Experimental Crops at Rothamsted. 
121 
were traced, with a view to the dotennination of the amounts 
ot moisture at the dilTerent deptlis in the two cases. Portions of 
the harhij-ground and the faHow-ground, closely adjoining the 
drain-gauge plots, but undisturbed by the excavations in connec- 
tion with them, were selected, and from each six samples, G X 0 
inches superficies by D inches deep, that is, in all to a depth of 
54 inches, were taken. 
The following Table shows the percentages of moisture in the 
different samples, including that lost during their preparation, as 
well as that afterwards expelled at a temperature of 212° Fahr. : — 
Table IX. — Percentages of Moisture in Uncroi)ped and in Cropped Land, at 
difleient depths. 
Samples collected June 27th and 28th, 1870. 
Depth of Sample. 
Fallow Land. 
Barley Land. 
Difference. 
20-36 
11 -91 
8-45 
Second 9 , , 
29-53 
19-32 
10-21 
Third 9 ,, 
34-84 
22-83 
12-01 
Fourth 9 , , 
34-32 
25-09 
9-23 
Fifth 9 ,, 
31-31 
2G-98 
4-33 
Sixth 9 ,, 
33-53 
2(i-38 
7-17 
Mean 
30-65 
22-09 
8-56 
Before commenting on these results, it should be stated that, 
ten days previous to the collection of the samples, about two- 
thirds of an inch of rain had fallen, and only three days before 
the collection about one-tenth of an inch ; and hence, perhaps, 
may in part be accounted for the somewhat high percentage of 
moisture in both soils near the surface at that period of a season 
which was upon the whole one of unusual drought. Further, 
for a few days during the interval since the heavier rainfall, 
some soil, thrown out from the excavations near, had laid upon 
the spot whence the samples from the uncropped land were taken, 
and hence, again, may be accounted for part of the excess near 
the surface in the uncropped as compared with the cropped 
land. 
The difference between the amounts of water retained at the 
depths examined by the uncropped and the cropped ground, at 
points only a few feet apart, is very striking ; and that it should 
be greater in the upper portions of the subsoil, which had pro- 
bably contributed more to the exigencies of the growing crop than 
the lower layers, is what would be expected. The percentage of 
water in the subsoil even of the cropped land was very high — 
indeed nearly as high at corresponding depths as in that in the 
