WATEE SOILS. 



641 



Smith and F. Bennett, jr.; Soil Survey of Prince George County, Md., by J. A. Bon- 

 steel et al.; Soil Survey of Harford County, Md., by W. G. Smith and J. O. Martin; 

 Soil Survey of the Bedford Area, Virginia, by C. N. Mooney, F. O. Martin, and T. A. 

 Caine; Soil Survey of the Prince Edward Area, Virginia, by C. N. Mooney and T. A. 

 Caine; Soil Survey of the Statesville Area, North Carolina, by C. W. Dorsey et al.; 

 Soil Survey of Alamance County, N. C, by G. N. Coffey and W. E. Hearn; Soil Sur- 

 vey of the Cary Area, North Carolina, by G. N. Coffey and W. E. Hearn; Soil Sur- 

 vey of Cobb County, Ga., by E. T. A. Burke and H. W. Marean; Soil Survey of 

 the Covington Area, Georgia, by H. W. Marean; Soil Survey of Montgomery County, 

 Tenn., by J. E. Lapham and M. F. IVIiller; Soil Survey of the Yazoo Area, Missis- 

 sippi, by J. A. Bonsteel et al. ; Soil Survey of the Yakima Area, Washington, by C. A. 

 Jensen and B. A. Olhausen; Soil Survey of the Boise Area, Idaho, by C. A. Jensen 

 and B. A.' Olhausen; Soil Survey of the Hanford Area, California, by M. H. Lapham 

 and W. H. Heileman; Soil Survey of the Lower Salinas Valley, California, l)y M. H. 

 Lapham and W. H. Heileman; Soil Survey of the Ventura Area, California, by J. G. 

 Holmes and L. Mesmer; Soil Survey of the San Gabriel Area, California, by J. G. 

 Holmes and L. IMesmer; Soil Survey Around Imjjerial, Cal., by T. H. Means and 

 J. G. Holmes; Soil Survey of the Willis Area, Texas, by J. O. Martin; and Soil Sur- 

 vey of the Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, by W. H. Heileman and L. Mesmer. 



The report of the chief of the Bureau deals with the organization of the Division 

 of Soils as a Bureau with largely increased appropriations and facilities for work; the 

 progress, cost, and purpose of the soil survey; and results of the survey, including a 

 discussion of the relation of crops to the type soils examined. During the field season 

 of 1901, 6,557,320 acres, or 10,246 square miles in 15 States, were surveyed and mapped 

 on a scale of 1 in. to the mile as against 3,600,314 acres, or about 5,626 square miles, 

 during the seasons of 1899 and 1900 (E. S. R., 13, p. 924). The average cost of the 

 survey in 1901 was $2.04 per square mile. The purpose of the soil survey is stated 

 to be "to provide an accurate basis for the adaptation of soils to croi)s," and the 

 attempt is made in this report, on the basis of the results of the survey of the 10, 157,634 

 acres examined to date, to trace the relation between the different types of soil to 

 various crops. The following table gives the different classes and types of soils 

 which have been surveyed and a partial statement of their crop adaptations: 



The classes and types of soils surveyed and their crop adaptations. 



Kind of soil 



Num- 

 ber of 

 types. 



Total area. 



Propor- 

 tion of 

 total 

 area. 



Produc- 

 tive 

 area. 



Crops and systems of farming adapted 

 to the soils. 



Stony loum 



Gravel 



Gravelly loam 



Dune .sand and sand 



hill. 

 Sand 



Fine sand 



Sandy loam 



Acres. 

 385, 660 



209,000 

 285, 476 



40,450 

 1,454,846 



93,500 

 2, 118, 593 



Per cent. 

 3.80 



2.10 

 2.80 



.90 

 20. 90 



Per cent. 

 43 



100 

 93 



Wheat (30 per cent), dairying (20 per 

 cen t ), tobacco ( 14 percent ), peaches 

 (9 per cent). 



Grapes and probably other fruits. 



Wheat (47 per cent), corn (39 per 

 cent), tobacco (14 per cent), citrus 

 fruits (7 percent), grapes (3 per 

 cent). 



Early truck crops (42 per cent), 

 peaches (24 per cent) tobacco (16 

 percent), cotton (7 percent) , sugar- 

 beets (5 per cent), grapes (3 per 

 cent), citrus fruits (2 per cent), 

 alfalfa (1 per cent) 



Peaches (55 per cent), truck crops 

 (27 per cent) sugar beets (18 per 

 cent), alialfa (18 per cent). 



Alfalfa (23 per cent), wheat (20 per 

 cent), tobacco (is |nr cent), corn 

 (16 per cent) . cdttnii (16 i)er cent), 

 peaches (I-' per cent), t,'rapes (9 per 

 cent), citrus Iruits (8 per cent), 

 dairying (8 per cent), Lima beans 

 (2 per cent), sugar beets (2 per 

 cent), truck crops (1 per cent). 



