Tliere is, however, an exteii.sive literature on calcipliilous and 

 calcifxigoiis plants, whicli for the most part consists of observations 

 on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of plants on calcareous soils.' 

 Tliesc studies, wliich have afforded rather conflicting results, seem to 

 show that there are a very few plants which never occur naturally 

 on calcareous soils, but the observations do not show with certainty 

 whether this is due to the physical or chemical character of the soils. 

 There are also some cidtin-e experiments which show that some plants, 

 as certain varieties of lupmes,- sphagnum moss,^ serradella,* pine- 

 apples,^ etc., are intolerant of calcareous soils. 



Tlie many studies on the chlorosis of fruit trees and graj^evines 

 show that many calcareous soils are not adapted for certaiii trees 

 and vines. A partial review of the literature on lime-induced chlorosis 

 is given in the bulletin of this station referred to above. 



On the whole the literature shows that some j>lants are extremely 

 intolerant of much carbonate of lime in the soil, some are indifferent, 

 antl others recjuire considerable carbonate of lime to make their 

 maximum growth. 



ON THE INFLUENCE OF CARBONATE OF LIME ON THE ASH COMPOSITION 

 OF PLANTS. 



No comprehensive studies have been made to determine whether 

 the mineral composition of different plants is affected m any con- 

 stant mamier by large amounts of cai'bonate of lime in the soil, but 

 some work has been done along tliis line. 



Fliche and Grandeau analyzed the ash of the maritime ]>ine {Pinus 

 pinaster), tlie chestnut (Casfanea vesca), and the bean tree {Cytisus 

 laburnum), from calcareous and noncalcareous soils. The calcareous 

 soil contained 3.25 per cent of lime in the surface soil and 24.05 per 

 cent in the subsoil, while the siliceous or noncalcareous soil contained 

 0.35 per cent of lime in the surface soil and 0.20 per cent in the sub- 

 soil. Tlie bean tree grew equally well on the two classes of soU, 

 while the chestnut and maritime ])ine grew well on the siliceous soil, 

 but developed very poorly, sliowing strong chlorosis, on the calcareous 

 soil. Analyses, by Fliche and Grandeau," of samples from trees of 



> Hilgard, E. W., Soils, New York and Lomlon, 1906; Proc. Soc. Prom. Agr. Sci., 7 (1S86), p. 32. Hoaman, 

 H., Landw. Vers. Stat., 13 (1871), p. 269. Braungart, R ., Jour. Landw., 28 (1880), p. 155. Roirx, J. A. C, 

 Traite dcs Rapports des Plantes avec le sol et de la Chlorose V(%tHale, Paris, 1900. Kraas, G., Boden und 

 KlimaautkleinstemRauin, Jena, 1911. Vogler, P., Ber. Schweiz. Bot. GeseU., 1901, No, 11, p. 63. Engler, 

 A., idem, p. 23. Schimper, A. F. W., Pflanzen-geographie auf Physiologischer Grundlage, Jena, 1898. 



sHeinrich, R., Mergel und Mergeln, Berlin, 1896. Pfeiffer, T., and Blanek, E., Mitt. Landw. Inst. 

 Breslau, 6 (1911), No. 2, p. 273. 



» Paul, H., Ber. Deut. Bot. GeseU.. 21 (1906), p. 148. 



* Meyer, D. Die Kalk und Magnesiadungiing, Berlin, 1910, p. 61. 



sGile, P. L., Porto RicoSta. Bui. 11. 



9 Fliche, P., and Grandeau, L., Ann. Chun, et Phys., 4.ser., 29 (1873). p. 383; 5. ser., 2 (1874), p. 354; 5 

 ser.. 18(1879), p. 268. 



