50 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. IX, No. a 
Table XV .—Ratio of final water content to the hygroscopic coefficient from 68 to no days 
after water had been applied to the surface of the soil column 
Water 
added. 
Initial 
ratio. 
Final ratio. 
Soil. 
* to 3 
inches. 
4 to 6 
inches. 
.7 to 9 
inches. 
10 to ia 
inches. 
J 3 to 15 
inches. 
16 to x8 
inches. 
19 to at 
inches. 
aa to 24 
inches. 
A. 
Inches . 
2 . II 
I. 0 
2. O 
1.8 
I* 7 
i *3 
I. I 
I. 0 
I. 0 
X. 0 
B. 
2. 12 
I. 0 
1.9 
1.8 
1.8 
i* 7 
1. 6 
1.4 
I. 2 
1. I 
C. 
I. 21 
I. I 
2. I 
1.9 
1.8 
1. 6 
i *3 
I. 2 
I. 2 
1. a 
D. 
.90 
2. 2 
2. 0 
i- 7 
1.4 
i *3 
1*3 
*•3 
i *3 
K. 
I. 42 
i. 0 
I.9 
1.8 
1.8 
1. 6 
1. 4 
I. 2 
1. 1 
1.0 
G . 
58 
1. 0 
2. 0 
2. 0 
1.9 
i *7 
i* 7 
1. 6 
1. 4 
1. 2 
H. 
I. 28 
1. 2 
2 -3 
2. 1 
2. 0 
1.9 
1. 6 
1.4 
i *3 
i *3 
I . 
. 60 
1. 2 
2. I 
1.9 
i -7 
i *3 
i *3 
I. 2 
1. 2 
1. 2 
L . 
.89 
1. 0 
2. I 
1,9 
i *7 
i *5 
i *3 
I. I 
1. 0 
1. 0 
K...?. 
* 33 
i -3 
2. 2 
i -9 
1. 6 
i *5 
1.4 
1.4 
1.4 
1.4 
L. 
.27 
i -3 
1*7 
1. 6 
1.4 
i *3 
1. 2 
I. 2 
i *3 
i *3 
M...... 
•3 
i -3 
2.4 
2. 0 
1.4 
1.4 
1.4 
1.4 
1.4 
i *5 
Table XVI .—Ratio of final water content in the surface 3-inch section of loams to the 
moisture equivalent 
Soil No. 
Final 
water 
content, 
1 to 3 
inches. 
Moisture 
equiva¬ 
lent. 
Ratio. 
Soil No. 
Final 
water 
content, 
1 to 3 
inches. 
Moisture 
equiva¬ 
lent. 
Ratio. 
A. 
26. 2 
24. 2 
22. 2 
22. 9 
19. 6 
16.8 
2 9 * 5 
25.8 
24. I 
27. 8 
22. 5 
21. 2 
a 88 
• 94 
• 9 2 
. 82 
.87 
. 80 
H. 
17. I 
I 5 * 1 
11. 7 
M 
5*8 
8.0 
19.7 
16.8 
13*5 
7*5 
7.2 
7*9 
0.87 
.90 
.87 
I. 00 
.86 
1.01 
B. 
I. 
C. 
T. .. 
D. 
K. 
E . 
E. 
G. 
M. 
In the ratio of final water content to hygroscopic coefficient the 
extremes are shown by E, a subsoil, and M, the corresponding surface 
soil. The same soils also show almost the extremes in the ratio of final 
water content to moisture equivalent, in both cases the ratio being 
higher with M. 
The conduct of the three soils K, E, and M, all from the same locality 
and similar in hygroscopicity, was striking, E retaining much less and M 
much more water than K. This behavior appeared so exceptional that 
the experiment with these was repeated two years later at the Minnesota 
Experiment Station, using duplicate cylinders in which soils K, E, and 
M had initial moisture contents of 4.4, 4.3, and 4.1 per cent, respectively. 
To each we added 0.33 inch of water, after which they were stored in a 
pit for 132 to 144 days. The resulting data are so nearly identical with 
those given in Table XIV that no purpose would be served by reporting 
them. This makes it certain that the differences between K, L, and M 
are not simply the result of unavoidable errors of experiment. 
