft
rl H OJ CO
f t GO CO
CM f t f t
m
OnO-CG
t o
^
m
O
m•oftgn
ftpra
mmo a
•
ft O N CM
M
3^. O
CM
m
ft ft ft
« • •
t
ft
•H
m
f t f t
CM CM
•
•
f t .M
>
UN U N O
U N
ft m c M
^ CM
*• ft
Ml
m
M
••
m o
ft ft
•ft
UN
m m
• • •
m m m
O N CM r n
Xj
u>
o
CM
cm
•
a
o
U)
•HI
C M CM m c M
ftft
m r n r n
«•
ft
ft
■<
M
O UNO
UN'X) U N
CM CM O
U
••
M
U N COCO
ONNO
s^
rH
^ t2l
K
•H
Xt
a
0
M
0-0 nO
•• ••
«•
O O ft
ft ft O
^
H
•
•H
u v u n u n
S>
cd
Eh
•
O O O O
UN UN O O
M
GO O
•
>»
rH
a
o
o
•
CM f t f t
m m m
O
•H
a
a
-P
M
mciNON
U N r O i H
•H
M
unun
•H
O
rOCM
ft ft ft
m
a
a
M M
*
0
•
0)
ft ft ft ft
ft ft ft o
vO^^OsO
'O'^'rO'O
lT \< jN > O N
••
rr
U nnO n o f t
m o
O - O N CM ft
O- o
•tH»0 O O O O
si
m
M
O - r O O
r>'
si
xJ
p
O -
O-GNtO-O• • • •
O O O O
•« »•
m m m
««
M
M
1
9
53
taO
c
•rH
PQ
«
O
•
•
Isrl
O
-P
•H
M ftft • • ftft
f t ON GNCO
•
•
•
•
u n Un h - c o
O -O - 0 - 0 m a« aa ••
CM m - t f CM
O O O O n H•
ft
CO O - 0 - 0 • • ftft ftft ftft
O - f t CM CO
-J- ON UN UN
ft ft
m m m cM
«« • • •• •*
rH Q n O U n
U . f t j- H- o
•
a
•
a
O O O O
M ftft
- j- m o -MO O (J n CvI
ft ft
ft ft
■M- ■<d- rO M aa aa aa ••
ft
ft
ft ft
^
ftft
.p
CO C T 'O
nO nO
a) m M -M0 -0 - 0 -0 -
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
j
g
o
■s
i
Pi
«
pH
o
o3
•H
t*
<D
•rl
P
cd
P
CO
CU
'C*
•ft • •
I rH
G 'H
o
CO CQ
2
•• ••
t ra
P
o
G cc5
W =H
d
o
a
o
CM
•
'O 'O 'U 'O
•• Wftft
Id
o
P
UN U N O
H CM
O O O O
U n
o
P
o
fco
rH
M3
G
O
o
CM
J?
1
u
rH
>>
5)
ra
••
• p
H
•
•
s}- U ns JH H H
• ft
ftft • •
Q>
cq
<D
>
I
cd
P
Q>
X
rH
o
•
00co o-
C—.UNO(“1O O O
• • •
U\UN si­
•H
P
P
3
HO O
CO 0O O •
• •
rH rH rH
M
U
••
n
••
M3 M3
sf ro -^
•
•
•
O O O
•• •• »
O r")rH
ONCO O—
• • •
CM CM CM
••
p
rH r H rH
H •• «
d - o CO
•
• •
a
•
o-co co
0)
0-0-0-
X
cd
hi)
g
CO
•H
=q
•H
d
G
ra
Ph
o
o
G
■rH
rH
■acd
P
Pi
••
W••
Ro
CM
Ph
U nU n U n
•« •• *•
rH C O U n
C O O n OO
•«
••
CO
rH
•
•
•
O O O
ft*
••
C3n U\ 0CD
IS. /<H
<•
••
-P
•rH
CO
rO r-H O
• •
•
c ir o c o
•< ••
•H
r-H
rH
•r l
O
••
UNlAUN
UNUNUN
Vp
CQ
O
P
cq
o-M3
• • •
• • •
H H H
iA . CM
<
•• •• ••
unco o -
••
o
sD O -C O
|Z5
0-0-0-
•«
CM CM CM
•* •* *•
O nnO
OOCOCO
••
M3
rH
••
CO vO vO
G N - 't c o
•
Ph
sj- 0 O
• • •
O n O- O—
«
•
•
O O O
••
CM ^ CO
•
ra
5
•
ON
rH
Hte
ra
p
•rH
r/3
••
»
ra
p
•
ra
d
0
m
1
•
'O 'O M rH r-H rH
•• *• •*
C O O N
• •
*
U \s O U \
ftft ft* ft*
c o o vO
ft ft ft
0-00 O n
-0 -0 «* • * * •
C— i—I rH
C O O - nO
« • *
N -O v O
•• • • • •
<-H •M U n
O N U N .r o
•
« «
CM CM CM
•• •* •*
o c o ra
u n ^ F »d• •
•
o o o
•ft ftft ftft
NO CJn o
G N nO C O
ft ft ft
c o COCO
ftft ftft ftft
•
0-0- O-M3
«« ft* ft* ftft
*« •« * •
o o o
o o o o
CM CM CM
•« «• •« • •
NO
P
a
r-i
cd
iH
a
g
0
p
ra
p
ra
SP
•rH
•« •• •« o
o c o cr* ra
ft
a
• ,a
bD
•H
rH rH 33
»• • * • •
n
• •
•
rororo
CM CM CM
••
M
••
•
•
•
UN
*• ••
••
OJ CM U ,
•
•
•
CM CM rH
-0 -0 -
0«•
ft* ft*
■U oo o-
cd
x>
i—i
A
’
ra
•
•
•
rororo
• • • • •*
nJ- 'd' vO
rororo
•
•
cd
,G
33
ra
%
ra
Cd
P
P
ra
,<=>
rH
•
O O O
ft* ft* ft*
G
-ci
r-l
CM U \
O O O
ft
•
rorOrO
o
o
• • • • ••
nG r O O
•
•
•
-rH
CM OJ 'CM
CM CM CM
••
cd
p
•
••
•*
C O O O
ft
un
ft ft
U nun
G
r-H
cd
P
•
•
CM CM
••
ft
ONO o
O O ON
ft
p
cd
ft •
- 0
ft* ft* ft*
CM U N O -
0- 0
to
G
•r-|
pq
o
• • <>
o
•• •* ••
Hte
ra
p
•H
33
s|- ^d• •
•
O O O
•ft ftft ft*
rorOH
CM CM CM
•
•
•
rororo
•*
•« • •
si" U N nO
oocxjco
•• ♦%
• « •
O IC M CV
• « >• »»
r-l O -
rororo
si- CM CM
CM
0
rnoo '-o
-d- rOCM
o
UN U N O
•
ft ft
U N O -C O
-0 -0 • • ftft ftft
r o s i - M3
CO r o o o
• •
•
-[> -s O
0
-0 -
0*
• • •« ••
si- ONCO
ft ft •
UNUNUN
•• ft* ••
ft* ft* ftft
•
rH
si- si- M3
O -C O rH
• •
•
CM CM CM
• • • • *•
COCO o ro m ro
« •
ft
O O O
•ft ft* ftft
CM UN CM
UNUN s i
•
•
•
ro ro ro
* • • • ••
r - i M3 CM
•
•
«
ON M3 M3
r-i r-i r-\
•a
vO rH -M
0- 0
M •• • •
CM CO O n
■ •
•
C— vO ON
0- 0- o •• •• ••
si- O - U n
M3 O - O n
•
• •
sO M3 U N
•• •• ••
o
o
o
* • ftft ftft O
r o U N o n ra
•
• • ,n
U noO O - G
H H H 73
•e • * • •
O '^ I O
ft ft *
O -C O U N
rH rH rH
«• H ««
C\On H
r-i
O CM CO
CM CM ro
P
ra
o
rH
CO 30 O
1
p
rH
•rH
u n U n U*
ft ft ft
nO *0 nO
• • ft* ft*
W
O
UN
o O U
>>
UnUnUnUn
OJ rH CM
o
bO
ft
UN
«*
O O O O
ON CM rH 3
0
o rH CM
CO COOO
UNO O O
rO C M U N vO
•
•
•
•
O-cr
o-o-o-o-j
p
•* •• «• ••
i
£1
•«
OJ
Nt U n ^
•
* *
ro c o c o
• • •« ««
On O O -
n o U \ <d- o j
sj" nO O ' NT
•
•
• ®
i—I rH rH O
o c
U N rH
•
«
^
U nco on
o -o -o «• •« • •
ON CM M0 — C O rH
•
• •
vO vO mO
••
cd
P
P
<q
o
bO
•H
*
CM 0- 0 -
r—1
j=<
•
ON M3 M3
rH ri rH
H • • ««
rH O O O
«• •« a*
C O O -C M
O-M) ON
U>
•
iT N ^ f ^
G
•r-i
*
•
CM O nCO
• • •
O -U N O -
CM
p
‘H
•
A
M> sj- UN
•
W
■ «•
3^ CM
rH
•sj- c o r n G
33
•* • • ••
M3 U \C M
»
•« • * • •
o
cd
s£
CO U N rH CM
rH CM ro re­
ft * •
rH .—I rH
p
rH
C O 'O O O
•
bO
o
o o c>
M
tR
•
Pi
O
o
O
•
u3
3^ CM
Ph
•d
0)
3
G
•H
•
M3 0 -M 3 M 3
ft* ftft •*
„o
•
r O X > U N CQ
P
3^. C\l
•
o
0-0
[V. r n U v O '
• • • •
••
CO
•
O O O O
H
«t
c o o
■3- C O O 'M -
£
o
01
3 ^ .! z )
r H CM
•ft •• •* o o o Un
M •« N O
rH C O rH CQ
un
. o
•
•
X
o
ftft
H
•
CM r H U \ U >
D 'O N U D s t
•H
«••«•• o
p
,„ o
'
P
rOUNvO rH
CO nO rH ON
UN sj-
rH
CM
O O O
••
ra
••
••
co o- o-
P
C O 'C n O • ft ft
•H
r i r n
r o
«* • •
••
73
co O'O
COCO ON
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
i
I
W)
•H
a
o
3<i.f
t
£4
Ct}
ft O A O O
O
r l r H CM
«
•
•
•
r H rH rH
** ** M
M
M
o o U M n
cOaO c o o
•
•
•
«
ft ft ft ft
•• M
,« *« M
o
w
ft
ft
•rH
o
o
o
o
o U a Ua UA
CM r H CM
ft
tt
tttt
I I—I
rQ -r-l
£ O
Ft
o
U3
•• •• M
**
• as
fn a
£
ctf
••
uU
•H
w
*t
CO
.
ft
CO f t
>*>
fH
V
w
a
ITS
o
^ OJ
ft
1
3^125
H
iH
• • *•
fH
•H
fH
I
C
tf
ft
ttt M
UCA
o
R ai
u
CD
ft
rH
ft
0
£
£
•H
O
o
ft
£
O
o
£
O
•fH
1
—
4
rM
r-l
•• U
ua
0
H
,Q
Ctf
^o
9
fH
3^. Al
ft
••
••
fH
0
K
■H
£
£
•H
ft
c
0)
ft
CO
3
Pt
3
o
M tttt
lXA
„o
3^ CM
ft
•• ••
Q>
ft
Ctf
fH
<D
T i
o
O CO ft CO
• •
•
•
U A c o ft- -ft
COCO
cc
•
•
•
•
H
r H rH
M
tt M
•,
c o o cn
H - rH O
OJ
• •
*
•
VfNO-lrvo
•t M
M
ttt
p
CQ
o
r— 1
Ctf
rH
O
rl
ft
r-l
•rH
G3
fH
c
ho
•H
t>
O O O O
o i n o
o
C O C O CM r r
M
n
t
rH
•rl
•• O
« H C M CQ
.
. ,o
UACM P
rH CO
•• •«
O - U a
•
•
UAU*a
H H
M
••
M M M
M
o ft O O
•
•
•
•
(O OA OA OA
O
O
O
O
4« 14 M
••
rH rH O - C O
f t ft* 0 0 - 0
•
*
.
•
v O - O - O - O
,, M
M
■*
ft- C M O C O
O - U a -ft -ft
•
•
• •
CM OJ OJ CM
•« 44 M
44
CO O a U a O a
C O CM c o c o
•
•
•
•
O O O O
*« ttt f« ti
O A O CM rl
ft- f t f t C O
4
4
r o r
«» ««
rOH'
•
•
ft O A
rl H
l«
O C O
•
•
s O H-
4
ft
CM
CM
-Ik:
ft
•H
:o
O
ft
M
M
o
ft
<tf
fH
03
M
00«
ON
fH
•*» ••
\ X \ C O aO
•
•
•
C O O CM
rH CM rH
M M M
OACO O
«
•
tt
O
O
CO
CM CM CM
rH
*H
o
03
,Q
UA
ft
rH
•H
03
a>
SP
i
ctf
ft
fn
O
JD
i— 1
n m m
•« *•
On O
. *
UAft
i— 1 r H
•* ••
CM C O
•
•
U V lC A
M
O
H
«•
O C O CA-O
•
•
c
•
OVCACO O
O
O
O
O
*• •• *• «•
o 3XA r H O J
O CO CO H
• •
*
»
O
-O vO o
it tt *» «•
1.0 O A O o
•O CA - O
•
•
«
•
CM CM CM OJ
** •• tt *O
O
C O C A
Vi a c o ^
H"
•
•
•
•
O O O O
•• It tt tt
CM cjs-O -O
C O 'M" C O o o
t
t
t
«
C O C O CO ro
1
»
o
o
a
■H
rH
ctf
fH
ft
:
ft
CJ
<D
ft
a
ctf
Q
fH
ft
•
CO
OJ
-fi=
Q>
ft
•H
■o
CM O H
lr\
CO OA OA CA
O - O aO
•%
•
*
H* C O O
tttt tttt «4
CMCO'O
OCAA? r-H
•
• •
- O A O Iftt
*« «• 04
vo
r H C a J-CA
» •
•
C O CM CM
«• 44 44
O s O OJ
cO-H- c o
•
•
•
o o o
•« •• •*
m a c m CO
c O r H CM
•
•
•
m o n c M
M
«« M
c O o O CM
SP
ft
1
c o a o
!
;
•
I
O-CO CA
OA OA CA
O
r•H
l— 1
r i
ft
ift
1
O
I
J
ft ft ft
J
•«
VfArHOD
. •
.
rH CM O C O C O O.. .. ..
O CO oJ-CA CM C O
• •
•
U alcaU a
tttt ttt tt
f t C M CM
O A C O ft
• •
•
H H
CM
•• 44 mm
O-ft O
CM CM c o
•
• •
!
04
•H
Wr-*H
^
£
o
ctf
rH
O
ft
CM
03
ft
•rH
CO
•H
|>
o
-p
ft
• •
00
•
•
fn
o
5
o
r— 1
mm
03
P
£tf
£
<13
CM
CO
tt* tttt — ,
UN CM oj
* * *1
C O C O CM]
(—I rH rH]
«• ••
COO• • H-•J{
ft 'ftftI
CM CM CM
p
O
rH
1
a
8
o
r-l
£
£
03
PH
C O r-1
rH
ft ft ft
tS'O ft]
H"
O
ft
O -ft f t
1
ctf
p
ft
0)
ft
°M
44
»•
0 - 0 CCA
C M C M rH
. . .
CO CO CO
•• •• •«
ft ft H
. . .
ft ft o r H i— 1 r H
•• mm mm
O 0 CM c o
•
• •
ft ft ft
I
fH
03
t
.
mm
rH
•H
o
03
ft
ftf
CO
i
o
CD
CN-C^ H
•
•
•
U*\sO U N
•• »t t«
r H C"~ -ft
C O OJ o
•
• •
[A-O-tA-.
t« ,t •«
i n o r>CO O
r-l
•
•
•
C O C O C O
•• * - -*
(A- P
O
Af U A ^ h
•
ttt
o o o
tttt tt tt
C M N ( A
a J- C O H •
t
•
CO CO CO
•tt tttt tt
Ctf
ft
f-t
03
»H
ft
C O CM O
CM CM CM
•« M
44
*• 44 44
O MAC'•
•
•
rH O
H*
44
•
O
ft
CO
fH
03
•
O O O
O
O O
(MrOrO
o
3
o
rH
H O W
lAUMn
O
«« •• ••
O MA CO
• • •
f t ft C O
rH rH CM
•*
••
UAOACO
•
• •
ft c o o rH rH rH
•
M M * ,
0 - 0 - f t ft
tttt tttt ttt tttt
O O O
O O O
OJ rH H
•
O O O
O
• •• •
ft
p
rH - O O O
•
•
•
lr\Vr\tr\
•
rl rl rl
•• •• •• ••
ft•
1
ft
O H' u a
•tf- UA rH
O A ft A O f t
ft C O l C A C C
•
• •
•
H
C M CM
44
04 04
•«
C O O 0 - 0
rH
CM f t
a
til
u
4
o
O
o
£5
•• «•
o ft
«
•
C O ft
H H
M
m4
o
ft
aO
00 -0 iTA
c
r-l
CO
M
•
CM
CO CO
tt
M
M3
&
O
i— 1
r-i
i
•
o
o
• » •
mrom
••
44
mm
f t , OA CM
H - ft* UA
• • .
O
•ttOtt.O „
ft ft cn
C O O IN
•
•
•[
CM CM CM!
44
O-
C\f
•
*
O
•
9
ft ft ft
CM CM CM
ctf
ft
=*}
co o in
• •
intsn-
•tt •♦
M
tttt *•
,,
,
04 4ft ftft
C O ft ft
. . .
co c a c o
0-0-0ttt ttt tttt
ft U A C O
ft ft o -
•
• •
ft ft f t
ttt tt ttt
O - G A O
■u a u a o t
* t
C M OJ O J
ttt tt ttt
C O coft
CO CO CO
.
. •
O O O
ttt tt tt
OACOCA
ft O - ft
. . .
CO COCO
tt tt tt
r H OJ C O
O O O
r H rH rH
i
E3
ra
0
ft
pq
§
ctf
rH
rH
•H
•5
U acO u>
• • •
0-0 o
'-O - o f t
V>
M
l|
FCAUAcO
coo O
•
•
•
0 -0 o
t t tttt «•
UA-ft rH
CaUA O
•
•
•
coco ro
M
M
••
COCO ft*
J
3
t
UA
CM
:=fc
0
P
•rH
CO
ft- ft- U
•
*
a
•
O O O
••
•»
tt
O H r*~
c a o -c o
• « •
OJ CM OJ
•• •• ••
UAO- O
o c> o
rH r-l rH
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
p
o
,o
63. U
o3
o
•• H
W
Pi
•ft ftft
T}
•H
ft
c3W
•• ••
1 rH
p *h
SS
M ••
i ro
fn o
ri Cl?
CQ H
•• ••
o
63. CM
•aMM
Xrv
o
^ CM
•• fnt
•• M
,—.
to
ri
g
•r-l
P
G
o
o
._
H
ro
rH
P
o3
EH
K
•r-J
p
ro
Pi
<t
CQ
•• ••
O
63. CM
•• W«»
XT'
o
Cj3. CM
«• f•t
•
63.fz;
•• ft*
o
63. CM
•• *•
XT'
o
63. CM
•• fMt
U
O
to
•H
!>
<1>
P
ri
u
<D
t3
O
1
g
ro
o
1
—i
p
p
Q)
ft
1
ro
i
—i
oj
W
4
w•
1
•
O
o
CQ
Cu
*xi
<
i
Eq
P?
$3.!z; 1 o
•• •
•
*-»
r—*
cq
•3
e
CQ
o3
•• •• •tH
rH
rH
o f 63. CM!
^H
•• Wftft:
XT'1 •
o 1
63. CM xr\
t CM
•• f•t• =tb
CD
P
63.S
•H
•• •• CQ
*
O
O ri lr\vO
ri XrviH xrv
• • • •
rH i—1i
—1
M *« M *•
O O O OrH O CM CM
• • • •
XrvXrvXrvXrv
M ■» «» M
O O O
O O O O
co c o m
••MMM
CM
•
CO
i
—1
•H
M M M O
Xr\cm o m
• • • ra
COCO CM ri
rH tH rH cor
MMM
Ovri
• • ri•
O O CO
CM CM CM
MMM
O• H• ON
•
o-o-o
M M M
HXOvtN
• • •
CM CM ON
O-O-m3
•ft M ft*
HHH*
xrvo-cm
• • •
vOvO O•• «• M
vO O to
COO Xr\
• ft ft
cm mco
•• «« ••
o c om
XrvXrvXCV
• • •
OOO
M ftft ftft
XrvoO o
O rl H
• • •
mmco
M M M
H QnH
• • •
O CM CM
CM CM CM
•4 •• M
O• •U-•\
'O'OO
44 44 44
CvO-ri
ft ft ft
mo h
0-0-0•• ••
o-o-co
O HO
• •
O 0-0•• •• ••
O-CO Xrv
Ovri
• a cO
a
cm mco
ft* ftft ••
XrvcjvO
ri ri Xr\
4 4 4
OOO
44 44 *4
XT',o CO
CM CM CM
• • •
m m m
•« «• ••
O CO o
O O H
HHH
M
tH
O
bO
*H
t>
(1)
P
ri
tH
a)
H
o
ist
1
a
ro
o
H
!
0>
)>
rj
o
p
ro
o
p
H
<4
p
P
o
a
i
ri
p
u
ro
p—1
PH
t
•
o
o
m
§
<4
I
P
o
ro
H-5
ro
u
u
ri
o
4
•
H
4
-o
CM
::tte
ro
p
•H
'JO
Xrvri CMO
ri
v
• cOH*
4 4xr4
H r-iH
M M M M
MCO GO
0O 0 -0 • • •vo• tH
Xrvxrvxrvo O
M M M M
to
•H
o o
t>
OOOO
Xr\CM cm
O
—1
•ftM M M i
cc•
o
m
h
p
-H
ro
M •• •• O
o 0-0 ro p
•• •
ri
fn
O ONo 2
rH rH CO ro
44 44 44
*d
o
COri
4 4 ri4
SN
m o o~
i
HHH
44 44 44
a
moo
• • cm•
ro
OXrvo
O
H
MMM
P
COCO
• • ri
•
p
ro
COO-vO
0-0-0Ph
H ft* ••
i
XTNXrvm
O-vO CM
ft ft ft
ro
i—t
XrvO O
44 44 44
ri
ir\o o
W
•
(Tn'UTMTN
4 4 4
W•
H CM CM
*« »« •*
H
xoso xrv
1
H*
4H* H"4
•
O44O44O44
o
o
XOiCQcO
coo CM
ro
•• •
a
m m m
•• •• ••
ri
CO
COO
• ft ft
-t,
mo- co
1
H••{MM
HH
4
O cOXTv
ft ft ft
m
o
xc\Xr\sO
fH
•ftft* ftft
rq1
Xcv-rf-Xrv
ft ft ft
ti
ro
O O-H*
b!)
CO 0-0•« •• ••
fH
ro
oco o
csH
4 4 m4
ro
X•
T4nO-O
P
44 44
ro
p
H*CO H
P
OCOO• • •
ri
CM CM CM
X
•4 44 44
HXrvo•
H* H* H• • •
oO
J
ooo
sit•a ft* ftft
H XOCO
ro
Xr•vCO
• H•
p
•H
m m m
•• •• ••
JO
CM COHH H H
i
—1t—1(
—1
4
vo O
CTsO
• •
••c«c
•
mo• •
O vo
M *4
M
O
to
•H
o o
l>
XrvXrv
&!
M ftft o
Xrv
H
•
Xrv
o
p
M ftft
o• a>• pro
ri
mco
u
M ft* ro
H*
4O4 Ti
o
vO sO
i
—I
•?> •« i
H rr
• •
0-0
1
o
•ft M
Xrvo
• • P
vo
P
ro
CO
o
•ft ftft Ph
H H*
xr4vcm• i
H*Xrv ri
•• «•
H cc u
CO• o• ro
,o
O«•C•M• i—i
xrvxo
rif
*tri•­ i
•
o o
ftft ftft o
Xrvo o
CM
•O• ro
mcM
•ft
ri
xr•vH•
<
oco
i
H
44 44
•
O-lrv
•
n
o
O Xrv
fH
44 44
coftria
­ U
ro
‘O o
CO
ObO
1* •• t
-i
vO o- ro
CM
Pi
» CV
• C}
IrvXrv p
•• •• ro
Xrvo- 4-H
H
Cv4ri4 ri
O CM X
•• ••
OrvCO
X
rc
• • oO•ftO•• OJ
H C'J
CC■ H• pro
me- ■H
aa •• ■JO
vo co
H H
H H
M
4
H XrvoO CSVCM
a • •
H
M •• M
CM
oco
ft ftrif­
t
vO vO vO
44 44 44
OOO
lr\lr\UN
44 44 44
tr\
4
Xrv H
•H
M M O
xrvCM ro
• ft,Q
m o ri
CQ
ftft
m•o•
vOCO
•ft M
m•n•
0-0•• ftft
ri•-Ov
4
vO ri"
COCO
M ftft
O risoftvOft
rfi
i•­
t*r«
r-i H
OO• o•
O•ftHM
o-xrv
ri
ftri•­
o o
•ft ••
CMCO
COH
• •
m m
•• aa
ri
ftri•­
OOO
•ft ftft
ri-ov
ft ft
-O xrv
•• ••
CM
• O•
cv-xrv
coco
•• ••
o CO
ooo
ft ft
Xf
rt*
vr•
i•
­
O H
CVH
• •
OM Hft*
Xrvcv
ri
* m•
O o
•• ••
xrvco
•o
• m•
m m
•• •«
O- Ov
H i—1
H H
M
ra
p
o
ro
•H
fn
ri
&i
f
o
o
tH
O
tt)
•H
o- O H
mcvco
♦ 44
rH
44 44 »4
CJvri O• • «
Xrvcv-xrv
♦4 44 44
Ooo
XrvxrvXrv
m
cm
•• 44 44
44 #« 44
m4o4 cm4
CMvO CJv
H
44 44 44
QN 0“i
• 4 #
t ^00 CM
r3 i•H4 44r4H4
TO rH rO(jN
O
• • •
Hi vO vO vO
r
/*H* •ft ftft ftft
2 CM-COOO
ro
• • •
Ph CJv-ri O
O-CO
i
*4 M CO
44
Xrvov
ro vO
O-CM CJv
ro
• • •
ro vo XtVsO
fn •• •• ••
H
O XrvvO
ri
• CM
• H•
S3 CM
P
r
JCM
•H •• ••
••
H
O XrvrH
T3 xr4vri
0
*-4
ro
ro O O O
44 (4 44
JO
MD UNCO
t
CO lT\CM
• 4 •
• nrOH
o
44 44 44
o
4 4 4
ro
a f•H4 •• r4H
4
ri
rH ^ on
444
i rnrOH P
•• •• •«
•JO CM CJv
!
f>
n> • • •
ro CM O- H
ra CO CO CO
tH •• •• ••
P CO o-xrs
H•H• Cv
H
•
t
>
j
O-ri
■£>
ro •• ftft -a
r-l mxrv CJV
ti
4 4 CM
4
o xrvo
r5 C4M4r«H«O4J4
1 CO a rr
OJ CM ri­
ft • •
CO
CM 0 0 0
•a •• ••
to-cm m
ro mcv cm
4 4 4
p
•rH r4i4oj
i«
M r|
■JO
H oj m
0.
!OJ CJ
H (—1r—{
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
c
o
,ta
m
ctf
o
•ft
u \ c o
rH
•
[ A
rH
M
«•
MO
*4
ftft
d
« •
M
3
CO
M
Ft
o
O
CO
•< !
bO
•H
!
O
t>
Ft
O
0
P
ctf
Ft
E A
Cl)
cm
M
44 M
A
44
Q
••
4
44
44
H
44
O
t o
rH
4
O n H "
4
4
0
O -s O
0 - 0 44 44 44
44
- 0
44
4
tH
44
r - l OO
•
•
*«
M
•*
u >
o
••
CM
f t
*«
ro
o
0
+3
CD
x l
vo
«•
Ft
CD
CM
W
V o
44
44
CM
rH
h
4
44
4
r n c \)
CM
-p
4
CM
44
44
C
H
ft
m c v
••
•*
ft
rH
[> -
4
4
S
Ft
O
rH
m
o
CM
CM
CM CM
44
44
>H
M3
1
ftft
f t
ft*
Q
3
ctf
CO
••
c>
' A
•ft
Pt
ft
‘A
•ft
CMi
f
US
tH
IrM
rH
44
u
44
4
4
S s O M
)
c \r
FM
03
Ft
CM
0
P -M 3
rr)
•of'
"H
•• ««
•
o
-—
t
4
•rH
_c
CO
44
-
p
3
o
o
o
1
vO
4
44
44
m
n
4
4
44
m
m
44
•
o n
CM
0
m
44
4
4
4
0
44
44
O O P-H"
CM O'' tH rH
• ft ft ft
moj m m
44
44
H-
U N
44
44
MO PCM CM CM CM
rH tH rH rH
ra
0
X l
o
0
-P
•H
'/I
44
44
MO
4
CM
4
Ph
44
O
O
O
a
rH
4
44
C'O
c j
m
tH rH
Ft
0
44
44
CM O
4
4
44
CM
4
r H CM O '
C O C O CN44 44 44
t
44
i—i
H -
4
4
o
44
O
4
4
CM
••
MO
CO
o 44
4
o
O
N
4
O
44
44
H
O
4
4
m
44
4
m
44
44
CO
V O O N H ft
ft
•
M
H
m c M
Ft
o
O
t> -V O
44
1
44
- 0
CJn H -
CM H
ftft ««
m
4
44
O -C J N C O
4
4
44
H -M D
O
m
O N O -
0
44
31
tx>
m
MO
H " H - H ft
•
•
C O CM
m v o
44
l
ctf
4
4
CO
4
M3 M3
P I
ft
44
&
o
4
0
H -
rH
m
4
a
Ft
o
m c M
O
ra
P t
P
l— 1
44
tH
X
-
m
H
44
H
44
CJn O
4
MO
44
O
4
4
O M 3
i
44
44
4
4
com
t
&
oj
m
v o
coco
44
M3
O)
44
H*
O- H ft
iH
Q>
tn
tn
ft
Vo Vo
ftft
ftft
o
m
0
P
•r-t
73
o
—A
•ft ftft
CO o
H- CO
4
4
m m
44
Ctf
sn
44
•
tH
m
44
0
+j
C/3
44
C JN C M
4
O '
IN 44
cm
MO C T ' O
4
4
4
M 3 MO P • ft • •
f t*
CM CM CM
CM CM r r
•
•
•
CM
CM CM
•• *a ••
0-000
Vr\MO Vo
4
4
4
O O O
44
H t
44
O '
4
0 - 0 0
0
X )
t-*
■
—)
44
'0 CVJ
Vo, VO.
ft f
t
o o
*4
tH
Ft
P
4
4
C JN O
m
n
MO
ra
■ 'j
P
44
m
44
!3
MO H 4
44
4
44
44
CM
rH rH
mm
tH
V o MO
C O CO
4 4 44
P
44
•O Vo
ctf
o
x l
o
H
44
••
C JN C O V O
4
4
4
H -
4
o-oo
rH
• •
V O V O VO
M O MO
•
o
rH
••
H -
rr
O
rH
0
'O
4
C M CM X T '
4
O '
4
•«
cm
■ 't
ft
O n H
rH
r r
•
0
X
••
• •
ra
44
O CO
sC Vo
•«
CN
a
44
• •
O -C V
ft
ft
CT n CM
•
•
O -
^
o
O
CO
MO
• [
CO
44
s>>
Ft
1
O
Vo
O - rH
X l
O -V O
4
4
4
sh
bO
•H
CO
a
ft
C O CO
•*
**
O
1
o
ft
•«
>
.
CM
CO
•«
bO
•H
44
44
* •
•
0
H * V o
44
Hfc
0 - 0 -
44
3
o
m
44
- m
4
4
44
4
•
o
4
lr \ c o
••
O
XS
44
rH
4
44
f t
O O O O
44
CM
rr
44
4
4
r r
•
CM O P-M3
H* VrsH* H 44
-P
•H
73
c M
44
4
O
ro
4
P
P t
■H
IC N tT N
CM
4
O
rH
£
4
CO
O
g
0
44
CO
ro
CM O M H
4
rH
C M 1 N H I N
4
t r
O
ft
V O V O
rH
ctf
o
CM
4
44
44
o
44
•
Ft
x l
V r\C —
o
M
P - v r \ p -
M3 M3 M3 M3
Ft
ctf
4
44
ro
4
H -
44
p
f t
-
p
44
44
m
44
4
Ft
4
4
m c M
o
4
tH
0
o
1
O N m C M
44
H -
41
■Aft
M3 ir s H -
o
ft
?
o
l r \ 0
x m
4
4
ftft
o
0
£
x l
•ft
Ft
o n cm
•*
••
4
44
44
ra
cm
44
O
4
•0
ON
ft
A
H -
U 't c O
01
f t
O
c o o o
ftft ftft
44
f t
•
O V L O rH
40
CM
ft
H -
ctf
^
CM
44
vO
ft
r O s j*
*
*
44
4
H
•H
ftft Q
ftft
vO
1
i— i O
f t
O
O
0
OO o
0
CM
44
^
0 -
xJ
0
U n U n Vi n u n
CO
4
0 -
)
O
O
O
O
••
••
• •
•*
•
O
0
1
r H C M r-i
On U n P -
44
H a
4
44
44
rH
•
O
M
0
a
ro
01
x l
o
p -
4
\ O v O 'O
44
44
0
-P
*4
H
4
4
.o
EH
4
V o
U M T N O
r r
X l
44
H - vO
r-i
'*)
O
] ••
H
MO MO MO
•ft * •
ftft
Ft
c o
ctf
Ft
n 4
•
U N C O
H
m
ft*
O
o
Ft
O
*
- u n c m
p
44
44
f t
o - p - p - p - .
4 4 4 4 4 4 44
M "
4
44
t o o
■
•
ftft
Jsl
Ctf
o
CM
••
f t
' A
H
44
m
O
O
O
O
v o v r \v o v r \
• ft
P
ir w
4
•«
rH M 3
4
4
o
••
CM M O
m
n 4
4
t> -
CM O
CO
ft
0
g
M - 'O
•
•
CM
•
.
1
n
a
CM r H
••
«•
ft
f t
35.
o
4
H - H - H •
ft
ft
o
35.
f t
rQ
Ft
o
44
m
ro
•
X I
S
««
O
44
o
•
n
4
ctf
+3
O
X}
■ f
*
o
O
1
A
44
r \ m
•
£
O
U n u n c o H r tf
[> - P CM CO
« •
f t * * f t ftft
CM
A
44
r \ V
44
vO
4
r-i
-H
M3 M3 M 3 M3
i
o
A
•X
H
O
m
m
4
4
bO
•H
bO
•H
a
ro
03
1• •
44
V
n
M
• rO
•
CM 2
V T\
CO
M -C O
•
•
S
3
0
s f -
m
CM V r \
o
o
lr \V r >
Ft
O
>
a
Ft
1
1
M
P -
CM
u
CM
f t
M
••
«
•
H C M C O O
o
t
o
••
M
x l
V cn
fc A
r n
•
o
xi
a
t t
•
rH
44
44
o
o
U n o
r n
o
P
ctf
CO Cm
M
M
K
•H
P --M D M 3 M 3
M
» * 44 M
r n
M
tH
43 - H
rH
H *
•
•
m
•ft
1
0
m
o
o
o
U n U N O
M
S
•H
+5
C
O
o
rH
44
p -
o - ir s m
t> « t
•
4
5
t
*H
0
o
m
M
v r\
C S lP v O
•
•
•
f t
•*
H
H
W
M
M
o
W
- v o
p
CM V r \ V O . V r N
*
•
•
•
44
44
O O CM
ONrH rH
4
4
4
m H -H••
••
rH OJ
V iN C -
O '
rH rH
rH rH rH
m m
• •
mmm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
£
o
£
aS
o
•• i*4
W
ft
•• M
t5
•H
ft. .
m
M M
« H
,a <h
£ o
CO ra
« »•
i 0
Ft O
£ of
CO
M M
O
W
U M
Ip
„ o
§3. oj
ft
•• H
^..’25
•• M
CO
•• M
a
g
o
o
0
,Q
a3
M
H
Ti
£
0)
ft
ft
•H
iCj
Ft
0
>
I
S
0
o
h
Ft
0
-P
02
a>
.£
o
oj
+9
Ft
•• H
„ o
^ CM
W
•• M
lo
i.- °
Mt. CM
ft
•• «•
H
rH
si
b0
*e(
•• M
3*5.Jz?
•H
-P
o
fctO
•H
>
i
Ci
3^
. 9.
OJ
ft
•• M
0
u
o
ip
Ti
OO10^f
cOrOvj- nt
• • « •
H H H
M M W M
ts- i p
sj- c O H O
• • • •
xO xO xO xQ
M W W M
•• H
jjjj
0
,0
rH
1
•
O
O
M
Ft
o
>t
1
£
o
03
Ft
0
Ti
G
CO
•• II
q
^ cm
W
•• ••
ip
^
OJ
ft
•• H
^ t£
•• *•
•
O
25
!>>
Ft
Ft
aS
W
«
iH
ro
=tt=
0)
+9
•H
CO
O O O O
I P l P O IPs
rn
M M M 4«
o
•
HrH
•H
M *• *« O
ONINOJ
• • .a
CO C F H pi
rH CO
•• M t*
CO IP rH
• • •
inlota
rH rH rH
M M »
coots
• • •
IPxO Ip
M «• <t
H-Uooj
• • •
COCO ON
IS-lS-tSII M M
-O H- O
xO H* CS• • a
nO xO -O
m m i i
o co rn
ipmn• • •
OJ CM OJ
m m ••
xO xO xp
^
• • •
o o o
M .« ..
O O rH
O-xO OO
• • •
m m m
•• M »•
CJNrH CM
• • •
H- *}• ■Hririrl
M M •»
H'ftt
• • «
xO xO xO
*1 M II
O IPxJ• ♦ «
O n ON0K
ts-cs-c-^
*• .• ••
ONHCO
O ONCO
• • I
O-xO xO
II II II
H- coco
ip m m
• • •
OJ CM CM
•» •• ii
m^t h to,UN IP .
I l l
o o o
II II II
CM O N O
O ON ON
• • •
H- m m
*• •• ••
xOOO o
mm n rH rH rH
CM
•
H
m
Ft
o
fctO
•H
>
0
+9
aS
Ft
0
Tt
o
PH
1
CO
o
(—t
>»
1
—t
rH
0
Ctf
Ft
bD
£
o
Ti
£
0
Ft
0
It
1
a
+9
Ft
0
,0
rH
5=1
1
•
O
o
M
Ft
o
>-1
1
£
H
M
<H
£
aS
W
0
o
£
0
m
•
CVJ
m
:ft5
0
-P
•H
CO
ON
NO
xjITN
•
I
H
M —. II II
U>
•
m
m
m
00
xO
•
•
NO
xO
M W •• W
o
lr\
CM
o
Its
M M M
CM
•
xO
M
Ft
O
hO
•H
>
rH
M •• •« O
rH
0
•
0
m
pi
rH
CO
m i * m
ts -a sm
• • •
IplPHH H H
H M «»
CM ONrH
• • •
ts-H* lr\
M M H
H CMxO
• • •
SONO
tS'is-co
.« W« M
d o co in
CM O IS* * *
mifOH«• •« ••
xO CM O
ON ONxO
• • •
H H H
•• •• H
IP O O
H- m m
• • •
O O O
•• •• ••
ES-xO ON
ooco ts» • »
CM CM CM
II M ••
nJ- CS-O
• • •
CO ts-co
H H H
•• •• ii
CO O CM
• • •
IPxO xO
*• i« «•
co m c o
» • •
Ir\xO JP\
ts-ts-s•• •• «•
m o co
00 O H• • •
IPlPlTN
•1 •• •«
H* H xO
H- m c M
• • •
CM CM CM
II II *«
O n O n O'
m m m
• • •
o o o
09 •« <•
O CNCO
• • •
rOOJ CM
•« M «•
SJ mHH - HrH H H
OC
xO
«
•
ITN
IP
M •• M H
,£
hD
•H
<
u
aJ
o
H
>»
H
iH
0
>
aS
Ft
hO
£
o
Ti
£
0
Ft
0
w
1
cS
-p
Ft
0
O
H
t
tt
o
o
A4
Ft
O
>t
1
£
ft
ps
w
0
o
£
0
ft
•
m
m
0
•p
•H
CO
O
IP
m
O
o
h
— ii
ip
•
H*
tH
•H
•* M •• O
ra
•
P
Ip
£
H
CO
M M M
00 x0 o
• • ■
H- IP CM
H H H
M M M
mmxo
• • s
M ’x O M ’
M «« M
C N H H• « •
ooo m
co t>-co
•1 M M
xO ON CM
O O n CM
• • •
xO IP IP
M M ««
co o' o
H CM xO
0 0 0
CM CM H
M M *1
CMIPH
mn- m
• • •
o o o
M M •«
xO CM H
i p .m m
• • •
m m m
M M •«
O D-IP
♦ i •
co xO m
H H H
M «« II
m\p,.o
• • •
ip ip ip
M M M
IS-OO ON
• • •
xO S O
cs-ts-co
•• II M
(S-CO -o
H- H- S• • •
O xO Ip
II II II
CS-H- CM
xO IP O n
• ••
CM CM H
ii ii ••
O CM O
H- -Nt- Hi i i
O O O
II II II
O CM H
H- IPH• • •
m m m
•i ii ii
-0 ts-co
•M" H- H 1
H H H
Ft
O
bO
•rl
>
si
bo
•r|
w
1
ra
O
H
■—1
H
0
t>
aJ
Ft
bO
£
o
Ti
£
0
Ft
0
W
t
aS
-P
Ft
0
H
iq
i
•
o
o
Ft
0
+9
ra
a5
o
£
0
t—l
I
a5
si
CO
i
H
•
•
rn
0
-p
•Hi
CO
rH m t P c O
H O H CM
• • • •
H i—1 H
M a* M M
ts-lp
xO I p ON DO
• • • •
IP I P Ip IP
M M M M
O O O O
O O O O
m m m n
II •• M M
CM
•
CM
H
•H
M M •• O
ON CM CM ra
• • • s>
ts-lp xO £
CO
IS M •»
xQ ON Ip
• • •
h m hH H H
00 90 90
C\J f-i U n
• • ♦
O n-O' xO
0« 09 90
OJ O O
I • •
r i ON O n
CO ts- cs
1* M II
xO o CM
IPxO IP
• • •
IPlPxO
M M M
H- CM CO
xO CJN CM
• • •
H H CM
•1 II M
H ON CM
IPxJ IP
• • i
O O O
M II •«
H IP CM
H- CM ISi i i
m m mi
II M M
xO xO IP
I I I
OJ IP CM
H H H
M II M
o ip m
• • •
t>-xO tsM II M
xf ON CM
i i *
o s o
CO IS-CO
II M II
xO S H
CNxO xO
0 • •
U\sO 'O
II II II
c o ts-ip
CO Nh O
I I I
H CM CM
•I II M
CM CM H
IPlPxO
• i •
o o o
•1 II II
vO CO i p
IPxO ON
• • •
m m m
•I •• ••
O H CM
F PlPlP
H H H
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
!
a
o
,i3
t s . Fj
Qj
O
•ft f f
U
o
hO
■H
»>
OO
+•
•
rH
tt
W
Pt
6
r—1
tt tt
TJ
•rH
Pt
COM
PS
tt tt
I rH
& -H
2 o
co ro
tt M
1 <D
Ft O
$ (0
CO V i
•• M
O
■P
CM O
•
•
lO lO
M tt
O
^
OJ
M
•• ••
ITS
O
&S. CM
Pt
tt
<U
•P
aS
Ft
0)
Ti
1
o
rH
rH
(—1
a>
>
a
Ft
hO
tt
tt
rt
3
CO
Stf
ro
Fi
ro
w
u
I
o
CM
M
M M
lo
o
•SS. CM
^
••
Pt
ro
rH
eg
W
•
w
•
h.
tt
i
Table
1 (Continued
••
o
rsVCM
M
•• ••
lo
o
^
CM
••
Pt
*•
•
o
o
Ft
ro
-p
ra
ctf
a
§
t-3
t
••
••
Appendix
••
••
p
3
CO
••
o
CM
M
• • ••
lo
O
IS-? CM
Pt
tt
M
i—I
ro
hO
o
!=»
••
••
•
o
o
o
M M
C\j
•
ro
-p
ctf
Fi
ro
tJ
o
M
c\j
•
•
ONOJ
H
i
M M
1
o
rH
0
lo
rH
••
rH
•
M3
•
CM
rH
M
O
•
M3
tt M
O vO
•
•
CO rH
O-CO
•• M
rH r r
CO H •
0
sO ^O
• • 99
SO o
*
9
CM CM
• • 00
•
t
o o
tt M
VO +O -O '
•
*
ro rr
tt —
l o rH
•
t
O +rH rH
• • *«
rOCM
•
t
O M3
t t (•
CM O•
«
O -O '
0 -0 tt
tt
•
si
•
lo
ro
m o
lo io
•
«
o o
•
W
tt
=tt=
-p
■rt
CO
t>>
rH
rH
ro
>
ctf
Ft
hO
C
o
•tJ
S3
ro
Ft
ro
ntf
i
Vr\ o
+- lo
rH lO
•' 0
0 -0
t t ••
M3 l o
O-CM
t
t
CM CM
ro
'SS. =5
£
o
rH
M
X3
••
Ft
O
bO
•H
m3
H«
rH
«•
CO
rH
•
lO
r*t
m en
m -3•
•
rH
M w
orH CO
•
•
lO lO
tt tt
O
-P
O
JN
c
o
•*
rr
to
•
rH
tt
tt
ctf
-p
Fi
ro
,o
rH
1
•
O
o
Fi
ro
-P
ra
ctf
o
stf
iA
i
rH
ro
ho
o
>
•
M
•
tt
tt
lo o
coco
•
•
mm
• • ««
+• l o
lo io
rH i—1
•
lo
m
r:tt=
O O
lo lo
C Q rH
M M
>
ro
p
ctf
u
tt tt
■ + 0
•
•
rH C O
rH
00 90
o o
•
t
o
rH CM
M tt
l O rH
•
•
vO M3
tt tt
l o ON
•
•
c o m
0 -0 tt tt
tH *+•
c o m
« »
lO l H "
CM '-Q
QJ CM
0 •
cm m
M J*
0 -0
«+■ l o
•
m
o o
M H
CM CO
■+■ l o
•
•
m m
M ••
CM l o
•
•
lo - o
rH rH
M ••
CM rH
•
•
ro ro
i t to
vO
•
•
CO o 0 -0 t t -CM ON
m -+ •
•
vo o
•• t t
O rH
m io
•
•
CM CM
#• #•
0 -0 -
rH
-M
0
ra
P
Cl
CO
ro
TJ
O
i
£3
ctf
o
i—!
•P
rH
•H
ra
Ft
ro
•p
ra
ro
o
t
ctf
•p
Ft
ro
ro
rH
SI
1
t
O
o
ro
Fi
ctf
ctf
rH
ro
Q
i
•
t
o
o
tt
sO -O vO
t
p
Ft
clj
+
3
•H
mm
t
#t
t
tt
.£> O lo lo
l—1 rH
tt
t
ro
t—i
ctf
ptf
t
W
t
1
•
o
o
ro
Fi
ctf
pt
ctf
rH
a>
Q
1
ro
i—!
i—!
•r-i
i>
Stf
•r-i
P.
Fi
tt
t
tt
tt
t
t
1
lOM D CO
+■ + • fH
t
tt
t
tt
tt tt
CO rH
t
t
lO s O
0 -0 tt tt
+- o o
l o o
t
t
•O MD
tt tt
o o
o -+ t
t
CM CM
tt tt
•o o + - +■
t
t
o o
tt tt
CO o
m n
t
t
m m
tt
io + t
t
CO o
rH CM
tt tt
CJn O t
t
lo io
tt tt
-O CO
t
t
lo r n
0 -0 tt
tt
CM rH
lo c o
t
t
vO M3
tt
^tf
-P
Ft
+■ O 0 -0
<
cm
t
tt
•
m
o
tt
t
m
tt
+- m
+• +•
tt
t
o
tt
t
O N O rH
l o - o -o
rH i—1 rH
o
tt
+ - rH
mmm
tt
tt
CM
t
o rH
tt
Ot
M3
t
ro
•t
tt
rH
t
CO
(H
tt
rH
t
MD
t
o
o
tt tt
m cc
t
t
m vo
rH rH
tt
t
m
t->
•rH
CO
1
o O CO
+ • +■ m
O
o o
lo io
m m
tt tt
Fr
ro
+o
n
ro
rj
o
CM m c M
tt
ro
■p
ctf
Ft
ro
Ttf
O
a
-p
rH
•H
ra
10+ - o
m o ot
vO O
t
t
lo io
tt tt
t
tt
MD
CM
t
rH
ee
Fl
O
ha
•H
o
I—i
tt tt tt
O 0 -1 0
t t t
O N v O lO
0 -0 -0 tt tt tt
■ + •0 0 O + O D
t t t
■O vO l o
to t t t t
-O + - O
rH l O + t t t
CM CM CM
00 • • • •
lO s Q l O
+■ + r ■+•
t t t
o o o
tt tt tt
m o cm
+■ ■+■ O
t t t
m m m
tt tt tt
O O -rH
t t t
O ONCO
rH rH rH
tt tt tt
+ H +
t t t
lo lo lo
Ft
P
On
C\J
t
rH
tt
1
tt tt tt
CO i—1 CO
t t t
•+• 0 - 0 rH H H
tt tt tt
H C M -O
t t t
MD vO \ 0
tt tt tt
O CM l o
t t t
co l o i o
0 -0 -0 •0 •« If
0 0 -0
CM c o CM
tt
l O rH
lo io
O O O O
lo io lo o
m m m rH
t t t« t t t«
o
•
lo
rH
00 00 00 *H
o
O
O
* •
• ra
H- O - O - r O
rH rH H g
ro
rH
rH
•H
>
Ctf
•H
•
ro
ro
O
o
H
M
Ft
O
hO
•H
rH O-CO CO
m n o +•
•
•
t
rH rH i—1
tt tt tt tt
O O 0 - 0
O v O lO O •
•
•
•
lo io io lo
tt M tt tt
'
I
ro
-p
m m
•ri
m m
co
t
tt
t
tt
c o +O M3
rH rH
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
c
o
,□
35. Fl
d
o
44 44
w
ft
4* 44
•H
ft
«
M M
» ft
f t -H
2 O
CO m
•• •«
i a>
Vi o
3 aj
CO f t
M M
O
b5
cn
w
• • ••
Irs
o
35. CM
ft
•• M
35.125
• • «•
Q
CO
rS
o
3
C
•H
P
c
o
o
. .
ft
ft
P
Rj
ft
3
Pt
bO
•H
xi
o
-p
<u
ft
d
Vi
a)
ft
o
i
p
TO
o
ft
ft
ft
•H
03
u
(0
ft
ro
a>
xX
o
•• 44
i
o
35. CM
ctf
ft
Vi
0)
ft
ft
44 44
\fS
o
35. CM
ft
• • 44
35.125
••
1
•
o
o
M
o
35. CM
M
•• •«
XT'
O
35. cm
ft
44 44
V(
a>
ft
ra
a>
.d
O
1
ft
o
o
M
•H
C
<u
ft
U
O
ta
•H
t>
• • 44
Ft
3
CO
44 M
o
CM
W
•• M
\r
O
35 CM1
35
••
ft
—
3 5 125
•» •»
•
o
125
o
CO
&
o
ft
03
CD
25
•
Oro
=te
a?
*5
•f—
1
CO
f t CM f t Os
s f CM Q s ^
•
t» • •
rH rH
oO f t cO CO
ftO Q O O
•
• • •
CM CM f t
CO
VO
O- O
• • • •
lr \ i j r \ l r \ v o
W M W M
O O O O
lr\'lT \'U S o
c o m m ri
M
o
e
f t
M
o
^
ci
Li
a>
i
ft
o
ft
•H
44 44 44 O
rO O - O m
• • • ft
O O- 3
CM <~0 f t CO
44 44 44
VrsoO O • a «
lTN'3- 'f r
ft ft ft
O f t H
■ • *
O - ft
**«•««
US f t CM
•
• •
to -o o c o
o - c— c—
«« «• 44
CM O s O t> O 0 f t
• • •
U sU s Us
M •« 44
o o o
ft H O
■ • •
CM CM CM
M 44 44
on o - as
^
• • •
o o o
M *» 44
CMCO
f t r O ft
•
• •
ro c o c o
44 44 44
O t> • • »
CO f t CO
ft ft ft
44 44 44
US CM
•
4 •
ft f t ft
*4 • • ••
t r \ f t CM
• • •
USC--US
D -tS -C s4* 44 44
^•^■ ro
O ft ^
• • •
vOvO'O
•4 44 44
CO ON ON
■tt r o f t
• 4 4
CM CM CM
44 44 44
U sU so.
4
f-t
o
bO
•H
o t>
ft
4
4
o o o
44 44 44
ftO N
f t CO CM
4 4 4
ro c o c o
44 44 44
f t t'-C O
ft ft ft
ft ft ft
% S
o
ft
>>
»
—i
i—i
ID
>
ctj
Vi
bO
Vi
a)
ft
to
0)
Xi
o
1
cJ
ft
Vi
<u
p
ft
*5
1
•
o
o
Vi
d)
ft
CO
<n
xi
o>
1
c
o
p
bO
Ci
•H
r~*
t
p
Vi
9
(—i
ft
03
03
03
2
4
CO
ro
•1t=
C3
P
•rH
to
O O ONQ>
•
o • «
C '^O -sO 'sO
• • • • M M
o o o o
in o U M r v
o n m ro
M •• M M
rH
•
'M'
ft
•H
44 44 44 O
OO o s f t 03
4 4 4 r£2
CO U M N g
ft ft
CO
44 44 44
c O ft CO
4 4 4
i—JsO CM
CM f t f t
44 44 44
CM O CM
4 4 4
CO C—0O
•• «« H
\A fO O
• • •
O O ON
M •« M
v£> ON c\i
H O
• • •
f t XTNNf
44 44 44
CM O O
CO CM s}4 4 4
CM CM f t
44 44 44
ir \ o - lr \
4 4 4
o o o
44 44 44
OS CM l> c s - o xrs
4 4 4
CM CO CM
44 44 44
ITS CM
4 4 4
CM f t CO
CM f t f t
44 44 44
O - O s ft
4 4 4
X r s u s ft
44 44 44
O s ft C-4 4 4
ft 0 -0
O -C ftO
44 44 44
IfS-vJ- f t
C O ft [>4 4 4
f t x rs rt
44 44 44
-M- f t f t
o CMUN
4 4 4
rOcM ft
•« ••
O s ft f t
f O ^ t CO
4 4 4
o o o
44 44 44
CM
O S ftC O
4 4 4
CM rOCM
44 44 44
O f t CM
O -O -O i—1 f t ft
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
0
Размер файла
5 561 Кб
Теги
sdewsdweddes
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа