Aug. 28, 1916 Indirect Determination of Hygroscopic Coefficient 



841 



Table V. — Moisture equivalent, hygroscopic coefficient, ratio of these two values, and the 

 organic content of the inch sections of the surface foot — Continued. 



(d) percentage of organic matter 



The samples reported in Table VI are partly from the loess of Nebraska 

 and partly from the residual soils of that State. A few are from New 

 Mexico, Arizona, and California. The data upon both the hygroscopic 

 coefficient and the moisture equivalent are the means of 5 to 10 con- 

 cordant determinations. Nine of the samples are from the surface 6 to 

 12 inches, and the seven others from the subsoil. The range in texture 

 represented by them is much the same as that of the soils reported by 

 Briggs and Shantz (Table I). 



Table VI. — Relation of the moisture equivalent to the hygroscopic coefficient in a series of 

 soils showing a wide range in texture 



Soil 

 No. 



Description of soil. 



Desert sand, Palm Springs, Cal. . 

 Sandy subsoil, Palm Springs, Cal 

 Desert sand, Orogrande, N. Mex. 



Sandy surface, W. Nebraska 



Sandy subsoil (A), W. Nebraska. 

 Sandy subsoil (B), W. Nebraska . 

 Sandy loam subsoil, W. Nebraska 

 Sandy loam surface, W. Nebraska 

 Silt loam subsoil (A),W. Nebraska 

 Silt loam subsoil (B),W. Nebraska 

 Red loam surface, Cuervo, N. Mex 

 Silt loam surface (A),W. Nebraska 

 Silt loam surface, E. Nebraska. .. 

 Silt loam surface (B),W. Nebraska 



Adobe surface, McNeal, Ariz 



Silt loam subsoil, E. Nebraska. . . 



Departure 



of calcu- 

 lated from 

 found 

 hygro- 

 scopic 

 coefficient. 



-3 



1 Using Briggs and Shantz formula M. E. = hyg. coeff.X2.71. 



