92 
Keport of the Horticulturist of the 
3. The number of nodal roots was not perceptibly increased by the 
pruning. 
In all the plants of the root-pruned hill, three in number, the radicle 
had been cut; in two of them two nodal roots had been cut, and in the 
other, three. 
On June 13, one week later, a further examination was made. Very 
little rain had fallen since the last examination, and the surface soil 
was now becoming decidedly dry. A marked root growth, however, 
had taken place. The growth consisted of an increase in number and 
a decided increase in the length of the main roots, but especially in 
the development of fibers on the roots that start at the first node of 
the stem. The longer roots now reached horizontally a distance of 
two feet, so that those of adjoining hills intermingled somewhat, and 
many had grown downward to the depth of a foot or more. 
The height of the plant, to the tip of the tallest leaf raised erect, in 
the plants examined, was thirty inches in the root-pruned hill, and 
about an inch less in the hill not root-pruned. The effect of the root- 
pruning was scarcely perceptible in the part of the plant above 
ground, but it was quite noticeable in the roots. The fibers were 
much more concentrated within the space circumscribed by the pruning 
tool, and the number of main roots that reached more than three or 
four inches from the plant was decidedly fewer in the root-pruned 
plant than in the other, while the longest roots were evidently those 
that had escaped the cutting. One root eight inches long had 
evidently grown out since the root pruning. In the plant not root- 
pruned the roots and fibers were more evenly distributed through the 
soil. 
In the four root-pruned plants examined, the number of main roots 
was fifty-five, while it was sixty in the four not root-pruned, thus indicat- 
ing that the root-pruning did not stimulate the production of main roots. 
On June 28, a fourth examination was made. The effects of the 
root-pruning were still noticeable, the root growth near the plant 
being decidedly more concentrated in the root-pruned hill. The 
whole amount of root-growth appeared as great as, if not greater 
in the latter, than in the one not root-pruned. The fibers not only 
appeared more numerous, but they were larger and more sub-divided. 
A root from the pruned hill that was cut off in the pruning, and was 
five inches in length, had put out 180 fibers, while one of the same size 
and length in the other hill had put out but 111. This, however, 
only illustrates a part of the differences that actually existed, for the 
fibers in the root-pruned hill were much more developed than in 
the other. 
