”in ' ill 131 147 THS sou. max/21:53 as it 'SL'QEE‘CEED 3v ORCHARD saws ma saga. gammamem That-is for $4?» 9‘9qu :2?" M. 5. MtCHiGAN STA‘I‘E CQLLEGE Sevéé Man WQE’EQ $54 alt—{H.315 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Soil Nitrates as Influenced by Orchard Sods and Soil Management presented by David Alan Wolfe has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M. S. degree in Horticulture Z/W Major professor Date iii/V“ Aé/ /¢‘53 0-169 SOIL NITRATES AS INFLUENCED BY ORCHARD SODS AND SOIL MANAGEMENT BY David Alan'wOlfe W A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Horticulture 195k ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is indeed grateful to Dr. A. L. Kenworthy for his helpful suggestions in outlining the problem, conducting the research, and preparing the results. Grateful acknowledgment is also extended to Dr. K. Lawton.for his aid and guidance in setting up testing technique, and to Mr. w. Toenjes for assistance in conducting the eXperiments. ”’2’. F“ ," “ {itst§:3.32s INTRODUCTION . 0 LITERATURE REVIEW. PROCEDURE. . . . Sod Plots . . Peach Plots . Sampling. . 0 RESULTS. . . . . Sod Plots . . Peach Plots . DISCUSSION . . . SUMMARY. . . . . LITERATURE CITED APPENDIX . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page \OCD-QNINH 12 12 18 29 38 14.0 LIST OF TABLES Table Page I Amount of fertilizer applied in the peach orchard for each year, 1948-1953. lbso/trea o c o o o o o o o e o o o o e o o o c 10 II Soil nitrate in relation to mowed and unmowed sod covers, clean cultivation and.mulch materials 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1“ III Soil nitrates (lbs./acre) under peach trees as influenced by soil management, Variety and time Of sampling. 0 o o o e o o o o o c o o 19 IV Soil nitrates (lbs./acre) under peach trees as influenced by soil management, fertilizer applications and date of sampling. . 23 V Yield and circumference of peach trees under sod and soddmulch management as influenced by fertilizers NN, NNPP, NNPPKK (1953). . . . . 33 VI Soil nitrates (1bs./acre) of the "sod plots" as influenced by covers, mowing, mulching, time of sampling and replications . . . . . . o #3 VII Soil nitrates (lbs./acre) under peach trees as influenced by soil management, application of fertilizers, time of sampling and' ' ‘ ‘ replication 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 us VIII Soil nitrates (1bs./acre) under peach trees with normal application of nitrogen as‘ influenced by variety, soil management, time Of sampling and replication. 0 o o o o o o “6 '( LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 A comparison of soil nitrates (1bs./acre) for grass sods, legume sods, clean cultivation and.mulching. o c c c c c c o o e 13 2 Soil nitrates (1bs./acre) in relation to various sod covers, clean cultivation ’ and MUlCh materials 0 c a o c c o c c o o o c 15 3 Biweekly variation of soil nitrate (lbs./acre) in relation to mulching, clean cultivation, legume sods and grass sods. . . . . . . . . c 17 h A comparison of soil nitrates (1bs./acre) in relation to sod, cultivation and soda mU1ch.management. o c c o c c c c o e c c o c 20 5 A comparison of soil nitrates (lbs./acre) as effected by the interaction of cultivar with management practices . . . . . . . . . . 20 6 Biweekly variation of soil nitrate (1bs./acre) in relation to sod, cultivation,'sod-mulch‘ and all treatments. 0 c o c c c o o c o o o c 21 7 Soil nitrates (1bs./acre) under sod and sod-' MUlCh management. 0 c o c c c c c e o o c e o 8 Soil nitrates (lbs./acre) under various fertilizer treatments 0 o c c o c c c o c c 0 2h 9 A comparison of soil nitrates (lbs./acre) for various fertilizers as influenCed by sod and sodamulch management. . . . . . . . . 26 10 Biweekly variation of soil nitrates (lbs./ acre) in relation to fertilizer application . 27 11 Daily mean air temperature (upper) and daily rainfall (lower), beginning one week prior to the start Of sampling. 0 o e c c c 0 37 INTRODUCTION An adequate supply of nitrogen is necessary for good growth and production in fruit trees, but in areas subject to extreme winter temperatures, the nitrogen supply is critical because of the possibility of winter injury. Fruit growers generally prefer to have a slight decrease in.nitrogen of the plant late in the season so that the trees will enter the dormant period more resistant to cold winter temperatures. The use of mulches, sod covers and other soil manage- :ment practices has been shown to have an influence upon tree performance. In general, the influence of these practices has been associated with soil moisture depletion or conserv- ation. However, mulches, sod covers and both the kind and amount of fertilizer have been found to influence the nitrogen status of fruit trees. There has been limited study of the influence of these practices upon the supply of soil nitrates. This study was designed to investigate the extent and nature of the influence that various soil management practices and fertilizer applications have upon the supply of soil nitrates. LITERATURE REVIEW ‘Many reports have been written that give the advantages and.disadvantages of clean cultivation, sod and sodqmulch methods of soil management. In.many instances, however, the differences in response of the various soil management pro- grams have been associated with soil moisture depletion. Some of the earlier research showed that the sod covers and.mulches resulted in nitrogen deficiency. Soil nitrates are thought to be the form of inorganic nitrogen used by most plants. The quantities of soil nitrates in the soil have been considered to be dependent upon the vegetation, the soil type, the soil microorganism's pepula- tion and environmental conditions such as temperature and moisture. The most favorable environment according to_Waksman (1952) for microbial pepulation is a temperature of 27.50 C, abundance of oxygen, enough moisture to function, a pH of _ greater than n.6, and a calcium carbonate buffer in the soil. Lyon, Heinicke and'Wilson (1923) indicated that the poor growth of apple trees in sod was due to low soil nitrates. The low sdil nitrates under the sod could.not be accounted for entirely by grass and tree growth and probably was not leached out. It was thought the soil microorganisms had converted part of the nitrate to nitrite and ammonia. Later Lyon, Heinicke andeilson (1925) found nitrates to be a I‘! 11 {t limiting factor on plum and cherry trees growing in sod and that considerable quantities of soil nitrates were pro- duced but were being used in growth of sod. waksman (1952) found that the soil atmosphere in the grass root zone had a high carbon dioxide content. As a result of the high carbon dioxide content, the roots of the tree penetrated deep into the soil where there was a lack of oxygen but less carbon dioxide and soil nitrates. Partridge (l9hl) found wide differences between some of the common grasses used in the orchards in relation to their competition for moisture and nutrients with fruit trees. These differences were thought to be due to pene- tration and concentration of the root systems. Kentucky bluegrass and quackgrass had the largest root system.and utilized the most moisture and nutrients while fescue and timothy had the smallest root systems and utilized the least moisture and nutrients. Summarizing the literature, Russell (1950) stated that in grassland soils most of the inorganic nitrogen is in the form of ammonium. Fertilizer effected the relatively con- stant levels of ammonium and nitrates for short periods only. The ratio of nitrate to ammonium depended mainly on rate of oxidation of ammonium, the uptake of nitrates by plants and loss of nitrates by leaching. Albrecht (1922) found that mulches limited the quantities of soil nitrates as compared to cultivation. He associated the decrease in soil nitrates under mulch to lower soil temperatures under the mulch, and to higher soil moisture that caused a reduction in aeration. These conditions were unfavorable for maximum microbial activity. Leaching, also, might be an important factor in a low level of.nitrates under mulches as Turk and Partridge (l9hl) reported that percolation of water was much greater underimulches than under unmulched soils. Beaumont and Crooks (1933) found that soil nitrates accumulated only slightly during the first three years of mulching but accumulated constantly and in large amounts during the fourth year. It was thought that reduction of the carbonsnitrogen ratio by microbial action during the first three years was sufficient to allow nitrates to accumulate in the fourth year. They thought that the accumulated nitrates were produced by nitrification in the lower layers of the decomposing mulch and were carried into the soil by leaching action. Turk and Partridge (19h?) found that there was less production of soil nitrates in a heavy soil than in a light soil. They concluded that a major portion of nitrification under mulches must occur at the soil-mulch interface. Lack of aeration and higher soil moisture also influenced the production of soil nitrates according to Turk and Partridge (l9h7). In a 26 to hZ-yearbold soil management experiment, Havis (l9h2) found that aggregation of soil was greatest for sodamulch and least for clean cultivation. There was little difference between soil management practices during the two to six year period but soil aggregation was more rapid under the mulch. This aggregation of the soil was not in direct relationship to the organic matter content of the soil. Beaumont and Crooks (1933) believed that the increase in soil nitrates under a mulch was associated with the rate of soil aggregation. Judkins and Rollins (l9hh) found that clean cultivation during the first years of a peach orchard resulted in better yields than mulches. Hibbard (l9hh) also found clean culti- vation during the first years of an orchard resulted in the best growth but reported severe erosion. Toenjes (1914.1) reported higher yield for the first ten years of cultivation of an apple orchard, but a reversal occurred the second ten years. Kenworthy (1953) suggested cultivation depleted soil structure, organic matter and reduced.moisture penetration. Such effects of cultivation.may have been responsible for the findings of ToenJes (l9hl). Weeks, Smith and Drake (1950) and'Wander and Gourley (l9h3) reported.that mulching increased total quantities of nitrogen, potassium, calcium, magnesium and phosphorus in soils. Simulating orchard grass mulch in.lysimeter studies, Harley, Moon and Regeimbal (1950) found that high-nitrogen hay released.more nitrogen, calcium, and.magnesium than a. low-nitrogen hay. Carolus and'Woltz (l9hh) reported a decrease in soil nitrates when phosphorus and potassium were added to crapped soils. They considered the decrease in soil nitrates to be associated with the increase in plant growth. PROCEDURE The investigations were conducted on established plots located at the Graham Horticultural Experiment Station near Grand Rapids, Michigan. The soil at the Experiment Station is a.Miami silt loam with a field capacity of approximately 15 per cent moisture and a wilting point of approximately 5 per cent moisture. The plots used in.these investigations were located in a peach orchard and in a field of sod plots. Sod Plots The sod plots were those established by Higdon (1953). They consisted of a field of approximately 1.1 acres that was divided into plots, 27 x 27 feet. Each of the plots was divided into two subplots that were 13.5 x 27 feet. The North subplot was mowed on June 16, while the South subplot was unmowed. Since the mowed portions of the covers were removed, the mowed and unmowed subplots for each sod were considered as separate treatments in the statistical analysis. Three plots, relatively free from contamination with quack- grass and weeds, were selected for each of the following sods: Chewing fescue (Festuca £333, variety commutata), Kentucky bluegrass (Egg;pratensis), redtOp (Agrostis 2i2£>9 alfalfa (Medicago sativa), white Dutch clover (Trifolium repens), ladino clover (Trifolium repens,, variety lgtgg). (The .1 t‘ I. quackgrass was established vegetatively in the fall of 1950. The other sod covers, except alfalfa, were seeded in 1950 while the alfalfa was seeded in the fall of 1951. The field had been limed and well fertilized prior to establishing the sod covers. In addition to the sod.plots, three plots were sehscted from the cultivation and mulching treatments. The cultivated plots, 27 x 27 feet, were not cultivated until August 1h but were cultivated about every two weeks for the remainder of the season. The mulch plots were subdivided into quarter plots, 13.5 x 13.5 feet, and each quarter was mulched with a different material. Grass hay, wheat straw, sawdust and low-grade alfalfa were used as mulch materials. Each sub- plot received approximately h8 pounds of air dry material. Peach Plots The trees in the peach plots were planted in l9h8. The experimental design and replanting limited the selection of treatments. Two, more or less separate, studies were conducted in the peach orchard. The first study consisted of a normal application of nitrogen to two cultivars (Redp haven and Halehaven) growing in sod, cultivation with a winter cover, and sodpmulch. The second study used one cultivar (Redhaven) with five fertilizer treatments and with sod and sodamulch management. Three replicate trees were used for each combination of treatments in each study. The fertilizer treatments involved normal nitrogen (N), double nitrogen (NN), double nitrogen in split applications (N-N), double nitrogen with phosphorus (NNPP)*, and double nitrogen with phosphorus and potassium (NNPPKK)*. Table I shows the rates of fertilizer application for each year. Different forms of nitrogen fertilizer were used but the rate of applying nitrogen was calculated on the basis of ammonium sulfate. Superphosphate was used as a source of phosphorus. 0-20-20 was applied to those plots receiving phosphorus and potash. The sod was Chewing fescue and was established.when the trees were planted. The cover crap was rye and.was seeded in late July. Each tree in.the mulched plots received 35 pounds of straw in l9h8, 50 pounds of grass and weeds in 1950, and 75 pounds of grass and weeds in 1952. amiss Soil areas including all treatments were sampled five times at two-week intervals. Sampling began July 13 for the sod plots and July 20 for the peach plots. Two cores were taken with a Veihmeyer soil sampling tube to the depth of hine inches. The lowest three inches of each core were combined for one sample. The sampling was *The treatments receiving phOSphoruS and potassium are designated as PP and.KK.because certain other plots received only half as much phosphorus and potassium as the plots used. TABLE I AMOUNT OF FERTILIZER APPLIED IN THE PEACH ORCHARD 19 FOR EACH YEAR, 19u8-1953 (LBS./TREE) Rows“ Fertilizer E giga- l9h8 19h9 1950 1951 1952 1953 units 6,9,1t N 20-0-0 0.0 0.33 0.67 1.0 1.33 1.67 5,13 NN 20-0-0 0.0 0.67 1.33 2.0 2.67 3.33 t,12 N-N** 20-0-0 0.0 0.67 1.33 2.0 2.67 3.33 2,10 NN 20—0-0 0.0 0.67 1.33 2.0 2.67 3.33 PP 0-20-0 6.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 u.0 u.0 3,11 NN 20-0—0 0.0 0.67 1.33 2.0 2.67 3.33 PP 0-20-0 6.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 u.0 u.0 KK 0-0-20 6.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 u.0 *Rows 2, 3, h, 5, 6 were in sod; rows 10, ll, 12, 13, 1h were in soddmulch and row 9 was in cultivation with cover cr0p. **The nitrogen was a total of the split applications. Applications were usually in early May and late June. to 11 made within two feet of the edge of the subplots in the sod plots and three feet from the trunk of the peach trees. The samples were placed in glass bottles with rubber stOppers and shaded while in the field to prevent moisture loss and temperature increases. The samples were immediately screened and extracted with sodium acetate. Soil nitrates were determined by use of a rapid.microchemical method (Peech, 1945) that used an alkaloid brucine solution as an indicator. The soil nitrates were determined with field moisture rather than on dried samples. Soil moisture was determined by drying for each sample. RESULTS Sod Plots The measurements of soil nitrates showed that the treatments may be grouped into three distinct classes as shown in Figure 1. Soil nitrates were markedly lower for the grass and legume sods than for the mulches and clean cultivation. Soil nitrates for the legume sods were higher than for the grass sods. As shown in Table II and Figure 2, soil nitrates were significantly lower for the legume and grass sods than for the mulches and clean cultivation. Except for the relatively low level of soil nitrates found for unmowed alfalfa and mowed.white Dutch clover, soil nitrates were significantly higher for the legumes than for the grass sods. Soil nitrates were significantly higher for timothy ‘ than for quackgrass when both sods were unmowed. Otherwise,' there were no significant differences between the grass sods. Mowing did not result in a significant change in soil nitrates. However, mowing fescue appeared to increase soil nitrates while mowing redtOp appeared to decrease soil nitrates. The lowest level of soil nitrates for the legume sods was found with unmowed alfalfa which was significantly lower Figure l. A comparison of soil nitrates (lbs./acre) for grass sods, legume sods, clean cultivation and mulching. ‘ (Average - July 13 to September 7). 74.4 .. 62.01.. .c. .‘9 0) (lbs. per acre)- 0‘ F' N sou. NITRATES 733 m :3 .1: 0.0 13 Grosses Legumes FIGURE | Clean. Cultivation Mulches TABLE II In SOIL NITRATE IN RELATION TO MOWED AND UNMOWED SOD COVERS, CLEAN CULTIVATION AND MULCH MATERIALS (Average - July 13 to September 7) Soil nitrates-lbs./acre Cover Unmowed Mowed Grass Sods _ Fescue 15.69 18.85 Timothy 22.83 21.82 Quackgrass 13.83 lh.lh Kentucky bluegrass 1h.9h 15.87 RedtOp 17.55 1A057 Legume Sods Alfalfa 27.90 37.26 White Dutch clover 37 .57 30.32 Ladino clover 39.74 Mulches Clean cultivation 68.88 Alfalfa mulch 78.37 Grass mulch 9h.80 Sawdust mulch 62.12 Straw mulch 68.20 Least significant difference: 5% 1% All treatments 11.53 15.19 Sods only 8.12 10.73 Figure 2. Soil nitrates (lbs./acre) in relation to various sod covers, clean cultivation and.mulch materials. (Average - July 13 to September 7). 15 Fescue Fescue (2:! Mowed - Unmowed Timothy Timothy Quockgross Quockgross Kentucky Bluegrass Kentucky Bluegrass Redlop Redtop AHolh: Afiolha White Dutch Clover White Dutch Clover Ladino Clover Cultivated Alfalfa Mulch Gross Mulch Sawdust Mulch Straw Mulch l2.4 24.8 372 49.6 62.0 74.4 86.8 99.2 NITRATE (lbs. per acre) FIGURE 2 16 than mowed alfalfa, unmowed white Dutch or ladino clover. There was no significant difference in soil nitrates as a result of mowing white Dutch clover,_but mowing decreased soil nitrates for white Dutch clover. Grass mulch resulted in the soil being significantly higher in soil nitrates than the other mulches and clean cultivation. Alfalfa mulch resulted in soil nitrates being higher than for clean cultivation and mulches of straw and sawdust. The interaction of treatment with weeks was not signifi- cant and the biweekly variations in soil nitrates for the major groups of covers, as shown in Figure 3, showed that soil nitrates were consistently high for the mulch plots. There appeared to be an increase in soil nitrates for the mulches between August 2h and September 7. In the culti- vated plots, soil nitrates were initially lower than for the mulches but increased sharply and continued to increase for the remainder of the season. The highest level of soil nitrates for a soil management practice (97 lbs. per acre) was found for clean cultivation on September 7. The legumes and grasses showed similar biweekly variation in soil nitrates with the legumes varying somewhat more than the grasses. The biweekly variation of all treatments showed that there was a significant decrease in soil nitrates for the sampling of July 27. Figure 3. Biweekly variation of soil nitrate (1bs./acre) in relation to mulching, clean cultivation, legume sods and grass sods. SOIL NITRATES (lbs. per acre) 868 744 620 436 312 243 l2.4 Of) 992 86.8 74.4 62.0 49.6 312 24.8 :24 30 37.2 24.6 12.4 Of) 243 I24 00 312 248 IZA (10 17 #- l— b T MULCHES t. f C 1' CLEAN CULTIVATION f. F -—‘_‘~"‘.II//////~\\\\\\\"”””,r Z LEGUMES E I‘N‘III”//”V GRASSES .- \/¥ I‘- ; ALLTREATMENTS JULVlB £7 AUUUO g4 SgP7 FIGURE 3 18 Peach Plots The study of soil nitrates in relation to normal nitrogen applications to two cultivars with three methods of soil management showed a significant difference between management practices (Table III). Soil nitrates for clean cultivation were more than double that found for either sod or sod-mulch (Figure A). Soil nitrate for sod-mulch was not significantly higher than that found for sod. The significant interaction.between cultivars and management practices, Figure 5, showed that soil nitrates for Redhaven were significantly higher than for Halehaven when in cultivation with winter cover crep. However, soil nitrates for Halehaven.were higher than for Redhaven when in sodpmulch. Biweekly variation in soil nitrates showed that there was a significant reduction in soil nitrates between July 20 and August 3, as shown in Table III. Also, there was a significant increase in soil nitrates between August 31 and September 1h. The interaction of biweekly variation in soil nitrates with soil management practices was not significant. As shown in Figure 6, the biweekly variation in soil nitrates for sod and sod-mulch was similar to the average for all treatments. However, the soil nitrates for clean culti- vation showed a marked reduction from the initial level of 78.7 pounds per acre to 21.1 pounds per acre for the second 19 TABLE III SOIL NITRATES (LBS./ACRE) UNDER PEACH TREES AS INFLUENCED BY SOIL MANAGEMENT, VARIETY AND TIME OF SAMPLING Soil Management (Average - July 20 to September 1h) Sod Cultivation Sod-mulch 15.15 55.61 21.89 —‘ Least significant difference: 5% 1% Management 11.97 15.93 Management x Variety (Average - July 20 to September 1h) Halehaven _‘ Redhaven Sod Cultivation Sodamulch Sod Cultivation Sodpmulch 15.87 3h.66 28.27 14.38 76.57 15.50 Least significant difference: 5% 1% Management x Variety h3.3h 57.60 Time of Sampling (Average for all treatment) July 20 Aug. 3 Aug. 17 Aug. 31 Sept. 1h 38.13 18.85 31.37 2t.7h A1.23 Least significant difference: 5% 1% Time of sampling 15.50 20.58 .Aja hobsepoem on om hash a ewwao>¢v .mooapomao pooSommqu spa: am>HpHSo no compomaepofi one hp oouoemuo mm Aooos\.mnav mousouaa Hfiom no acmaomoeoo d .m madman .Aja achopoem op om hddh I ewmaobdv .pcoeommcms oeHdSToom one coapw>apado soon on ooapmaea CH Aooos\.mbav mopsapao Aden mo comaanoEoe 4 .: shaman 20 n _ V mmbmv—m zm> com 104:! zo_._.<> com 10.52 zo_._.<> 00m 00m -EJDU , 00m ..._...50 00m .._._..._30 _ 0.0 0.6 8 law. m law. l .1 1 . i E r. m I I. r ID.¢N a IIQ‘N w. L 3 S 18.» ) INS . .. m .. s d he... m Ice. 0 l 0 r1 1 1 0 l\ 10.8 [one r loop 112. (9109 J9‘11““)SBJAI'ELLIN "IIOS Figure 6. Biweekly variation of soil nitrate (lbs./acre) in relation to sod, cultivation, sod-mulch and all treatments. SOIL NITRATES (lbs. per acre) 24.8 l2.4 0.0 86.8 74.4 62.0 49-6 37.2 24.8 l2.4 0.0 24.8 l2.4 0.0 37.2 24.8 l2.4 0.0 1- : CULTIVATION F- W .. SOD MULCH L. " ALL TREATMENTS r i 1 t 1 JULY 20 AUG.3 I7 3| SEPT I4 FIGURE 6 22 sampling. After this sharp reduction, soil nitrates increased to a level of 88.0 pounds per acre on September 18. The study of fertilizer applications in relation to soil management showed that soil management, fertilizer applications and time of sampling had a significant influence upon soil nitrates (Table IV). There was, also, a signifi- cant interaction of fertilizers with soil management and with time of sampling. Soil nitrates found under sodemulch, as shown in Figure 7, were essentially double that found under sod. Double applications of nitrogen (NN) more than tripled the level of soil nitrates found for single applications of nitrogen (N) (Figure 8). Making split applications of nitrogen (N-N) significantly increased soil nitrates above, that found for single applications of double nitrogen (NN). The addition of phosphorus and potash (NNPPKK) to the fertilizer application significantly decreased soil nitrates. However, the addition of phosphorus (NNPP) to the fertilizer application did not influence the level of soil nitrates. The average level of soil nitrates (Table IV) was highest on July 20 and was followed with a significant decrease on August 3. This.decrease was followed with an increase on August 17 that failed to be significant. There was another significant decrease in soil nitrates between August 17 and August 31 and a significant increase in soil nitrates between August 31 and Septebmer 1h. 23 ocoapoeaaoom oeuaaapnom hm.om o~.mm mwuaaoemm K neaaaapaom cm.:m os.wa ososnaapsoo a possesses: mm.aa sm.ma smonaosss cesspom mm.>a ~N.MH anonaaapaem ooezpom mmsaa odcm mpoosowwoss cesspom RH Rm “oooooeuuao pomefimaowam Damon :m.om Hm.b: :>.No ou.:fi wm.:a mooufiaapnou . no“ ommao>¢ om.mm mo.om mo.om co.ee os.o: so.ma :H possessor ha.mm 00.0H o~.ma Ho.mm do.mm mm.HH Hm boomed mm.m: :s.om as.mm ao.ac ~m.mm m~.oa me choose mm.am mm.oa mo.am mm.oo mo.:: oc.HH m Assess ma.~m mm.mm mm.mHH :m.m~ mw.Hm om.cH om ease coma wcaHoSmm N aoNHHHpoom mm.om om.om mm.c: cs.ao ::.oo om.ma eoassreom mm.~m ~m.mm Hm.o: ms.mm oo.om am.ma com henaaauhom N paosommomz wnHHoEou me 259 ewonbd .mmmmzz mmzz 2:2 22 2 no pooEomecsE Haom III‘IIII‘ Il'llllll IAIIIII I mZHszH mamda .Ada nobaopoem op om haze I ewsoebmv _ .mpocSpwenp aeNHHfieaow needos> hood: Aoaos\.mbav housepao Hflom .m endmam .Ada nooeepoem op om hash I cwsae>¢v - .pcoaoweoss ooHdEIUOm pom now needs honos\.mnav nonempau Haom .> eaomah 21L m mmDoI xxoozz oozz z 2 £90. 22 0.0 1.... I aim l NNM I. V.G¢ o.~m h meoE 10.5.2 00m 00m (0100 nd 'sqn saivuuN ‘IIOS 0.0 EN. {.5 NNn ‘3 m t 0&0 (0100 Jed 'SQI) saivsiIN ‘IIOS 25 The interaction between soil management and fertilizer applications (Figure 9) showed that the sod-mulch signifi- cantly increased soil nitrates when double nitrogen (NN) or split nitrogen (N-N) applications were made. The addition of either phOSphoruS or phosphorus and potassium to double nitrogen (NNPP or NNPPKK) significantly decreased soil nitrates from that of double nitrogen (NN). In the sods, the addition of ph03phorus to double nitrogen (NNPP) signifi- cantly increased soil nitrates over that of double nitrogen (NN) and the addition of potassium to phOSphorus and double nitrogen (NNPPKK) significantly decreased soil nitrates from that of double nitrogen and phosphorus (NNPP). Using either phosphorus or phosphorus and potash with double nitrogen did not result in any difference between sod and soddmulch in the level of soil nitrates. The interaction of fertilizer applications with sampling dates (Figure 10) showed that there was a significant decrease in soil nitrates for the double nitrogen (NN) between August 17 and August 31. The decrease in soil nitrates for the NNPP treatment between July 20 and August 3 persisted for the remainder of the season.‘ The unusually high level of soil nitrates for the NNPP treatment on July 20 resulted in the apparent reduction in soil nitrates associated with the use of phosphorus in the fertilizer application not being illus- trated in the average value. Although there were no signifi- cant changes in soil nitrates for the other treatments when Figure 9. A comparison of soil nitrates (lbs./acre) for various fertilizers as influenced by sod and sod-mulch management. (Average - July 20 to September 1h). SOIL NITRATES (lbs. per acre) 99.2 74.4 62.0 49.6 37.2 24.8 I 2.4 h— 0.0 I 500 MULCH N NN CI 300 Split N N NNPPKK FIGURE 9 NNPP 26 Figure 10. Biweekly variation of soil nitrates (lbs./acre) in relation to fertilizer applications. SOIL NITRAT ES (lbs. per acre) 27 p—e g l b 9“ is TTIIITT‘I‘I NN "" 04 h 01 (I) .m .— 94 9‘ CD 0‘ O a 00 To I‘TT‘TTTNTT‘T" \ _\/ N-N SPLFT 0" .U‘ a) r'II‘WI'TrIITITITIT—l NNPP Tl‘l'j \/\ NNPPKK ‘ ' ‘l'lf't'fi ALLTREATMENTS l l I 1 I JULY 20 AUG 3 l7 3| SEPT l4 FIGURE IO 28 samples on different dates, there appeared to be a general reduction in soil nitrates for all treatments, on August 3 and August 31. DISCUSSION The level of soil nitrates is generally considered an index of biological activity (Russell, 1950). Soil manage— ment practices and fertilizer applications may influence the supply of soil nitrates by releasing additional nitrates and indirectly by modifying the environmental factors that influence biological activity. Also, the level of soil nitrates may be reduced by growth of trees and the sod covers. Sods generally have been reported (Russell, 1950) to result in most of the inorganic nitrogen being in the ammonium form with relatively little in the nitrate form. All the ”sod plots" showed a low but relatively constant level of soil nitrates. The major factor influencing the level of soil nitrates under sod was believed to be a result of the use of nitrate by the sods. Also, the sod growth.may result in a higher level of carbon dioxide in the soil atmosphere. This higher level of carbon dioxide may reduce nitrification in the soil of the root zone. Also the high carbon dioxide or other natural factors such as drought may increase the rate of dying of rootlets and excretion by the plant of other carbonaceous substances which could result in microorganismsassimilating nitrates in decomposing such organic matter. 30 The physiological character of various grasses may account for the different level of soil nitrates found. Quackgrass had the least soil nitrate while timothy had the most, which agrees with Partridge (l9hl), who found that quackgrass competed more vigorously than timothy for soil nitrates because of a larger root system. The legumes were similar to the grasses but had a higher level of soil nitrates. The higher level of soil nitrates for the legumes was most likely the result of fixation of nitrogen from the air by the bacteria of the nodules. The fixed nitrogen not only aids in satisfying the demand for nitrogen by the legume but may, upon decom- position add additional nitrate to the soil. Mowing was of the greatest significance on the legume sods. Mowing alfalfa resulted in an increase in soil nitrates. Possibly the mowing of alfalfa resulted in rapid regrowth and probably a greater fixation of nitr0gen. Mowing white Dutch clover reduced soil nitrate. The regrowth of the clover was retarded because soil moisture was low. The soil moisture for white Dutch clover at the first sampling was 6.0h per cent moisture or 10.h per cent of the available soil moisture (dry soil basis) while at the last sampling soil moisture was at the wilting point. 0n the fescue sod in the peach orchard, double nitrogen (NN) resulted in higher soil nitrates than normal nitrogen (N) and double nitrogen in two applications (N-N) produced more 31 soil nitrates than the double nitrogen (NN). When phos- phorus was added to double nitrogen (NNPP), the highest level soil nitrates was found under the sod.‘ When both ph03phorus and potassium (NNPPKK) were added, the soil nitrates were lower than for the double nitrogen (NN). The results for the various nitrogen treatments seemed to show in general a relationship to the amount and time of appli- cation of fertilizer. The addition of either phoSphorus or phOSphorus and potassium with double nitrogen probably increased the growth and decomposition cycle of the fescue and in this mannerlmade more nitrates available to the peach tree. The application of a fertilizer appeared to increase _ soil nitrates for short periods only. Since the soil was very dry (9.1h per cent moisture or hi per cent of the available soil moisture, dry soil basis), it would appear to be unlikely that all the applied nitrogen fertilizer was used in sod or tree growth. Mulches might be considered as insulators that alter the environmental conditions by decreasing soil temperatures and decreasing the rate of evaporation thus providing more constant environmental conditions. These constant conditions were shown to result in a more continuous supply of soil nitrates (Figure 3). The mulch plots in the peach orchard had greater variation in soil nitrates than those mulch plots not in the peach orchard. This may have been associated with 32 the uptake of nitrates by the trees and to the presence of quackgrass growing in the mulched peach plots. Leaching could not be considered to be a factor in the variation of soil nitrates in this experiment as the soil moisture was generally low except when mulch was used in the "sod plots". If any leaching occurred it should have been evidenced in the curve for mulch in the "sod plots" as these plots lacked vegetation to utilize soil moisture and soil nitrates and the mulch plots could be expected to have the greatest percolation. One of the disadvantages of a mulch cited by Albrecht (1922) has been that a mulch limits the production of nitrates in a soil by not providing as favorable environ- mental conditions for nitrification. However, the type of mulching material may tend to offset this disadvantage. Harley, Moon, and Regeimbal (1950) have indicated that a high nitrogen hay produces more nitrates than a low nitrogen hay. The nitrogen content of the material may have been a factor in the production of the high soil nitrates under the grass mulch and the low grade alfalfa mulch. Applications of fertilizer to the mulched trees showed that at the Graham Station not only was a nitrogen fertilizer necessary but that either phosphorus or phosphorus and potas- sium with double nitrogen increased yields (Table V). The nitrates under the double nitrogen plus phOSphorus (NNPP) treat- ment were lower for most of the sampling periods than the double 33 Amonosg om.mH om.HH mo.HH Ho.ma m~.ma om.ma oososooasoeao scene as oop\.m RC oo.m:H oo.omH . oo.~m oo.mma oo.~ma oo.maa eases rammzz oszz . zz menszz mszz zz meow no gEIoom “I I‘I( I NII‘ ”HIT Ammoav mammzz .mmzz .zz mmmNHnHammm mm omozmenmzH me azmsmoazaz mogpznmom oza mom mmoze momma roams so mozmmmAZDUmHo oza oquw > mqmda l‘ t C 31L nitrOgen alone but not as low as when both phosphorus and potassium were added to the double nitrogen. From the trunk circumference data (Table 5) and the soil nitrate data, it would appear that the trees depleted soil nitrates more when phosphorus was added, and still more when both phosphorus and potassimmvrere added to the nitrogen ferti- lizer. Mulches have been found (Toenjes, l9hl; Judkins and Rollins, l9hh; and Weeks, Smith and Drake, 1950) beneficial in orchards due to a consistent high level of nitrates and providing other nutrients that may be lacking, thereby increasing the efficiency in the supply of nitrates. Mulches have been found (Hibbard, l9hh) to give better growth reaponses as mulching as renewed. This may be associated with a new supply of readily available nutrients; the steadily increasing supply of nutrients being released by decomposition of organic matter and the improvement of aggregation in the soil. The effect of the mulch upon soil nitrates may be advantageous in the spring but might be dis- asterous in the fall by preventing hardening off of the tree. Winter injury occurred predominately in the sodpmulch part of the orchard in 19h9. Cultivation has been the generally accepted method of growing peaches as it provided the tree with sufficient nitrates when young, it aided in hardening off the tree, capecially when used in conjunction with a fall cover cr0p. 35 The cultivated plots in the peach orchard were higher in soil nitrates than the sod-mulch while in the "sod plots", the clean cultivation was lower than the grass mulch and alfalfa mulch. The weed growth.in the cultivated plots not in the peach orchard during the first part of the sampling period may have accounted for the cultivated plots having a lower average of soil nitrates. The relationship of fertilizer to soil nitrates is varied. The normal nitrogen (N), double nitrogen (NN), and the double nitrogen in Split applications (N-N) effected soil nitrates, generally, in pr0portion to the amount of fertilizer and the time of application. The biweekly variation of double nitrogen with ph03phorus (NNPP) was very high at the start but dr0pped to a lower level after the first sampling. A possible answer might be that the phosphorus was not available for use by the tree and the tree did not take up the nitrates until the phoSphorus became avail- able. The general biweekly trends were similar for most of the treatments. There was a general tendency for alternate sampling periods to show either a relatively high or a relatively low level of soil nitrates. In.most instances the relatively low levels of soil nitrates were sometimes significantly below the relatively high levels. The treatments that had the highest average levels of soil nitrate showed the most variation. For 36 example, the clean cultivation showed.more variation than sod-mulch; soddmulch showed.more variation than legumes and legumes more variation than grasses. A comparison of the soil nitrate to temperature, (Bureau of the Weather, 1953), and rainfall records (Figure 11) showed no close correlation even if soil temperature was considered to follow the air temperature by 7 to 10 days (Baten and Eichmeier, 1951). For the first period of low soil nitrates, the low temper- ature from July 21 to July 25 seemed not to be of sufficient duration to effect the soil nitrate level. The incidence of rain.was not sufficient to leach away the soil nitrates. There was an indication that increased growth was the major cause of low soil nitrate at the second sampling. Some moisture had accumulated from the rains of July 19 and 23 and may have stimulated growth. The second period of low soil nitrates occurred at the fourth sampling and the dry conditions point to the fact that growth had essentially stOpped. The soil nitrate may have been assimilated by the microorganisms of the soil in the process of decomposing carbonaceous material derived from the sod and, thus, accounting in part for the level of soil nitrates. The use of soil nitrates by sod, trees and microorganisms and the low temperatures prevented maximum accumulation of soil nitrates that may have been actually offset by an increased production of soil nitrates resulting from increased aeration in the drier soil. .mcaaasdn no paspm on» on moanm #003 0:0 mnficdfimon .Aaozoav Hflsmzasa hHHwU pad Anomdsv ohfipspoasop has duos haawn .HH oaswfim 37 .: wane: 0.0 '0. o C? 0.. 3 him 5 .N t o. am 3 n. 332. a _ C _ l l :lfitr E a _= C _ Ca v. wamm _m em 5 0_ RN ,,. 0N m_ $53.. 4 _ A _ T a . A _ om ow Oh om (seqoug) uowgog 5 o elmoledmei SUMMARY The eXperiment was conducted on a Miami Silt Loam. Soil samples were taken from two areas: (1) sod plots that included various sods, clean cultivation and mulches, and (2) a peach orchard that was in sod, cultivation and sod- mulch with various fertilizer treatments. Soil nitrates were determined by Peech's Rapid Microchemical Test using Brucine as the reagent. In the "sod plots", the soil nitrates under mulches were higher and more constant than for cultivation. Grass mulch had the highest level of soil nitrates, followed by the alfalfa, straw and sawdust mulch. Legumes were lower in soil nitrates than cultivation and mulching, and higher than grass sods. The quackgrass sod had the lowest level of soil nitrate. There were no significant differences between.mowed and unmowed grass sods. The mowing of alfalfa increased soil nitrates while mowing white Dutch clover decreased soil nitrates. The application of normal nitrogen (N), phosphorus and potassium with double nitrogen (NNPPKK) and phOSphorus with double nitrogen (NNPP) to the peach plots showed no signifi- cant differences between the soil nitrates of sod and sod- mulch. But application of dauble nitrogen (NN) and double 39 nitrogen split (N-N) indicated the soil nitrates of the soddmulch were significantly-higher than that of the sod. The very high soil nitrates for double nitrogen with phosphorus (NNPP) of July 20 prevented the average for (NNPP) showing the much lower soil nitrate values of the following samplings. The biweekly variation in soil nitrates for cultivation was the greatest of any of the soil management practices. Cultivation with normal nitrogen in the peach orchard pro- duced three times as much soil nitrates as resulted from normal nitrogen with sod and sodpmulch. The biweekly variation of soil nitrates was similar for most treatments and could not be attributed closely to rainfall or temperature. LITERATURE CITED Albrecht, W. A. 1922. Nitrate accumulation under straw mulch. Soil Sci. 1h: 299-305. Baton, W. D. and A. H. Eichmeier. 1951. A summary of weather conditions at East Lansing, Michigan prior to 1950. Mich. Agr. 2. Sta. 62 pp. Beaumount, A. B. and G. C. Crooks. 1933. The influence of a mulch on soil nitrate. Soil Sci. 33: 121-12h. Harley, C. P., H. H. Moon and L. O. Regeimbal. 1950. The release of certain nutrient elements from simulated orchard grass mulch. Proc. Amer. S32. Hort. £233. 56: 17-230 Havis, L. A. 19h2. Aggregation of orchard soil under mulch. _Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. to: 28-31. Hibbard, A. D. 19hh. Growth of young peach trees under ' different 8 stems of'soil management. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. : 66-70. Higdon, R. J. 1953. 'Soil moisture depletién by various grasses and legumes used as orchard eods. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State College. Judkins, W. and.H. A. Rollins. 19MB. The effect of sod, cultivation and mulch treatments on soil moisture, soil nitrate and tree growth in’a young peach orchard. PI’OO. Amer. gage Hort. §£$e (+3: 7'100 and I. W. Wander. l9h5. Effect of mulch on growth and yield of peach trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. SCI. #6: 183f186. Kenworthy, A. L. 1953. Moisture in orchard soils as influenced by age of sod and clean cultivation. Mich. Ago E152- _S_£2. M. §_u_1_l_. 350+): ASA-LL59. Lyon, To Lo, A. Jo Hein1Cke, and Be De Wilson. 1923. The relation of soil moisture and nitrates to the effects of sod on apple trees. Cornell Univ. 55;. Egg. Sta. Memoirs 63, 26 pp. "" 1‘ ,‘ . 1925. The relation of soil moiSture and nitrate to the effects of sod on plum and cherry trees. Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Memoirs 91, 21 pp. Partridge, N. L. l9hl. Comparative water usage and depth of rooting of some Species of grass. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. SQL. 39: h26-h3h. Peech, M. and L. English. 1945. Rapid microchemical soil tests. Soil Sci. 57: 167, 195. Russell, E. J. 1950. Soil Condition and Plant Growth. 8th ed. Revised by E. W.‘Russell. New York: Longmans, Green and Co. pp. 292-293. Toenjes, W. 19h1. Twenty years results in a Michigan appée orchard. Mich. Agr. Egg. Sta. Spec. Bull. 313: 1-1 . Turk, L. M. and N. L. Partridge. 19hl. Effect of mulching material on moisture loss from soils. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 38: 59-62. . 19h7. Effect or various mulching materials on orchard soil. Soil Sci. 6h: 1115118. U. S. Bureau of the Weather. 1954. Local climatological data with comparative data, 1953. for Grand Rapids airport, Grand Rapids, Michiga. Washington 25, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office 2-2-5h--h05. Waksman, S. A. 1952. Soil MicrobiOlogy. New York: John.Wiley and Sons, Inc. p. 258. Weeks, We Do, Ce To. SMith and Mo Drake. 1950. Residual effect of heavy mulching in a bearing apple orchard on soil nutrients. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 56: 1-h. APPENDIX #3 wo.mH o~.mH mo. 0H :m.0H mH.mH ms.HH 0m.sH om.mH SH.NH 0o.HH .o>< 0:.NH 00.0 00.:H em.0H :0.mH mo.mH wo.sH mm.mm om.mH :0.mH m :0. MH 0m.SH m~.HH :m.OH 0:.NH 0N.HH 0m.:H o:.mH 00.: ms.HH m mm.oH mo.Hm No.0 :m.0H :m40H :m.0H 04.00 0H.HH NH.0H :m.OH H a .peom m:.Hm mm.0H :H.mm 0H.0H ss.mH HH.0H sm.sm ss.>H 00.:H 0m.sH .ose 0 .00 0o.sH 00.0w :.om mo.mH :0. MH NH.0H 0m.SH 0a.:H as.HH m 0 .00 00.:H o:.mH .MH mm.mm 00.:H am. am mo.Hm ms.HH 0m.mm m 0m.~H 0H.0H 0m.om 0 .00 0o.sH 0:.00 ::.mm 00.:H mo.oH 0m.SH H :m .mse Hm.mm :a.0H mm.MH H.:m :0.mH ms.0H as.:m wm.:m m0.mm Hm.mm .o>< mm.sm 00.»H om.mH mo.Hm 0s4HH mm.mm 0:.mm 0H.:m ms.m: mm.mm m mm.oH :0.mH wo.SH 0m.m: 0m.mm om.mH mm.mm 02.00 00.0 00.m: m 02.00 mm.oH 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 mm.mm 00.0w mo.SH H OH .ms< H0. NH mm.0H mm.0H 00.0 :s.~ om.o 00.0H om.:m Hs.o Hs.o .o>< 00.:H 0.0 ms.HH o:.mH :m.0H :m.0H 0H.NH om.o mo.mH o:.mH m :m. 0H m.OH 00.0 mm. 00.0 0H.HH 0H. HH mm.mm 0H.HH em.OH 0 mo. MH 0:.0H :m.OH 00. 0a.: 00.0 00.:H ,Sm.OH 00.: 00.0 H pm aHsH Ho.mH m:.MH 30.0H om.mH so.sH ms.0H mm.Hm sm.sm os.mH mw.mm ..>< 0m.~H mo.mH mm.oH mm.mm 0H.:m o:.NH mm.om 0m.mm 0:.NH m NH.mH 0m.:H om.mH 00.:H NH.0H 0:.00 3.0m 0H.:~ mm.mm Wm.:H 0 mm. H No.mH NH.0H 0:.NH :0.MH 0m.SH 0.:d OH.:m o:.mH 0:.Hm H mH sHse 603955 60302 603955 60302 603955 6030: 603955 60302 603955 60302 0&09 obs wnfinaawon mdeMOSHQ HO fiOHD 00 mou60m Eodpncm mmdSmUHewdd b.3959 9.800% '00Haaom & 3 I mZOHedqummm Q24 wzHQmEm mo an. .GZHmoqbz .mszoz .mmm>oo Mm omozmeqazH we zmeoqm mom: was so Hmm04.\.mmqv mmeamaHz HHom H> mam¢a 00.00 00.00 00.00H 00.00 0H.00 0:.0: 0:.0: 0H.0: 00.00 00.0: .0»: 00.HHH 00.0: 0:.:0 0:.:0 00.00H wm.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0H.00 0 00.00 00.00 00.HHH 00.0HH 00.00 .00 0H.:0 00.00 00.0H 00.00 0 00.0: :0.00H 00.00H 00.00 00.00 0:.:0 00.00 0H.:0 00.00 0H.0H H 0 .0000 :0.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0H.00 :0.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 . 00.H0 .o>« 00.00 00.0: 00.0H 00.0: 0:.00 00.00 00.:0 00.00 00.00 0H.:0 0 00.00 00.00 0H.00 00.:0 00.00 00.00 00.0: 00.0: 00.:H 00.0H 0 00.:0 00.00 00.00 00.00 0:.00 00.:0 00.0H 00.00 0:.00 00.00 H :0 .000 :0.0: H0.00 00.00 0H.:0 H0.0 00.0: 00.0: 00.00 0H.00 00.00 .o>0 0:.:0 0:.:0 :0.0HH 00.0: 00.0 00.00 ::.00 00.00 00.00 0H.0: 0 00.0: 0:.:0 0:.00 00.00H 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 ::.00 00.00 0 00.0H 00.0: 0:.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0: 00.00 0:.H0 H 0H .000 00.00 0 .:: 00.:0 00.:0 00.0: 00.00 00.H0 00.0H 00.H0. 00.00 ..>< 0:.H0 0 .00 00.00H 00.00 00.00 00.0: 00.00 00.H0 00.00 00.00 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.H0 00.m0 00.0H 0 00.00 0:.H0 00.00 00.00 ::.00 00.0H 00.0H 00.:H 00. H :0.0H H 00 0H00 00.00 0H.00 00.00 0:.00 00.00 H0.0: 00.00 H0.0H 00.00 00.00 .o>< 00.00 0H.00 00.:0 00.00 00.0H 00.00 00.0H 00.0H 00.00 00.00 0 00.00 00.0: 0 .HHH 00.00 00.00 0H.:0 00.00 00.0H 00.00 00.:0 0 0:.00 00.00 0..00 00.:0 00.0: 00.00 00.00 00.H0 00.0H 0:.0H H 0H aHss 3d." a: 3.0 and." 6 pm .00 6 m 6 0.60.0: Goaudb 90.0609 90>oao . «“6934 .Ho :93 mnaccawon flog: Ifingo flops Opfiflg 'GOHHQON M003 eossHpnoo H> 00000 (F #5 00.00 00. 00 00.00H 00. 00 00.0H 00.H0 00. 0H :0.0H 0 .0H 00. 0 .000 00.0H 0H.:0 0:.00 00.:0H 00.0H 0:.:0 00. 0H 00.0H 0 .0H 0H.HH 0 00.00 00.:0 00.00H 00.0 00.0H 00.00 00. 0H 00.0 00. H0 00. 0 0 00.00 0:. 0H 0H.00H 00.00H 0H.0H 00.0H 00. 0H :0.0H 0:. 00 00. 0 H :H .0000 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0:.0H 00.:H 00.:H H:. 00 m00 .0H 00 0H .000 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 NH.HH 00.0H 00.0H 00.:0 w. 0H 0:.0H 0 00.H0 00.:H 00.00 00.0 .0H 00.:H 00.0H 00. 00 0 .0H Nfl.HH 0 0:.0H 00.0 0:.00H 00.0H .0H :0.0H 00.0 00.:H. 00.0H .0 H H0 .000 0H.00 00.00 :H.00 00.00 HH.0H 00.00 00.00 00.00 00. 00 00. 00 .000 0H.:0 00.00 :0.00H 00.00H 00. 0H 0:.0H 0H.0H 00.0: 00. 00 00.:H 0 0:.H0 00.00 00.00 00.00 :0.0H 00.:0 00.00 0:.00 00.:H 00.0H 0 00.00 00.00 00.0HH 00.00 00. 0H 00.00 00.0: 00.0H 00. 0: 00.:0 H 0H .000 H0.0H HH.00 00.00 0H.:0 00.HH :H.00 00.0H 00.00 :0.0H 00.HH .000 00.00 00.: 00.00 00.00H 00.0 00.0H ::.0 0H.0: 09 0H 00.0 0 0H.0H 0N0 0:.H0 00.0 NH.HH 00.00 00. H0 0.:H 00.0H 00.0H 0 :0.0H 00. 0 00.H0H 00.00H 0.0H 00.00 0:.00 0.0H :0.0H 00.0 H 0 .000 00.00H 00.00 0:.0 H0.00 0:.00 H0. 00H H0.:: 00.00 H0.00 00.0H .000 00.:0H 00.Nm 00.0 0H.0: :0.0H :0. 000 00.0H 0H.0: 0:.0H 00.0 0 00.H0H 0H. 00.H0H 00.:H 00. 00 09 0H 00.0H 00.0: 0:00 :0.0H 0 00.00 0:.00 00.0H 00.00H 00.00 00.00 00.:0 00.00H 00.0: 00.0H H 00 0H00 2:2 2:2 ewdaobd 0022 020022 0HH00 22 2 0022 020022 0HH00 22 2 go 00H» 00000H000 00H0S.000 000 uuoHHmom 0002 “final ZOHB¢0HQmmm 92¢ wzHsz mqmda 1+6 \\ . 00.0H 00.:0 00.0 00.H0tx H0.wm 00.HH .000 00.0H 00.:0 00.0 00.:H 00. 00.HH 0 00.0H 00.00H 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0H 0 0H.HH 00.00 00.0 00.:H 00.00H :0.0H H :H .0000 0:.0H 00.00 00.0H H0.00 :0.00 H0.0 .000 0H.HH 00.H0H 0:.0H 0:.0H 00.:0 00.HH 0 :m.0 00. 00 mm.HH 0H.0H 00.:H 0:.0H 0 0 .0 ::.0 .0 .::.00 0H.HH 00.: H H0 .000 HH.0H 00.00 00.H0 H:.00 00.00 .000 00.0H 0N.:0 00.:H 0H.:0 00.00 0:.00 0 :0.0H 0:.H0 0H.:0 00.0H 00.00 00.0H 0 00.0H 00.00 00. :0 00.00 0:.00 00.00 H 0H .000 00.HH 0:.00 HH.0H 00.00 H0.0H 0:.:H .000 00.0 00.00 00. 0 00.0 00.0 00.HH 0 H.HH 00.00 00. 00 00.0 00.0H 0.H0 0 0.0H 00.:H 00. 0 00.00 00.:H 0.0H H 0 .000 0:.00 0H.0HH 00.0H 00.00 0:.00 : .0H .000 :0.0H 00.000 00.0 00.0 0:.H0 0 .0H 0 00.00 :0.00H :0.0H 00.00 00.00 00.:H 0 00.00 00.00 00.0H 00.0H 00.00 00.:H H 00 0H00 u ewdnobd 00H0s_0o0 00H000H0H00 000 00H001000 00H000H0H00 000 no 00H» 00H00H000 n0>0n60m G0>0noa0m Iaoaamom £003 ZOHB Mm_QmOZMDQEZH md szOmBHz mo ZOHB¢qumm< Adzmoz EBHS mmmme mo¢mm mmmzp Ammo¢\.mmuv mme4mBHz QHom HHH> qu<8 ‘ {2913 .1 l ' ' ‘-‘ q . 4‘: 2. ' i, tat-5L3“! tiél‘u ‘hlfilfi. ‘5- . I