- 120 



The moisture was eomewhat lower than the checks. 

 The nitrogen on the ends was not materially different 

 except during the drought (Column Aug. 19 & 26) when it 

 materially lov/ered. The nitrogen where the corn grew was 

 much higher than in the checks. Since this can not be 

 accounted for by a sufficiently decreased yield, what is 

 the explanation? It is usually supposed that cultivation 

 favors nitrification. Was nitrification more rapid in 

 this plat than In the checks, or were more nitrates brought 

 up from an accumulated reserve below? The nit»ogen con- 

 tent of the soil, Sept. 16, when considerable rain had 

 fallen gives some indication that this latter view may at 

 least partially accoiont for the phenomenon. 



(See Table A, Appendix) 



In the early part of the season the growth on 

 the scraped plat appeared to be considerably poorer than 

 on the checks, yet the final yield was but 157 pounds , or 

 4.1^ less than the calculated normal yield. It isjprobable 

 that the calculated normal yield is slightly low, but even 

 then there is not the diminuition in final yield that was 

 indicated by the early growth. It would thus seem pospible 

 that on the scraped plat the moisture available was made 

 more efficient by an abundance of available nitrogen in 

 the soil. 



