A STUDY OF LINT DEVELOPMENT lN COTTON AS INFLUENCED BY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THESTS FOR THE DEGREE 0? PH. D. Dana Gibson Sturkie 1931 l ‘ k! . I . . I. I I. T, T '1» T T: Th .MT T '...' :h-ITIA . JT. Qt .. I II T T A . .. ..I I . . \ T T v T ..r . T; s 4T: .0. III’I ’IIT. ,\ IL r. T K . ’9'- ) e. [I I. ‘1 T . . III v I o T . T TTI T \ T . I ..x..T..T..T TT ..T . T -. . .. TTT. .TT... .... nT -_ v . T . I I . T. . ‘. I I 'T « . V1 . T T J. T ITr 1r. T .l T . r. . T _ I‘ .1 T I T I O .\ I .4. T L T . In L. IT I .. TI - .T I ...... J: T. T . T T . . I T T l T .T IN .. . I“ .T T a T IT... .I TTI T II T T . . . . . TI T .4 .. I T I T .0 T TV. V I u I! T. T T. u I I I t . T I T VT . T. . . T. . V 2 T T I T . Ti- T - T. ..T. ..T.- T. _ T. .T 4 Int . T v I . . T T T? T T II .. I. I .T T .. T A T T T. I T I A ~ T4 5. u: I. I ,I T iT. T T .IT '1 . I . _ , .T | . I I . II . T I TI 1 '4 T .T T I k (Tar .; 0 I T I I T. T T T .T T T . I . T T T I. . I TI. I J T IT II T I T < I I T . T I... r T I I I I _. T \T ‘1‘ r . I I (I to T . T I T . I f . . .T TT I. T T. - - T f . v T T .. T T T I J- P: I .I T . I II i - . T. I T I I u I I I T T. I I T T T T T T . o T, . I . ~ i' I T . 1' .‘T‘ I . ‘J I ‘ I; I I T T III I l I. T’- . u r T . . . . T. I. an II V T «I III a I T a. l I I ‘4 T I. I. I T TVI J: I I T J T .T T TT . I T C T . .4. T T .1 T\ I . T1. TT T . T T T . . O . TT T \ R: T II. II . u I LC . T p T I I .T 4-..... . - . ... TTT . - ..T-. ..T . . K T \ T T . T T . I T T \I. It TT s 17 T I T I t III s I u . n T. '\ I T A I I II. T. T r -r. T . T I \ T T \I T I. I r T I I TT I I . I I I I‘T I T I l T I T. . Tk II—\v T I~ I-‘/ a v. ( . E . . T T I I v T J k -. T . I \ (It. In T I I T I . V I I .. ..T v I .I- v \ n I E. T I I II I I‘ f T 1 TvaT‘. I .1 ‘ O T ... I A) . T .1 4 l| I T 9 I — I T . T T I T , . T T II I n. .I . n. I 4 I I f ....w I. f . I ,I IIT . I I. ..T. W V 5‘ III §I I I 1"! I .4 I T IIT T y T l .T ..T" I II . I. I , 1r II . A; I . _ T . W I T I T _ \H l T .l.( T 1.. \I T T TI: w v o I IT. IT 1 I. a I I. T I I T I .r. T T T. T T T I I. a «In .T T . .n . T T T . I .7 . T T s T .. II. I. T - I T TTr . ... TI I‘lfl ‘I \ . 1. T T x _ l T o . T. I ’I f I . T . , I I ITT . IT (T40 T I I II . II T \ T. T I c T I I. T I Y .I I II a h I ‘IU ' ‘ ' ,I '5 D l.‘ ' TI ' I It.“ I O. Q” ‘ A ’\ 0‘ I. . I T. T .I: .. J. T .- N . I , I . TT... T T _. . T T ..... I. T T. III” I T1 I . 11. I TT I I . T w. I .l. 5.. I 1 . a l T O T I. I. T« T I . . l ..n. . .. (T .T T. T .5 T. a I I , . . T . T I T I. II . . . ’T / T T T s. . . I I \ 6! T T T I. T . . / (O I , I ..T T. 4 I I A: I . T. Q . T \ T T T . o T T T ~ ‘. ‘ TI '1 V . \l w ..' | ‘ I I l\ I\ - fl . I. \v I I -\ T I - I . I. T. T .aI T. ' _ . I I I) T . TI 1 T I . I T I a \0 ~ {- T I I . T I-CTTM .. , . r. 1 I I I T r . T T la . T . . . . T ¢ - r . .I. .I T T TIM ..., It . . ..T. I II. T. A T\ T T 1A-... T ..I T . , TIT T To I .- s A . I . .TTTI T. T: . “H T) .. TT .1. I I! v T. .. IT IT pr. .T. .1. .T T II II T a T T an! 9.. I a TI\ 0 I.IOl I LTOT r . sT. T T J I ....) T. ITT . n I T I T r k I . l I I I . To \Ir‘u r . I .‘. W: 1' ”I T ’Jr T s T I hTI I n II I-I ‘II. I. T‘- IT I4 I I T. T I I In I I T .T . . . T T T T T 1 -. T --. T4: .9 .....J. ...T. ... T . - . T.- . - T... . ., -. - . . - . In. . T I I I _ .4 . II I\ TTT I“ . l 1 I . . TI I . l I d: T ..T . T. T. T T..T . IT.-- Ir I.- TTIuT T .T T T . T - T- .T. T ..T. T. T .T I T T . T ’I. I .. ..T .T ~ I, I T . I It T. T T. T - T. T T T. - I T T 1.- . T .3. T T T 2:)... T . TT . . .T.. . 1.. T. T . .T T ... T . T T .II I v u T It!!!) . LI, I I T ‘I.. _ f l ‘Ila r V ' ITII. .I- TmPI\ V a .v fiTLs. I D \T‘ r I T I I .O I ) (J. O I I .. T T IT ’w “v. v A .,T .. I T! 4 u» N v T ..T! I T T v T t T T V I? I I l T 1\ o - . 0'.\ .V I. T I . I 1 ‘ T l T IT I I V T.| . \ V I . (.l _. I T. T'TWJ . 0.» IT T I . ’ s - ..T..- s TITT. ..T. .T.T-T.T.T. .9 T T I T t I. I II ., ‘ I _ v - II I I \1 \ . Ifi r ... . . T. I H T T I 'I \ I TJ I I I . I I J ..T I . .I I .T . I ‘l I VIT . J . . V T, T - T ’ 9 II. n I T l h... I r . l . )II.. \I. - T. T .TT . I . T T I .L . T \ l T. I. T u T I 5b] T I T . l . \. .I. T. TIA . T . T I r T . I ' II III I 1.! .1 u‘- I V I fl - . T \. T T- . I \ n. . ....I T PI T T . T . . Tax .4 LION . .11. TI IIIA .- l I Jn!‘ . «q. T T. I r .T . T A I T T T T T! ’ I I . . T IIT . I . l I I f I. I .... .. I? ..T T . (T T . n, T T T . T! I T 14 T. I II lIlaxTTx. .g I . TI 7‘ ., Ix 'T . T I Ti T T T In I. IrIV- ..Ir... TI. (..T 4 II T TT.uIv I, . T T. . (T. I T0 T{ I T A T .\ I'I \ I I ‘ 1'“ UV 1" II T“ I T 1 II “I V V\' I O“ I ' . 'I' ( I ‘ D ‘ I I ‘ . I\ ' .l ' ‘ I O T 1 *1 O r.\ . I I} n V #0 . T I I I l . .I I J / . T ‘1 . I .T T M. r \T . T. r I I T T T T I) I I \ . \V I I 'I In I I Q I t I I TTII \ I I I f c I \ ..T I T In a r T I 'I .V . (I. - IT \I . T T If!‘ . I T _ F ’ i , a I I! T T I T I I I I v \ TTTIV I i I. V. II Ar: I O .I .T . T. v 4 T .T . T . c . .-.. ... T T ,1 .4 . .T . T .T T «I T a. ITTTT ... u 7.. 4 . T _. T. T . .I . ,TT. r .9 - .1 TT T I T T. T I. . _ T . I I I. . r . o .0... T T II. .T «VII: ..T INT. I I I T. T. 1T. I. II (I. ..T .T IT . s u T T I I .I .I. . C I T. I -ur . . .(n (I C I I r. . n . IL . . T T TIT T. T I . T I! r T T .I TIAI, 4 T T I . . T\ I.I T . ~ I}; I v T. U T. a T T T T .1: I I T r T 1 TI. T I T . I . T T . T T. l .T I I T i I III I» ..IWH/ . T T O T.I. T . OI ( «I I) . ’T I f L... .- T .\u ... Tl A. T I. O T IT," T5 T'f T “I. - . IITTx T .. lTT T 9 K ..I. I . T T I T I T I r TI . TI 1 .T l TTIT T ..T. . IT- ..T-I. . ... I. . . .I p -rT. . T. T . TI. .d. ..T-r. .. I w. ., . c .I . I . T. T I . T\ I 0,1. ’ TI , T I. I I II TT 0. I T I T .T .L vJI ‘T 4‘. \TT TV [I T. .0 r . I p T T I I. I: T . II I . T r\ . n I I I .TO . TVI. .wT TI .JUT T . I I II .. .c IIII‘, T .0 b'A K .I I If T. I I T Q .. Tr .T. T ..T T. . . Tan ...; T to... ...T .T T. T . T . I I. U TA (4“ I! KI T. I T A T I T(T T I I . v I ‘11 I I Q a .“TI. I. n ’T II I .I . a . H‘I 1 II n‘ I To T 1A.”. IT I r'f. ,8. T .I .TC‘TIfTYIT. I thn .TT TT-T. .T1 T I) - I I \ Tu. . Y-VAQTI TI TI. T‘- I T T ,..T I (I K J b I A . I 11 ., . u 4 T . .Tv. I . IL .I In.IT _ . T 1).. I; (I. I T TIT!- T, a I VT T! N T I I I I.ITTT\ . I T T TO T I I 1’ .T TJ T T T. a . . s .IN‘. s T (T. A i T . “ I I I! T 4 4 6': I. :0. I T I II TVI IJI (T I Vt I It I \ \ T O I I . O T I I JT T . I TIT T," . T I IIN‘IT. TFII T I T I I); IV .7 T. T .. .V‘Nr I; .r r IT I . ~T T INA .3 u ,I .v x . T r I! I. . V IV I a II I .... JIT T... T . T. T . T T. T I I ' T T . oTT . I V) l T A T T TTnTv. I .TTT ..T TTI TI» ..T ..T I... . - ..o T T. T T .T I .T . TI TI (A T T~ I TI «T. T . Y. T T T. T p . (..TT T T T . T . T T T . .TII‘T T T II.. T) .v .) .ITI T I ..II . TI ‘ I IT/ I OIT ' ..IITI. . I ~ 4 I. .. T‘ I \....I' ).\.‘ I o l . I . I. I. v _ N. In ... v T ,l . T \ Tc. A; T T T T I. IT IT I A I II, T I .\. T. T f T . T T I I Inf: . I i . T ‘ or I ..T T-I. l . ..T... H I I TT. . ., T I .I ..T I T T \I ' T II. .T T T ..T. T . ..T ..T ...T. . T. T T.. .. T _- .u. I - -- T .T. T ‘Tll J I v .I r T Ta. A c l .TIT II I I \ OVT T I T T I. . T. . T .r. I . Ir 9 [Av T T.\ V T T T ‘0 TI ..- IT .P .. L a! TI 0 T .I 1 on r if ... I‘. c: T I I N r T IT T . T I I TIT.— .T“ VIT"\ ..T I .....Tlh I 0 r ‘IT T v H1 T I. . TI . .u T . I TI. I T T I .I V .VI N . o . o I ' . V II . T . 1‘ ' l T .4 .I. I T T.T\. ..T., T . T‘- f T T I _. IT .T ..T e . . T 1 T .T .. T I I T 1 I T I: T T . I . . I I JA\ . l 4 .0: ..T I I T v .0 r .T Ir II II T I T T.“ T . “I. I I‘ I I I IT “I“ . I I. T E I I I O I x“ ’I T I. 44 I II T . ..a. . I TT a. T . T . T w T .T T . ,. 1. J h. T TT I T-.. T ... T. T. (.0 Tu T T T I , I 'k T \I I V I. 0. T. V I T ..T O I I ‘10 II . h ‘T T I I I WT I '9. T TT. (...-T T ...V» I .. uiT . T ..T A... T - 1 .5. .I\ TIT T? .I T T ,A I N . \ . I T T I ..- T~ N13... . (III IT I l T \.. Iv I A - 7 .. TTI'. nIr ’ I T. . 4 I T .T. I YT. T a. ..4.. Uh Ir .. T ul. 1 T... T v . Tr . 4' TT Th. T I I n . .T T‘u I T I4 T T . L I . is I f I1 I s. I T I T ..Tl’y_\lI\ T.. ..I I.» IT Ii: I T .I. i. T I I T I a: T . T T T I. . . T. .T T I. ,TI .T. I I No.1 II If. I l T v 4 . ..T .T. T H 1&9 t . s I O T’II l.\ T .. . T I I . . .T I I . I T . T u. T. T. -T T. T- T. - T... ..T. . _ T. u... T TL! ..T. . T I. ... T T . 7}. ..T . I I I .. I T I. I . I ... T: I . I\ ..T. ...-«I. T. . I .TT . ..T T T . x : T .- .. . a... - .. T. T . . . . T Jud. » .... AT. ... . T- I -T. .T ..- T. T a . T. _. T T T. . . I T. ... .I . . ‘ ... IIIT IT. . TITI T L 5 I T ..I II TT I \ I D T T , .5 I II T T 4 ‘ my IIV'JH ET: (I. o x T I I I I u I» o .... In. .- T I ‘ \r I . ..v v » TgI . .. 4 ....It a. T . T . . . T . x h... . In T . T . . T T o . I . . . T .T TT T . T IT I. I. . a T T I . . fl TNIT UV \‘Ir TI V \ TI r .A TI- I OT! I O (J I T c \l T a J ~ ‘I t T I T. T 0 IT \I.I' Ir.u|! T I! .l I” I I If. Ot‘.‘ C O T 6 I II T T c I pk”. M . Ir . T. \T. YITI I ”I T T I \T T .T a T “v TIT I I P I . INT \ T TTINITT70 TIT. IIIT ..T! .IT. T . T T a T. T T I I . J , .I 6T - . T N T AI. ‘I V .. TI IT A .v . l 4 II ‘ T! T I I T I T (.I ITw I. . TT.TI T I. . T J . T . J 5—. . T . .¢ T . . MJT~ .4 I ’ I II I. .T I I I 1)‘ *0“ pi. T I ~ {g 1 d .I T T 4 TTI I T. T I . .I II.- IT, . TT - Tm. . II. .T T a. TI. T I T. T r. TITI .o I. T I I U. I) . T 0 .IV I ‘ b I’ ~. IT II I ; 1.4- I ~ I T o . I .AT T TTTT. . IT .14 I J T I . T TTT I. V VI- .w T. T IT. 2 . . .T .. .T II T T . I- ..T.IT. .T T T O .I\/ Ivo.. TI! Jh II I III. III ITIITI I .lJIIf I J T .H . TIII TJI TT. T . I ‘ IT T \ I J. \O... J . . T I. . T II I I I . «..-..K . \ »T I 1 TI . IN I. ITITT I T ..I T. I I ..-Lu- T. ..T. T, . TI. T. T . T 5.1- T I ...» T .. T . I T - T T _, T... : T ..T .-.- . T - .1 . T cu-) I. T ..IT T I T I. T. It I .‘I- ..1419 III. I . ..T? O ..T N.\ n. T e I. r&T\T . T I u T I l .o T. \ II TT ..T $ T ’T %T IN. AI- \.v I a T O .. T T , IT T .- T . T I. . (\II A. I. I“ T T T 0 TI . u . T T I II. _ To . T. . I ‘l I . \- T ' \rT.|\ ' I OI T T‘ 1‘ -T A T \n 1 T . . I .‘ Io. T - I T .. .1. raaVI‘ N.” IT ...» VDYKI T TAI‘ T ) I\ i 5 A \T T. T T . I T ”VI I . .TT‘ . v T ..T/T :1. ..TT .. .. TTIT a ..T . r. T T . T T. . . TTT \ T 4 u. T ”I .T .T. l . T. ..TIJT - . . . $hlu' IT 0‘ T 5.9 ‘\ Al I AIM... I.... D. r.» T: f“ T ("I .I..... \TT TII .- TT I T 45104 K") TI..I. . g" I . T \T I. T . 9‘ L. . T T I . ‘J1 T . T . V \‘I T T Ilv .TT. I T. I T : . I I. T I 01 TI, TI.O‘ITI \II T.) ., I T.I 4 Ya I I T. ‘ T.) L. I T ”W I. T Av. IL If... ‘ V . (I - I\.. r I T [9 I 4 I TTI I .1! RTIT Mm. T .T. . . g l\. 4 . TIT! ‘ ... .‘r. . T I. Tr . f . M T O I I ITT#T.T.V?T ..TLr T It L r... TT. .T TnoT.)¢h.f..l ITTT TN...“ xiv -.T T T r. T T T. . Ir} - . .u I . .. (II-i... .TV. 571:6 . ..T-I T. . :1. T- . ... II,- -.. - T T. «.3.- .. T.-. T at... .-T? T.» - . . . . - . Nah-TIT. Ina -. . INT... ... TTTT-TT,T...-.. 5.! - T T .. T- ..T. I... .T T. _ T , . T. I T . ..y T r . . T .T I T.. I I . T. OT .. II - I a \T. T T. IT . . .. I 'I I II , 3T .. .. . n-..... ...-113T ..T}... Tam. ...)...T- 7,... T) - T. 1.. . . -.T T T ..T T. - T ..T... T. ..T . .Trrta. T T w .T (I? '2. IVTTIHI T .7 Thufvfio « VD. .TNTTOVT \ IL. .TINTV....T.T¢T.-v$. ..T 5 T.. v TT pl .. “To It. I. / IT T...) h: H I I T TTTa I T. t. v TWII T T . . T . T I‘. o , .T .TII& AT . I I ..J\ l O . I I .IN . TTnFT. .- T./.T . (TV- TNTI r! ...v LI2/TI Tv... . hrnr I. . 7 T T. Tow II I... Ta ..rl‘ T adv I) . T -T T I 3 «IV . T T .(r .. .. T_. o . . .r; P. .510. I ..T. s T... . I L {I T ..T T . v T. T n I . a. . J I... T .I T. . I . Q «T... . _ «.... .muT. T TIu ..s . III TM? . I . .....a .T .. T - . T T r I . .PTi w - . ¢,u'b.av1)f\( ..T. I... T .. I. T T . .30. T I... T. u: |-\ , T T T TIT...TT.\ .T T .T 4 T... _ T .9 . . I . ’0. P T. I . I ' 0 I! I I .\ I. \T I .4 I . I. I I .I .. JTU T . T I .1. T < O ‘p/T; . I E III 0 I T I. T v .OA - ...-T a.” II It ,. . T. I, . N .f\ . 'T. TI .0 I a T \ PIN! . . ....qu .. . ..T.--. T a-.. .. r]... T... T..- Q T Q T I d 'O ‘ I I T. 'T I p I- l I T . JIILOI 4. «TI. T To .In Ts. I Tu , t .‘ T .u'\\l . o I. T 5T . II. o T s T .IIITV. A) . s TI . I J . A1. H. filmytkflllr JJTI WWII .~ ..T. ..T. ..T l ..T VTI. E TINA.“ rTT T‘I “0‘“ T . 1.1.. .311...» 0 IT'.’ I" . $‘ “‘0 "T3. I‘fl“’)’ ’4‘ '1 .333? - I 74% 5.4 .6. . I}; .‘R I A 4‘. ~ 0 o .‘r‘.-§ T1,. ‘3‘." 'R... a n 5 . s ' ‘ K I‘b‘. «.7 ' T . *5 - J. .’-' {'31 AIM. .. ”1‘- T' at?" ‘l i), 91.5 '3‘? l {~,L..‘ "A I r, 4“ T'II. 5. -- T «’5 . . EE‘FVTITJ 31-?" "5‘35 ' €912: dji" ' I .r ). I'IJ'II'I‘ J '1 ‘. I .- A”... 3 . ,v T. «a I ."l. Q ' ’IJ . ' I {.‘T ‘ " I’ . 9'. 's.‘. M .13" " I ..TI § ‘C . .,. any: T ' . r. r J, r .r' " ,‘I I»; Tam» w T I .(' ‘ t . \'; '1 T l” ( v' . '. hail. “ ..IT , . ,T .»' I ' ‘ ‘ I'fig'th I» on)»; -> . I‘ 1 X ‘ T I {T ~5’1‘. {(v‘fl' . .' 'T‘ . I, ' R’I‘}, ‘ ; .TTTT'TI 431; i .‘ 6-" ‘MTR;.‘{"".- “I“; .- 89.. T. vfié‘?‘ I! T" ““13 h , ‘ ‘ I} '1 I . I“. ‘,‘ II.“ I hr"... "HI I- t 3' ..T .539? ..- r 1 I ‘ T . § \4 .T' ‘ ~ _ x ._ 'vn. \ TI. ‘5; : ‘ "T;f I "V I .- \‘ U"; ‘1' L“. «L i'u-U‘JLL; V Ii; T LL; {'2 .44...J. l. L.-- I A. I; b; 4”; L01" IX L4 [1 uzf; \ - 1 '-~ b’J. “X A! UAJJJ LE LI Lu; "1" by 7L b J. Lo I t :31 g ‘ O -.L a _: \J v I.) .4. nc)* I V ' "a 9 'Yr ¢ “ 11'3“ .1.» ulJ‘ T ‘7 Ann“ ‘..L. Quit 0 June ngl. .-s T r '-"t .. M .LIHC, «5— . lfi Dag—:1 bC'u ‘ .L _\;;I‘ti;l flil f THESIS -L-L;Lu DAT Cbl-;H..¢.3 Il‘itl-‘Cflllc-tiorloto...0......o....ons—In-go-ouoaooo00-0....- _1_ . -.~ - D ‘3‘ ' s T l" ‘, L " ‘ ’- r1 l‘lflCv/JCJUE: 1;; eét_n>;%0JJ_C‘l_‘k-‘ o u a o o . o c I o a o o o o O o o o o o o 0 o o o o a o o o o g, ‘ ' , ‘ .. 1 w .‘ J-l . 7' .V .— , » '- 311 «_ v_ 1 , . - ‘33“ JD- lgils '_:.;Lg_). “4‘, U .UKLJI O o o o v 0 - I o o c o o o - c » o u o o a o o o o o o o n C o o ‘J‘ L, .~ 4 .. _ 4 x “ ‘~ 1» 4‘1. 5:. .L}.;C-. UQJ. L13): ___ U L o . ~4 o . O a a b - o - o O o o u a o o u u o o o o a o o o o I o o J}. ._I n ‘ .. _ ." .-.-.- ‘. yl ._,?le.,v~IfiLl, o o o o , o o o o o o o o o 9 o o o o o o o o I I o o I o o o - o o o o o o o r o o v o o u L) ‘ \ -. ‘v .\' H" 01¢. .. “l J o . u o o o . o u c . u - - - o o o o o o o o c u o o o o o « o o o o o o c o a - u . o u o o o o-ek.’ n” ' ~ -‘ 3 r 4' - '7‘ 11U;..\, ...V_ ;.v.“p.;oo-00-0-0000ooooooooo-ooooooooooooooon... .144“ 1 o 1‘ o ’- 1. _ n L] Lllg: I‘d}. if: 0 o o o o o . u o o o o o o n o o o o n o o o o u s o r o o o . o o u a u o u o o c o {.32 - V 'r'w' ‘ .“\‘ (7 '7 ‘5" V ’ 4L ‘J‘_L‘_LJL c 0 O I O O I O I O O I O O n o - o a o I n a o 'r o t O a t o I < O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O ‘3‘) A... IKTRODL CTILN Cotton (Gossypiun hirsu+wa , L.) is tie Lost inportant casn crop of the southern portion of the United statesq 1 is influenced Ly its qualiJJ as is tie case of rest other crops. She trad; r3cognizes ilat the len;th of lint is one of the most ilpor talt factors tliat is consido*ed in the classin; of cotton. Often such things as 'drag" and streL.t are taken into consid ration, ‘ut these are not (‘9' O-u-J . - (u nearly so easily measured nor are th3y so well understood as is length of lint. ins farms is confronted with the task of producing a better quality in the lint, and the trade is oftezi confused as to what factors constitute quality. “he trade apylies certain names such as "B3nders", "Rivers", etc. to cotton from a special section Wlich is recognized as n beinj o; a nigh quality anc distinguisees it from cotton froa sore otTer section which is of a diffarent quality. 50 fa: no one Ias reported finding out whv these d1f“eicnces exist or What these differences are- are these differences die to a difference in length of lint, r does strength, drag, an‘ possibly other factors influence them? Differences in length of lint are snown to exist, but differences in tne otie r iac— tors are not so well orovod. are these differs 21083 in tie le its of lint, wnich are kn.wn to exist, doe to environmental influences such as oOil ype, rainfall, and tangesature, or are th3y due to the v riety of cotton ci- grown ‘E ihere he s be3n very littler esearch done in this countrv on the quality of the fiber as influenced b" environment. The effect of the environment on the length of lint and other properties of the fiber has received very little attention. Most of the work on this has been in Egypt, India, and tLe West Indies under conditions differing from those in the southeastern United States and with a different species of Gos— sypium. The problem in this work was to determine what caused the variations which tore known to exist. a solution of this problem should he of interest to the plant breeder who is attenpting to select better strains of cotton and to the farmer who is endeavoring to produce a better quality of lint, also to the buyer that wishes to buy cotton of a defin- ite quality. PREVIOUS IN‘ESTIGAIIUNS. The most notable works of this nature have been performed by Balls, working with Egyptirn cotton in Egypt, and by Lurd and Persons, working in the west Indies with Sea Island cotton. The published litera— ture reports experiments that were conducted under widely different con- ditions from those in the southeastern United States. Balls (1) states that the lint fibers of cotton are the result of the outgrowth of epidermal cells in the seed coat. The length these attain determines the length of the lint, and the extent of filling with layers of cellulose determines tne strengtl. Any conditions that would produce a noticeable effe t in the physiological functions of the plant might affect the length and strength of lint. In working with cotton under irrigation he found that a defi- ciency in the soil moisture during the first twenty-three days after a blossom appeared would be associated with a shortening of the length of 0 fiber produced by the hell that developed from this blossom. A deficiency A Q 1 ._ in soil moisture during the period from twenty-three days after blossoming to maturity was associated with a weakening of the fiber. he concluded that the most critical period in the development of the length of fi er was around the sixteelth day after blooming.‘ By making histological studies he found tnat fibers reached their maximum length about the twenty-fourth day and made their nest rapid growth around the fifteenth day following flowering. They began filling with cellulose about the twenty—first day. Ehese studies seemed to agree with his conclusions regarding the time ariods when these characters were nest likely to he seriously affected by any adverse edaphic or climatic factor. Balls also suggested that a rise of the water table nhich would destroy part of the root system of a plant would shorten t‘e lint that was then developing in length and weaken that which was filling. Burd (2) (3) concluded that in the West Indies a heivy rainfall about nineteen days after flowering seriously lowered the mean maximum length of lint. Harland (5) reported that F. 8. Parsons working at the Imperial College of TrOpical Agriculture found that moisture determined the length of lint. The conclusions of Burd are the reverse of those of Balls and Parsons. It seems that any condition which disturbs the neural functions of a plant may reduce the length of lint whether this disturbance be due to a water stress OI'smothering by excess water. Youngblood (10) by studying the Government reports on the length of lint from various sections of the south and correlating this with the soil type concluded that longer lint came from leavier more fertile soils. He noted an exception to this in the case of cotton fron_the Eiedmont region. These soils were often light and low in fertility yet they pro— duced better cotton than did the coastal rlain soils which were sandy and low in fertility. Funchess (4) after studying the results of variety tests in Alabara, concluded that the soil does not affect the length of lint. He showed that one year an area produced cotton with the longest lint in the state and the following year produced cotton with the shortest lint. He suggested that this difference miyht be due to a difference in rainfall for the two years in question. Ludwig (7) working with anerican uyland cotton in South Carolina concluded that "late defoliation did not affect the length of lint but if done several weeks before maturity the strength of the fiber was lowered". The earliest defoliation that was used was on August 20, which is probahly after nest of the bolls were old enough for the fibers to have reached their maximum length. Kearney (6) working with.Pima cotton in nrizona concluded that "the bolls higher up the stalk had a longer fiber than those nearer the base". He did not make any physiological explanation of this, neither did he take any physiological factors into consideration. There have been some other workers in physiological problems of cotton, but their experiments do not deal with lint fornation specifically and their results do not give any solution to this problem. As may be seen from the literature reviewed, the rroblem is far from settled an there has been little progress rade toward its solution in this country. hATEBIALS.AKD LETHODS. lhis investigation was conducted at the Alabana Agricultural Experiment Station, auburn, alabana. all plots and all cans were ferti— lized at the rate of 1000 lbs. of super-phosphate, 500 lbs. of nitrate of soda, and 100 lbs. of muriate of potash per acre. This rate was Laser on surface area and not on weight of soil. a pure-line strain of Mexican Big Boll cotton which had bred true for twelve years was used. This is a typical variety of anerican upland cotton, and when grown under good conditions this strain produces a staple 1 1/8 inches in length. The seed were obtained from the North Carolina agricultural in erincnt Station at the beginning of this experiment. In this investigation it was planned to study the influence of soil ype and the influence of climatic factors on the develoyment of the lint. Two distinctly different methods were used. In a study with different soil types large galvanized iron cans were used as containers. These held about 1000 lbs. of dry soil each. In the study of climatic factors plots in the field were used. It was desirable to use field plots in order to get large hunters of plants and also to have conditions as nearly normal as ossible. It was not possible to use field plots for the soil type studies because it was desirable to use two Widely different types of soils and keep them.under the sage climatic conditions, and they did not occur naturally the way. Soil Type Studies. The method of Veihneyer (8) (s) was sed in this study. Cans 30 inches in diameter and 24 inches deer specially constructed of 20 gauge galvanized iron and so constructed that they could be lifted for weighing _\-J— were used. The cans were fitted with a galvanized iron lid which had a hole in the center 4 inches in dianeter through which the plants could grow. All cans were painted with acid proof paint to prevent zinc injury to the plants. They were filled with soil in layers 3 it had occurred in the fielc. Two 8 inch layers of subsoil and one 6 inch layer of top soil was used. The soil was weighed and put in the cans so that each can contained the sane anount of each respective layer. The weight of the layers was not the same. It Was packed as it was placed in the cans so that each layer occupied the sane space in each can. The cans extended two inches above the soil to permit watering. The moisture content of the soil was not kept constant. When the soil had lost considerable moisture but before the plants had begun to wilt, water was added to the point of the water—holding capacity of the soil. This was accomplished by adding water until the cans regained their original weight which had been previously determined. No definite interval of time was used to determine when to water-~wei5ht was the only guide. Veihmeier (9) and others have shown that it is impossible to moisten a. soil uniformly to a definite moisture content below that of the water holding capacity. Furthermore, it has been shown that a plant uses water satisfactorily over a Wide range of moisture context extending from veter- hold‘ng capacity to wilting-point. Thus by adding water until the soil moisture was at the point of water-holding capacity, it was possible to get all of the soil Wet and not limit the area of root growth. Two soils of very different type were used. The two soils were from areas that produce cotton considered by the trade to be widely dif- ferent. One of the soils was classef as Norfolk sandy loan and came from a field at Auburn. The cotton from the Norfolk soil at auburn is consid- ered to be of poor gt ality and is cftci sold at a discount. The other and was ml1pped frcr Stoneville, E13 soil used was fron the hississippi Delt EiSSiSSippi. Ibis soil was classed as Deer Creek loan and produces cotton that is con51fllerad to be of high quality aid usually brings a premium on he narket. It was thought that if soil type exerted an im- portant influence on the quality of cotton these two extrenes would show it. These two soils differ very much in their charact31istics The Delta soil is an alluvial soil of fine texture, rich in organic matter; it contains a large amount of mineral nutrients and is suite unifor.1 throughout. There is no line of demarcation between the top soil and the subsoil so it is classed as a deep fertile soil. The Norfolk soil is of a coars or texture, very low in organic setter, and contains a relatively low percs n ta; e of niineral nutrients and is n t unifonn. lhe tor soil is usually 4 to 8 inches in depth and is underlaid by a yellow to reddish clay which.is very compact. This soil is classed as a shallow soil low in fertility. The cans were placed in a trench so that the tops were level with the S'1f; e of the soil. Plants were planted around the trench to Lake conditions as near n 11al as gossible. Tl1irt sen cans were used for each soil type and t o glen s 13 e left in each Can. This gave a to“ wl ofs plants in ea ch soil type from which results were obtained. weighinr W’s ..L done by means of a specially constructed beau scale similar b0 the ones used in weighing baled cotton and was capable of weighing up to 1500 lbs. with an accuracy of 1 ounce. lhis scale was swung from a frame by means of which the cans could be raised- Tfiis ei'eriz..ent was located adjacent to the plots used in the climatic factor studies so that the records for temperature, humidity, etc. were applicable for both experinen 3. Soil hoisture Studies. ’1 In this wcrk a method somewhat snails to tiat used by Balls wrs employed. Plots in the field were irrigated to produce varying con- ditiors of moisture. The plots were 20 ft. by 20 ft. in Size with a 2 ‘ ft. alley hetweer tren. naca plot was surrounded by a wa {3 \.) Ht) ('3‘) p P .J <: I}: r: y.) N (D 5.. iron placed 2 feet deep in tLe grourd to prevent the roots of the plants from feeding outside the plots. A r W of plants was grow in the alleys and on the outside of all plots to Lake conditions as nee nornal as possible and as a further precaution to keep the plants from getting moisture frcngsoil outside of the plots. .A wooden frame was built over the plots over which a canvas cover could be placed durinp a rain to pre- vent water from is ting on the plots. When it was not raining the cover was rolled back out of the way. She cotton was planted in rows 4 feet apart and with 2 feet be- tween hills in the row. Two plants were grown in each hill giving 100 plants per plot. The time of irrigation of the various plots is sronn in Table l. ‘Ehe rate was 1 inch of water each tine they were irrigated. Usually this was applied at night to prevent scalding and excessive water losses by evaporation. If it was applied in the daytime it was done only on a cloudy afternoon. The plots were laid off in 16 sections and small to confine the water Li banks of soil thrown up at the borders of these so a and prevent it from running into pools in the lower areas. This made it possible to irrigate the plots uniformly. The water was neasured by nears of a standard water neter capable of reseawinr to a -iaction of a gallon. L. Soil moisture records were obtained o" taking samples of soil Y The Dates of Irriyationl of tne llots- Year 1923 Year 1923 Plot Number Plot Number June 2 June 20 » June 20 .June 20 June 2 " 27 June 19 'une 19 July 4 July 4 July 25 July 11 July 5 Jul; 3 July 3 July 18 July 18 July 18 July 10 July 25 July 17 July 1? Ant. 1 aué. 1 July 34 sub. 8 July 31 July 31 July 31 July 31 Aug. 15 aug. 15 Aug. 15 Au;o 15 Aug. 7 au;. 22 Auc- 1i Aug. 14 Aug. 29 Aug. 29 Aug. “1 Sept. 5 Sept. 2L Aug. 28 Aug. 28 " 12 Sept. 12 Sept. 12 H 19 " 26 "ept. 25 Oct. 3 " 10 Oct. 10 Oct. 10 Oct. 10 *Irrigated at the rate of 1 inch on each date. ,. L; .- at three depths, viz. O - e, 8 - 16, and 15 - 24 inches, so the moisture content could be dctennined for 8 inch layers free 0 - 24 inches or for the entire depth. Only one sample per plot was obtained each week and in case the plot was to be irrigated this was taxen before the irrigation rather than after it. It was considered undesi‘able to take more sanples in a plot this small because of the danger of injuring the roots of the plants. lhe samples were always taken from between the rows and not in the rows with the plants. It is realized that these few satrles are not sufficient to give results with a large degree of accuracy, but they do offer some indication as to the soil moisture conditions under which the plants were growing- Ant spheric Records- Temperature and humidity records were obtained from a hygrother- megreph placed in a covered lattice house 6 inches from the surface of the soil and adjacent to the plots. Evaporation was measured by means of standardised atnometers placed between the rows of the cotton in such a manner that the white porous cups were about one foot above the surface of the soil. Records were naue within each plot and also outside of ther- atmometers with black cups were also used outside the plots to deternine the effect of sunshine. Blossom and Boll Records- The blossoms were marked with a nunbered marking tag as they appeared. This number was us d as a means of identification throughout tn: remainder of the studies. If a blossom was agedded or the boll rotted, a notation was made of it which showed the plot or can that it came rem. About the time the first bolls egan to open a chart was made of each stalk which showed the exact location of the stalk and the position of each be l on the stalk. The bolls were harvested separately. ihe cotton was per~ nitted to come to uniform noisture ccntert before the Leasurenents were nade, an all of the measurements were pads on each boll. hecords were kept by number only so that the person naking the measure"e1ts Iad n" know- ledge of tne location of a bell while making then. After all neasurenents were nade the source of tIe boll was recorded with this data. netted of heasuring Lint. She Length of lint was deten‘sined by a method si1:.ilar to t1 e one I! used by Balls. The lint was combed out fran the seed in a fan-shaped array and then by 'eans of a pair of dividers the length of lint could be mosaim ’ Usually five or more measurements were nade on each boll and I'\ when possible at least one seed fret eacn loch was used. It was not always possible to identify the individual locks. lhe averare of tlese measurenents *as recorded as the length of lint for this boll. Balls has shown that this is the nest accurate way of rapidly determining the averace length of lint of a bell. This length as shown by Tells is somewhat less than the length obtained by cotton classers in pulling, so the neasurenents recorded are 16:3 than those that would have been obtained by that method. The neasurenerts were made in all cases by the same person. Methods Used in Other DetenninatiO> O O C O O cecocnco<fipe O O 2.95 5. 2 2.96 2.86 5.00 2.58 erem-seere HFP‘CJ'IUJCDOH ka~a+4ceracn #3 U? C. 0.153 0.125 0.124 0.135 0.125 0.118 *Three duys beftre and t? s: f) n) I c+ (D *1 (D O C. H p; (D Q. H- b d: (D c+ C; 3‘ H (D CHART L0. 1 W. V/ 1 {7‘ walk 0F LImT ARD SIZE 0F LOLL ERODUCED ON DIFEla'Hu‘djgfl‘wp’QlL mas 11: 192:":- «SD v.29. FF}, L$AU (V a days before -13- Influence of Temperature, Humidity, or Evaporation on tne Length of Lint. The date cbtuined in this experiment are recorded in Tables 4, 5, and 6. The data by days in more detail is sheen in Tables 5 to 12 inclusive in the.eppendix. These ddte do not show any releticn between any of the factors considered to the length of lint. The results for plot 1 which was irrigated each wee: are illustrated by graphs 2 and 4. Those for plot 4 which Was irrigated only every 8 weeks are sheen by graphs 3 and a. The results from plots 2 end 3 are not illustrated by graphs as the; were intermed'ute between the results on the other tyo plots. These graphs show that there was no tendency for the length of lint to be associated with any of these factors. It is concluded that under the conditions of this eXperiment the climatic rectors did not in- fluence the length of lint. Influence of Soil hoistnr G) on the Length of Lint. This experiment was conducted in the field and the plots were irrigated at varying intervals, so that the plants on so.e plots were grown under very droughty cwnditions while others were grown under moist conditions. Four plots were used TllCh were irrifsted at the rate of 1 inch of water such tile as follows: plot 1 each week, plot 2 every two weeks, plot 3 every four wee:s, and plot 4 every eight weeks. The results are recorded in Tables 4, 5, and 7- The date is shown in nore detail in Tables 5 ts 12 inclusive in the appendix. It any 1\ been seen from these data that the length of lint produced .g a cotton plant was influenced to a large extent ly the soil moisture conditions under which the plunt grew while the lint was developing. The average length of lint produced on plot 1 in 1923 was 25.7 nnu while thet pro- duced on plot four was only 24.6 nm. The average length of lint produced The avernges by 1 lab le 4 seven~day* periods of the det r1 L- ezrinations made on cotton ir 'gated at different frequencies in 1923- Period Total Wt. per Leng h ho- of‘Per fit. of fit. of Mt- per Wt. of of No. of} boll i of » seed cent y'liht Seed seed lint Blomhin; Bells gns- lint per lint per per {15- per Ln” boll boll boll seed Lit.“ - this. *‘8 Plot 1- Irrigated each week- July 25 56 b 7-96 r 25.2 , 29.5 55-7 i 2.30 5.16 0.176 0-0956 Aug. 1 109 8-08 25.7 50-5 55-8 2.95 5-15 0-169 0-0973 any. 8 252 8-56 26-1 51-4 55-4 3-05 5-55 0-176 0-C9a5 Aug. 17 79 7-59 25.5 29-5 55.1 2-61 4-77 0-162 0.08:5 Aug. 22 55 7-16 24-0 28-7 56-5 2-64 4.54 0-158 0-0920 Weighted Average 551 8-15 25.7 50-5 55.5 2.90 5-24 0-171 0 0950 Plot 2- Irrigated everv two weeks- July 18 15 7-24 25.0 28-8 33-6 2.65 4.59 0-159 0.0920 July 25 106 7-42 24-6 28-8 56-7 2.72 4-70 0-165 0-0944 Aug. 1 147 7-54 24-1 50-5 56-5 2.63 4.66 0-155 0.0579 Aug. 8 256 7-46 25.1 50-4 57-4 2.79 4-67 0.154 0-0918 Aug- l5 17 6-54 25.1 50.5 58-5 2.45 5-91 0-129 0-0702 Weighted Average 619 7-21 24-4 50-1 57-2 2.68 4-55 0-150 0-0390 Plot 5- Irrigated every four eehs. July 25 65 7-18 24-7 28-4 59-0 2-75 4-45 0.157 0.0061 Ad;. 1 142 0-92 24-7 29.7 57-1 2.5 4-55 0.146 0.C365 Au;- 8 224 7.55 25.8 50.9 57-1 2.72 4-61 0.149 0.0aeo Aug. 15 27 5-57 24-0 27-0 59-5 2.20 5.57 0-125 0.0215 weighted Average 558 6-81 24-9 29-4 57-6 2.59 4-25 0-145 0-0371 Plot 4- Irri;ated everv eight weeks 9 July 25 101 6-86 24.5 50-7 57-9 2.65 4-22 0-157 O-0:65 Aug. 1 152 7-52 24-2 52.2 57-9 2.88 4-54 0.141 0-0394 Aug. 8 155 7-47 25-7 52.0 57-0 2-77 4-71 0-147 0.0566 Aug- 15 100 5-56 25-8 28-8 59.4 2.25 5.55 0-116 0.0774 Weighted Average 488 6-95 24-6 51-1 58.1 2.65 4-27 0.157 0.0352 *Three days before and three days after the data recorded in the table- luble 5. The everafes by seven-day’ periods of the determinations Hade on cotton irrigated at different Treque:cies in 1929. Period Total Wt. per Lenguh he. of Per at. of fit. of fit. per Wt. of of »No. of. boll - of seed »cent .-1int Seed . seed . lint Bloaming Dolls grs. lint per lint per pe gms. -er riJ boll boll bol see& (is. gxs. {rub Plot 1. Irrigated eacu wee? July 5 16 » .85 ~ 25.8 1 29-2 55.9. 2.94 . 4.91 . 0.133 . 0.1007 July 10 152 9.55 25.2 52.6 56.9 5.08 5.27 0.102 0.0945 July 17 144 7.98 25.8 54.9 57.5 2.99 5.00 0.145 0.0557 July 24 291 7.06 24.4 51.5 59.9 2.22 4.25 0.155 0.0895 July 5 296 7. 2 25.3 51.9 40.5 2.87 4.25 0.155 0.0095 aug. 7 54 7.05 25.9 50.5 59.1 L 76 4.29 0.141 0.0905 Aug. g 17 0.41 24.1 29.5 56.7 '.55 4.05 0.159 0.0202 fleiLhted Aver; e 929 7.42 24.8 52.2 58.9 2.2. 4.5” 0.140 0-0901 Plot 2. Irrigated every two WeeLs. July 5 55 5.70 24.1 25.2 58.1 2.17 5.55 0.152 0.0955 July 10 159 7.27 25.2 50.4 57.4 2.72 4.55 0.150 0.0095 July 17 245 7.41 24.1 54.4 57.4 2.77 4.64 0.155 0.0805 July 24 107 6.17 25.0 29.5 40.1 2.48 5.09 0.125 0.0710 July 51 110 4.86 20.4 26.7 41.1 2.00 2.86 0.107 0.0749 ‘ueigirted Avergge 652 6.55 25.7 50.6 52.6 2.55 4.05 0.151 0.025 Plot 5. Irrigateu everV'40ur Lee?(. July 5 105 6.05 25.9 25.2 59.5 2.53 5.38 0.140 0.0544 July 10 186 7.25 24.1 51.0 59.5 2.84 4.59 0.142 0.0916 July 17 74 6.72 24.0 52.5 57.5 2.52 4.2 0.150 0.073 July 24 100 5.99 25.6 29.4 58.4 2.50 5.59 0.125 0.0792 July 51 52 4.22 21.0 25.4 41.5 1.99 2.25 0.111 0.0785 fieigbted Average 515 5.44 25.6 29.1 59-1 2.51 5.95 0.15; L_Q:0545 P102 4;_ Irrigated every ci51t weeks. July 5 101 6.40 25.1 27.2 40.2 2.57 5.92 0.140 6.2545 July 10 125 7.55 25.9 I 51.0 59.5 2.91 4.45 0.144 0.1559 July 17 59 7.01 25.3 51.9 58.2 2.71 4.50 0.155 0.0250 July 34 64 6.72 25.5 51.5 58.3 2.61 4.11 0.150 0.0321 July T1 22 5.21 25.0 25.9 57.9 1.99 5.25 0.121 0.074" Heighted “varuie 582 6.91 25.5 CC.0 59.4“_2.63 4.15 0.153 0.0741 ‘Ihree 15.3 be: :3 u“; i.ree days 1ftsr tie gute reccrdei in tLe ouble. wa-wuc—mauu p—-_:gpb,zx9+c-s=-' 01‘ ("“ (‘1 3'” C) [—4 i'} C) O *3 (L; «3 (3‘; to 4:. C) C: a? '0 «I! p; p o o o a a o n o o o o o o o o o ‘1‘ r4 0 07' 'J-‘J U (J! O P (3) l-' \‘1 ok- (1 H 01: .4- (.1 "-4. . (a! .3 t- , r5?” I—' (‘1’ r'; 10 2' 5*": L. .‘F—l LI :- 22) "3-1;: '0 ".3 OJ C; (D (3.7? (:‘I (I) ("T (0 (I) ( C!) ’23 O O H H C co (3 Q”) (:1 (r. \1 \1 (3) L) to m D1iL—f‘ c—r- o o o o o o o o a o a o o n a Q n1 ‘(D ED 0 (.17 C: (I) O3 (.0 O #2- I--' C‘) H D-P' I‘» O Cu 1.5 ‘4. "' (nu-5 ' {C3 (0 "3'1 {3' ""__"1 y. c <‘E '0 (; '0 no to to m (r) m 0-: co ( *- m C“ (n :1:- 05 3 O to O H O 0 LC; u; \1 L Ca 0. \7 (1" (n C."- (D o o o o o o o o o o o o o c o 0 Ch. OH-fll—JOIOOO C4H01QrP-l—JOC- '23, i coL \‘J (,‘1 :3: (Jul 31.". if. h'\ ('1 (fl (3 C‘. <1 {'1 (R C“. C“. (J‘- 0 his (>3 0 l'-' (0 DO l—J CD 0 (.2 (I O) 14—“ LI “I; (‘1; o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o 0 fr"; ()3 l--‘ O C." .11 C)" 0. (£3 rF- l-' C" F1 \3 C“ ("I lv-J "4. :11 l>-J P (u <: :0 go . m N £j .. ‘0 CO 1") : (‘3‘ k"- G: .’ !-’ *‘f w- » 3' Ht- 3.3 m m (n (n m (,1 C5: (.= (L. (.21 «‘5‘. (2*. ()1 Q. 'E (O H". (a H O O O H (r; H (I }—’ w- o. ()1 \1 L: :5 O O O O O O 0 O I O O O O o O . C+ a If; (J! ()1 \1 >5 «.0 (,0 m 0: N C4 to (‘0 H m “a: a) 3-“ U: F?) E A O H. *1 C1 o H. 3 + an <5a; u‘a ht‘ 3‘;- 3.'>- .cs 4» m 01 (.21 U} 0: c... 0 ca: (1:; (:1, no (0 \‘I *7 (0 (I) H O (D (.0 (£2 [6.3 0 (L0 w,- Q] Q. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o I ‘D. O O (a N C o: 01 to (D (0 1?. <1 (:2. (C- O (L ‘-<.‘ ' U) 3 l_ 11 ‘ fa l "3 I \1 <1 pp: ()1 rib CI :5 pb 4‘5 ”'5 FF‘ ()1 R: if; +310! h“- 0'3; g m 0.)- ‘Cl OJ C) C] F“ We ‘3 if) C} if) R".- (j) C' C' C31 O]; 0 £32 (4- "f o o o o o o o o o o o o . o o . ‘ I (3 P is]: f- (D 53> (.0 C» r?» (3-3 Cr! H (A his {D (-3 (AF-1 '5) at»; , . 43'.“ f"‘ i | U) S): (U . Lu ' H O A 0- <1 ;..4. Q:- t] h; _ H (D O rP-CfirfiI-Prbbbflelp (‘Z‘CQCJC-‘:»+\H5-r¥>fi- 4394": o.) o. (0 ‘3 CO (is; 0: (3) to (a H (-1 ,;~.. L”: (I) C: 0 i. o o o o o o o o o o o o o a o o (D Q! g. 1::- (Q m (,0 (O (.71 O O m CD 05 to o.- (_-‘J {o O \1 - (£13 CT :4 4 t" 1 (3 _; :3 in H: x d' "3 3 w 9 23” * J VP- r$\ 3:5 01 4‘ #- #- I45 (:1 (r3 ('1 ('7‘ (-1 H" )5 lF‘ 0 vi) '. (—0 Q {C ()2 ‘0 "j ()3 ‘3 "1 (I: F4 (‘0 L1 C) F‘ Q: 6) Q, C :._J o O o O O O O o o o 0 a 0 o O I 0 £_. ’J m (I) (D N 03 <0 <1 (I) m C) m i—J <31 ~J m (r. 0 tr: 0 m " w- I)“ 13:1 .L 'V 'Tf‘v .L nimnq 5-. I 5 P11 .IO ‘ 133,1: w v "~ 332'; "1"”. :LL. oieAe morgvi Grant '9 3.7.30. 1 +0.0..er \o w. .. ... . . .. .. .... . . x... -... ... .5 .. . . .. v . . IJ .. \J . .- .¢a\'n .... . . , 1 n .... ms. / ‘1. .J ... 4.. \ «I. ...). . .1 Fkbr I..-r\0..’ (d (IF I\. le 3F»... l.- kw. 0.9... 0 t- r.. 00 r... CHIP L. (.5. HflCLr Ffv (H01 H. MW} .P PMCrU .\ .... ..L. ..J .0-) :. J.._..,r . . . ...... ....4... .r .5 .. ..J. .31. ) r00... chum WFOCO -..Hd. prkcmwh raw 6 (av! wakfizwc ....HWCrLOHwCFQC. $000 0. I 0000 m. 0000 m. m000 0. v.0; HawMfiuwum mqwflm uwww. H00 @0000 quH duo 400Wm. wawtwwwm 010mm 0010 Amme HHHMbnawn 0<0fim 00u00-0990 s.< b<. ?<. L<. #<. t<. #<. #4. hq. F0;0?02 . F00000H_F00mduaw F000505 00000000130000000 2000200 F00mdzww.t00mach.?0t0rc2 .20000000.90000000 20000500 bwfia 0020 20000n90 :00 wwmw k0000000 $00. 5000 900mapwo r000 n 90 IL 00 00.0 «0 0.40 00 gram mm 00:0 00 @020 mm 9040 00 m; 0 Wm 0:40 L Q L t 8 000 0000 000 0000 000 0000 000 0000 000 0050 009 00:0 000 0000 009 0000 000 0000 000 0050 000 00:0 000 0000 mem . . . . . . .000 00 00.04 00.0 00.0 . 00.00.0 00.0 A 00.0 0m.0+ 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00 00 00.0. 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 ... 0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 V. 0 00.0. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000. 00 00.0. 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0. 00.0 00.0 0.0. 00.0 00.0 000. 00 0.0. 00.0 00.0 0.0. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 .:..,.0 0 . 0 0 00.0 00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 C k f C Ca 0 L i Homo 1 .1 :00 0 0.0 00.0 00.0 0.0. 00.0 00.0 0.0%. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 -.whuw HO Hm..m_ leu Pmom Hmmoo Hmw..H mom; Hfiofl PHow E.N HH.P urn—vow HO.U .00 00 00.0. 00.0 00.0 00.00 00. 00.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 -0: 00 00.0. 00.0 00.0 0.09 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 :00. 0 00.0. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 pr.. 00 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .000 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 36900 000000000. #0000006 000090 00mm: 0000-0 0000w90005 000 2000. CHART No. 2 - RELATION BETNEISN AVERAGE mem OF LINT AND EVAPORATION, mm HUMIDITY, mxm‘m TMERATURE OR SOIL MOISTURE FOR COT’I‘CX‘I IRRIGATED EACH WEEK (PLOT l) 1928. (The aver ys, 3 days before LI temperature and soil P the date of blooming.) CHART NO. 3 RELATION bmrwmv' AVERAGE LflNGr‘H OF LINT AND EVAPORA‘HON, nmmm. HUMIDITY, mum 'rmurm'lmm 03 SOIL MOISTURE FOR COTTON IRRIGATED.EVERY 8 WE§ES‘(?LOT 4) 1928. (The average 14 tr 7 days, 3 days before and 3 .idity, tempera- ture and soil ,4 days after the date of blooming.) CHART NO. 4 RELATION W AVERAGE LENGTH OF LINT AND EVAPORATION, MINIMUM HUMIDITY, MAXDJUM TEMPERATURE OR SOIL MOISTURE FOR COTTON IRRIGATED EACH WEEK (PLOT 1) 1929. days >era- CIiLRT NO. 5 RELATION Br} .....1.-.’ AVfliw'nl M‘Gi'h OF LIN I‘ ALI) EVAl’CI ‘i'i‘ION, 1‘:.II‘.'H'.’.IH.‘L HUI‘LIDI'IY, LAKE. .3. 122.1010; ORA On” SOIL 1-01.5‘LUms ( inf" FOR COTTON IRRIGAILD EVERY 8 ‘u'El‘flxS (PLOT 4:) 00.4 . NH - W ._ / \ , . . . 0 I ' ' ..... , ‘ . . ' ' ~ 0 . L _——-._-~..JL_. Q - .- ‘4-.- . I 0- u. .- .. I . .. . . . . . . ......H0. 00.. . .. .... . ......... ......... ..-..... ----- . ......0 .. . .--.... - . ......ovv ~0vA-~.. .0....... .. . . ..... . ..(......_... ..-.. ...»-....-y- . . . . . ...... .0....*.. ..~.,.... . . . . . . . .....-.. (..-... .-........ - . ~ .00.... O o‘a—utoem out... ~ ~ - . ..-...00fJ” .....FP........ .H. .... .... .-., -..... .... .... 1 ...0“ . “I“... . .... ......... . .--... 0.....-0... . ...... ......o... . .._._+.. . ...... v~r~a o ..I.. . ..... . (The averag | before and and 8011 IT.” J‘u‘LyR “ff: ' 1 '. 0 :"‘;L O:- qnzor ammna- 'T? 4031.7: - 2573—335 9;}; of bloomi. . -~cr-.-— l v “H -15- fron bolls which were produced frog blooms opening on July 80 was 2d 8 In. for plot I and only 23.5 mm. for plot 4. Furtfiermore it 's slonn that by irrigating on August 15 the length of lint from plot 4 Was increased from 23.5 mm. on July 50 to 27.3 mn. on August 5. On August 5 the length of lint frcn1plot 4 was the same as that from plot 1. These data are illus— trated by (r aphs 2 and 5. In 1929 the avers “3 length of lint produced on plot 1 was 24.8 mm. while that on plot 4 was 23.6 mm. From blomLs occurring on July the ever 89 length of lint produced on plot 1 was 25.5 mr. while the produced on plot 4 was onl‘ 22.? mn. These data are illistrated by ”r aphs 4 and 5. The graphs show that the 131n th of lint is closely correlate with the moisture content of the soil the first fourteen days after bloom— ing. The.noisture data are not -bsolutely correct because of tLe neihod of saryling, but they are verv indicative of the moisture ccn‘ent of tie soil. It is interesting to note that in time of a moisture shortage an irrigatioz1 was follo iby an increase in the Ian); t1 of lint. In 1922 an irrigation on August 15 increased the length of lint over 3 mm. on plot 4. In 1929 an irritation on July Bl increased the length very little. ihe re sen fcr this difference in response is due to the we so.‘;. 1:1 192B tie irrigation was follo ed by cool weather so that the sffect of the nois ture "\ lasted over a longer period, while in ls29 the irrigati n was followed by ,. very hot wea the er so that the effect of tte moisture lasted only a few days- I ..D I I An examination of the records for ylot l rhows tnis ef.ect very strikingly. In 1928 an irrigation of 1 inch per week kept the moisture cent3nt of the soil at a high level but in 1929 tLe moisture content dro opged ranidly s1 spite of the irritation. In hot dry ' eut“e an irrifstion of 1 inc: yer -14- week is not enough to Laintain the moisture content of the soil at a level sufficient for maxiuum length of lint. It may he noted frat grarh 4 that the lenfth of lint on plot 1 decreased as the moisture ccnteht of the soil was lowered in 1929. an exanination of graph 6 reveals the fact that the curve for the leneth of lint rrecedes t‘at for the noisture curve by aheut seven daJs. To make the two curves rore nearly coincide it is necessary to shift the soistuze curve back ~hout seven days. This indicates that the nest cri— tical time in the formation of the length of lint is about th seventh day. (I) The entire reriod of fornation seems to be from the first to the 16th day after blooming. The data in Table 7 for the 14 and 35 day averages Was calculated by allowing for the increase in water due to irriration. For example, the water added by irrigation would increase the moisture content of the first '— n. of soil by about 0 per cent so that by adding this to the minimum N 1%:- Ho anount present when sampled the true moisture content for that day would rm. be obtained. ins method of figuring the averafie mav he illustrated for plot 5 on July 18, 1928 for the nex 14 days as follows: July 13 mininum DJ . . .I' n J u— . ' . o o _ n V_ _ neisture is 12.9 p; on th1s ay Op w s added by irrigation, so the true «L1 moictnre content n~s 7.9”. The fourteen day averfge then s (l7-9N plus 1% .3 7 J ' o o q .. _.' lO-Ou lus 10.3n) divzdea 0y s or 10.70- I 3 "3 C Ff E H O i f.) [1 O s a 7.1) Studies Cl 1 The weight of boll, percentage of lint, manner of seed rer toil, size of seed, and weight of lint per seed was deteunined. The data for theSe Lay L8 seen in Tables 2, 3, 4: and 5. Iahles l to 12 inclusive in the data in more detail- d‘ .14 (D {J “3 'r 1 (I) "f C x 1 pa ’o) Q RELATION coo-ow“ ogewv;..» rot-yypo ....+.. v .ttv...¢o .. ...-Ho pat'v'QD by tuQv—v‘o-o .u q.~¢—oovoov The lent \a from bloom ed. It will Le noted the ~- I .‘_‘~‘ 0 “ I“ ‘ : a“ : A Leisture in the LUL an the c‘te 1 length of lint curve :receies re noisture curve ry about 7 days.) T N 1 ‘ V" T . v‘ I' I ‘, fi<\ .'~ ‘ y . 1' 1 1";ll ‘ . N“ infl ence of uCll i te, -er1erattie, numi ditJ, 01 mi relation. VA Tress data do not sho: any relation tct.e:n any of the conditxons and any cf_t1e factors. done 01 these reellts for the size of toll illustrated by gm glxs l, 7, 8, 9, and 10. It may he noted that the weight of the bolls proda-ed ty cotton grown on the Lorfolk soil was 7.8 ass. in 192 3 and 7.51 Les. in 929, while those produced on the Deer Creek loam weifneq 7.46 fins. and 7.57 are. resrectively for the sale tvo beer percentufe of lint for these two soil types was 38.4 per cent and 33.6 yer cert re 2*;1ectively in 193? while i: 1929 it was 02.35 per cent cn the Ecr— folk soil szd 59.67 1er cent on the Deer C eek loan. It is concluded from ‘ 1‘ , ~. ~~‘ - -‘- .‘ 1‘, '1 . ~ "\ . ‘ x n , . ~ fl . . v‘ J"..- . -. ~L r r< tHBmJ 13.1lts inst under the 001% W] the of this ex1eci.ent ,‘e LCll type . 1.1. " ' l V i. v .91 r *1. ,,, ’ ,1 n 1 .1 I or cliuatic CPAal n s uii not 1 _ :e co the deith en t e LLllf, tic lir- , f '- .L‘ , 0 - 1 .1. fi‘ . 1 ' 7 n r ‘l ce*1t-,~3 o- lint, b“- ICiL ., 1 g 037', rr 1 3 ":1 1‘, c. lint per seal. a ‘ 0 ~ 0 ‘ _ 11 flierc e 01 0011 neistire. :11 - . ,. ._ 1, 1.. '. :_- , 1 :- ....: "r. 1‘- . ,~ ,.- ,.._:"- al.13 astral lily-L: L533 £93-: 1-- .19: 1L5 ‘z, C, gunk." 70 Ju'- ti“: q}: 1.4;:1’. titles 5 to 12 inclusive the rssu ts are shown in more detail. The data shows that the size of the toll was influencei to a narLed extent tv the soil moisture CCLditi OLS. In IDLE the tol ls cn 1lot l averaged 8-1 LL8- eucn in weizht while those on plot 4 averaged 6.9 Lms. For 19‘? the weights are 7.4 and 6.8 gas. restectively. The ei; 1 ts fret; 110'; s 2 and r‘ 5 were intem ediate betve;r these two. Ur pls 7, o, 9, and 10 show tie cf- relation tetween soil moisture and the size of tie boll, tut there is no a distinct critical period like there was in ass of the length cf lint. on the drier soil, Lut there is not a rsrked relation letneer tie soil noisture and the 1ar cent of lint. lie aversge .e 'v.t 1er seed and the -‘ ‘ v '. u ‘fel‘ué G) d H. CHART NO. 7 RELM‘IU‘N on "most or BOLL 1‘0 EVAl- 011131011, LII-Illumu mummy, immune {[11};me its-E UR scIL 101511111112 30R COTTON IRRIGATAD EACH hflflh kLOT l} 1928. asap g “\ . ' . “'1qu CC 3 ----Q j 2 . - g e- A 31L- . _ ...... - ...... ..1 . ....... .. . . ...... ... .. - ....-. ... . . . . . 004 Q... o - v - ., . . . - y-..a.... . .. .. . . a....... . . . . . ....-. . . . . , e-‘o‘a--o . . . . o-‘ ..... . .. . . . <-.¢.~.... . .. i , ."H"" . .. 4H“... . . H..§. ... . . §Q00 004! o .n . . >—v ....... . .. . .. . 4+. .... . . ... ,,..,.,,, . . .....,.g‘ .....I.. ...-.... u ; E . m 1. t .‘ p . o “h : “h . ‘QIIII , :1:::.::::" "‘12.: :7 """ . : . . ‘t17"::':::’:.. . -..*::::;‘: : ::.:.:;': 2‘ ; ' | 4::‘1‘:.L::::::;;: ::::..;': : ':.:.. :.': 7:. §§.:¢Iooouooao.... .. . .4-. .. ... . ... . . "'IY‘ .-.¢~.-- - . ... . . ... . $.HJ4 ......-.. ...... at ..V. . _. n.¢J¢ ......... ,.-1 .... ... . - ‘11“ "“::‘;: ':;; 3'; 2:: :: . . 1 ':§.'.:: :g;;..:.: :..:3.:.. .j .‘ 2:525: agree; 3132:3252; Hot-... n . . . i ”12:: : ; . '7.21‘ I ::‘:*§ ...... t '. "'- ' ‘.:.. ..,L*. :.. .. 1:.1' . ”-91-." ..., :;: ::t:. '. A 3“" um V MM"! 1“ : ' :E.i.:‘::*‘. :53. .;;:. :.. .. g‘:. ......sgssi‘ :;-‘__.,?-— "1 Th 1 a -. 15255;: at «2.: 322:: ::~ 33134173213853: 3'18" .. , --...__ . ‘ r. ( G aforeJLfi ’ , .. . .. . , L“ _ 7 (la/S, O (1% kg? 9 o d a ' ~ .ae ¢4~r<¢;i£3333i13 ‘ » .1 IJV'OI‘J $4.4- ..,’K.. ... .1 ‘ ... .. ---.I>—_ ty, tel..£,era- . ... ........_r a . 121 _\ swag-1 .- 1., ...i .. . ‘- n r ‘ lII‘L, a-” .3 ft” my ft: after '61] date of blo -uL-, CI‘LLR‘T 1&0. 8 RM‘I‘IUN 0F WEIGHT OF 13011. ID EVAPORATION, 12-11911311le rlULiIDI'I'Y , h-AXEIJM Tiafizfial’URE Alli) 250114 L'ZGI STUnE FOR _ (“he averuge wel before and 3 dgy uni soil moistur of bloouing.) QCTTON IRRIGA’HED EVERX 8 ’u'EEIlS (PLOT 4) 1923. ,-——" - “ band's; ‘ 3 after the date B HEATION 0F HEIGHT 0F BOLL T0 JVAPORATIQN, -INILLUM HUMIDIH, MAXIMUM TMERATURE AND SOIL MOIS FOR COTTON IRRIGATED EACH WEEK (PLOT l) 1929 ._ 111”! da’cl CHART NO. oovocoo. r .L e GEAR? NO. 10 RELI'IION OF WEIGHI‘ 0F BLLL TO EVAE'UrM‘i‘IL21\E , iuIE‘éIh-IUI‘L HULLIDI‘IY, LMILZUL’I l‘fl.;}'l£rmTU 315 On .EJUIL t.-.0I.5TURE roa cwrom li—ifiIGa‘l‘th 33va 8 anus (PLOT 4-) 1929. H” 3 I E , 466 I I ........ ...................... ..... ..... ........... ............... .......... ................. ......... ............. ............... .I-.. .kk ...... .......... (The average : “ 'IIIW:35TIV§Efl133337HI days, 3 days .............. before and 5 . ' ' -iéééiiii2::**:22:::??i§§'33 . 977 ,, , .............. ture and 801'. date of bloo 9-, number of seed “er boll was tne safe for 10th flots. In 192? the aversg3 nu:ber o? seen per boll was 30.5 for plot 1 and Sl-l for 1lot 4 while in 193? it was 52.2 and 30.0 res1ectivel”. DISCUSSIOK. The host significalt fact cL:ta1ned from.tiis investigation is that the asougt of tLe soil noistdre is the only environnental factor that influenced the dcvelorgent of the seed and lint in cotton. ihis was true for the lentth of lint, weight 1er boll, weight per seed, and WGiLht of lint 1er seed. 1ne percentage of lint was influen ed to BULB de ree Ly the soil moisture. lie tznml rature, hunidity, evaporation, or soil type did not a1pear to have any effect on any of the deterlina tions n1ade. It ‘ is probable that cotton is we apt ed to No inL u1d3r any of the ten1er Ll) ture condi1tions +3ncountered in tlis test without being adversely affected if there is sufficient moisture present. The tangerature and eva1ora tion 5 ing stout a mois t Te deficiency as we: H- :ny play an inrortart 1srt in br n ("3 shown by the results in 1923 when irrigation at the rate of one inch each Week was not sufficient to keep the moisture content of t1e soil up during a p3riol of ‘ry hot weather. An inch of water added to plot Which was very dry was offs we: ive in lcrstsening tte lint in 192? but not in 1929 because in 1988 tie irrigation was followed Ly cocl weather while in 1933 it "as followed by 1W0 tdry We ether in stick the no :‘ure Was used up bef tie lint had gene through its period of lezxg th growth. The length of lint was always reduced by a :gho tage in soil Iois- ture if it occurred during the 1eriod the lint was growing in length. This reduction was not however in "Lsolute 1royortion to t} e relucticn in wa ter nor was the increase in length from add 1v ion of water in proportion to the amount added. fiber: a; ears to Le a certain ninimun and naxinun length of lint for a Variety. By reducing the moisture the length would be decreWs ed until this ninimum was reached. rurther reduc ticn did not decrease the length, wh ch indicates that a stress great enough to reduce ‘ - it below this mininum Lust be so great as to cause tke toll to be sheoder. Additions of water would increase tke length of lint up to the narinun hut further increase 11"- the -uois tar would not have any effect. The di Hf mr m1 ce between the nininum and maximum is ap1roximate y 5 mn. or 1/8 of an incn for the strain of cotton used in this eryeriment- Greater differences than this occurred, *ut they are not averages of tany bolls. It ray be noted for exam1le that on August 19, 1923 the bolls on plot 1 b-‘J avezrafed 27 ms. in length n'ile t cse cn plot 4 avera;ed 21.5 KL. leis CT H- U _iffe rence of 5.5 nn.. but i F. (0 I I Q; for a few bolls and does not repre- sent reliable averages- A deficiency in soil moisture any time during the period of the first 15 days after a blos son apps are will shorten the length of lint 1roduce d by that boll. This reduction is gr (1” atest if it occurs around tte 7th day, which indicates tliat this is the period when the lint is asking its most rapidg ovth. ho histological studies were made to de- termine if this 1as the case in tlis e71 risent. balls rerorts in his studies that in “gyptian cotton this period is around the 16th day and the entire growth period is approximately 23 days. This differenc ce nay he due to the more rapid grow'ng ha‘it of G. hirsutum used in this stuly. It is qtdt generally known thlt cotton fr3n diffeient sections varies in length. Youngblood att1ibutes tzis to soil type, While Punchess J shows that tie sane soil nay produce th3 longest lint in the state oneyear and tee shortest lint in the state the next year, and he attributes this to rainfall. The results of this e11 crimes t do not agree Wit11those of —l?— Youn blood but the" do a ree with tLe idea that bun Less advanced. In , (I i. this R’W““l ent t}. Ie two soils that are said to produce cotton.; differiny in Value when placed in the se.e envirvnrent and kept moist rroduced cotton tket was identical when ylnnted to the edre variety. If C). H Ft (E. (1,) d" 1'” £2 Q\ L: (‘ c4— ene section produces a cotton that is quite must he eitter a difference in variety or a difference in soil noisture. Ihe soil type in itself had no effect on the cotton, but of course soil t"pes Viry in their ahility to retain :Oi3tur0 and in so doing : i'y in- fluence it. One car -not nl a;/ s be certain of a soil producing a longer staple than some otter cne. r’ soil is likely to produce short staple cotton in cut Q; t 3 R1 to 5- '1’ O In nest of the cotton belt there is enough moisture to produce \J a fOCd staple in the avtrsge season. It seexs tie t tine Lost logic= explanation of tie differences recognized by the trade is due to variety rather than 2011- for exargle it is known th;t 20 years ago the cotton produced in the region of Alexeyder City, nlaben , was a nuch sought type that always brought a premium, hu‘ today this sane re; ion prodlces cotton ttet is sold :t d discount. The soil type has not changed, but the varieties used now are vastly different frcn those used then. Balls concluded that tie LEll mois’ire effected the length of lint, a longer lint being procuced when the soil hdd nore noisture. Ed'scns found the sane thing, but Eurd reports the opposite to be true. Eurd's res lts n dy he explained by Bell's idea that a rise in the Water table would suffocate part of the root ersten end decreuse the length cf lint formed. he results of this exlerinent agree with t‘os: of hells and rarsons. e av '\ x ‘ . 1+ 1‘ ' -. . 1‘- A ~~ . . ~ |-. 4- - r A farmer is very Luci intereste- in tne nininun steele thit a r‘ / variety will produce under adverse conditions, because cotton below r/d ' a 1 inch in length is not ton erable on future contracts. Conseduently the trade does not want such cotton and the farner may is forced to sell it for a much lower price. To prevent this he should plant a variety that has at least an inch staple so that when a dry year cones the staple will not be less thpn 7/8 inch. A plant breeder should select for a staple that is at least one inch in length in good years for the swne reason. The weirht of the bolls was reduced by a deficien y in soil nei ht of t e seed atd t‘e weight of the lint, but the weight of'the seed was reduced nore than was the weight of the lint per seen. Thus the CF) 0 ginning percent was increased somewhat by the adverse moisture condition This is exactly what would be expected since a reduction in the size or ‘ C‘ ,- 4" » (1 ."f ‘ g 1 r; rs II I ‘. .A ,r\ — - ‘5'1‘ .4 the seed recuCes tLe surface and as tne see. heccnes analler «on nuts a «I «f larder surpace from which to .row lint in proportion to the nass of the 1 g- x“ The decrease in the Wei ht cf the boll was due to a decrease i; 1 k4 eed. The number of (I) the weight of seed and lint and not to the ntnder of seed per boll seems to be independent or external conditions. ihe wei per boll is tee result of the numters of seed, reirnt 1e“ seed, and weight of lint. the lint srows and fills over a long period so that its weight is determined over a long period. The smte thing must be true for n i the seed as there does not seen to be any sharp break in the curve for its weight when the moisture was deficient over a short period. Since d- H r— O J (D {.4 ttere was no immediate reduction in weight of lin drought over a short period it would naturally follow that there would .1 not he a sharp break in the curve for the weirnt of tie boil. TLis is -20... 5 What happened in this experbieut. Change n the moisture ccmtent for u U) H. few days were not followed by changes in the size of the toll. It seexs \r- ‘L 1* ”r ,. - . ‘\V 1" ‘ I: 4- n ~. " - . ' ' “ ‘3 1H. 1 7. fl ". tLat an» Cwndltlbn fliich reiuces ole dei.it ,ei toll bust set over a long periol. 63131.}de Studies were made to detenline the influence of soil type, ... climatic conditions, an« soil moisture on tle development of lint and J... seed in cotton. Plants were grow. in two very different types of soils ' “1V rm . . - 'w .- ‘ " *- 1’q 4".“ .v'p ‘, ‘4‘ I ~ «3"; ‘9 av. tallwlzed li‘OIl Coins b0 Sth'" the 1.14 4313.06 bl SOll lifts. ..‘O- E (D *3 (D U) r1;". 9 e (1‘ (A ’7') p.) {.1 r) C?- (I) (1’) studying cliratic 91d soil moic re grown in ‘he 'ated at different intervals. Determinntions were made on ' h each toll for weight, lengti 01 lint, number 0 re ( ’l C) ( J D I d H a (“4, a. O Pb (D Q a weigfit of lint per seed, and per cent of lint. The results of his study may he briefly sunnsrized as follows: 1. ihe amount of noisture in the scil was the Lost inportant factor influencing the development of seed and lint in cotton. 8. 5011 type did not affect any of the characters studied. {3) P ...! '2‘ 2+ £ 1 h‘ 0) (D (Q Q. Cotton Crown in soil from tie hississiopi Delta produce '- .L which were in all respects like that grown in Eorfolk sandy loan soil frct Alalasa. b. Taxperatdre, Lunidlty, and evaroration sad no vieinle influence on the constituents of seed cottcn. ap4arent y cotton can tolerate tie extretes of any of ties“ encountered durinp tlis test wit‘cut being adversely affected. 4. fhe amount of moisture present in the soil had a very marks; effect on the length of lint and weight of toll produce . a low noisture \J -31- caused a short lir lt a:id ligkt bolls to be fungal. a. iha critical pem'i d in t foriuticn cf tL:.~ l:;;tL cf the lint wa; feugfl to be frcn.l to 16 days lfter Lloasonihg. lie Lost inpor— I __Y n ., , 2‘ . — ." L. ' .‘ _?_ I J I V I " ... ..A 1.‘ 1,—vv taut film}: “LII 11;. tliio 1.97310- 13 auou u tie 51.131 (...-iv; . 1' in‘l‘v -: . .- \ ': ‘ ' 4'1. -' .~ ., ‘l" ‘ P '1‘. ~- 1 '1 t" 1 5* o. iua critical Enriod for Una fidlbgt oi 9L3 Loli Hub frml 7. 319 number of seed Der boll »rlfilrei to be sin,ullu inle— .L }. renfiert 3f arvi: cnmentzl i“:Wl execs so thvt a relu0“ion if. toll weight T7? “‘uc- C‘ ' " ~- - - — , — 5 4 — ' i. 1 ‘ . , f ,. lie i:r33_1i a of 111, Mpgeursu Do 19 IRCFanU: g l "Pl- n . v- —. :fi' -' 4 u‘ (u/ . ~ ; ‘w ' I‘ F ‘. *\ "1‘r . "< ‘V" x" 1““ 4" I. . r '1‘, E‘fi 1 Y) 3:1‘ J". “$5 *7 " ‘1",\“» M" ‘- le1.v_v it. 1‘..‘\) '_.L l. K .L\.. ukgn‘;0 4.2-1 ”yin; u. «9 -..C‘ g; .. (A... vfi)- le\L\LCLI.1 LLL ‘1'. LI,..,U "‘j‘L'L. , .-.‘~ an - '. 4 ' . ' v. - -' -4- . , I3r snug hmih 1n ; 'eiJLL of lip. Jer Le3.. a ‘ >_ - 01 y . ’ .L 1 “ J.“ I n n ‘J— . _ - 9. Iu nu. gossi.ia uc J,buJe ibe i0L1u; a lLL- it lviy. . hi- ./'~ : 1‘ ‘- 1 . _ 94‘ - .' .V i! ‘JL . I. , i '4.‘ '1 « hi4. - n 4.1 .W. (l; L} .LXCA'.) u"; .3313. :«Cll. 4...?) ...011 I..(.‘1 E; M118 L10 a Cl‘l 1:13‘..L 1101;; U 0 1t lllf ul.‘&-.' 4.; ...p 4...”~ ,... ' ‘ ‘°(.-. .‘ ,._ ..- ‘4. .v ...-“ .- . -, .'_. +1., Ui\u u“ 4L9 0011 “019 Mrs ”as do” icllo.ui by u i och0104 in ill 50 Le a certain Linigum luhpui oi lint for this strain of cotton. izerc is algo a'gdxiMU¢ lslgtL because incrcu;— - ~-..- 4.1.. , 9., 3, ,— .-_._ 4---.~'.‘. .w‘ .-.. ._ 4,.1 . : .- - '.-_ , ‘3‘ a 113 UAL’L: £9011 ILOi; UuL '8 \e" ”f a 0 JJ: UA¢L1 l. J:'-J3A-U%d -L-LJ- not l.¢cr£)‘ {9:}. let’ 1:1; t} of lint. I: follcws thgt the relation hat “a; soil moiutura and length of lint is a ligcqr one but the origin of the line is not 3»ro. 10. any lesirlhle VariJ tJ cf cottcn should pro‘uce a lint tLut . . 4- A x _""L 1 ‘. ~~ L“ I ‘ 1 ’ ’ r" ““| N 1‘ 1"- ‘ ' '—\ ~ ~-' '? - '- ‘. . r“ .\ v is up slow i ihcu ll ish ti ider 0p imum can ibiono. inis lb LBCSoSurf in order "that a StuPlB halos: 7/3 inch in lam-i. . will not be proluce'd L0 . i O ACI‘ll 03'4anth E o‘ . The writer Wishes to expree his efiprecieticn to the authorities of the hiohigen State College and the Alatara Polytechnic Institute for making this investifiation p ssible through their cooperation and to cer- tain individuals whcse assistance was especially valuable. Dean 5. A- Eessey and Dr. R. P. Hibbard of the botany Department of kickigen State College for outlining the problem and ior Iainstukin: review- and helpful cu; estions in writing the Manuscript. eun L» J- Funchess of the.nlebama A;ricultlrul Ecperiment - Station for many helyful suggestion "nfi criticisms in planning and cor- C) ducting the experinent on the Station fiern. Director H. E. Ayres of the Delta Station, stoneville, kissis— sippi, for supplying soil. Dean R. Y. winters of the horth Carolina agricultural Experhuxn Station for the pure line strain of cotton used. to 01 o 10. LIBLICGRAPHY. Bulls, W. L. The igvelop¢3ut fild pHch r fie J c Black ’21., Lozdon. 1013. vs” J ". .-. ' ,._ - '1- .4. ' , .. r“ .' Quid, L. L. CouLun in pa. Vincent. -ro "I n/1 ‘N 4.9.2." l‘t’lérf. - Luca, L n. Retorts on 1h: res L :g3riz3ut stutL n, 5:. Vincent, n J O I "I u n“ I ~-—- _r‘ Q ~ J. Gr M’il e: .i w, Q3uo H. — v 1‘ a - _ ‘ ~, A ‘F‘ . J_ ' _ . -. l‘LL C .th. , 1... J 0 “(41+ - 1.441169 CU o til-:1 lullh I; in“ HIM,“ , 1., .': -‘! “'. *’ 0L 1 Luz/‘1'“ :Iicl :d I‘ pt 3 . a 0 ul 0 .LIL-‘Ql 0 Q 0 ears: work carriea k 1 03) Pro “:0 n SCL l' 1 er cotton. out at in: Cotton . ., ' I- ”1.4- ' Indies. niii4e cotton Hurluni, o. C. Report of conferesce cu Gotten. ib: psi. 87. 1927. nesruej, I. h. ului s a ’ " ‘ a - ’y" “" 1 ‘\ 5'“ “L .‘\ ‘ I ‘ ‘ ' at dilferent flJl'-bL on tne glen». 192i. Ludwig, C. A. Scne effect; of la douth Carolina dip. S‘“ Veihneyer, F. J. a d Lendrickson, A. H. wilting of plants. Plait PLJsiol- - Sons factors a of deciduous orcLards. Hi Youngblood, .3. Re eti on o kimexrulhe eodress i workers Houston Iexas. Veb. 6. J-tll J 'fOliQt: on So 1"" . U o — H- J..- of cut .fi;‘ 0 ”pm,“ ,.“ uul‘fu LqL.IJl CAMQ. lextile Retorder ton fiber frag toll . -.—. I':?e 5.5-. , . .I' Ow. :k—‘ . Alt—IUD “.30-. qu-JoU. *-- 'l moi {SII :‘QaI/I e irr in cotton. A ‘ . ‘ ' —~ '- r ‘ '. J sture ut germauenu ”1 l& 2;. o ifetion squire; :ts . 125— 237. 19;?- to file quality of cotton. 1 0011 BIL ern Agricilturul 1‘. L.) The average results of Vorious deteniinoticns Table 1. 011 cotton grown in hor“o]k sandy lOdm soil in 1923. Blooming Date Wt. per boll Length of lint -Tota1 NO 0 bolls bNO. of seed per boll Per cent lint "to Of 111.1: per seed July 13 July 14 " 15 16 " 17 n 18 " 19 " 2O " 21 " 22 " 23 " 24 " 25 " 26 " 27 ” 23 " 29 " 3O " 31 A C. l H 5 " 5 H 7 H 8 I! 9 n 15 n 16 19 1'7 n 18 Weighted Avera;e .L. (3 £31 (.4 the CD {‘0 (7 C“. q \1 o 0 on <1. 0. I. O OKJNCJI'JKOLWC‘CfiflQr-fi f1)(DF-JI;é-O~JQIrP-C4 ‘33 '1) L0 {‘3 {'1 'OQQQQO‘J O f 3") O 1‘“ \1 n5 (.71 01 (R. H3 O: 03 C") 0107 C: Q C: Ca ~11 o O O o o O C. D 27 24 23 25 25.2 25 24 23 23 {o \ 0 O O O 0 . ~JCaLnF4~Q¢>c.m.~acntocntoranala 10 F’ F4 +4~a~aca~a FJFJFJtUldideFo#i~(D!O(D . 25.0 28.0 29.0 33.0 32.0 28.5 33.6 31.7 '2 ('3 Cl 31- 32- 1 2 ) ". CO \‘1 “>- 1‘0 01 I'-‘ U] (:1 0.1 p. CflNIDNNWUOHUJb'Jrf—i(QC-3C)? UUmHNOUINOat-JONH O O OOOOOOQNOCab‘IUI‘LO (23 Cr) 0 .p O x. .v . ca. ()3 (0 .1 0 2".) Lg) (D (D O C»? ()7 C): (A . ré‘e QwflOu) O... O ’3QNCZ‘h’b-QDOOQ O C (:3 03 C53 C27 (2': L0 N 1 0 {ix—I05 38.8 39.8 33.2 38.5 39.0 39.0 36.6 36.8 37.5 37.3 40.1 43.3 35.5 39.1 37.9 39.0 Kit. of at. of White-r lint seed . seed . per per boll boll 2.22 0-09 .147 3.00 4.435 .158 2.66 4.475 .154 3.02 4.75 .143 2.60 4.595 .143 2.51 3.932 .137 .99 4.773 .142 .05 4.007 .143 .04 4.513 .135 .75 4.525 .135 .9 4.543 .133 . 4-803 .133 . 4.120 .141 . 4.078 .140 . 3.308 .097 4.102 .127 4.809 .140 . 075 .135 \‘axat-Jflmmre-cnowmflanqocwmmoom'QOQG {OGJ‘CAQOOQO‘IRDCNNHE'C.”()~:OHHU‘QNC§J'~DP;5CQ C;- no +4 no +4 +4 +4 no no (a no (a no no no no no no no no (a (n no (A cs to to no no no 0% ha 0 O O D . I I '00: N \1 ()3 p (’3 O {‘3 #- P’F’ 01¢ nae. rbtocacsh4n9#>#>010101$ p.o.>.n.p.p.p.p a +4 [‘0 C C; C, .131 .121 .122 .128 .127 .120 .149 .130 .127 .113 .142 .128 .118 .090 .081 .154 .120 .125 .083 .129 .0888 .1071 .0917 .0915 .0851 .0980 .0389 .0962 .... 1:7 '\ . .JIJ O (j; P. .1) 0 \L' l v \ r‘) 13".): . \)‘QU .0840 .0891 .0912 .1159 .0735 .0070 .0422 .0351 .C7ié .077 .081 .0030 .0308 .0330 .0130 .0306 .0630 .0855 .0776 .0691 .0010 .0627 .0552 .0771 .0765 .0839 _| ‘- Hit 1 .0817 Table 2. The average results of various determinations on cotton grown in Norfolk sandy loam soil in 1929. Blooming Wt. per Length Total No. of Per Ut- of Wt. of Wt.per fit. of Date boll of No. seed cent .lint seed seed lint lint bolls per lint per per per boll boll boll seed July 10 8-615 25 1 34.0 38.7 -3.335 5.280 .155 .0980 " 11 7-490 25.3 3 33.5 37.0 2.780 4-710 .141 .0331 " 12 0-370 24.5 4 30.0 39.8 2.540 5.350 .127 .OSés " 13 0.135 25.4 7 36.7 59.2 3.210 4.976 .135 .0774 ” 14 8-075 25.7 10 35.6 59.5 3-170 4.905 .137 .0290 " 15 7-743 25.0 12 35.9 59.2 5-050 4.713 .131 .0344 " 16 7-007 24-6 14 34-5 40.0 2.720 4.227 .124 .0783 " 17 7.309 24.4 15 37.5 39.4 2.880 4.429 .117 .0705 " 18 7.393 23.7 13 37.4 40.8 5.020 4.575 .115 .0307 " 19 7.247 24.5 18 57.4 40.5 2.920 4.527 .115 .0780 " 20 6.277 24.0 14 27.5 40.6 2.720 3.557 .129 .0989 " 21 7-145 24-1 8 53.2 40.2 2.89 4.255 .128 .0397 " 22 7.875 24.4 13 37-6 40.4 3.18 4.695 .124 .0845 " 23 7.72 24.0 12 36.2 41.1 3.17 4.551 .125 .0275 " 24 7.375 24-3 3 32.0 57.0 2.88 4.495 .116 .0746 " 25 7.05 24.0 1 38.1 79-1 2.69 4.370 .114 .0706 " 26 7.047 22.5 2 40.5 41-0 3-14 4-507 .111 .0775 " 27 8.148 24 5 30.6 28.0 3.11 5-03; .137 .0849 " 2B 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O " 29 5-530 23 2 33-5 40.3 2-54 3-490 .104 .ooss " 30 3.408 24-3 3 27.0 39-4 3.35 5.078 .137 .0900 " 31 5-050 24.0 2 30.0 40.9 2.01 3-040 .101 .0670 AUC- 1 6.405 22 1 33.0 29-7 2.53 3 905 .110 .0731 " . 2 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 3 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 " 4 C 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 " 5 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 5 0-91 23-0 1 23.0 36.5 2.54 4.400 .157 .0907 " 7 5.849 23.7 4 32.0 36.2 2.40 4.537 .13o .0775 " 8 3.033 24.0 1 26-0 40.4 2.41 3.503 .15) .0023 " 11 3-95 24.0 1 40 38.1 3.41 5.340 .131 .0852 Jeighted Average 7.342 24-42 03 35-21 39 F5 2.932 4 410 .1240 .0333 Table 3. The average results of various meterwipauions on cotton syronn in Deer Cree loaL soil in 1923- Blooming Wt. perTLength Total ho. of. fer - fit. of fit. of'dt-pcr at. of Date boll of 50. seed cent - lint seed s 90 lint lint bolls per lint per per per boll boll boll seed Ju1y 7“‘T?§fi§5 . 25.5 . 1 27.5 . 55.9 . 2.1? . 2.925 .105 . .07 " 5 5.515 25.0 1 53.0 10.5 5.57 1.975 . :9 .C93- " 9 5.015 25.0 1 22. 15.9 2.25 2.955 .1CC .1022 " 10 5-515 25.0 3 23.0 33.7 2.03 3.426 .1391.OW " 11 7.173 25.5 5 52.6 57.9 2.71 1.153 .153 .021: H 12 5.9:5 21.5 5 52.5 57.5 2.52_ 1.515 .152 C 05 " 15 1.957 25.5 2 19.0 52.3 .55 5.127 150 .0: CC " 11 7.552 21.1 5 55.0 59.9 2.95 1.122 .125 C 12 n 15 5.250 21.5 11 51.5 59.7 2.71 1.15 .152 C‘ " 15 7.161 25.1 7 52.5 59.7 2.27 1.291 152 .0955 a 17 7.577 25.0 15 01.9 50.7 2.59 1.127 .125 .0223 " 18 7.775 25.5 12 25.5 C9.0 5.05 1.725 129 .0255 " 19 0.515 21.1 20 59.2 59.2 5.25 5.055 .122 .C;CC " 2 2.001 20.2 21 57.1 10.5 5.22 1.701 . 27 .>CCC " 21 7.911 25.5 15 55.0 29.1 5.07 1.571 15. -52 " 22 7.792 25.5 21 55.1 29.5 2.99 1.202 .155 .0251 " 25 7.579 25.5 15 26.2 59.1 5.11 1.752 .151 .0359 " 21 7.576 21.7 25 51.7 55.‘ 2.90 1.715 .155 .0211 ~ '5 7.259 25.1 11 51.0 05.1 2.92 1.919 .115 .0555 " 26 7.912 25.0 21 51.7 5 .6 5.09 1.352 .110 .0590 " 27 7.215 25.1 22 55.1 59.2 2.51 1.159 .152 .0511 7 28 7.595 25.1 17 51.5 55.9 2.52 1.575 .155 .0215 " 29 7.271 25.1 17 55.1 27.5 2.92 1.951 .157 .0505 " 50 7.115 25.6 5 59.5 29.0 2.55 1.555 .115 .0722 " 51 7.257 25.5 7 25.8 38.7 5.05 1.502 . 51 .0551 Aug. 1 7.595 25.5 11 51.0 38.3 2.70 1.295 .111 .0791 " 2 6.179 21.1 5 52.2 59.1 2.51 5.969 .12 .0755 " 5 7.655 21.5 5 57.0 57.9 2.90 1.753 .129 .0725 " 1 7.502 25.0 2 55.1 59.9 2.25 1.522 .159 .0270 " 5 5.29 21.1 7 55.1 10.5 2.75 1.110 .115 .0755 " 5 5.212 25.7 1 51.2 10.1 2.51 5.502 112 .0710 " 7 1.11 21.2 5 25.2 15.1 1.95 2.500 105 .0777 " 2 7.0677 21.1 9 55.1 11.0 2.57 1.197 27 .0725 " 9 6.055 25.0 1 51.0 57.0 2.15 5.52. .105 .0711 " 10 9.15 21.0 1 51.0 59.0 5.22 5.21 .159 .1052 " 11 2.00 25.0 1 11.0 55.5 0.75 1.27 .090 .0521 " 12 0.75 25.0 1 5.0 55.2 0.12 0.51 .05 .0217 Weighted Average 7.450 N 01 O (13 01 to Cl gs ('1 CW L .12. to o. \W‘ p. -I I...‘ [.4 (.r- H O \3 \3 ID The aVBruge results of various detenrination «min a. ~L...A 4.1; {:I‘OWI‘L Table 4. in Deer Creek 10a» my". l‘CIl-u u“ . 3 cu cotton I3113cmn111g; Date Wt. per boll Length of lint rTO 131 NO- bolls No. of seed yer boll b fer .,4_ "L:- lint of re be r Wt. Of seed r 11 rWt-per‘ seed Wt. of lint per 5860 July 11 n 12 n 13 n 14 n 15 n 15 n 17 n 18 n 19 n 20 n 21 n 22 " 23 " 24 " 25 " 25 " 27 n 28 " 29 " 30 n :3 gskko FJC>¢JC) aha»: H 13 ll 14 I! 16 Weighted Average . O. (OO‘IQO ."r)()1(;1}.4q)~3|—Io)©N01OEOCT'DNCD O ".ICJCOF’C.‘ (21(1) C)1C3H\‘1(_OC)[~3 ".OfltfiCOQJHOOXHh’hi-err-JOHNUCDCO \1 (:3 IL") DINIC>C>Qi83t3FJKD\3~J(UCHF403r O OOfi‘POCflOCOC‘l-rbCiF-‘OrhO'QNF—JN C) . . . O . . O O . . . . C U3 (H C 0-9 U1 {‘0 CF-i \‘J l") N 01 {U C".- ~10)@fiflcaflfl\‘JQQCOQQQUQCDQCH‘Q03(DOJQQCD‘QCDQCUQCDC)cn.p.p @-U|01$~$*$>Cfl(firbt# 0103 O [‘3 c 24.10 HN$NHUTH5IP~(DI\1(OPCDOQN9H'QC/erkUlflUl‘QO) 211 43.0 56.3 34.3 39.0 36.8 33.0 37.2 40.2 39.7 37.6 34.2 37.0 35.0 37.6 31.0 35.1 54.0 e UWK’QO O (.30 (1.: (T. ('1 (j C): (:3 to 0'1 m (a oqoacluac>k4 C 0 O O m-m>c.cnc.C‘cza: O 0 O o UIUIN>01C>UIK)01C301C>L1<103 (3 (-1. +514 C»? O O o I y u o ’3? u o 2 . 3 . (23 (.73 O r§ \‘IN anggcae> 8??? $913019}? HOP—'HOHH .'- #1"th m)C)UIN)<1C>UaoJUIm.na CfiCfiCQOUUTQIUIN O... ©01QCQE‘JO‘4CD'QHC; $OH7 N {‘3 N U} to 0] Cf: O O "OHCJIO: cn.£>#».¥>.h#>o1.F-ri>01 T.) H2. 0 .btu(»+4-q- wt: 9 p. .2- »!s us ca .4:- #3" C 9.. O C uwp.p+p.h q fisch§#>,‘ h3' 31FJFJHIUINJN)C ‘o H‘ IP- |- 3 '1 [p ‘q C] 1...: 0‘. {O to 1) 01F‘#~F’fi-FJCFFJDDC90303C3 ‘2 =OCOCAF4 511 H ()1 .131 -124 . 22 .130 .131 .129 .118 .120 .120 .133 .122 .123 .111 .126 .134 .131 .124 .143 .135 .136 .132 .130 .133 . 33 .127 .131 .119 .131 .116 .120 .109 .113 .119 -109 .127 .132 .0962 .0757 .0804 ~0348 .0334 .0510 .0849 .0830 .0788 .0949 .0852 .0332 .011358 .0912 .0734 .0740 .0770 .0003 .0264 .0873 .0976 .0788 .0336 .0816 .0945 .0330 .0334 .0031 .0765 .0792 .0746 .033? .0800 .0637 .0736 .0701 .CC309 Table 5. The average results of various determinations on cotton irrigated each week. (Plot 1). 1929. @- to 01K) to i—Jl Bloaming Wt. per Length .Total»No. of Per Wt. of. Wt. of1nt.p3rpfit. of Date boll of K0. seed . cent lint sesd seed lint lint bolls per lint per per per boll 1011 0011 seed July 21 10.045 . 25 . 1 r 34 . 35.0 3.01 . 0.4554 .189 . .103 " 22 9.033 20 3 30.3 37.7 5.22 5.320 .177 .103 " 25 6.939 23 5 27.0 37.4 ”.00 4.859 .101 .003 " 2’ 8-933 ' 33.? 4 29.7 53.3 0.10 5-7J2 .197 .104 " 25 8.000 25.0 7 29.0 35.1 2.24 5.24 .120 .007 " 20 7.737 25.9 11 20. 34.0 2.70 5.002 .170 .000 " 27 7.2" 25.6 14 30.1 35.2 2.66 5.50 .176 .0075 " 28 7.320 25.0 11 29.9 56.5 2.25 4.975 .100 .0953 " 29 8.20 24.9 3 31.0 35.9 5.00 5.23 .168 ‘ .0937 " 50 7.90 25.8 11 29.1 34.3 2.74 5.22 .179 .0941 " 31 7.373 25.9 14 30.1 34.5 2.75 5.223 .173 .0915 Aug. 1 7.502 23.0 17 51.7 33.9 2.29 4.502 .142 .0011 " 2 7.253 25.1 8 28.0 57.7 2.70 4.500 .162 .0904 " 3 3.5798 25.5 20 31.0 35.0 3.18 5.30” .174 .1025 " 4 8.559 20.2 20 29.6 35.9 3.00 5.35: .180 .10 3 " 5 8.559 20.0 20 31.6 35.0 3.15 5.559 .175 .0990 " 6 8.740 20.0 40 31.2 33.0 3.10 5.53 .17? .1012 " 7 8.212 26.4 45 3 .8 35.7 3.00 5.152 .162 .0952 " 5 5.533 25.6 30 2 .2 35.1 3.05 5.523 . 82 .1013 " 9 8.65 25.8 44 32.6 54.2 2.9? 5.07 .175 .0917 " 10 8.77 25.2 43 7 .5 55.3 2.8 5.39 .192 .0947 " 11 8.163 25.0 24 31.6 35.5 2.23 5.283 .167 .0911 " 12 7.75 24.4 12 28.5 35.2 2.07 5.08 .178 .0953 " 13 7.201 25.0 16 3 .0 54.7 2.09 4.611 .153 .0303 " 14 7.412 25.6 16 29.7 37.0 2.74 4.674 .157 .0922 " 15 7.045 25.2 5 29.2 33.1 2.70 4-945 .140 .0906 " 15 7.40 25. 9 27.0 34.8 2.61 4.‘5 .179 .-SS4 " 17 6.0u0 25.0 10 27.3 34.1 2.32 4.32 .155 .0630 " 18 7.718 23.4 11 23.0 33.9 2.0" 5.0“8 .1SC .0790 " 19 7.55 27.0 3 28.0 35.7 2.75 4.32 .170 .0004 " 20 7.790 24.2 9 2 .4 36.5 2.85 4.055 . 02 .0002 " 2 0.334 24.1 7 30.0 23.; 2..5 4.204 .140 .0700 " 22 7.245 25.3 3 3 .3 35.7 2.31 5.085 . 65 .C027 " 23 0.077 24.4 5 24.7 33.4 2.23 3.317 .153 .0911 " 2 7.305 25.5 4 29.2 38.0 2.22 4.703 . 66 .0955 ' 25 5.226 25 2 79.5 85.5 2.70 2.023 .009 .0915 " 26 10.2.5 25.0 1 07.0 56.3 5.73 6.535 .177 .1C15 " 29 3.01 28 l 2 52.4 2.CZ 4.23 .2-3 .C‘") We1ghted Av:r1 e P.100 23.7 531 30.0 03.5 2.0‘ 0.24 .171 .0030 s I I lint per seed .102» 0014141. -0315 - U ‘-\ IC)(: -0 51 Ar- \A‘ l Ohm-1 U .QL/rq r '1' ~u.) .03 9... M21.) 0-2).: ‘M- .‘. a 'l-- 1" . l k \. -O C... ffl 0C.gu fl .1. /|\ , seed .160 -176 -162 o 14‘. .l .0 *- 41. .1.‘. .117 ES 0 1‘10 -1 up. OlUCJ .141 seed per Wt. of Wt-per1dto of boll o 4:4]- "3 .1 7) ,\. ‘I~\.‘ f 2.. 11 Q. {3‘ .295 4-409 5,0). ‘ 'lu-RN-J 4 4 4.517 ”I .:u (Plot 1) lint per boll 2.61 fit. of J7 b 4— 1L 1: Is. .../u no 12 (J. rfi ha JJ 9... 2.77 _ O C o 9.2 2.54 5-14 2 , (’3'? 51a 0 .JU (‘1 N7 _ l 1- ‘I a. . cent lint 55.1 W e «O .0 my '2 J 07.3 11: «Q. .i r; 59-0 40-1 40.0 58-1 (.7 LI 702 40-4 40.5 A; I; no .303 LJ'L" 1 fch seed per boll 31-0 Ru n4 n5 0;: s N; o I 3’”) 9-8 ‘/ u 32-0 -1 010 D!" ~| S O .0 3~ 7-5 50-7 ‘3 Iv ..O .5 cu . .3 ha 3 .. $00. 1 V~ igated 2 15 r'n‘) Ow . al. 42 75 00 A. A... 0w irr of lint bolls 25 25 26-4 05 .. 1| nu C) h: ;_3 Q Oj‘ L; 4-7 ‘\ id 0.. 7o .0 .. .I. .IN I: x} .’ H 0 n0 1” A. i h —I~ f1 5): 04L! 0 k“ 7.415 9.127 The average results of various determinations on cotton boll s hf p-u 9w :7 f‘ "1") ' _ \- ~'I 121 F‘ h—d K.) 0 QT" 0 u .1 00: 1‘ _(9 7 0 Fl! 03 5.571 Date Blooming Wt. per Length Total No. of. Per July 5 r0 OJ (f, f\ «a 1.. O \. LX1L> I" -) l- J NJ. .0?31 $9.11 r.\ ‘1 7.1; . _ ‘ . 'I' \4 \ 1;, o -\ A\-' ~.\ :4 l _ . ~0qu “ ...-4 wu- The n. 31 c “3 '1f 0. v--' ‘. "J: - L 11'~.s on 30'.u 31”1'u1 I risqg tfic we’ks- 132;- (P10: 2) 1'17”? ,’,,">"","' "7.73“"“3‘7” T'.’,‘, 3-3”“ 711177?" ""2" *‘T‘E-l” 2.-..-. ' " 71' " ‘7‘? “‘32" ""32? ”"73”" " .5. D-LUx'LI.l—~,_, Ht- L31“ 1.23% 41-10 ml 1.0- 1;- 1.2.: u .- 0.. - .v’t- 011 'dt- “1 Nu- 01 Date toll of :0. Load cent lint seed per lint lint 101 g per lint . Lev per 2303 per boll boll boll seed July 15 0.30 25 » 2 25 33-3 2- 9 . o-EC 1 .134 -C&42 :1 lb 003.55 5.43 l 25 120.0; H'U'k: $07.32.) 01“.: 0L.“ U H 19 O-L.2 2s) 1 E 31707 20:0 4-1.3 o G? okLFSL’S " 20 9.052 2J.5 2 3 -5 33.7 3.2’ 5-C32 .109 .0927 " 21 7.47 24-4 7 28-4 30-2 2-09 4-73 -103 -0947 ” 22 7.3?1 23.1 6 00.1 35.0 ".00 4.711 .157 .0530 ” 23 7.140 20-1 0 20.? 35-5 2.34 4-00 -157 .05" " 24 7.704 r""-2 10 L.“ 36-3 2.78 4-714 -179 .0902 ” 2‘ 7.51- 2 -2 10 28.1 37-0 2.71 4-70: .170 .0934 " 20 7.200 24.5 2 23.2 37-7 2.77 4-45; -13? .0932 ' 27 7.315 £-.5 2 27.9 35.2 2.31 4.70: .10» .0902 " 2? 7.47? 24.5 32 20-7 37.1 2.20 4-,7“ .157 -0'\.“4‘3 ” 23 7-6‘3 24-0 2 00-3 33-9 3.05 4 “”3 -130 -0772 " 30 7.,3‘ 24.4 3‘ 30.1 33-1 2-78 4-f70 .132 .0920 " 31 ".727 23-? 14 b .4 33.3 2.73 4.963 .103 .C907 nu . l ”.140 25.4 23 20.9 53.3 3.60 4-545 -147 .0341 " 2 0.3-? 24.1 17 30.5 30-6 2.47 4.118 .133 .0009 " 5 7.203 24-5 29 3'.7 37.0 2.03 4.573 .143 .0539 " 4 7.33 23.0 13 30.9 37.5 2.33 4.721 .102 .Cgfil ” 5 7.4 l 2~.? 3“ 31.0 "6 i 2.72 4.729 .149 .O” C " 3 7.315 25.3 2? 30.4 3 .3 2.71 4.3C5 .151 .0701 " 7 7.127 23-8 27 3'-4 37.4 2.70 4.237 .130 .C917 " E 7.3 1 25.? SJ 51.2 37.0 2.23 4-37] .143 .0025 " 0 ".‘20 20.9 3; 31.0 37.8 2.04 4-i23 .107 .0047 " 10 7.731 24-3 46 31.1 33-. 2.01 4.’41 .133 .C735 ” 11 3.510 24.1 33 27.1 37.7 2.50 4.LCJ .130 .0033 " 12 3-200 25.5 33 27.1 39-4 2.-o 3.13 .140 .0:04 ” 13 3.301 22.? 30 21 0 30-4 2.42 3.977 .140 .0304 " 14 0.100 22.8 27 2".1 33.1 2.33 3.81 .140 .CCJ7 " 15 5-907 24.0 2 23.0 37. 3.21 2.737 .110 .1295 ” 15 3-00? 22-1 9 25-0 34-; 2-41 4-203 -150 -Cc7. " 7 7.178 23-0 1 34-0 30.0 2.03 4.342 .133 .077' " 18 3-52 23-0 1 51-0 32-0 2.23 4.30 .148 .0710 " 19 7.233 24-3 2 3 .0 50.4 2.5; 4.095 .136 .O;53 " 20 7.005 25.0 1 3 .0 30.0 2.00 ‘.445 .148 .0055 " 27 7.501 26-5 3 28 3 55.6 2.d3 4.871 .172 .0929 " 28 7.91 27-0 1 28.0 31-0 2.40 5.45 .194 .0376 Jeichted AVBP&;3 7.379 24-3 ”-25 29-7 27-4 1 2-67 4-307 .152 .‘505 Tab]. 3 8 0 IL Ihe average results of various determinations on cottv irrigated every two WSCVS- 1929- (Plot 2) F??? 19: Length 7013] No. of Per Wt. of fit. off Wt. Wt. of boll of no- seed cent . lint 6681 per lint lint bolls per lint per ye: seed p0? boll boll boll seed 6. 66 26 . "71 . 21 . 41.6 . 2.76 . 6.876 .096 . .1150 1.121 21.6 6 26.6 61.9 2.21 3.291 .166 .mugg 5.79) 21.2 4 23. 33.1 2.21 r.:76 .169 .1701 6.=;6 31.1 7 23.4 69.4 2.61 6.936 .166 .0877 6.671 2b-0 9 29.2 66.8 2.01 6.611 .161 .0905 6.676 31.6 9 19.7 63.1 1.91 6.16. .16" .0753 ”-730 21.9 “r 99.6 66.7 2.60 4.2”5 .170 .9777 7.1 o 26.1 20 .9.7 66.1 2.6; 1.666 .160 .1 27 7.261 26.8 2 29.1 66.9 2.62 1.611 .166 .6.;; 6.976 26.8 19 Zd-Z 67.6 9.66 4.1.1 .191 .0962 7.699 26.1 29 61.6 67.6 2.90 1.799 .139* .692. 7.694 26.1 66 62.0 69.9 2.£5 6.6~1 .112 .99 6 7.667 26.0 14 60.7 67.2 2.71 1.697 . 72 .0892 7.679 2 .8 41 34-7 38-6 2.86 4.810 .168 . 921 7.368 24-5 64 66.7 67.6 2.91 4.927 .161 .0792 7.761 21.1 46 66.2 67.6 2.90 1.361 .161 .0609 5.773 24.6 22 62.1 67.8 2.67 1.208 .191 .0800 6.978 26.6 27 66.1 6:.0 2.64 4.66: .161 .0797 6.161 1 .6 28 29.6 66.2 2.34 1.111 .168 .079 7.208 ‘5-5 16 66.6 63.2 2.81 4.698 .160 .0966 3.407 23-4 20 68.1 63.6 2.62 6.947 .122 .6786 6.686 24.2 18 ”1.6 68.8 2.67 4.666 .128 .0313 6.626 24.1 19 60.2 41.6 2.68 6.846 .127 .0887 6.206 24.0 18 29.0 41.2 2.66 6.666 .126 .9879 6-104 24.7 9 29.1 69.7 2.42 6.681 .186 .6661 6.667 26.2 7 ”1.8 10.6 2.71 6.867 .12 .0862 4.652 22.6 16 21.4 69.9 1.92 2.762 .127 .0897 3.405 21-8 29 29.0 41-6 2.26 6.166 .108 .0776 4.135 19.0 66 24.3 42.1 1.72 2.475 .100 .0707 6.269 20.8 61 26.0 42.2 2.19 6.079 .109 .6782 4.271 19.9 14 21.7 12.6 1.72 2.669 .106 .0396 6.611 21.0 7 28.: 69.9 2.16 3-451 .119 .C766 6.86 21.0 1 27.0 66.7 2.11 6.190 .166 . 792 6.:56 26.71 662 BO-“7 63.6 2.619 1.06:: .1314 .0;30' Table 90 The averuge resqlts of various detegminatjons on cottcg irrigated every four weeks. 1933 (Plot 3) Bloaming Wt. per Length Total No. of. Per dt. of dt. of. Wt. .Wt. of Date boll of‘ no. seed cent . lint seed per lint lint bolls per lint par par seed per ‘ boll ‘_ b011 boll seed July 15 . 1.425 24 7 l 4 5 > 55.4 . .52 r .905 . .181 . .1040 " 19 0.415 24 1 25 40.9 2.65 5.735 .151 .1052 " 21 6.47 25 1 25 57.7 2.44 4-03 .175 .1060 " 22 3.595 24.2 4 25.0 52.2 2.52 4.073 .153 .0969 " 25 7.67 25 1 50.0 57.9 2.91 4.76 .152 .0208 " 24 6.675 24.8 10 27.0 57.1 2.47 4.203 .155 .0914 " 25 7.247 24.5 4 23.7 59.1 5.07 4.177 .145 .1059 " 26 7.263 24.6 10 23.5 56.9 2.70 4.565 .151 .0954 " 27 7.107 24.9 21 27.9 57.9 2.70 4.407 .157 .C907 " 23 7.341 21.8 15 30.0 33.5 2.99 4.351 .153 .0937 " 29 6 719 24.0 15 30.3 37.6 2.78 5.939 .127 .0902 " 50 3.795 24.5 29 27.) 56.2 2.40 4.595 .159 .0859 ’ 51 7.105 25.5 22 20.? 36.5 2.59 4.523 .151 .0805 Au;. 1 7.361 24.2 15 50.5 58. 2.77 4.491 .147 .0908 " 2 5.931 24.3 19 50.5 55.8 2.59 4.591 .143 .0846 " 5 7.127 24.7 2 51.5 57.5 2.¢5 4.457 .142 .0849 " 4 6.505 25.3 22 29.0 55.5 2.40 4.135 .143 .0927 " 5 7.51 25.7 25 51.6 53.5 2.75 4.76 .150 .0370 " 6 7.193 25.8 22 t .8 26.0 2.51 4.526 .143 .0327 " 7 7.211 26.1 34 51.1 56.9 2.53 4.551 .140 .0855 " 8 7.835 25.3 54 52.0 56.6 2.91 4.973 .155 .0909 " 9 7.71 25.4 40 51.7 55.9 2.34 '4.37 .155 .0395 " 10 7.324 25.2 4 51.2 53.1 2.73 4.524 .145 .0391 " 11 6.154 25.4 25 27.2 58.1 2.51 3.21% .140 .0860 " 12 5.514 24-2 38 26.2 39.5 2.07 5.244 .125 .0790 " 15 5.3%5 24.5 29 27.3 59.4 2.10 5.245 .113 .0759 " 14 5.511 25.7 52 2 .5 40-4 2.13 3.151 .113 .0792 " 15 6.765 24.5 7 27.8 57.7 2.62 4.025 .1é0 .0954 " 16 5.036 22.9 11 24.9 45.5 2.20 5.430 .140 .0283 " 17 7.594 22.6 5 51.4 56.9 2.91 4.584 .149 .0920 n 18 60338 2500 2 2905 5700 2.56 40323 0146 00337 " 19 6.645 25.0 1 50.0 57.5 2.48 4.105 .158 .0825 n 20 50932 2400 2 25.0 43-4 2044 3-492 .159 .0975 " 21 8.555 " 22 4.24 22.0 1 20.0 44. 5.05 1.79 .089 .1525 " 25 3.0{5 25.5 2 15.5 35.0 1.05 2.055 .152 .0664 Weighted ‘ average 6.78 24.5 562 29.5 87.3 2.57 4.225 .144 .0277 Table 10. V .- . "I" 4' “V.:"\q' ‘3. .1 xx- --\.‘ v1r10us JsbalmlquLQQu (A COtLUJ ' -. . -r- .. —1. man: =1 1r:1 flied erfy -our JG“ e. 1923. (Plot 5) 0 p1) cf" 0 ‘ b :2; d O Blooming Wt. per Length,Total ho. of rer it. , oa Date boll of no. seed cent lint seed pe lint bolls per linfi per yer se' boll boll boll June 28 7.155 25 1 51.0 7 36.5 . 2.32 4.755 . .146 " 29 3.02; 25 5 24.0 23.9 2.54 3.6:} .153 " 50 5.2. 21 1 24.0 59.4 2.42 5.300 .15; July 1 5.443 24.1 9 25.7 39.7 2.17 ”.275 . 53 " 2 6.172 25.7 17 23.4 40.0 2.55 4.012 .141 ” 3 6.551 24.5 13 25.” 59.5 2.5? 5.951 .143 ” ‘ 5.701 ‘4.0 15 21.0 59.2 2.10 ”.201 . 52 ” 7 3.1"4 25.5 14 25.2 40.0 2.47 5.554 .140 " 6 0.951 23.9 27 25.1 53. 2.27 5.551 .145 " 7 5.797 25.3 55 23.7 53.7 2.05 4.167 .145 " 2 7.477 24.5 42 L .9 32.7 2.90 4.777 .149 " 9 7.555 24.1 29 30.2 39.4 3.05 4.505 . LS " 10 7.093 24.6 10 24.5 59.2 2.78 4.315 .146 " 11 7.105 25.5 15 29.5 59.7 2.81 4.295 .145 ‘2 " 12 7.150 25.2 56 50.9 40.0 2.87 4.290 . 32 v 28 " 15 7.119 24.7 19 52.4 59.0 2.60 4.319 .155 .0304 " 14 6.050 24.3 24 51.5 51.2 2.60 4.250 .155 .0825 " 15 7.326 24.1 10 ”3.2 57.1 2.75 4.596 .130 .0777 " 16 5.999 25.5 14 L3.5 57.7 2.61 4.239 .123 .0785 " 17 6.022 25.5 2 81.0 53.0 2.55 4.2’2 .137 .C75S " 13 6.710 24.3 13 32.6 3J.4 2.43 4.250 .130 .0751 " 19 3.241 23.5 4 29.2 39.7 2.13 3.131 .109 .0717 " 20 5.917 24.1 7 5=.8 37.1 2.22 5.727 .122 .0720 " 21 6.542 25.9 12 31.0 57.2 2.43 4.162 .154 1’00 " 22 6.213 24.1 12 L2.5 57.8 2.53 4.253 .131 ” 25 3.7?” 21.0 23 20.2 5f.5 2.13 5.925 .127 ” 24 5.5: 23.7 14 81.5 57.2 2.15 3.547 .112 " 25 5.337 21.0 9 52.4 53.5 2.51 4.057 .125 ” 23 3.95“ 25.5 5 27.0 57.9 2.22 5.757 .182 .:f ' 27 4.343 22.5 21 24.5 42.0 1.97 2.270 .112 :110 " 28 5.502 22.2 15 27.8 42.2 2.20 5.102 .111 .0791 ” 29 4.974 20.1 7o NT.C 41.5 2.10 2.374 .100 .0777 " 1’ 4.345 20.7 J 25.; 40.9 1.34 2.7C5 .11; .0789 " 51 L-552 27.5 4 12.5 51.1 1.29 2.2;2 .122 .0597 Au;. 1 3.413 22.5 2 22.5 42.7 1.: 2.37- .111 .07 2 -. ..' . 1. J.,. Average 5.457 25.51 512 2J.1 59.09 2.: F4 D" L to ...—l C I Table 110 the “7;:aa- rcs;1ts of Various oetcrnlLa it“; o; COtbog - ' .. ‘ ,- . ... ' 1 - ... 1 '- ‘- " I" l' ._ a ‘ 11r151tuu avolj UlbLt wce co 192; \rlob 1) Blooming Wt. per.LanngWTthl No. of. For at. of fit. of» Ht. fit. of Date boll of no. seed cent lint seed per liLt lint bolls per lint yer pe seed per boll boll boll seed July 19 5.225 . 25 > 1 34.0 3".5 1.93 5.355 .098 .0567 " 20 5.02 26 1 30.0 35.0 1.60 5.29 .115 .O;55 " 22 0.080 25 3 25.5 23.0 2.51 5.57 .133 .0954 " 25 5.719 24.3 6 26.5 37.9 2.16 3.559 .134 .0315 " 24 5.094 21.2 12 23.2 57.0 2.13 3.514 .120 .0755 " 25 5.359 24.9 13 50.0 37.2 2.60 {.509 .145 .0835 " so 6.323 24.2 19 "9.5 58.2 2.61 4.2-2 .143 .039 ” 2 7.145 24.6 25 32.3 05.3 2.27 4.275 .120 .0875 " 28 7.905 25.7 18 b5.0 23.6 3.05 4.H05 .144 .0907 " 29 7.4d9 2é.1 b 02.2 28.5 2.91 4.5;: .140 .CQOE ” 20 7.2L0 25.5 2 21.0 3;. 2.70 4.433 .111 .0370 " 01 7.40? 25.9 21 LU.0 27.3 2.32 4.C77 .152 .0921 Aug. 1 7.22 22.5 27 u“.5 33.4 -.05 4 77” .145 .1915 ” 2 7.207 24.4 17 22.3 37.1 2.7“ 4.537 .1;9 .2223 " s 7.21: 24.4 13 55.0 57.4 2.2; '5.735 .114 .0753 " 4 7.009 25.1 25 32.3 b3.9 2.91 4.599 .145 .0900 " 5 7.199 23.8 21 $1.3 U5.7 2.51 4.539 .145 .0245 ” 6 7.491 25.2 "2 25.2 b’.9 2.;7 1.5”4 .129 .CCQQ " 7 3.272 2J.2 3 02-h .7.2 2.=3 3.395 .104 .C922 “ 3 8.22' 25.: 2 25.” L7.U 3.28 1.:7 .130 .0992 ” 9 7.940 2A.& 8 24.2 20.1 2.87 5.07 .113 .0509 " 10 7.152 25.5 29 g .3 20.6 2.59 4.512 .144 .0222 " 11 6.522 23.0 20 29.o 27.1 2.52 1.312 .125 .0231 ” 12 5.741 24.5 29 L .4 58.8 2.2J V.311 .115 .0725 " 3 5.557 26.9 20 23.a 23.9 2.25 3.427 .120 .0729 " 14 4.772 23.5 28 27.0 40.2 1.92 2.332 .105 .0693 " 15 4.875 25.5 2 25.0 40.8 1.99 2.;50 .055 .1205 " 16 5.673 23.4 9 27.5 40.3 2.24 5.256 .113 .0993 " 17 6.2:1 22.8 6 30.1 57.1 2.20 4.021 .125 .0764 " 19 6.390 21.5 2 34.0 42.6 2.71 3.63 .109 .0797 " 20 6.375 24.0 1 27.0 41.1 2.3; é.C:5 .149 .1012 " 21 6.735 24.0 2 27.0 42.5 2.”o 5.875 .145 .1059 Weighted Average 6.947 24.4 428 31.1 39.1 2.65 4.272 .127 .0852 ' Tablé’i 120 The average resalts of Various determinaticns on cotton irr“;ated ever" eight weeks. 1939. (Plot 4) q 1 Blowminéfflt. per.Length»$otul.Lo. of. Ier > fit. of Ht. 0.. fit. ht. C“ Date boll of no. seed cent lint see: per lint lint bolls yer lint fer per seed per boll boll boll seed June 29 5.537 r 2L 1 2 . 35.0 >_4l.0 2.31 3.33? . . 53 -3934 ” UO 4.8Q 34 1 ~b.C 39.4 1.91 2.950 . 3? .0LEU July 1 a-971 33.6 5 23.2 43.0 L-CC 3.331 olLQ .Jgfid " 2 §.:CU 03.1 17 25.5 41.2 3.55 5.700 .159 .U933 11 3 7 0 10 2:3 0 «:2 12 2 .3 CO ‘E'U o S :1 .38 ‘1 o 2.40 0115 .0903) " 4 5.7%” 25.0 11 22.4 Q9.5 2.25 5.$$9 .134 .1003 ” 5 6.430 £~.7 14 23.2 $0.9 3.63 5.330 .131 .OT1O " 5 5.5fl3 25.5 39 23.4 b3.é 2.64 4.022 .141 .09 G " 7 3.675 34.0 22 27.7 53.8 2.Q1 4.0d5 .146 .U9ud " 3 7.553 di.O 54 31.8 69.3 5. 3 4.632 .133 .094: " 9 7.930 25.7 13 53.6 39.6 3.12 4.500 .143 .022L ” 10 7.037 2J.J 12 29.5 41.4 2.92 4.117 .159 .09;9 " 11 7.530 $.14: .Q 115 3-1.6 40...; 5.01 4.520 .1254 .09.}.‘3 " 12 7.355 3%. 17 31.8 p9.b 2.32 4.515 .141 .CEBO " 13 7-J36 2%.3 12 31.6 39.7 2.93 &.4 3 .13: .Cuaé ” 14 6.144 25.4 19 37.3 33.8 2.37 3.774 .lSL .flVBS " 15 7.467 34-2 19 34.4 3 .9 2.85 4.537 .154 .CQBE " 16 7.326 23.8 15 34.2 33.5 2.33 4.3C5 .131 .3324 " 17 7.97 25.0 1 33.0 33.3 D.CQ 4.913 .148 .0927 " 18 7.305 23.7 7 C .2 éO-S 3.94 4.3Q5 .139 .0942 " 19 6.813 25.7 4 C‘.7 40.0 8.70 4.113 .125 .CCE5 " 30 7.141 33.7 4 31,3 40.7 3.92 4.33 .123 .Ofl53 " H1 6.502 25.5 7 30.1 53.3 2.49 4.012 .135 .0827 " 22 3.773 23.5 15 29.0 40.3 2.71 4.0C3 .140 .0954 " 33 7.453 34.3 21 35.0 38.9 2.?1 4.55% .13» .0331 n 2% 6.545 24.2 9 30.7 59.9 2.45 5.995 .135 .C 93 " 35 7.130 21.0 2 35.0 51.3 2.7% 4.590 .121 . 7Z1 ” 25 4.099 Bu. 2 24.5 33.5 1.C7 2.737 .111 .Ofigfl ' 23 5.7f2 L‘.O 2 2?.0 37.2 2.10 3.5;? .12? .0771 ' 39 :.é73 ;J.5 5 25.5 J?.4 2.11 3.:Q3 .114 .C715 " CO 5.V33 33.2 4 29.7 57.0 2.13 3.535 . 33 .0715 ” 31. L3. 23 ”9.4- 5 2%.4; I} .9 1.2%} 3.112 .1157 .0311 1.2157 . 1 (1.010 :31; 2; :20. 5 1:.2; .47 2.50 232:. .0713 n 3 $.1c0 21.5 3 33.5 35.3 .95 3.130 .111 {C394 weighted “Jergge 6.911 30.34 ”33 30.0 59.4 8.682 4.150 .1357 .5110 _.__. __ J. ...i .. ---..." _ . " ‘ '.. _' p_‘ .. . .. _ .. 4 _ . ' . r" I O I} .- . ". U. ,. ' ‘ . .._ . _ 1' ‘-_c" . , [4 ’l - ' o4 .. .l/w H'g‘: ‘t J, L ., ' . - ., ‘ - ‘ : ' ' ‘ . 9’ Ah.“ ,. :v’ a , . AN .. - . . ‘ J: J l .Ie . )yf'\fill')l‘vi'. ' . « , u . . . ’ . 'I- - , I ‘ ' . I. v' . ' “9.3?“ ‘ 11." ~ ‘ Q. s'_*‘-” . - c I -_ 1,! - .‘fi" ‘ 3-: .. , ‘ ,: .rl' ',’ . . ' .l)\ " *1 " -’ - . 4 , . .—,. ', ~ .‘ ‘3 ~ ' . ' LI " 4 I .' .‘ 5 « ' "‘ "-.k V -A 3 " “- ‘ H l -. I. . «~l‘ - - \; Aux. “"9“ $1: l -. ... '43}. «1?. {32".} :2" .. - « I."- ""-~~‘I“ ' 2:3 .3 ‘ .“xN. ".'."1-."’ “net" £- 4-“ , . a . ,- . Nut? 4v. ‘ '-' f“ "A, 4.~_ I ”3;. ‘. ‘. ’y. '1 ‘ .- .. . .5 ‘ l 3 " 7 k '- " V ' l. . -- . , “4. . 4’ ' -. ...“ ._ 5- ”WW- .7 . . ‘ f .(‘h'.- .1,” 3‘ . ..‘ . '- ., n" . ', ,1 . . :.-.‘ _-('-4.:‘"z Is",()«'l‘7'. - ",' _ . . “Wax-«2‘ .\ ' « " -;.:- - «‘7' ‘ .4' ' . : p4,“; gm; wv‘ " 'i’ :. 6% *l kW . v“; V _ . ,I . ‘v v I . « .’ ~ .5 W . I ‘. 4".“ '. :5 ', r“ . o ., - :.- ‘ . .. 4 O. Y ‘ u, : “rl"' I _ ‘ . . . _. ‘ . It ‘ , ' .5 . ' ' ‘ V“. . ‘3‘ '3 . ‘ ‘ . ‘ "I‘ "’ ‘ ' 1.. VI I ‘ . - . at . | ' 3 ‘ . '331'2‘19‘5-wafi .‘gj'i‘ihll I ffifi ((o , "U \L ‘i' 5'? . ‘5’" 51““? “(21:34“. 711331") 4'14; ' 15“”: H? 9‘ .1; 4-K" r1 .. . ‘ . | 59°: .3" ' "1 “‘1 ‘7‘ _ a; ! ”VJ": _ “11", 3.. {A {*6 ' as ‘ o-\ 5", E ..:},‘4? 1‘" ' “‘ ’2‘? i -. . . ..l“ . . ' '. § , 4 r —" . : .r . ‘3“ :‘V‘flér ' u ’ ‘— ' “M's—117:.- 4 ) r . ~ _ . . , .-: -' 3 .‘1 ' _'-' A ~ £_’ -4: ‘ v'. -' . . _ ‘ ‘ - - - J: _ ‘ ‘ .' . ’— ~e_ .A 4 “_ - *2?» r. .- — — g ~. . - 7T ,5»? my N5.“ ‘7 '—_' " '.‘ .. L.’: 4. " ,5] .34- " %? '—- _' , ' §.;\‘- 'f'?-‘?; o .8 : . ' ' 1:?) _ ‘,I ; . -.. ‘ Z x' ‘ ." n '-_“ 0'. — ’7 ':: — ‘ '1. I 15-. 7 “r '. ‘ _A ‘ ‘V. .13- _ . -‘ -1 .7 A-' U -;.__4 ...; . 4' .f . w "h" ' ‘ . _ A. ...‘ A . . ._ -__ ... _- -‘.-'-' ~_ "v. - vc‘ T V -‘_ .. ..IC . 'l‘ , ' 9', ‘3 " - " K. ' .' L. '.' — .-‘-. i‘ - ' . a .5 . ' - A . : ~‘ .' . - \ -;‘. ~, A . ._ '.- :’. -' -9.' ‘ 3 I _.o : . . - ' - . . -. ‘ x . f. - ' ~ \ ' '. V. “ l _ ' ‘ 1 ‘- ‘— ‘ v v: v'.‘ _. . V :9”? I . '. ’ 31;“: ”515'" ‘4‘ ' r .«_.~ 5 . 01" " ‘ u “*9" ,' u . ‘ 44‘ , 'f:‘§.;' "‘3. ‘ ' . 35F ..fO’Q‘u‘1'.“‘-.“ " , .;. .~ .- t. . 4: . se‘fi‘fi'. 43"?) -' “My 2 1‘ « ‘ ' '« , u. 5‘ n o *7 s «w: «EM-sum 49 m Us“ ~ * 4;, ~ 7.4 a: . « ‘h; v ‘- _ . .‘ y. n : ,5 “\ r - is -_ J .. I :. I 4' \1 c ' l m, 4?: ) a? ’:‘.f :4. -_ ' 154-54. 5;..5';;‘f'h I" l .s' 54'1“} 'r, . - "unm- .9. ). :J,‘ 1, gt"“y’,‘("m1: (xl.'. : ..:«.-:.v' «4'7; A.- ‘:,"««.":{\“Wu‘k‘.. I! r K'; "1‘ . "A' " . ‘ I‘ H .- ‘ .‘5 '- a. 3‘ ‘«‘ «EU-’2.“ ‘ it: wh’fi'VW . ‘3\ .7. " '3‘ '~'-..< " . I": \% ‘ v |-. 92,595 \ I. I ~ ‘ 4 . ‘.‘ ‘n "f‘ > u‘ -.'f ' .“Y: :x» i" 5. " . . , 4 . "‘- ' -\"."' ". ‘l ‘13:, -' I"'u| . fl" ‘0’ W.” ‘3‘ I? . sk-cfif": ."‘.*I‘-\ f;- '., .. ll. . O" 1‘." J '3?" ‘z" . ..‘ tala§W'L-J”J"f” ". l C .~." 5-” 4‘) o '. ¥.h*z \ k-I‘ ? 7‘ ‘: 4 ‘ c. A" '."' ‘)‘§"¥o ;;.:'§} “1" 51 I i... ' 1 0' 1;:V ll. . . .C - « . «‘ - Hi 5:254 - wan“ .- « ‘Wfl ‘J'fxxuf’r‘b'n +;{ r 5', . A); 5‘. , " “.."ir: ‘Wf’ .‘ . 1 . . , ‘1 ' . _ 4, - 1. .. -. .. .. , ..:. .7 . «4... 3 ) ly'.‘ -;‘ .' "L I " II I I . . ‘ $3,. ' " ' I I". I: a". ‘I ~ .735’4.~-A. "_.1 .' _. ‘;,. I 4 . 9 ,-‘:-‘—\ . ‘T‘SI. ”Pi" , I 'a. ’7‘”. Ll'.'l~':".[“ - n \3 xi: . h“. {I (.1 ‘h,._“"‘|.l;¢"£' '~