June 2, 1923 
Orange Trees in Sand and Soil Cultures 
807 
The trees were removed from cans i, 2, and 85 on September 20, 
1921. Tree 85 was free from mottle-leaf, as were all the trees in the 
soil series, and was making excellent growth. Plate 5, A, shows the 
air-dried root systems of trees i and 85, grown in sand and in soil respec¬ 
tively. It is evident that starting with trees of nearly similar size, as 
good growth may be obtained in sand as in soil cultures. The root 
systems obtained in the sand cultures were som'ewhat coarser than those 
obtained in the soil cultures, the root system in the soil cultures being 
extremely fibrous (PI. 5, B). 
The initial operation in removing a tree from the can was to remove 
and count the leaves, which were then cleaned with a dry cloth. The 
shoots were removed at the trunk and after being cut up finely were 
placed in paper bags. The lid of the can was then removed and soil 
samples taken. The root system was obtained intact by washing the 
sand or soil from the tilted can with a strong jet of water. After care¬ 
fully removing the adhering sand or soil from the rootlets with tap 
water, they were washed with distilled water. The upper portion of the 
tree axis was sawed off close to the first lateral root and was designated 
as the trunk. In cases where the trunk had been previously coated 
with whitewash it was cleaned with a soft scrubbing brush and tap 
water and then rinsed with distilled water. 
When air dry the trunk was further cleaned with a soft wire brush. 
All new root laterals formed subsequent to the planting of the tree 
were.removed, placed in bags, and were designated as “rootlets.'' The 
root axis, together with any pruned laterals which were present when 
the tree was first planted in the can, were designated as “root." The 
root was thoroughly cleaned with the use of a soft wire brush. 
The several portions of each tree were dried to constant weight at 
60° to 70^ C. The rootlets were then shaken in the upper compartment 
of a set of soil sieves, to remove as much adhering matter as possible. 
In spite of the care taken in cleaning the rootlets the amount of silica 
still adhering to them was sufficient to require the calculation of ana¬ 
lytical results to a silica-free basis. In the case of trees grown in soil 
the task of obtaining clean rootlets was so difficult that determinations 
of ash constituents were omitted from the analyses. 
The dry weight, number of leaves, and water transpired for each of 
the three trees are given in Table II. 
Tabi^E II .—The dry weight of various portions of the trees, the number of leaves, and the 
water transpired 
Tree 
No. 
Num¬ 
ber of 
leaves 
on 
tree. 
Dry weight (60° to 70' 
’C.). 
Total 
nu¬ 
trient 
added. 
Total 
dis¬ 
tilled 
water 
added. 
Total 
drain¬ 
age 
water. 
Trans¬ 
pira¬ 
tion. 
Total 
trans¬ 
piration 
per 
total 
dry 
weight 
of trees. 
Leaves. 
Shoots. 
Trunk. 
Root. 
Root¬ 
lets. 
Total, 
Gm. 
Gm. 
Gm. 
Gm. 
Gm. 
Gm. 
Liters. 
Liters. 
Liters. 
Liters. 
I 
996 
237. I 
122. 5 
194 
212 
136 
901. 6 
243 
125 
139 - 5 
228 
0- 253 
2 
302 
76.5 
20. 7 
126 
64 
SI 
344*2 
187 
173 
97 
0. 282 
8s 
1,042 
205.9 
96 
140.5 
13s 
129*5 
706.9 
a 27 
0 29 
0 
166 
0* 235 
a After May, 1921. &May, 1920, to May, 1921. Tap water after May, 1921, 110.2 liters. 
When the trees were removed from the cans, their appearance was 
noted. Tree i was an excellent tree with large top and splendid foliage. 
A few leaves tended to split along the midribs. The root system was 
large, well developed, and filled practically the entire can. 
