Table 5.--Recapitulation of data on the effectiveness of treatments in prevent-~ 
ing the occurrence of "wilt" diseases in nursery elms. 
Sg EEERARER STRESSES TERRIER TEEDNESEEE Ene tieetememenneneeceneneeeemeenee a ae 
LL LCL LE ETSI ASS CL TCG Se cer Cap aspera aeractncene setearemantageee 
Percentage of control (+) 
No. of block tal b 
Oo. of blocks Total number or lack of control (-) 
Treatment of test trees of trees in 
used test blocks Least Greatest Average 
Pruning cf 1994 ~ 5262 + 78,8 opel |p 
Copper sprays 
Commercial Bordeaux re 774. ~ 15.2 - 11.9 - 13.2 
_ Commercial Bordeaux 
+ pruning M 300 oe 2 apa | a ge PS 
Instant Bordeaux i 178 - 51,4 == ~ 51.4 
Instant Bordeaux | 
+ pruning 1 186 a + 32.4 + 32.4 
Z=O0 ub 143 we Ble t =~ eee re 
Z-O0 + pruning 1 133 ied 0.0 0.0 
‘Sulphur sprays 
Flotation sulphur 1 474 ~ 15.2 -- ae LE isles 
Koloform 3 1066 - 28.2 + 34,1 - 14.8 
Koloform + pruning 2 700 - 85.7 + Oeed - 51.8 
Lime sulphur and 
sulphur sprays 2 288 - 17.4 = Det - 13.0 
Lime sulphur and 
sulphur sprays 
+ pruning 2 283 - 82.6 - 17.4 - 50.1 
‘Sulphur dusts 
Flotation sulphur 1 253 -- + 4,4 + 4,4 
Flotation sulphur 
+ pruning 1 Boi oo + 64,4 + 64,4 
Kolodust z 635 +) 340 FlABeh + 1859 
Kolodust + pruning 2 601 + 2026 + 50,0 + 41.8 
* This average is obtained by weighting data from individual blocks in proportion 
to the number of trees in the blocks, 
has permitted the performance of certain tests in more than one locality. Since any 
Bcatnent recommended as effective should prove itself to be so in any locality, the 
data from individual plots should be considered from that point of view. 
A recapitulation of the essential data furnished by the plot tests is 
‘Given in table 5. Both the number of plots in which each treatment was tried and 
~1l2— 
