CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE WISLEY LABORATORY. ioi 



pruned than in the unpmned trees, the amount of wood removed at 

 prunirg time was greater in every case in the unpruned than in the 

 pruned trees. This is shown in the following Table. 



Table I. — Weight of Wood Removed in Pruning in 

 February 1913 



Variety. 



No. 



Treatment after 

 planting. 



Average weight 

 of prunings. 



Kibston Pippin 







7 OI -5 

 706-10 



Pruned 

 Not pruned 



grammes. 



39 

 60-2 



' Peasgood's Nonesuch ' 



7 II - I 5 

 716-20 



Pruned 

 Not pruned 



45 8 



88 



' Ribston Pippin ' 



721-3 

 726, 728 



Pruned 

 Not pruned 



26-3 



63-5 



' Christie Manson ' 



724> 725 

 729- 730 



Pruned 

 Not pruned 



51 

 126 



' Peasgood's Nonesuch ' 



731-5 

 736-40 



Pruned 

 Not pruned 



58-2 



150-4 



' Ecklinville Seedling ' . 



74 1 . 744 

 746-8 



Pruned 

 Not pruned 



47 

 70 



1 Duke of Devonshire ' 



742, 743, 745 

 749> 750 



Pruned 

 Not pruned 



46 

 97 



' Newton Wonder ' 



751-5 

 757-60 



Pruned 

 Not pruned 



46-8 

 95-8 



' King of the Pippins ' 



76i-5 

 766-70 



Pruned 57-8 

 Not pruned 127 



' Mr. Gladstone ' 



771-5 

 776-80 



Pruned 

 Not pruned 



18-8 

 29-6 



As the first thing to be aimed at after planting is to lay the basis 

 of sound well-grown trees, none was allowed to fruit in 1912, and they 

 are not yet old enough to give reliable comparative records of fruit 

 production. Comparative growth alone is dealt with in this report. 



The following Tables (I I. -XI.) show for each variety and stock 

 the amount of growth made in each year (1912-14) by each tree, the 

 total growth of the trees which received similar treatment, and the 

 average growth of the trees of each variety and stock pruned in 

 the season of planting, side by side with those of the same variety 

 and stock not so pruned. 



