72 T. LyTrueton Lyon AND JAMES A. BizzELL 
TABLE 26. Porasstum ConTENT OF DRAINAGE WATER FROM LIMED AND FROM UNLIMED 
TANKS 
Soil treatment h 
: Potassium 
Tank mn mam oT | (SENS) joere 
Crop Lime million) 
PST A Ss cheno tain 5 orn Rave nih frereme tenant Planted eo Not limed...... 18.3 
i Uae Ree Meter Ream ape ama E sera te et, Planted) on: Limed!: =. / 23 ere 13.6 
1 2 Uinta here rae eae ae ALPEN SL Reet tid 3 Bare. sos )405 Not limed...... 15.5 
1 UG Soe sea ara mR EES. Fp Pere Ria EATON Barey sexy e imedie ae 12.5 
REMOVAL OF SULFUR 
Sulfur was recovered in the drainage water as sulfate, and it is 
significant that the years in which the content of sulfur in the drainage 
water was large were the years in which the removal of nitrogen by leach- 
ing was large. Drainage water from the Volusia soil contained somewhat 
less sulfur than did that from the Dunkirk, but the crops on the former 
soil contained as much sulfur as did those on the latter altho the yields 
were much smaller. 
Effect of plant growth on removal of sulfur 
There is one respect in which nitrogen and sulfur differ radically in 
this experiment, and that isin the proportion removed by crops and by 
drainage water, respectively. Nitrogen is removed most largely by the 
crops on planted soil, while sulfur is carried off mainly by the drainage 
water. The figures for sulfur in crops and in drainage water during the 
period of the experiment are given in table 27. The total quantity of 
TABLE 27. Suntrur IN DRAINAGE WATER AND IN CROPS 
(In pounds per acre, annual average) 
Sulfur in 
Tank Lime treatment oes note 
UL Sia pica care een iren AME tephra tg Not limed...... OMe 44.8 
(el eens Ree Reet IS: Pane ten Ae at Not limed...... 43.3 43.3 
FT ees Neh at tL pasLyy eae AMIN RN aie ey retina imed) 4 fost BB 5 44.4 
NG eit ee epe cence OEE aac tne himedines ss eae 39.0 39.0 
