158 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XIV, No. 4 
Table II .—Comparison of the average relative yields of tops and roots of buckwheat 
grown to the flowering stage with corresponding data for buckwheat grown from the 
flowering stage to maturity , in 3-salt solutions 
Culture No. 
Series A. 
Average relative dry- 
weight yields at flowering 
stage. 
Series B. 
Average relative dry- 
weight yields at maturity. 
Tops. 
Roots. 
Tops. 
Rodts. 
R1C1. 
1. 00 
1. 00 
I. 00 
I. OO 
(• 528) 
(• ° 3 *) 
(1.808) 
(• 132) 
R1C2.. 
• 83 
.98 
I. 17 
i- 33 
ric 3 . 
*79 
I. 07 
I. 01 
1, 24 
R1C4. 
. 60 
• 71 
1-25 
i- 73 
Ric s . 
.89 
I. 07 
I. 28 
1. 90 
R1C6. 
•99 
I. 09 
I- 13 
1. 42 
R1C7. 
1. 00 
I. 18 
1.44 
2. 05 
RlC8.. 
.84 
•87 
i- 33 
2. 04 
R2C1. 
1.03 
I- 15 
1.11 
i- 39 
R2C2. 
1. 12 
I. 46 
i- 3 i 
1. 69 
R2C3. 
•95 
I. 22 
1. 26 
1. 69 
R2C4... 
1. 18 
I- 39 
1. 14 
54 
R2C5. 
.92 
I. 09 
1. 17 
1. 82 
R2C6. 
1. ox 
I. 20 
1. 18 
1. 84 
R2C7. 
.89 
I. 06 
1. 22 
i- 54 
R3C1. 
1. 07 
I. 07 
1. 12 
i- 52 
R3C2. 
1. 02 
I- 13 
i- 3 i 
1. 90 
R3C3. 
•99 
I. 17 
1. 27 
2. 17 
R3C4. 
• 83 
I. 07 
i- 3 i 
2. 66 
R3CS.. 
1. 05 
I. 22 
1.80 
2* 75 
R3C6. 
.72 
. 74 
47 
2. 02 
R4C1. 
1. 02 
I. 43 
1. 06 
I. II 
R4C2. 
1.34 
I.50 
1-25 
I. 76 
R4C3. 
•95 
1. 17 
i- 52 
2. 12 
R4C4. 
•95 
I. 21 
i- 3 i 
I. 87 
R4C5. 
.69 
. 76 
1.10 
I. 76 
R5C1. 
I. OS 
I. 30 
1. 08 
I. 42 
RcC2. 
. 89 
I. 20 
1. 30 
I. 6l 
R5C3. 
. 76 
.80 
1. 22 
1.83 
^ 5^4 . 
• 83 
.78 
1.16 
2. 05 
R6C1. 
•99 
I- 31 
1.14 
1. 34 
R6C2. 
•8S 
.92 
1. 23 
i -93 
r6c 3 . 
. 66 
■8S 
1. 27 
i. 97 
R7C1. 
* 73 
.98 
1. 21 
1. 45 
R7C2. 
. 61 
•8$ 
1. 27 
1* 50 
R8C1. 
.81 
• 9 1 
i- 3 i 
1. 70 
K . 
• 83 
•95 
1. 29 
1. 99 
T. 
I. 01 
1. 18 
i- 33 
2. 80 
The responses of the buckwheat plants to the different salt propor¬ 
tions of the various solutions in which they grew diiring the two distinct 
physiological growth periods here considered can best be compared by 
referring to the triangular diagrams of figure 1. The comparison will 
be made with reference to the ranges of the high and low average dry- 
weight values indicated by the extent of the corresponding areas of 
high and low yields outlined on the diagrams for the series of the two 
developmental periods. The average relative dry-weight data as given 
in Table II are here graphically represented, but the yield values are 
