6 4 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. IX, No. a 
1.1 to 1.5. The change in ratio here is even more abrupt than in the 
cylinders which had been allowed to reach equilibrium (Table XV). 
In order to study the transition from moist to very dry soil in greater 
detail, sets of samples were taken with the inch sampler (previously 
described) in four different places in the same areas (fig. 3). In each set 
the sampled depth, including the whole of the moistened zone, extended 
from the surface well into the underlying dry zone. As will be seen 
from Table XXVIII, the samples were taken in such short sections as 
to make the results strictly comparable with those obtained with the 
cylinders. The ratio was found to fall within a short distance, 5 to 11 
inches, from 2.0 to 1.1,—that is to say, from a condition not far from the 
optimum moisture content to one too dry to permit root development, 
and in which the soil is almost .completely exhausted of available water, 
so far as ordinary crop plants are concerned. In set D, in which the 
transition was most gradual, this change required 16 inches. In each 
set the maximum ratio lay between 2.1 and 2.4, the maximum being 
somewhat lower than found in the first foot sections reported in 
Table XXVI. 
Table XXVIII .—Ratio of moisture content to hygroscopic coefficient at different dis¬ 
tances from the surface in a clean cornfield near McCook , Nebr. f on June 26 and 27, 
IQI2 
Set A. 
Set B. 
Set C. 
SetD. 
Depth of 
section. 
Hy- 
gro- 
scop- 
ic co¬ 
effi¬ 
cient. 
Ratio. 
Depth of 
section. 
Hy- 
gro- 
scop- 
ic co¬ 
effi¬ 
cient. 
Ratio. 
Depth of 
section. 
Hy- 
gro- 
scop- 
ic co¬ 
effi¬ 
cient. 
Ratio. 
Depth of 
section. 
Hy- 
gro- 
scop- 
ic co¬ 
effi¬ 
cient. 
Ratio. 
Inches . 
Inches . 
Inches. 
Inches. 
J t| , T . T . 
8.0 
0* 4 
x.... 
7.8 
0.4 
1 . 
7.4 
o- 7 
1-3. 
8* 8 
T. O 
a t . 
8.3 
1. 9 
2...... 
8.3 
1.4 
2. 
8.0 
1.8 
4-6 
11. 2 
j.. y 
2 . X 
1. 
9-3 
2. 3 
3—4. 
9. 8 
2 . 4 
3-4. 
8.7 
2.4 
- .* * 
11. 6 
O' * ..* ■ * 
5-6. 
io- 7 
2. 2 
5-6. 
9.8 
2.3 
10—12-...... 
TT. C 
1.8 
4 *. 
j-6,... 
9. 5 
2 - 3 
7-8. 
11. 5 
2. I 
7-8. 
10. 5 
2. 2 
13. 
10-7 
1.8 
10.9 
2. O 
9-10... 
xi. 4 
2. X 
9-10. 
12. 2 
x. 9 
10.4 
1.8 
. 
O—TO . 
12. 5 
1. 9 
11-12. 
11. 6 
1. 9 
11-12. 
XI. X 
2. O 
1.8 
II-X2. 
II. 7 
2- O 
13. 
XI. 1 
I. 9 
13. 
II. I 
I. 9 
16.. 
10* 4 
n -14 . . 
12. X 
I. 7 
14. 
10.4 
2. 0 
14.. 
io- 6 
2. O 
17.! 
io. 8 
t; 
15-16. 
XI. 2 
I. 7 
15. 
xo. 4 
1. 9 
15. 
xo. 5 
1.8 
18. 
10* 7 
7 
1. 6 
17-18. 
io. 2 
i. 6 
16. 
9 * 4 
sf. 0 
16. 
xo- 6 
x. 7 
19. 
0. 8 
1- 8 
19—20....... 
9. 9 
X- I 
17. 
9. 4 
2. 0 
17. 
xo. 5 
1. 5 
20 . 
y. 0 
IO. 2 
i- 6 
21-22... 
9* 9 
1. 0 
18. 
9. X 
2. O 
18. 
10. 5 
1. 2 
21 . 
TO. 2 
T C 
23—24 . 
9.6 
0* 1 
X. 0 
19... 
9. 2 
2. O 
19. 
xo. 6 
I. X 
22.. . . . 
0. 
t. e 
as—26. 
I. 0 
20. 
9 * 3 
2. O 
20. 
10.6 
I. 0 
y* 7 
0. *7 
+* 5 
T A 
. 
*7-28. 
y 0 
9 . I 
X- 0 
21... 
9.1 
2. O 
21. 
xo. 6 
. 9 
24 .. . 
- y* 7 
0. 8 
4 
I. * 
29-30. 
8. 7 
x. 0 
22. 
9.4 
1.8 
22. 
10. 8 
. 9 
25 ..... 
y* ° 
O. A 
* 4 6 
I* 2 
31—32 . 
8. x 
I. 0 
23 . 
9. 2 
x. 9 
23. 
IO- 1 
. 9 
26 . 
y. 4 
O. 7 
I* I 
33—34. 
8. 2 
1. 0 
24.. 
9. 0 
1.8 
24. . 
9. 7 
1. 0 
27 . 
y* / 
o* 6 
I- 0 
35-36. .. 
8. 6 
x. 0 
25 . 
8.9 
1.8 
25 . 
28 . 
y* u 
26 . 
9. 0 
x. 6 
26 . 
9 . 7 
. 9 
29 . 
0 . 0 
i 0 
27-28 . 
9 . 0 
x. 3 
27-28 . 
9* 7 
1. 0 
y w 
■ 
29-30 . 
8 6 
1. X 
29-30 . 
9-3 
•9 
31-32. 
8. 0 
1. X 
31-32 . 
85 
• 1. 0 
33”34 . 
8. 0 
. x. X 
33-34 . 
8.4 
x. 0 
35-36 . 
8.3 
I. X 
35-36 . 
8.2 
1. 0 
C.—Fin^ sands. —Our field data on soils with hygroscopic coefficients 
between 1.1 and 3.0 such as fine sands, are very scanty and only where 
the samples were taken under conditions permitting an accumulation 
of moisture in the subsoil are they of interest in the present connection. 
