70 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



The following fertilizers and combinations of fertilizers were 

 tested : — 



Plots A, J, C 1 , F l : Controls. 



B and J 1 : Sulphate of Potash at the rate of \ cwt. to the acre, 

 , C and E 1 : Sulphate of Potash ,, i „ 



„ D and D l : Sulphate of Potash „ „ 3 



,, E and B l : Sulphate of Potash ,, „ 12 ,, 



(Sulphate of Potash 3 parts ,, 

 F and II 1 : j Sulphate of Ammonia 3 i„ 4 



(Superphosphate 4 ,, ) 



,, [Bone Meal 1 part 1 



G and G 1 : \ Sulphate of Potash 1 „ „ 3 



(Sulphate of Ammonia 1 I 

 *y , T1 1 Sulphate of Potash 3 parts ^ 

 „ ti ana 1 • , l Sulphate of Ammonia 1 part f" 4 

 „ I and A 1 : Sulphate of Iron at the rate of 4 „ 



The manures were applied to the plots previous to the planting 

 of the bulbs in September. 



The bulbs were obtained from a nursery which, in my opinion, 

 was free from the eelworm disease, and these bulbs only were employed 

 throughout the experiments, the variety being ' Emperor.' 



A hundred bulbs were planted in the centre of each bed in ten rows 

 and ten bulbs in each row, at a distance of six inches apart from bulb 

 to bulb, and one foot apart between the rows. 



The plots were examined at frequent intervals during the Spring, 

 and the growth came away free and clear, and the foliage showed no 

 external signs of the disease. When examined at the time of the 

 flowering it was quite impossible to distinguish any difference in the 

 growth of the bulbs on the treated plots from that of the bulbs growing 

 on the control plot. It was decided at this stage of the experiment 

 that it would be necessary to leave the bulbs down another year, and 

 the plots were examined once only after flowering. Unfortunately, 

 at a later date, the experimental ground was urgently required for 

 another purpose, and consequently the bulbs were lifted in August 

 1918. In view of the behaviour of the growth in the Spring it was 

 somewhat surprising to find on cutting open the lifted bulbs that 

 between 70 and 80 per cent, of the bulbs on each plot were diseased, 

 and that bulbs on the plots which had received the dressings of 

 fertilizers were diseased to the same extent as those bulbs which had 

 been growing on the untreated or control plots. No record was kept 

 as to the behaviour of the growth at the " dying down " period, and 

 it is assumed that the bulbs were probably affected at this stage of 

 their growth. This fact, however, does not alter the conclusion that 

 must be drawn from the results of these experiments, namely, that 

 the treatment of infected ground with the fertilizers and combinations 

 of fertilizers experimented with, cannot be depended upon to support 

 the Narcissus against infection by eelworm from the treated soil. 



