44 



Journal of Agricultural Research voi. xxii. No. 



On September 21, 19 16, and on November 7, 19 17, these plants were 

 examined, their condition was noted, and the average height growth of 

 stem was recorded, this average being based upon all vigorous living 

 plants. Table IV gives the principal data secured. 



Table IV. — Date of transplanting, average current height growth, and percentage of trees 

 surviving at the end of the igi6 and I gi J field seasons on the Wallace area 



Date of transplanting — 1914. 



Apr. 24. 



May I . 



9- 



20. 



30 

 June 12. 

 19. 



30- 

 July 14. 



Average of all lots. 



Lot 

 No. 



Average current 

 height growth. 



1916 



Inches. 



0-57 

 .91 



•95 

 .82 

 .67 

 .96 

 .82 

 I. 00 

 ■65 



Inches. 

 O. 62 



83 

 96 

 81 



75 

 95 

 84 

 IS 



84 



Percentage of 

 trees surviving. 



Fall 1916. Fall 1917 



95-9 



90.9 



95-7 

 93-6 

 94.6 



92-5 

 92.8 



93-7 

 98.9 

 96. 2 



94-3 



The fact that the unusually dry summer of 191 7 caused almost 

 negligible losses makes improbable any further changes of importance in 

 the survival standing of the nine lots. The percentage of living trees of 

 all lots in the fall of 191 7 was above 90. There is no superiority on the 

 part of the early lots, the April 24 units standing lowest. The later 

 lots have, on the whole, lived best. Both the May 20 and July 14 

 plants, while outclassed in the transplant bed, showed better than an 

 average survival in November, 191 7. In fact, the time of transplanting 

 had no apparent influence in the field. 



Figm-e 7 further illustrates the height growth of these plants. There 

 is a marked similarity between the growth curves for 1916 and 191 7; 

 hence each resembles the total growth curve for the entire two seasons. 

 For instance, in each of the three curves the average point for the June 

 19 lot falls exactly upon the horizontal average line for that curve. To 

 facilitate comparisons, the height growth curve from figure 4 is plotted 

 in figure 7 also. This renders it possible to compare the growiJi made in 

 the plantation the first year after planting (1916) Avith that made the 

 same season prior to July i by individuals left in the transplant beds 

 (curves A and D, respectively). 



There are certain points of resemblance between the curves of growth 

 in transplant bed and in field. The May i and June 19 lots stand upon 

 or very near the horizontal average line in both. The July 14 transplants 

 stand low, and the May 9 and June 12 transplants stand high in both. 

 But, on the other hand, the May 20 lot, which had a low growth rate in the 



