Experiments with fertilizers on coconut palms and variation in palm productivity


Material Information

Experiments with fertilizers on coconut palms and variation in palm productivity
Series Title:
Bulletin / Porto Rico Agricultural Experiment Station ;
Physical Description:
23 p., 1 leaf of plates : ill. ; 24 cm.
McClelland, T. B ( Thomas Brown ), 1886-
Porto Rico Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication:
Mayagüez, P.R
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Coconut palm -- Fertilizers   ( lcsh )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Statement of Responsibility:
by T.B. McClelland.
General Note:
Caption title.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029614662
oclc - 21270109
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text

.... -M. .I

Under the supervision of the

:. BULLETIN No. 34

g, .. .June, 1931
1 ; ,

SBy T. B. McCLELLAND, Director

S' -- p aPage on
ex eriment-------- 1 Fertilizer experiments-Continued.
o plantation-------- 2 Boquillas plantation --------
eapntation-------------- 8 Summary and conclusions--------


IH;iHCoonuts valued at approximately $700,000 were annually ex-
6"d froi Porto Rico before the hurricane of September 13, 1928.
iaAMo destroyed Indny palms, but their loss is expected to con-
i$ eally pa temporary drawback to the local development of the
i~nout industry. Most of the coast of Porto Rico is fringed with
pams. The area in this crop varies greatly in width but is
father narrow. The soils range from beach sand to sandy
are probably more uniform in texture than are those
With most of the other kinds of crops.


ooperati ive fertilizer experiments on coconut palms were begun in
JI:912 i Porto Rico by C. F. Kinman, former horticulturist of the
* station, and were continued by him until his transfer to the mainland
11 918. Since then they have been conducted under the direction of
4.e writer. All field work was terminated by the hurricane of Sep-
iw: ber, 1928, which destroyed nearly two-thirds of the palms in the
t : groups then under test.
i !,: ..The experiments were made on three plantations in different local-
PI1 The palms in each locality were in a different stage of devel-
:i:u tnent, and each group represented a distinct period in the life of
.'I..iThe author gratefully acknowledges his indebtedness to A. J. Harvey, the Guanica Cen-
thiiei German Kall Works, Cesar de Chudens, Jose Gonslez, B. V. L. Lippitt, and
R t." teore, whose kindly cooperation made the experiments possible..
:'' 2849 *-1-1


SThe basal fertilizer formula used in plats Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7
Jy, *915, to July, 1919, was 6 per cent nitrogen, 8 per cent
i #cid, and 4 per cent potash. In January, 1920, the per.
if potash was increased to 12 for that and subsequent appli-
lhe fertilizers applied to plats Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were the
amount of each of two elements as was given plat No. 6
Sone element which plat No. 6 received. Plat No. 6 received
dead amount of complete fertilizer. Plat No. 7 received the
d of fertilizer as plat No. 6, but in double portion. Applica-
were made semiannually, beginning with a standard rate of 2
Is per palm at the first application in July, 1915. Subsequent
per palm per application were 1% pounds in 1916, 2 pounds
7 $ pounds in 1918, 3 pounds in 1919, 4 pounds in 1920, and
(d1'thereafter. The final application was made in January,
Pljt!' s Nos, 8 and 9 were fertilized with cow manure and to-
,tms, respectively, supplemented with mineral fertilizers to
he total application of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash
rable to: that given plat No. 6. Since both cow manure and
stems show decided variability in analyses the applications
"l; r approximately equivalent, and prior to 1920 it is considered
SNb. 8 received slightly less nitrogen and more potash than
ained in the standard application given plat No. 6. When
Izer applications were given in full amount in 1921 asd
rflt No. 8 received at each application 600 pounds of manume
'im& of superphosphate, and 6 pounds of potassium sulphte,
fit N.9 received 100 pounds of tobacco stems, 2% p1 oids ot
itti sulphate, and B11/4 pounds of superphosphate. Plat '
S" (NaCi) 41pne. Until 1920 the applications of salt
i .weiht the standard fertilizer application. There"Nt
~~ ipe n pir applieatio were 3 pounds in 1920, 8%
IIIc 1921 i 192, and 4 pounds in 198 and later.
II6rtilier Wa broadcast more or less over the are4 ovethug
.ean~v~.~ i oeing in 191; deep furrows were plowed between"
.16 t.o applying fertilizer to cut t*e encroaching roots d
adaeent plats.' In May, 196, the fertilizer treatitents ouG t
e .haviing been' discontinued, new plates were established
h original plates at rigtt angles, and salt was applied to
jflms eietrally located in respect to eae of the original
,At e salt was broadcast at the rate of 5 pounds per palm, and
pI tieaon extended as far as the guard row on both sides. The
&tiiWas repeated in November, 1956, in May and November,
Ai i' t May, 1928. The four palms; the two at either end'of
.ll.. of the .original plats, which remained' untreated, constituted the
d[;idltk i the new alinetnent. The applications of salt were made for
,I*V^ e a periodd prior to the termination of the record that the
= off nt dudtion could have been only slight. Moreover; sinee
the original lats, fared alike in the new treatment, the produe-
rebo ~~lswit first be considered without regard to the later salt-
I iitigy-in Autgrst 1997, the field was heavily pastured.:
i.|i At harvest from these pagns was ii June, 1928, the manure
thfiroh it pasturing presumably had no effect on reeordbi



os,3ad ih 06sdw
mipe.Iti b otyfoeta,
intefed N.2,sod don o


4i dpctive palm, No. 33. The removal of these two palms
p Mir respective plates would have very materially altered the
,eand as a result, plats Nos. 1 and 2 would have inter-
Spoitions in rank, and plat No. 3 would have been moved
..ith to third place. These changes, however, would not have
d greatly the explanation of production in relation to fer-
iion, with two incompletely fertilized plats outranking the two
ly fertilized
and the salted Sa oo
Soutranking all 0
re 2 shows the ,
es of individual a
production for 2
period 1920-1927, Soo
of the 10 most and moo
10 least productive I
m. At no time did o
curves of produc- .
f the palms of the U
at groups cross. o m -
4,a 76 individual 4 S
harvests from 4s mao
h h; production 0-
Ill 'below the

,itspective year, u
no instance did ace
from the low- 7 o
tion oup attain.
nS:ge production, aoo
l al influence pro- a : EIE E
S action in yield U a
een oua year and y
'oi.in this S400d min
the teecy 7 UUn
am i l
high or toward U o t 3 4 $ r 7 8
S'production re- Palm.
dearly evident FIGour 1.-Nut production by individual palms, San
High Jos plantation, 1920-1928. elative position as in
sientd i the field. To find the palm number, combine the ten's
rs remained place and the unit's place numbers. Thus, the palm
in the upper left corner is No. 10, that in the upper
yielders and low right corner No. 19, that in the lower left corner is
remained 90, that n the lower right corner No. 99, while
TTeaIRdcT tiOW ...the mirsing palm indicated by a blank is No. 28
ers. The total pro-
4tion, including that of thehalf year 1928, of the one group
1 7,242 nuts, and that of the other was 2,415 nuts, which was
ratio of 3 to 1. Still another difference between the groups was the
dlier maturity of the more productive palms. Six of the ten high-
duding pldns yielded nuts in 1920, and the thher 4 did so the
owing~ year, whereas none of the 10 low-producing palms fruited
40, and 3 failed to fruit prior to 1922.
Iti farther comparison of high and low producers, two larger
or1 itwere considered, consisting, respectively, of the 25 palms





tr_ It
A Li

i lop




iOO t .in. the high-production group 17 of 25 palms came into produc-
L i yrn in the low-production group only 5 of 25 palms did so.
0!,l palms in the former group fruited, whereas in the latter
sven palms did not fruit until the following year.
ss been stated, the original plats were crossed at right angles
plats beginning in May, 1920, to test the effect of salt on
..J.fj nuts. The palms which bore the numerals 3, 4, 5, or 6 in
'place constituted the salted plat, and those the numerals of
Ended in 0, 1, 8, or 9 constituted the check. The 36 palms in
former averaged 262.8 nuts per palm in four years, whereas
Ip palms in -the latter averaged 260.8 nuts in the same period,
was a difference of only 0.8 per cent. This very uniform
ge production indicated the plats as units to be fairly com-
In 1927, the earliest possible date at which any effect of the
nt on production could be expected to appear, the salted
produced an average of 63 nuts per palm and the check palms

; 4,

40 .

9 t',sm /...+ s, JSJ
~1 .-Average nut production per palm, San Jos6 plantation, 1920-1927, of
i',t0e 25 most productive and of the 25 least productive palms, the former in solid,
rii;the latter in shaded blocks

.9. In comparison with the yields of the preceding year these were
I4lactions of 5.5 and 11 nuts per palm, respectively. In the half
94ar 1928, during which the yields were recorded, the salted palms
j agd 37.3 nuts per palm, whereas the check palms averaged 32.9
,which was a difference of 4.4 nuts, or 13.4 per cent in favor of
Ss<ed palms. Unfortunately, the hurricane terminated the
wpetmment in September, 1928. In the brief duration of the experi-
J the recorded production indicated a possible benefit from the
i4i0at of salt, but the period was too brief to warrant drawing

A6 t 113
Vil t 41egatd it, o lor
'110*d4ra to-, t*
Al _f

V vw t'. 1, :, .*f I _W it

block of 14 rows of V40 1(AedAd fo
s divided, into five I Of two TOWO *W4
'4 Wp 0
the rows of p ms raA to
from the 11 b5i
wid No. 6 tot
Cwp tiow "I, co

tm the



p Ow
broi&*A' I an ia indt6sfd b, cirds,of 4
i A Twlm,, iin
ioodismW*r, w"Ahe- palm, in Una

IMI 06


the year, and a division of producCon h6to 411
accurate idea of the distribiffion of pr6duofiou


Asi~ are made at brief or regular intervals. Collections were at
what variable intervals. Since an average interval of two and
Sbe-ourths months elapsed between pickings, there were four col-
IwS in some calendar years and five in others. For an analysis of
ri;ect of fertilization on production, the harvests were divided
i.tjfree periods, the first of 8, the second of 12, and the third of
Srvests. This arrangement placed one of the eliminated harvests
ween the first and second periods and the other within the second
iod. The first period extended from January, 1922, to August,

j I

1 e. h:

i-i iAerayeof Average of Avera
H harvests 12 harvests 8 har
i Ist 'I period in Znd period ln3 rd
i .. I =-Aug. 1923 Feb.ISZ9-Oct./96 feb. 19Z
Fiaum 4.-Production per palm per picking at Corsica plantation
I ,: .

'ye of

j and the last period from February, 1927, to September, 1928,
4keasonal range of the two periods being much the same.
Mnee the first fertilizer application was in March, 1922, 17 months
k to the end of the first period, and since a coconut requires a
in which to mature, very little, if any, effect of the fertilizer
d be expected to show in an increased number of nuts produced
g the first period. The production during this period was
Accordingly as a check on subsequent production.
:tre 4 shows the production for the three periods, in nuts per
tf per picking for each plat and for the 25 palms which gave the

*- s


46 ...... ...... ........ ..... ................

... ....... .....

a tho t '4,;yield durting"
10 a 'sholoit
OW Ty the same itne
howed, otasoum sulphate.
In Plit, No, 94
6f, t
Pe' ods were as I to 2.
Which is a difference of,'' J'thl",
for plat -No. 4, which recerved Jso&um
hbwed very little maroosk
do, of
Vantatign the second. Ost
_Ption of to tboo,
lobio in,,
to increase in

andthir pert*m. b-4t a,,,,, od' OjX*W
Tbpe, pro iietion dthe
sR*ht decline -for the check out!,
Thitt a wide v inti e:iisted b' ,thb"'
PAA, shown Vy divid th i pj"s
a is ng
11 1,
aidconmAurlm*1 g twa Wf 1 4
of the- last vith that of e firA Poriod, tsbo*g,
of plat No. decrease4 10 Cent, *hftv"'_
iudrea,,ed 75 per cent. In li mlamer, 0*
showed of,-44- F
ind, of-60 and 67pereent,#_ 4tlt,
In kaogth' half and an me a-API 30 per-,
and pW Xb, 5, an increase 01 4,1-,Pr cent in the
4, per cent in 0 SOU
decrease Qf th _'a
Palmsreceivmg -CDC same fert"illiki
19, pr OpQmq* xwpon&d -very 4 y

Promace Of a IYO0440*.r, or
be, mWated on
Wuo 009 auts for PlAt $60 1', 4A
Now N 118 vata flu]. pl",Xo. 4, on, )uld
annual inereaae, of I m-,tNm 7
tims a 8, to 12 Poun& of
ttuts the loc4I h#46w,

.Iw pidded for transporting, mixing, and applying the fertilizer,
would bring the total cost to between 20 and 30 cents per
If the production of the first period is taken as the normal
on, an assumption fairly well supported by the subsequent
of the check, the increase in production following fertilization
insufficient to cover the expenditure involved except with
rnially high prices prevailing for coconuts.
ovariation in total number of nuts produced per palm in the
ps. of the experiments is shown diagrammatically in Figure 5.
q 0 lowest yielders among the palms produced 2,161 nuts in
$trst with a. production of 6,938 nuts by the 20 highest yielders.
||V;ery nut produced by the former, 3.2 nuts were produced by the
Although the palms occupied the same area of land, those
fifth of the whole area were worth more than three times as
4Has those in another fifth.
.i. 25 lowest yielders, or one-quarter of the number included in
a experiment, produced 2,930 nuts, ,whereas the 25 highest yielders
induced 8,857 nuts. Thus, one quarter of the palms were almost
I..: *


iftlzfl 8.-Variation in total nut production per palm, in 20 harvests at Corsica
plantation. Each line represents the nuts produced by one palm
times as valuable as another quarter. Table 2 shows the fer-
treatments arid the distribution in the plats of the 25 lowest
f the 25 highest yielding palms at Corsica.

t'a;- tiaUser treatments and distribution aeong the plates of the least
prodwmtive and of the most productive palms at Corsica

Fertilizer applied per palm pDits of th the
-Plats Of he-

JAi uAmmonium SRUperpha Potassium Potassium Potsium Sodium 25 most
sulphate phate sulphate chloride chloride prdctive productive
Palms palms

iPouneads Pounds Pounds Pounds Polwnds Number Number
S2 .2 0 0 0 4 5
.---------- 2 2 2 0 0 5 8
----------- 2 2 0 2 0 5 2
----- 2 2 0 0 1946 7 2
,------------ 0 0 0 0 0 4 8

L4 distribution of the palms shows in them a tendency to produce
r little, unrelated to the kind of fertilizer applied. Their
0 on by periods is shown in Figure 4. The high yield of the

--.-- oillc


14 miw10

A- O



Bul. 34. Porto Rico Agr. Expt. Station






















so to 42 palms each.
Iplats were treated at the rate of 5 pounds per palm with a fer-
f combination having, as its basal formula 6 per cent nitrogen,
SeMnt phosphoric acid, and 12 per cent potash. Applications
mande twice annually from June, 1912, to June 1916. The fer-
tW.as broadcast as far as the guard rows. The guard rows
-idat each side, respectively, the same kind and amount of fer-
s was given to the adjacent test plat, in order to obviate rob-
the trees in the guard rows. Three plats were given incom-
..rizer, three were given complete fertilizer, and one received
SOf the three plats receiving complete fertilizer, plat No.
double quantity, and in platNo. 7 the nitrogen was carried
. blood. For all plats except the latter the nitrogen was sup-
iLnmmonium sulphate. The other elements were supplied in
ph phate and in potassium sulphate. After a 5-year interval
sg the fertilizer applications, salt (sodium chloride) was
... semiannually from July, 1921, to January, 1924, to four
Two plats were given 2Y pounds and two were given 5
per palm per application. As was the case in the earlier
ons, the salt was broadcast to the guard rows, for which salt
ded at the same rate for the area treated. Table 3 shows
lizer treatments.

0.i-Fertifiser treatments, yield of coconuts, and distribution among the
iqa of the 50 least and of the 50 most productive palms, at Boquwila

F... .. e0" ti0uer u p e L Distribution
S.... r 81 applied per 0. Average yield of nuts per a t ti
....iM palm during-- h plats
to June, 11 la of the-

K" 11 9d 0 |
.0 0 7. 6 6 8 7. 7 4

41 9 1 0 3 7 9 71. 7.9 8 29-0 10 11*

*.. 1*. 0 8 12 77.7 80. 68.8 3 a3 33.6 293. 9 5 7
. ... .. ... ..

-fourth harvest the .rord from 5 palms in pNo. No. 1 was not obtained, the nuts having
56 6 0 12 2% 68.7 54.7 158.7 44.7 33.8 12606 9 3

Sto entry. s ft w disregarded both in these and other calculations. He0 0 60.9 45.60.9 37 31.
.:-6- 0 8 12 5 65.5 51.6 6&83 42.5 32.8 2607 7 5
0, 0 0 0 0 0 71.6 61.8 70.7 46.3 40.9 291.3 5 8
S 6 8 12 0 7M 3 759 71.1 37.9 3S&8 29& 0 10 11
,l4 a 8 12 5 77.7 805 68 8 33.3 33.6 293 9 5 7
5 6 8 12 2% 69.8 73.1 65.5 47.3 50.5 306.2 7 10

$0l0lftlb-ftb, harvest the record from 5 palms in plat No. I was not obtained, the nuts having
ri i:p 9 to entry. This fact was disregarded both in these and other calculations. Here it
4i edI the average by approximately 1 integer.

r::..;i.." t'" I :' NUT PRODUCTION
:: .. ... .
*I afction of each palm was recorded separately as in the
per .ents. The intervals between harvests were not uni-
Rfl.vLged approximately three months. The first recorded
eilSlas: in February, 1913, and the last in September, 1924.
ugh accidents the record was unobtainable for certain harvests.
Ii .:'.:, :
i: ...



NOW 3,4"k

Or two'' aj*tWv
44 f 0 1 Us I 14,11 ki

4k fl I
1f W

-1 r
A A t -1
:-7 T
= ,:$A J*4f.-"-Sq-v &,a 0 P6 Isis a A is is

A jla
4v I
4 A
lo bw 6 Aare in
the pal 4, *L-
U I'm p"OonfiV4 Ili 10 AA
NAPO, aliJ ike 40f proft(64it
Ojure swfisfad6rr 4o*
Froin- the daft presmted I a 1""', xd
"*,vozArmW as is-thown in
I PLYa 4
'li"ti" lug ft, t6ll fbtli-4
mouth with those made during e4ph
k J,
showed that the petik was, rmase&l fm4aly t"'O t
priaduction was made in tha'snmuier mt4i
Thi W& 4f 11-JO I

POW* Of 4i di ih* ti

omitted harvests, whereas one was omitted within the third and
w *within the fifth period. Figure 6 shows the average produc-
.n per palm for the plats as a unit for each period, the heavy shad-
g indicating the average when all the palms were included and the
Wjt shading when only producing palms were included. The pro-
ljtion was fairly uniform for the first three periods, and the
ierage harvest showed only a small proportion of nonproducing
J3s, whereas this proportion greatly increased in the last two
ce fertilizer applications were begun in June, 1912, and termi-
in June, 1916, benefits resulting from the application would be
dto appear during the first or the second period, that is,
July, 1913, and June, 1917. The production of the plats as
During the second period, however, was less than that during
first period, and gained slightly during the third period, one to
years after the final application. (Fig. 6.) Production thus

;u;iar;r:" .. i:: "E ":iLE i;
.,I' ?..;.[ii."


ii :

r 'iiil.. ii :. :,.t .
; ii,,.I ,

ii i

1AW M *. Aq ffl Octhr Nnw*br flmbrr ,tawf Fehary Hate April MPay Jun
: iVmu 7..Seasonal productlm uirv for cocauaats, as aiows by harvest records at
.. Boquilsl plasfation, 1113 to 1924

aed to indicate any progressive benefit from the fertilizers as a

l.e yield of each plat for each period is given in Table 3 and is
|o graphically in Figure 8. The diagrams of plat yields for the
St' and second periods closely resemble each other in sequence.
Iit be assumed that the increased production shown by the three
ats which received complete fertilizer was due to the fertilizer, then
conclusion would naturally follow that the three plats each of
ch received two rather than three fertilizer elements were injured
.:the fertilizers received, since their production fell short of that
rthe check by as much as that of the others exceeded it. Since it
early incredible that of three fertilizing elements each combina-
A.of two should prove to be injurious, whereas the three together
id prove to be beneficial, the differences are without particular
more detailed examination of the production throws light on
situation. If each plat is divided transversely into three sec-
.A, B, and C, containing, respectively, palms Nos. 1 to 8, 9
spand 17 to 24 in double rows, the records of productions for the
tand the second period considered separately or together will

-Wo -

1 14

J f pi

I 01



U64 Ut
175 1%



w J

to ,th

_ook 0 rAo N" pip* JNOA

Ve pp
10 0
q.* to
tio,44 fortifized 'B md 0 io' 0
Ufty t
alas, hiad
earlier m ord, if wlih,6' a'


Attiato consideration, a comparison of production in the fifth
d ,'jwith that of the fourth period would appear to be the best
l~0t io.:fo* judging the effect of salt on production. Plats Nos. 1
4ti which received, salt at the rate of 21 pounds per palm per
.tion,: yielded ia the fifth period
average rate of 42.2 nuts per palm, *oO
hMribas in' the fourth period the rate ', 1
aRs. i46iAuts: per palm, the yield in the a I
It (ideriod being only 92 per cent as ,00
.is that in the fourth period. Simi- '
plats.Nos. 3 and 6, receiving salt at ,go
j .qt of 5 pounds per palm per applica- ;
It produced i the fifth period 33.2 nuts t J
....pah.m in contrast with 37.9 nuts in the s0
Period, the fifth-period yield being '* to
i88: er cent as great as that of the fourth s
The average yield of plats Nos. 2, z
fl iiwhich received no salt, in the fifth '"
I .L sds 36.5 nujts per palm, which was ,20
i 'cent as great as that of the fourth- < to
pu yield of 40.3 nuts per palm. Under M
~be treatments the production fell in .
I period to 92, 88, and 91 per cent, 'j
.ly, of what it had been in the J i -
1 1, o .Whaection Stction
,receding, thus in the uniform de- A a c
hfing to indicate any effect of salt FiUaB 9.-Average number of
nuts produced per palm per
'isd If comparisons are made of ac- subdivided plat in. 16 har-
.*#w mbeb' s of nuts produced, it is sieen 1917,' at 'oquillas'plantation
lt~e check stood between the treated
~athe fifth period and that thegroups remained in the same
d as before receiving salt.
E production of 287 palms recorded throughout thrt e five periods
I uown graphically in Figuar 10. The v nation in individual
etivity was very great.
ki;| t ,,

A 0. A -
'. 'r ; .. J L
r,,.. K. .--I', ---------------------------------------------~f

7 .


_______________________________________ El .uiiamiiuiiiiDiuuhIIIIIIIII

VMSlu 10.--Variatio iit total nut production per palm in 40 harvests at Boquillas
2f :'I: plantation. Each line ,represents the nuts produced by one palm

:.! ljgure 11 contrasts the yield by periods of the 50 most productive
m with that of the 50 least productive palms for the entire time
"oered by the record and shows that a group of palms which were
obr high fielders in one period were respectively low or high
4lers in each Qf the other periods. Whereas the average produc-

l'r 3J


0 1' f ?,:
*'". .;'
i?|..;ri '; :'



- -
iiiiiiin m mmmflit

chw lw.


% 50 nmosf productive palms was 6.9 feet, whereas that of the
sat prodtictive palms was 5.9 feet. The production of the
Mi&ms dutihg the first two periods was compared on a basis
vtion. The 131 palms at elevations of less than 6 feet averaged
1ints per palm, whereas the 114 palms at 6 to 6.9 feet elevation
ged 130.7 nuts and the 58 palms at 7 to 9.2 feet elevation
ged 180.8 nuts. This is shown graphically in Figure 18.
sitlv the better A,

.tMeng afforded by
er elevations
M.. promoting .
rEtionU. .... l.

TI~g~ijt n~~eters of 100 III
WBe'... intermixed
on each plat l 111111111'
assured in each lii
nt 20Y harvests. -
2 vr iiinmum, aver-
i n taxixmum ofa
g diame-
MN atBlpined for each -
a t oven graphi-
B'' Figure 14.. "
mph shows the
between plats
nut ditme-

Si1i minm measure-
i tweee n plates
ibly 0.1 inch and v
Ai maximum oa

Allowed an exa
d~~FO iferen e 1in nt I. 1nllwa P*l J Met -hA Ie w a..s Pw m.. PIt M.?
ga ....s the .av.

St of Onlf on 0.05 '
rM 1 per cent. ,,.,,.an *:;-;..
II p IIIIIIII roffB d r e erf.
d'i c i more detailed
Oitlt f possi FIrauO 12.-Elevations above sea level in experimental
IEntion or po1 plats, Boqillas plantation
iief~ets bf fertilizer
!iMI izse, the measurements for the 20 harvests were grouped into
BI periods of five harvests each. The average nut diameters for
SBdiffehisw plats for each period are shown in Figure 15. The
iI*'bf the average nut in the second 5-harvest period was greater
Habm that in the first similar period in every plat. Since this increase
Vir`e occurred in the check as well as in the treated plats, it could
i be attributed to fertilization. The third period showed a de-
Iais inside i every plat except the check, followed by an increase



d ..




immi, 44 4* Vvu I AAA*

ft 40;
Uldon PaWW, wW4,4066MIk to
rGWIW above sea level the

tit act4r's

it' f W


a simsteheies presented by: the production record were such
arrant no conclusions in regard to the favorable effect of any
'; la treatment.
tests with the oldest palms, conducted on a larger scale than
the younger trees, presented much the same contradictions in
6: effects of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash on produc-
SProhounced inequalities in productivity were shown which
ographical, since they were related to the location of the
ihe field and unrelated to the fertilizer treatment.
o Iq.relaition between nut size and fertilization was shown to
average diameters of nuts from each of seven plats receiving
.... .. .. .

;"i.-Mifmm, average, and maximum nut diameters of lot: of 100 nuts,
rt to twentieth harvest, incive, Boquia plantation

by the measurements of 14,000 nuts.
nin i ni n n ri i

S p arent benefit. Follow-g the termination of the experi-
.in. ~lifi,,.. q:.- -

i, .t P 3e,

i 6 I A1
.. 1
V -

*. a~~f1.-- inmum, averae and maximum nut diameters of lots of 100 nuts,
.:first to twentieth harvest, inclusive, Boquilas plantation

t. ii zer' treatments: differed by 1 per cent and less, as
t~ it-Minthimumeasurementa of 14m000 nuts.

f.larstrnuter ne of highly productive palms than di any
pltw. A the early results of 0s0alting on a larger scale were
ig, but the trees were destroyed by hurricane before yielding
sIe eliden .. In palmsr of intermediate age, the application
i in conJunction' with nitrogen and phosphoric acid resulted
no apparent benefit Following the termination of the experi-

W 1U


6,s-, f r'u o
if 3A 7
afodd y+r


for palms of the same age, receiving the same cultural and fer-
treatment, and grown under apparently very uniform soil
s. Such differences could be ascribed only to inherent
in the palms themselves.
i s produced three times as many nuts as were produced
others m the youngest group of palms. Twenty-five palms,
more than one-quarter of the group, produced more than
,many nuts as were produced by 25 other palms. In the
ate-age group, 25 palms, one quarter of the group, pro-
parly three times as many nuts as were produced by another
In the older group, the 50 most productive palms, constitut-
of the whole, produced 4.7 times as many nuts as were
by the 50 least productive palms.
Youngest group, although no highly productive palms
in the untreated plat, the distribution of palms of low
yield through the other plats was such as to indicate that
'variation in individual productivity was due mainly to
rfar more potent than the fertilizer treatment. In the
ups the distribution among the plates of the high and
palms showed a tendency to produce much or little
to the kind of fertilizer applied. In the intermediate-age
althoh the low-production palms showed a decided in-
n yield under fertilization, in contrast with the absence of
response to fertilization on the part of the high-produc-
the former continued to maintain their relative positions
dein comparison with the other palms. Fertilization
in the experiments failed to transform low-production
palms of high production.
ti decy to produce much or little becomes evident early in
f the palm. The high yielders are likely to mature early
se come into production ahead of the low yielders. A long
s unnecessary for a comparative classification of palms as to
tivity. Production recorded through several years should
Sfor a general classification, and extremes of high and low pro-
should be indicated in an even briefer period.
pronounced, inherent differences in productivity between
paiJi indicate the line along which lies the greatest promise of im-
povement in coconut production. No longer should any chance
Pt whatever serve for planting. Nor should the selection of seed
Ste from the best palms be sufficient. The flowers from which
aA nuts developed may easily have been fertilized by pollen from
f' poorest drone tree in the plantation. Nature has provided
Epinst self-fertilization in the coconut Man should see to it that
t propagation purposes only the best palms, considered in respect
ibot quality and quantity production, serve as pollen parents and
h r1 plants, so that each nut planted may be of pedigreed stock
carry a double inheritance of desirable characteristics. The
Bi*lts would repay the effort manyfold.


-17 1 ,


left Y
/TjbIN*EUl f


Al io
ba S w 1O A lr j btd Tp t
na o l 1 nl l
Iol n ni.Ta di JI
1;0T14W' T'-0 h1 hl I' f..M I if
T t If w
TIiA'f W
i", tlo *t

NO Y'- iy 41

fis 'tr
41i itivw f X 11


3 1262 069,1W

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EEAWSB5DN_3WM6TW INGEST_TIME 2013-11-02T01:23:38Z PACKAGE AA00014654_00001