EFFECT OF AVINTKIJ IJAIWAI.I 



CI 



development of roots which thus results, the plant scciii> 

 never able to recover, so that a wet winter is almost invaiiai)lv 

 followed by a poor wheat cro}) at harvest. This fact is illu> 

 trated by Table XXIIL, in which a comparison is made 

 l)etween the average wheat crop on three of the i)lots ((J, 7. 

 and 8) following the ten wettest and the ten driest winters 

 respectively during the period ls.")2-HH)*2, as measured by the 

 rainfall in the four months November to February inclusive. 



Table XXIll.—BroadbalJc Wheat. Comimrison nf 10 Wet test and 

 10 Driest Winters (1852-1902). 



The ten dry winters with an average rainfall of ")"70 incho 

 were follow^ed by an average wheat crop of 3-l"9 bushels per 

 acre on the plots selected for comparison. The ten wet winters 

 with a corresponding rainfall of 13 inches were followed by an 

 average wheat crop on the same plots of only !20-'2 bushels. 



Making the comparison in another way and dividing the 

 thirty-four seasons 1870-1004 into two groups according to 

 whether the percolation during the winter months, November 

 to February, was above or ])elow the average, we obtain a 

 similar result. In fifteen seasons with a low winter pei-colation 

 averaging 5*02 inches, there was an average crop on tlie 

 selected plots of 31 5 Inishels per acre; in the other nineteen 

 seasons of high percolation, 043 inches, the avei-agf emp on 



