ECOLOGICAL FACTORS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE DETERIORATION OF PEACH

PLANTINGS AS EVIDENCED BY A STUDY IN OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

CARL SPENCER BITTNER, B.S., M.S.

The Ohio State University

1 9 5 7

Approved by:

Adviser Department of Horticulture ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study covered a period of years and the writer is indebted to many individuals for their cooperation. To the owners of the

Peninsula, Miller, Balduf and Kalb orchards go his thanks for making the orchard facilities available for field studied. The guidance of the late Dr. J. H. Gourley and the assistance of the late Dr. Guy W.

Conrey in soil classification are respectfully remembered.

The suggestions of Dr. E. N. Transeau, Dr. H, C. Sampson, professors emeriti of The Ohio State University and Dr. Paul B. Sears of Yale University relative to the plant succession phases of this work and the constant encouragement of Dr. R. E. Larson of the

Pennsylvania State University were much appreciated.

To Dr. Freeman S, Howlett, chairman of the Department of Horti­ culture at The Ohio State University go sincere thanks for invaluable help and direction of course work and the writing of his dissertation.

The patience and help of Ruth E. Bittner, during the years of study, accumulation of data and preparation of the material for this degree is gratefully recognized and acknowledged.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

Introduction ....••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 General Review of Literature...... 3 Ottawa County Soils and Tree Vegetation ••••••••••••••• 9 Ottawa County Climate...... 11 Historical Development of Fruit Growing in Ottawa County ...... 15

Characteristics of Orchards Studied 23 Peninsula Orchard ..... 23 Miller Orchard ..... 26 Balduf Orchard ...... 29 Kalb Orchard ••••••••••••• 32

Experimental Methods and Materials 36 Original Vegetation Indicators 36 Soil Classification and Soil Tests...... 36 Capillary and Non-capillary Soil Porosity •...»••••••• 38 Water Levels in Tile Wells ...... 39 Water Movement from Tile Wells ••••••••••••••• 4l Root Studies 42 Root Distribution •••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 43 Root Mass .... 43 Peach Leaf Studies •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 43 Peach Shoot Studies .... 45 Survival and Longevity Studies 47

Presentation of Data b8 Original Vegetation Indicators ••••••••••••••.•••••••• 48 Soil Classification and Soil Tests •..••••••••...... 50 Capillary and Non-capillary PoroBity ••••...... 53 Water Levels in Tile Wells .... 59 Water Movement from Tile Wells 65 Root Studies 68 Root Distribution 69 Root Mass .... 75 Peach Leaf Studies ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••• 84 Peach Shoot Studies •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 88 Survival and Longevity Studies ...... 90

Discussion .... 98 Summary and Conclusions Ill Bibliography...... ••••••••••• 116 Autobiography 120 ill L E T OF FIGURES

Fig, Page

1 Location of Weather Bureau Stations ..o..o...••••■ 14

2 Original Tree Map of Ottawa County ...... 37

3 Occurrence of Species in Four Orchard Sites ..•••• 49

4 Peninsula Orchard - Non-capillary Pore Space *•••• 55

5 Miller Orchard - Non-capillary Pore Space •••••••• 56

6 Balduf Orchard - Non-capillary Pore Space ••••••• 57

7 Kalb Orchard - Non-capillary Pore Space ..... 58

8 Water Level Readings to 45 Inches for 1941-1942 •• 62

9 Water -Level Readings to 55 Inches for 1942 63

10 Water Levels in the Four Orchards After Flooding • 66

11 Rate of Water Disappearance 67

12 Method of Root Mapping Using Tangential Trench ••• 7°

13 Root Distribution - Peninsula Orchard ••••••••.•• 71

14 Root Distribution - Miller Orchard •••••••••••••• 72

15 Root Distribution - Balduf Orchard .... •••••• 73

16 Root Distribution - Kalb Orchard •••••••••••••••• 74

17 Equipment Used to Secure Root Samples ••••••••••• 76

18 Root Material from Four Orchards ••••••«•••••••«•* 77

19 Peninsula Orchard May 1945 94

20 Miller Orchard May 1945 95

21 Balduf Orchard May 1945 ...... ¥>

22 Kalb Orchard May 1945 ...... 97

23 Soil Map of Ottawa County, Ohio.... SeA back iv cover LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1 Climatic Data •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12 2 Ottawa County Fruit Statistics for 1872 17 3 Tree and Vine Plantings in Ottawa County - 1890-195^...... 19 If Peach Tree Population in Ottawa County - 1935-195^ ...... 20 5 Soil Test Comparisons of the Four Orchards » 53 6 Peninsula Orchard - Lucas Loam Soil ...... 53 7 Miller Orchard - Fulton Silt Loam Soil .... $k 8 Balduf Orchard - Toledo Silty Clay Soil •••• $k 9 Kalb Orchard - Fulton Silt Loam - Heavy Phase 5^ 10 Inches of Rainfall - January to December 19^1 60 11 Inches of Rainfall - January to December 19k2 6l 12 Root Diameters - Peninsula Orchard JQ 13 Root Diameters - Miller Orchard 79 llf Root Diameters - Balduf Orchard ••••••••••••• 80 15 Root Diameters - Kalb Orchard ..... 81 16 Condensed Table of Root Diameters...... 83 17 Mean Leaf Area of Samples - from four orchards 8L 18 Mean Leaf Length of Samples- " " " 85 19 Mean Leaf Width of Samples - " " " 85 20 Mean Leaf Thickness of Samples-" " " 86 21 Mean Leaf Midrib Thickness of Samples - from four orchards ••••••••••••••••••••••• 87 22 Mean Leaf Petiole Thickness of Samples - from four orchards •••••••••••••••••••••••• 88 23 Mean Shoot Length of Samples - from four orchards 88 2k Mean Shoot Thickness of Samples - from four orchards .... 89 25 Peach Tree Survival - All Varieties •••••«•• 90 26 Tree Survival Elberta Variety, May 19^5 .... 92 27 Year of Removal and Tree Age of Elberta Variety .... 93

v ECOLOGICAL FACTORS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE DETERIORATION OF PEACH PLANTINGS AS EVIDENCED BY A STUDY IN OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO

INTRODUCTION

Peach tree population in Ottawa County, Ohio, decreased from

1,230,966 in 1900 to 153*15^ in 195^. A number of factors undoubtedly

contributed to this decline in peach tree numbers* It is the purpose of

this study to determine the possible relationship existing between the

deterioration in peach tree population and the Influence of various

ecological factors*

For a number of years Ottawa County has been one of the leading

peach growing counties in Ohio* However, trees grown in certain loca­

tions had considerable vigor and grew to maturity while trees planted

on other locations grew fairly well at the outset but died before reach­

ing maturity* In the majority of cases the lack of tree vigor could not be attributed to poor orchard management but rather to factors beyond

human control* Therefore, an evaluation of the ecological factors

involved was made to determine sane of the reasons for the decline in the peach growing industry*

In considering this problem it became evident that many contributing

factors were involved* The Ottawa County area had a favorable climate but

in general lacked many of the desirable features traditionally considered acceptable for peach 'growing* The general topography of the area, for example, is very low and flat with very little undulation, except in the

Catawba Island section* In other areas of the county where peaches were grown the land is flat with ridges which vary from a few inches to a few feet higher than the surrounding land* These ridges were highly prized for peach sites but unfortunately comprised but a small portion of the total land devoted to peach growing in the county* In an area in which the soil surface is as gently undulating as in Ottawa County* the topography might seem to be unimportant* However* where the dif­ ference in elevation was but a few inches within an orchard* difference in peach tree performance on these elevations was pronounced*

Other factors which contributed to the general variability were the soil types upon which peach plantings had been established* the soil and water relationships and the soil nutrients* The horticultural literature contains references to the correlation between original vegetation and the desirability of that site for fruit production* A. portion of this study has been devoted to this relationship*

Occasional extremes in temperature, disease and Insect pests* as well as high and low price fluctuations all had their effect on Ottawa

County peach tree numbers* Tree population fluctuations can be seen in Table 3* Certain growers continued as successful peach producers while others failed in the attempt* For the most part* such factors as sunshine* rainfall* proximity to large bodies of water* disease and insect problems* etc* were essentially the same for all growers*

In order to avoid too much generalization* four orchards in Ottawa

County were selected for detailed study* These orchards were chosen to include a vide range of conditions typical of those in the entire county*

The four orchards v i U be referred to by the owners' names* except in the case of the Peninsula orchard which was company owned. Tree response differences in these orchards were due largely to natural factors* Differences In management of the operators was considered to be negligible* Each of the four orchards was subjectedto the same studies and to the same investigations*

This problem will Include studies 1* to determine the original and existing tree vegetation, 2 * to evaluate the four orchards soils as to type and fertility, 3 * to find the water porosity values of the soils, to secure ground water level measurements, 5* to find rate of water movement In the soil, 6 * to map and weigh peach tree roots, 7* to obtain leaf comparisons based on area, length, thickness, midrib and petiole thickness, 8* to measure shoot length and thickness,

9# to procure data on length of tree life* The evaluation and inter­ relationship of these factors and their correlation should partially explain the reason for success or failure of orchards grown on certain soil sites*

General Review of Literature

The literature dealing with the subject of the cultivated peach,

Prunus pars lea (L) Batsch L,**" is extensive* The fruit Is mentioned in ancient literature but Its true origin is a matter of considerable specu­ lation*

Gould (13) states that Bailey found the peach growing wild in China as did Meyer* Gould (13) also states that Wilson found peaches growing

from Asa Gray's Manual of Botany. (New York: American Book Company, 8th Edition* 1930*) In western China ftb elevations ranging from river level bo an altitude

ol 9000 i'eeb. lie further adds that the date oi.' the 1nbroducblon of

tlia peach Into America io uncertain except that It was prior to 1.633

and probably nearer 1 6 2 9 » Peach breett were mentioned ao growlng in

gardenu in Virginia In 1633*

Apparently the first lurge peach orchards in the U.B. were planted

about 1800, but the farm or family sized. poach orchurdn comprised the

major portion of the plantings until after the Civil War. The peach

attained great popularity from about 187O to 1890, Qould (1 5 ) 0bates

that "there was not a state - hardly a county - in which peach trees

have not been planted." Even though the poaches were planted exten­

sively it should bo noted that they were not always grown success­

fully. Subsequent experiences showed that peaches did not thrive in

all counties nor In all states. Many favorable factors were necessary

in order to grow peaches satisfactorily.

The hazards of peach growing are shown by the wide fluctuations

in production figures between 1911 and 1915* In 1911 approximately

34,880*000 bushels were produced in the United States. In 1915 approx­

imately 64,097*000 bushels were grown. The pattern for the United

States as a whole fitted the situation in Ohio fairly closely.

There are two periods when temperatures are limiting factors in the production of peaches in northern climates. The first has to do with minimum winter temperatures and the second has to do with minimum spring temperatures before, during and after the blooming period. Minimum tern* 5 turoB during theso two critical periods may determine In part the degree of euccess or failure of crop production*

Qould (l^) has given a detailed abatement concerning the wide range of climatic condition* and widely separated areas devoted to peach culture* They may be grown under wide ranges of latitude and longitude, elevationa, and depressions* They survive hot summer weather, and moderately severe winter weather but they have reached their greatest development in the temperate zones*

The difference of a few miles in distance may be the difference between successful and unsuccessful peach production* Gardner, Bradford, and Hooker (Xk) indicated that such a condition existed as the result of a difference of 39 miles between Nashua and Concord in New Hampshire where the absolute minima for the two stations are, respectively, -25°

F. and -35° F*

Hedrick (23) and Qourley (17) have recognized the effect of modi­ fying influences of large bodies of water on temperature in northern

U*S* These modifying Influences have made possible peach production In areas which otherwise could not support peach tree growing and fruiting*

The modifying influence is effective both In the winter and in the spring during the two critical periods Involved in peach production* The devel­ opment of the fruit industry in western Michigan and the "Finger Lakes" region of New York, has resulted from proximity to the lakes* Northern

Ohio, along Lake Erie, may also be considered a like situation* Havis and Lewis (22) have shown the favorable situation existing in the county with respect to winter minimum temperaturca. The modifying influence of Lake Erie ae it relates to spring temperatures in Ottawa County is shown in Table 1.

The association of certain types of tree species found growing on certain soil types and thus serving as indicators of potentially desirable orchard sites have been reported by Feeoh (37) and Camp

(6 ), Johnston (27) has referred to wild splrea as being a good indica­ tor for commercial blueberry plantings*

The influence of high water tables and high water levels in fruit soils has been known for many years* Hoffman and Hchlubatls (26) evaluated the desirability of black raspberry soils on the basis of water levels in the soil* White ($1) investigated the physiological effects of a high water level on Stayman Winesap apple trees and de­ termined a number of injurious effects resulting from excess water*

Ruth (4l) found that "the ground-water table rose more frequently near the surface in the early summer where the trees were dying than where they were vljpanous,"

Fleming and Aldefer (13) working with imperfectly and poorly drained

Wellington fine sandy loam having a gray to grayish brown surface soil and a strongly mottled subsoil of fine sandy loam to silt loam were unable to drain it sufficiently well with tile to render it suitable for satis­ factory peach tree orchard establishment and development* The peach trees in the undralned portion of the field began to die after the first year*

Those in the drained half lasted a little longer* At the end of fc: years- 7 at least. 73 per cent of the trees lu the drained area were dead with the mortality somewhat higher in the undralned part of the orchard.

The relationship of soils to fruit growing has been reported extensively In a series of studies by Oeknmp (30) (31) (32). The first deals with grapes, the second and third deal with apples.

OnIcamp and fiatjer (3*0 presented results of percolation and ground water measurements in apple orchards.

Sweet and Oskamp (M3) reported on the general relationship be­ tween soil cloosifleation and suitability for fruit sites. Batjer and Ookamp (l) completed extensive studies dealing with root distri­ bution of apple trees in various soil types.

Partridge and Veatch (35) indicated a positive relationship be­ tween soil profile and root development of apple trees set in

Bellefontaine fine sandy loam and Washtenaw silt loam. Beckenbaoh and dourley (*0 found that various types of cultural methods influenced the root distribution of apple trees.

Elberta peach studies dealing with the distribution, depth, rela­ tive number and size of roots in Wooster, Canfield, Volusia And

Trumbull silt loams were reported by Havls and GFourley (21). Root weights were not Included in their study. Havls (20) later published a somewhat more complete report on peach tree root distribution. He added some observations to the effect that winter killing of peach trees was greater on the more poorly drained Trumbull and Volusia silt loams than on the better drained Wooster and Canfield silt loams.

Havls and Qourley (21) indicated the Importance of peach root distribu­ tion in relationship to desirable tree responses. As far as could be determined, no books or publications dealt specifically or In any detail with ecological factors In relationship to the peach In Ottawa County, Ohio0 What information has been pub­ lished or which had a bearing on ecological aspects was largely Inci­ dental. There have been a number of general surveys and descriptions of the Ottawa County area. Hardesty (19) published an Atlas of Ottawa

County, Ohio in 1874 In Which he described the peach In a very general manner. He did, however, make certain references to the suitability of soils for grapes and predicted the development of the peach Industry

In the county.

Sears (W>) made a number of observations concerning the area In

1926. He referred to some additional unpublished ecological work concerning' the area by Transeau. Sampson and Transeau (44) In 1928 classified the vegetation of the centre! and western part of Ottawa County into two main groups, the swamp-forest association and the beech-maple.

Paschall, Steele, Conrey and Phillips (36 ) In the Soil Survey of

Ottawa County, published in 1928, added to the information of the area concerning the soil and the original vegetation. No correlation between the original vegetation and the potentialities of the soil for pesches was made. A number of references were made to the natural forest growth which certain soil types supported. Reference was also made in the soil description to the effect that peaches suffered winter injury on Toledo silty clay but there was no further coorelatlon noted between soil type and winter injury. They did, however, mention that Fulton silt loam was utilized for peach growing. Lucas loam was not mentioned In connection

with peach growing although Lucas silt loam and Lucas very fine sandy

loam are suggested as being well adapted to fruit growing.

The publications by Sampson (42) (4-3) In 1930, dealt partially

with the Ottawa County area. His paper on "Succession in the Swamp-

forest Formation in Northern Ohio” had somewhat more application than

the paper dealing with the "Mixed Mesophytic Forest Community of North­

eastern Ohio".

Ottawa County Soils and Tree Vegetation.- An excellent description

of Ottawa County soils and their origin is found in the Soil Survey of

Ottawa County, Ohio, by Faschall, Steele, Conrey and Phillips (36 ).

A general discussion of the soils of the county, as it relates to the

various phases of this study, follows.

Ottawa County soils were developed in a forested region under the

influence of a humid, temperate climate. The Ottawa County area had been Included in the eastern lake section of the central lowland area of the great plains by Fenneman (12). This area is part of the broad lacus­ trine plain bordering Lake Erie. Natural drainage is very poor over most of the county because of the nearly level surface. For this reason, mature soils which normally develop in well drained situations are almost entirely lacking. Soils of the county have been derived from both lacustrine and glacial parent material. Apparently all the soil deposits rest on the underlying limestone bedrock. Soil depth to this bedrock varies considerably. In the eastern part of the county on the 10

lBlanda of Lake Erie, and on Marblehead and Catawba peninsulas, the

outcrops are more numerous and often the soil is quite shallow* Where

the outcrops occur, the lover subsoil may be largely residual limestone*

In most cases, however, a shallow covering of glacial drift exists*

The topography in the eastern end of the county where peach grow­

ing predominates is in general somewhat undulating* Occasional low

ridges occur in this eastern area* Catawba Island has a ridge from

north to south which slopes both to the east and to the west* To a

lesser degree this is alsro true of the Danbury section which lies between

the Sandusky Bay and Lake Erie, except that the ridge in the Danbury

section runs to east and west and the slopes are to the north and to the

south* These higher elevations were originally largely occupied with

species of the oak-hlckory associations* These Included white ash, bass­ wood, red oak, white oak, black walnut, hickory, and slippery elm* The

low lying soils supported hickory, swamp oak, black ash, elm, red maple,

sycamore, poplar and willow*

Throughout the western end of the county, the soil depth to the bedrock is 10 feet or deeper* A layer of glacial drift covers the bedrock* This glacial drift is in turn covered by lacustrine deposits, vhlch are composed largely of silts and clays*

Sampson and Transeau (Ml-) classified the vegetation of the central and western part of the county, vhlch was included in the Black Swamp area, into two main groups, namely, the swamp-forest association and the beech-maple association* The lew lying areas, which are also usually 11 the dark colored soils of the area, originally supported shagbark, hickory, swamp white oak, black ash, pin oak, elm, silver maple, and sycamore. Soils of the slightly higher elevations supported species such as hard maple, beech, red oak, white oak, yellow oak, black walnut, and hickory.

Attention is called here to the relationship existing between soil, elevation, drainage and forest growth in Ottawa County. The relationship of these latter factors to the peach will be discussed in the various divisions of this study.

Ottawa County Climate.- Table 1 indicates that the area along Lake

Erie has a longer growing season than practically any other point, in a north or south direction, in central Ohio. See Figure 1. The weather stations at Rocky Ridge, Catawba Island, Danbury and Put-in-Bay are in

Ottawa County. Put-in-Bay, which is an island about three miles from the Ottawa County mainland, was included here merely for the sake of comparison with mainland stations. Very few peaches were grown there.

The remaining weather stations listed in Table 1 extend almost directly southward from Ottawa County. It is noteworthy also that the blooming period for peaches in Ottawa County does not occur until the first week or two in May, which is usually well past the danger period for killing frosts in the spring. On the other hand, the growing period in central and southern Ohio not only starts sooner in the spring but the average dates for killing frosts in the spring are somewhat later. This would naturally mean that a likelihood of bud or blossom loss by spring Table 1, Climatic Bata - Frost Bates and Length of Growing Season, U,S, Weather Bureau

Weather Av. Bate Av, Date Latest Bate Earliest Av, Length Approx, Bureau of last of first of Killing Bate of of Growing Miles Station Killing Killing Frost in Killing Season - from Frost in Frost in Spring Frost in Days Spring Autumn Autumn Erie

Put-in-Bay* April 18 Bov, 4 April 29 Oct. 18 200 m 1 Catawba Island* April 19 Oct, 30 April 27 Oct. 13 19^ b Banbury* April 22 Oct, 26 May 10 Oct. 7 187 3 Rocky Ridge* May 1 Oct, 12 May 21 Sept. 20 l6h 7 Fremont May 2 Oct, 15 May 26 Sept, 23 166 20 Upper Sandusky May k Oct. 7 June 6 Sept, 11 156 55 Marion May 3 Oct, 11 May 29 Sept, l1*- 161 70 Delaware May 6 Oct. 5 May 28 Sept, 11 152 90 Ohio State University April 29 Oct. 11 May 25 Sept, 111- 165 110 Circleville April 29 Oct, 13 May 25 Sept, 22 167 135 Portsmouth April 17 Oct, 20 May 17 Sept, 30 186 195

Located in Ottawa County, Source of data: U, S, Weather Bureau, 13 freezes would be much greater in areas further south.

Table 1 also Indicates the variation vhlch exists within Ottawa

County. It will be noted that the average date of killing frost at

Rocky Ridge, see Figure 1 - weather bureau station four, which is about five miles vest of the western boundary of the peach growing area in the county, is May 1. Rocky Ridge is seven miles from Lake Erie. On the other band, the average date of the last killing frost in Danbury, which is almost surrounded by water and is located in the peach producing area of the county, is April 22.

After close and accurate observation covering a period of kO years the late Mr. J.H. Wahlers (50), an Ottawa County peach grower whose orchards were located in Danbury Township, stated in 1935 tiat in some

30 years he had a record of only one killing frost in the spring which had been severe enough to kill his fruit buds and blossoms.

On the nights of May 11, 12, and 13, 1938, spring freezes occurred which resulted in a great deal of damage to fruit blossoms and young fruit in most of the State of Ohio, with the exception of certain favorable areas along Lake Erie. This injury applied to apples as well as peaches. Injury to peach blossoms in Ottawa County following the May freeze in 1938, w a s noted by the writer at only one point in the county, that being in Carroll Township at a point about three miles Inland from

Lake Erie and on trees planted in low lying fields. No injury to apple blossoms was noted at any point in the county. u

OTTAWA

HANCOCK

IVANDOT CWAWHOHD OtCHLANO COLUMBIANA

HAROIN

[m o r r o w

KNOX

l o o a n [w m i o i T

CLANK IfAlRntLOl PIW V

X v L IMOCKIM© WASHINGTON

AND

Figure 1* - Location of Ohio Weather Bureau Stations listed In Table 1, 1, Put-in-Bay; . 2, Catawba Island; 3 , Danbury; If, Rocky Ridge; 5, Fremont; 6, Upper Sandusky;. 7, Marion; 8, Delaware; 9, Columbus; 10, Circleville; and 11, Portsmouth. 15

Minimum temperatures In January 1936 killed many peach trees

throughout much of the state of Ohio, excepting In the areas along

Lake Erie. In Ottawa County the tree Injury resulting from thiB period

of cold weather was negligible. Considerable damage, however, was done

to the flower buds. Enough buds remained uninjured, however, so a

partial crop of Elberta variety was produced. The Elberta is generally

considered as not being winter hardy In the bud although It 1b con­

sidered to be winter hardy in the wood.

Historical Development of Fruit Growing in Ottawa County:- From a

horticultural viewpoint, the early inhabitants of Ottawa County present

an Interesting history. From an ethnological standpoint the history Is

no less Interesting than the horticultural. The low lying marshy areas

were a natural haven for many fur-bearing animals, therefore, the area

came under the influence of the French-Canadian trapper at the relatively

early date of 1795* For sometime the descendants of these French-

Cahadlan trappers and Indians, who were known as "half breeds", continued

their trapping operations with little regard for agricultural pursuits

of any kind. A few small gardens or patches of Indian corn were very

likely among the means of subsistence. Curiously enough, however, the trappers who lived in the area during the closing years of the 18th

Century are reported toihave planted a few apple trees the fruit of which was of a vary inferior quality. These trees were planted along the shores of Lake Erie on what is now known as Catawba Island. In Hardesty's (19) Atlasr of Ottawa County, reference is made to three orchards in Danbury Township which were planted by the Trench 16

Indiana, These three orchards wore located on what was called the

"Fenlntula", hut which la now known aa Danbury Township, Two of theae

orchards were aold in 1809 to Messrs, Bull and Wolcott, Wolcott was a

native of Danbury, Connecticut, and he and his family were the first

American aettlera in Danbury township, Ottawa County, Ohio, in lQ09,

Hardesty (19) predicted in 187^ that the entire archipelago in

Lake Brie would be a "vast vineyard separated only by the water which

divides the islands". He made another comment about grape growing

which is interesting and has a bearing on this study, i.e., "If the

soil is not naturally favorable, there is no art known to the most

experienced cultivator that can render it favorable,"

At this same time peaches and apples were suggested as possibili­

ties for Catawba Island, A considerably brighter future, however, was

expected by Hardesty for the grape than for the peach, as indicated by

the statement! "At present there are not less than 600 acres of vines

growing, and large quantities are planted every year, so grape growing

is emphatically the business of Catawba Township," Portage Township is

mentioned specifically, "Thousands of peach trees have been planted in

this section of the county annually for the past three years(1871-1873)» and next to the vine, the peach seems destined to become a leading in­ terest," Danbury Township which later became so important hort iculturally, was mentioned by Hardesty (19) as a possible fruit growing area only by the statement "Where there is sufficient soil, peach trees grow vigorous­ ly, even amongst the rocks," Table 2 indicates the relative importance of peaches and other fruits in Ottawa County in 1872, Some of the 17

predictions made by Hardesty materialised and others did not, for

example, Clay Township, in tha extramo west end of the county, was

dlaouaaad as follows "Clay Township, It will be aeon, la not en­

gaged In the cultivation of tha vine, nor extensively in other fruite,

apples being the principal fruit* Within two years, however, a large

number of peach trees have been planted, and it is confidently believed

that a portion of this townahlp is well adapted to the cultivation of

this fruit*

Table 2s Ottawa County Fruit Statistics for 1372 (Hardesty)

Grapes* Wine Peaches Apples Township Acres Lbs. Gal* Bu. Bu*

Put-in-Bay 732 3,15*1,109 169,590 1

Catawba#* 349 900,200 40,243 694 2,205

Danbury 339 1 ,203,200 24,010 *♦47 4,198

Portage 117 323,959 9,460 5,490

Bay 19 13,350 1 ,0 3 0 5,347

Brie 89 2 ,6 7 2

Carroll 3 4 ,0 6 0 84 419 3,294

8alsm 7 6,350 316 283 958

Harris 424 2,119

Benton 260

Clay 67 2,782

Total 1 ,562 9,604,828 244,733 2,419 29,245

*Grape figures for Catawba,Danbury and IPortage Townahips for 1S7I* #*Catavba Township grape acreage for 1874 was estimated at 600 acres* 10

Clay Towimhlp never did become an important peach producing area*

Its soil is largely dark in color and the necessary natural drainage

and elevation are lacking. Portage Township In I9*t0 had about a doaen

small peach plantings and about a like number of vineyards. These

trull plantings were almost all looated In the more elevated and

favorable areas of the township along the north shore of Sandusky Bay

and on some of the higher elevations In the east and northeast portions

of the township.

Catawba Island became an important grape growing area and the

industry flourished until about 1889 when peaoh planting followed the

removal of grapes. Because of Its favorable location, the decline In

peach tree planting In Catawba Island has been far less than in other

areas of the county.

Township census figures for fruit trees are available only from

193? to 1951*, Table 3* Many of the 1,2 3 0,96 6 peach trees listed for

Ottawa County in 1900 were planted In the low lying, fertile black soils

In the western and central parts of the county. It was In these latter

areas that the first great decline took place.

In Harris Township, which lies In the extreme southwestern portion

of Ottawa County a similar decline took place. In fact Beers (*>) In

1896 credits a Capt. Wilson 8. Miller of Harris Township with the followingt "In addition to his large farming Interests Mr. Miller Is extensively engaged in fruit raising, and has on his farm twenty-five hundred fine peach tress, twelve hundred plum trees, twelve hundred pear trees, and considerable smaller fruit. This branch of his business yields 19 him a good income." There were more peach trees on this one farm in

1896 than there were in all of Harrie Township in 1994 as listed by the ceneua figures (Table 4).

Table 3* Tree and Vine Plantings in Ottawa County, Ohio, from I89O to 1954 Inclusive

Grape Vines Peach Trees Apple Trees

1890 262,360 77,639

1900 2,164,728 1 ,830,966 101,137

1910 1,1*73,887 731,917 63,760

1920 1,075,170 615A50 106,188

1930 910,39** 509,099 144,718

1935 902,202 388,263 149,420 19*10 779,601 326,716 114,608

1945 510,430 301,402 99,542

1950 409,236 270,837 71,109

1954 326,974 153,154 34,253

* Figures for Ottawa County, Ohio, secured from Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Table 4 indicates that the percentage of decline in Carroll, Salem,

Bay, Brie, and Portage townships has been greater in these level areas than in the more undulating topography of CataVba and Danbury townships. 20

WWWM M M Table 1*. Peach Tree Population by Townships - Ottawa County, Ohio

Township 1935 191*0 19^5 1950 1951*

Allen 136 00 63 89 • * m

Bay 12,335 12,02U 10,115 5,670 *6,035

Benton 6 ,5 0 0 m m 312 289 15

Carroll l6 ,l*a6 30,035 17,135 18,723 9,237

Catawba Island 128,195 121,597 118,601* 123,968 **59,1*26

Clay 3 m m 166 60 1*

Danbury 178,893 135,213 130,093 100,287 70,195

Erie 6 ,1 6 0 2,015 850 1,257 21*0

Harris 56 — 588 1*1*2 2

Portage 31,^5 2 1 ,21*0 10,71*5 10,362 8,000

Put-in-Bay 750 mm 27 1*8**

Salem 7,3*»6 3,230 1*,117 l,9l»9 *

*Bay and Salem Townships combined in U.S. census figures.

**Catavba Island and Put-in-Bay combined in U.S. census figures.

***Figures for Ottawa County, Ohio, secured from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Profits accruing to those who produced peaches during the early

part of the 20th Century favored peach expansion, large numbers of trees

were accordingly planted in the Ottawa County area west of Port Clinton

and surrounding Oak Harbor. All too often, no attention whatever was

paid to the choosing of favorable sites. The urge to plant was so great 21

that even undrained, level, black soils were set to this fruit. The

growing area, for this reason, extended over a wide area, involving

many locations*

The young trees were set on slight ridges created by back

furrowing with plows in order to raise the trees above standing water

which often occurred on low spots following heavy rains. For a few

years after planting, the trees grew well. Vigorous growth was due to

the fertility of the dark soil. The roots had apparently not yet en­

countered the inhibiting effect of relatively high ground water or

compact subsoil similar to that noted by Oskamp and Batjer (34),

Few crops were harvested from trees planted on this marginal peach

soil. The indifferent yields and Irregularity of crops from trees planted in the black soils still did not deter the eager amateur peach

growers from continuing in their folly, Profits during the few years that the trees were able to survive were certainly greater than could be obtained from this land put to general crops.

Enough fruit was produced on this marginal peach land to support a cooperative peach packing plant. A peach auction also functioned at i Oak Harbor in the central part of the county during the early part of the century, but was discontinued as the volume of fruit fell off. The packing plant also ceased its operations about 1935 because of a lack of volume from the dark colored soils of the surrounding area.

Tree losses were greater on the low, level, black, poorly drained soils and conversely peach trees were longer lived and more productive on higher, undulating,lighter-colored, and drier soils. Fruit growers 22

west of Port Clinton and in the Oak Harhor area continued to produce

peaches in a desultory fashion until the unusually severe winter freeze

of 1917"19l8« This freeze nearly eliminated Ottawa County entirely

as a peach growing center* A large percentage of the total peach pro­

duction in the county thereafter was confined to the peninsulas at the

east end of the county* Pew peach trees were replanted west of the

imaginary line from Muddy Creek Bay to the mouth of Crane Creek* The

trees which were planted were set on more carefully chosen sites and

by the growers whose experiences especially fitted them for continuing

in the peach business.

A part of this study will be devoted to an analysis of the ecology

of the Central County area where the peach reached its peak of popu­

larity and some of the reasons for its decline* It will also deal with the areas where peach production has continued to be successful*

In view of these facts, it was decided that a critical study of

foi|r orchards should be made* All of these orchards were located with­

in the limits of the area designated as east of the imaginary line

drawn from Muddy Creek Bay to the mouth of Crane Creek as indicated on the enclosed soil map, figure 23*

Two of these orchards,namely, the Peninsula and Kalb orchards, were located in the well-known Danbury area* The former was planted on what appeared to be a favorable site and the latter on an unfavorable site* The Miller and Balduf orchards were located in the so-called marginal or questionable area for peach production in the western limit 23

of the peach area In Ottawa County. The Miller site was better than

that of the Balduf.

Since the orchards studied will be considered in the sequence of

Peninsula, Miller, Balduf, and Kalb, the background presentation of

each orchard will be made in that order.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ORCHARDS STUDIED

Peninsula Orchards From the standpoint of appearance of trees,

site and soil type, the Peninsula orchard easily rated the number one position of the four orchards studied. This orchard site was in

section 3> lot 16 and lies within one mile of Lake Erie, and within

150 rods of both East Harbor and West Harbor, in Danbury Township,

Ottawa County, Ohio. See Figure 23 , For the most part the orchard was planted on an east to west ridge. The elevation of the orchard site ranged from 58O feet above sea level to 590 feet. Since Lake

Erie has a mean elevation of about 572 feet, the orchard lay from

8 to 18 feet above the lake. The grade in the orchard was about . 0 0 6 .

In the early surveys it was apparently not necessary to establish points or boundaries for the lot except at one location in the orchard.

Consequently, the surveys for this orchard area gave very little infor­ mation as to the original forest trees. The only tree mentioned in the record was a 20-inch white oak.

The land was originally owned by the Buck family. Two sons of the original family helped clear the land. A fairly accurate list of the 24

native trees was therefore available* A small grove of the original

species still stands on a part of the ridge on which the orchard was

planted, hence the record was reasonably complete* In the grove which

is still standing, white oak, red oak, and shagbark hickory predominate*

Bur oak trees still remain in small numbers* The forest originally

could probably be classified as between the third and fourth phase of

the elm-ash-soft maple community* Black walnut trees originally stood

in considerable numbers on the orchard site* No evidence of the exis­

tence of black walnut remains on the orchard site despite the fact

that sometimes the soil on this site was referred to as "walnut soil"*

Considerable soil variation occurs in the orchard area* Lucas loam

occupies most of the orchard area with Danbury Silty Clay loam, Fulton

loam and Fox gravelly sandy loam following in the order named.

During the period 1875 to 1880 the Peninsula orchard land was

partially cleared and came under cultivation. Until 1905 the land

was planted to general grain crops* That year most of the walnut

stumps were removed and the first orchard was planted* This first

orchard was severely hurt by the cold winter of 1917-1918/ "but many of

the trees survived and were not all removed until 1922, A new planting was made in the spring of 1924, Spacing of the trees was 18 by 20

feet* Most of the 4,500 trees set were of the Elberta variety, although a few Rochester and South Haven comprised a part of the orchard*

For the first several years this orchard was reasonably well managed* Financial difficulties beset the owner and about 1933 the 45- acre orchard was acquired by the Peninsula Investment Company* A 25

series of poor managers supervised the care of the orchard. The trees

were subjected to much abuse, such as excessive pruning, very little

borer control, indifferent soil management, poor spraying and little

or no fertilization.

In spite of poor management, the trees remained in fair condition.

From 193^ until 195^ the orchard managanent was somewhat better. Less

severe pruning, better borer control, better spraying and the occasional

application of manure rejuvenated the orchard to some extent. Most of the trees vere annually pruned back to about six to six and one-half feet. Occasional applications of manure maintained the fertility to

some extent.

From 1936 on, cultivation was done by disking. In the spring the disk was set to throw the soil away from the base of the trees. The last diskings in the summer moved the soil back toward the tree row so a ridge eight inches higher than the dead furrow existed during the fall and winter.

Because of the natural slope, drainage was not a serious problem except in small localized depressions. For the most part the practice of ridging the soil up to the rows of trees provided adequate surface drainage. Tables 29 and 26 show the percentage of dead and replaced trees in 19^0 and 19^5* Some of the early loss of trees can be attrib­ uted to the careless management during the early nineteen thirties.

Without making any allowance for poor management, the percentage of dead and replaced trees was smaller than for any of the other three orchards.

Table 26. Even though this orchard was older than some of the other 2 6

three orchards studied* more trees survived and their vigor was

apparent* Factors and results analyzed in detail show this conclu­

sively.

Miller Orchard: This orchard was located in Carroll Township*

Range 15 E, Section 2k, on the western fringe of the peach-growing

section in Ottawa County* It was one of the most productive orchards

in the county and was Initially classified as the second hest of the

four orchards included in this study* Directly overland* the orchard

location was approximately two miles from Lake Erie* See Figure 23*

Elevation is 585 feet above sea lemrl and the grade is *006*

Court house records showed no survey points in the orchard area*

A single mulberry was listed at a point about one-half mile east of the orchard* Several stands of timber were within a quarter mile of the orchard site* These stands were on lower elevations and consisted of species that were of the elm-black ash-soft maple association* Pin oak* sycamore* and swamp white oak were the principal secondary species

in the wetter areas* while bur oak and shagbark hickory grew on the better drained areas such as was occupied by this orchard*

The orchard site*which is about six or seven feet above the wooded area just described* consists of a slight knoll* While the survey records had nothing of note to add to the information concerning the species which had occupied the higher ground now devoted to peach cul­ ture* Mr* C* H* Miller* the former owner* recalled several species which he helped clear from the land when he was a boy* The species mentioned were red oak* white oak* bur oak and shagbark hickory* Thus it formed 27

the third phase of the elm-ash-soft maple community, similar to that

described by Sampson (Jf6 ). No walnut existed on this particular

knoll. A knoll of about the same elevation, approximately 30 rods to the north and east had walnut trees of considerable height.

Pulton silt loam and Toledo silty clay were the only soil types present within the orchard area. The major portion of the orchard occupied the Fulton silt loam area and the trees appeared to be less subject to winter Injury on this type of soil than on the Toledo silty clay. This latter soil lies at a higher elevation and is some­ what better drained because of the slope and natural surface drainage.

The Fulton silt loam occupies a small knoll approximately 18 inches to two feet higher than the general level of the land nearby. This soil is characteristically less fertile and harder to drain with tile than the Toledo silty clay. It has, however, the advantage of higher elevation which makes surface drainage somewhat easier.

Cultivation of the orchard land covered a period of about 65 years. General farm crops of corn, wheat, oats, clover and alfalfa were grown until 192?* ^hen the orchard was planted to trees of the

Elberta variety. The planting distance was 17 by 17 feet.

Underground drainage was provided by tile 20 to 30 inches deep with laterals $0 feet apart. Some of these tile when dug were found to be filled with soil, so subsurface tile drainage was considered to be non-existent. The tree row ridges and other furrows led the surface water to catch basins at the edge of the orchard which In turn were 28 connected with Larger drains leading to ditches and streams. From the time the trees were set the orchard received excellent care. The criticisms which might have been offered were that the pruning was somewhat severe and cover crops were not grown until late in the life of the orchard. Disease and Insect control measures were excellent.

Cultural operations consisted of a series of disklngs during the growing season. In the spring, cutaway disks were used to partially level the soil between the rows. During June and July the disks were reversed and the soil again thrown toward the tree rows to form a ridge eleven inches above the dead furrow between the tree rows. These ridges provided most of the drainage necessary to remove the excess water.

The tight impervious subsoil made Internal drainage almost impossible.

Barnyard manure was applied to the soil from time to time. No commercial fertilisers were applied until late in the fall of 1939# when about three pounds of Cyanamid per tree were applied. Cover crpps were not grown by the owner because he believed that the appli­ cation of manure provided sufficient organic matter to maintain the soil

In a reasonably high state of fertility. In the fall of 1939# however, rye was seeded as a cover crop for the first time. Thereafter rye was usually seeded annually In the fall.

One of the unusual features of the Miller orchard was that It consistently bore heavy crops of fruit. Even In years when severe winter weather killed practically all buds of the same varieties In other orchards nearby, a higher percentage of the buds In the Millar orchard usually survived. A fairly favorable location and careful 29 management contributed their part in achieving a fine production record of long 0 landing.

Balduf Orchard1 The Baiduf orchard was located in Beelion 27#

Range l6E, Erie Township in Ottawa County, Ohio. Bee Figure 23*

The trees of this orchard were located within a half mile of Lake

Erie, and were grown on a soil which was found to bo a Toledo silty clay although classified as a Danbury silty clay loam in the Ottawa

County soil survey.

Despite a favorable location with respect to proximity to Lake

Erie and excellent orchard care on the part of the owner, this orchard was classified as third in this study. The handicap of poor natural drainage apparently could not be overcome by tiling even though under­ ground tile functioned well. The mean average level of Lake Erie is

572 feet above sea level. The Balduf orchard site was 576 to 577 feet above sea level, and the grade at the orchard was .0015* During periods of high water on the southern shore of Lake Erie, brought about by strong northeast winds, the level of the lake water was known to rise to 5 7 6 .3 feet, thus bringing the lake water Into the orchard. A heavy clay subsoil permitted practically no natural In­ ternal dbainage.

Although the orchard site was surveyed in 1820 the Ottawa County court house record of the original trees is Incomplete. Mention Is made of a 20-inch shagbark hickory, a 20 -inch bur oak, a 12-inch pin oak, and a llf-lnch elm. A nearby corner survey stake was set In what was called a "wet prairie". 30

The owner, Mr. Otto Balduf, recalled that uo a boy the stumps and trees on the site planted to peaches, were largely pin oak,owatnp white oak, bur oak, shagbark hickory, black ash and white elm.

A close check of one of the nearby woodlots revealed that the older treeB on land lying at about the same elevation as the orchard, consisted of pin oak, swamp white oak, black ash, white ash, white elm, shagbark hickory and cottonwood. Second growth in the woodlots con­ sisted largely of white elm, black ash, cottonwood, shagbark hickory and red maple.

Almost adjacent to the east side of the orchard there existed a typical swamp or wet prairie type of vegetation. Only a narrow strip of open farm land lay between the orchard and the swamp. The orchard site was about three feet higher than the swamp area. The original swamp vegetation had been modified somewhat because early settlers drained the soil by means of ditches and dikes.

Original nearby swamp vegetation evidently consisted of blue Joint stem and marsh potatoes on the higher areas with other marsh grasses, cattails and water lilies occupying the wetter areas. Since reverting back to a swamp condition the vegetation in those areas was largely

Bedge grasses, cattails and reeds. Willows and cottonwoods apparently- were not present either in the swamp area nor on the higher land occupied by the peach orchard. With the advent of ditches, these two species invaded the areaB along the streams and the higher ground in the marshes. u

This Land wati twigInully cleared about, .1.069 t.o LB’/O* (inuoral

(jfii.ln crops of uorii, oal.s, whoal. and bay worn produced for about- 60 yearn prior to t-tio plant, tup, of Ui« orchard. *1*11« orchard wan planI. ml

In the early nprlng of 1926. The trees were Hot- 20 by 20 feet-. The noil wan inadequately tiled at. this time and as the reau.l l. of high water during 1926 many of the trees died during t.lm f t rat- year.

During the early winter and aprlug of 1927 t.he noil waa add 11.tonally drained by Instailing four-inch tile .laterals at. about 90-foot, inter­ vale at n depth of about 30 Inc lien.

Young trees which had died during 1926 were replaced in the spring of 1927* All the treen of this orchard were shortlived as la

Indicated by Table 29. Detailed root studies showed no roots below

30 Inches.

Except for the lack of cover cropping, I,ha management, of the orchard was considered to be good. The orchard was usually plowed to a depth of about three and one-half inches In the spring and kept under clean cultivation by means of disking for the balance of the season.

The soil was carefully ridged up to the tree rows so the top of the ridge was ten Inches higher than at the low point or "dead furrow" between rotirs. This was done each fall or at the time of the last cultivation In the summer, in order to provide surface drainage for the subsequent winter and spring.

The fertility of the soil was maintained largely through the use of barnyard manure. As far as could be determined no nitrogenous commercial fertilizers were applied In this orchard. 32

For the first five years the trees were permitted to grow quite

freely without much pruning. The first heavy crop was borne In 1931,

In the spring of that year the trees vere pruned severely to a height

of about six and one-half feet. Heavy annual pruning maintained the

trees at about this height. There were no complete crop failures due

to winter injury of the flower buds within the life span of this

orchard, although the 1936 crop was light.

In general the trees seemed to lack vigor throughout the time of

the study. The percentage of dead trees and replacements as shown In

Table 25, indicates the relatively short tree life,of this orchard.

The various factors which probably brought about this tree condition are treated elsewhere in this study.

Kalb Orchardt A superficial survey of this orchard, which is located in the well-known Ohio peach growing area In Danbury Township,

Ottawa County, section four, lots two and three, See Figure 23 , would raise the question as to why an orchard was ever planted on the site. The soil involved was a Fulton silt loam, heavy phase. Careful evaluation of nearby orchards revealed that peach trees planted on so11s such as Fulton silt loam and Catawba silt loam, were vomewhat more vigorous and productive. In the original comparison with the other orchards Involved In this study, the Kalb orchard rated fourth.

The orchard area studied, slopes gently to the north at a grade of

.007. The orchards lying to the east and vest of the Kalb orchard on about the same north and south slope, also seemed to lack vigor. Other 33 peach orchards on this same farm, hut having a somewhat more rolling topography appeared to grow better* The lack of growth apparent in this orchard could have been readily attributed to a lack of natural drainage.

According to records in the county engineer's office, the area occupied by the orchard was surveyed by the county in 1848. Private surveys, however, were made earlier, since this was a part of the

Connecticut Western Reserve District of Ohio* According to a state­ ment by a former owner, Mr, Edward Schweck, the land had bedLn farmed approximately 100 years. For about $0 years general farming was prac­ ticed. Three successive peach orchards occupied the site since 1883*

No woodlots were adjacent to the orchard, but a study of a woodlot about a half mile to the south and west and on a slightly higher elevation, revealed species which indicated that this original forest approached the mixed mesophytic type. This higher site support­ ed red oak, shagbark hickory and basswood. Stumps present among the trees enumerated, indicated that black walnut once stood there. Other species present, but less dominant, were white oak, red elm, and white ash. Examination of survey records of 1848 at the Ottawa County court house revealed that trees of the following species and sizes were used to designate survey points at the orchard in question: Black walnut - 10 inches, Hickory - 15 inches, Bur oak - 30 inches, White oak - 10 inches, Black ash - 10 inches and Black oak - 10 inches. It is doubtful if the survey records included all species present at that time. The probable practice of early surveyors being to set up their 3^

'boundary points by locating them according to trees of the more permanent species.

Curiously enough, however, Mr. Schveck listed exactly the same species as the original surveyors with the exception of slippery elm and white ash, which he said vere also present. He also stated that basswood occupied the higher elevation of the farm and was not present on the orchard site.

The first peach orchard was planted on the site in 1883. This orchard lasted 17 years. The second orchard was planted shortly after the turn of the century and was removed in l*?l8 or 1919* The land was then farmed for 4 or 5 years to corn, wheat and alfalfa until 1923, when it was replanted to peach trees that were set 18 by 18 feet.

Froebsting (40) reported that peach trees newly planted on a site from which peach trees had been removed the previous year exhibited evidence of an inhibiting effect. Shannon and Christ (1+7), however, found that the replant problem was not a serious one on a sandy loam soil where peaches vere planted on a site occupied by a peach orchard continuously for 35 years. Since there was a time interval of four or five years between orchard plantings on the Kalb site and since there is some question on the part of the investigators as to the extent of injury when peach plantings follow peach plantings, it is likely that there were slight or no carry over effects from previous plantings on this site.

There was no tiling in this orchard. Surface drainage was depended upon to take care of the surplus water. The slope on which 35 the orchard was planted continued to a roadside ditch at the lower level of the orchard. This slope coupled with the ridging of the soil up to the tree rows provided reasonably adequate surface drainage.

Underground tile were considered to be useless by the owner because of plugging due to the infiltration of the heavy soil into the tile,

Mr, A, W, Kalb directed the management of the orchard from 1927 until its removal in 19^5* From the standpoint of orchard management, operations could be classified as good. Ordinarily the orchard re­ ceived one shallow plowing to a depth of about four inches in the spring.

Disking and harrowing at intervals for the remainder of the growing season completed the cultural operations for the year. In keeping with the usual practice of peach growers in the area, each summer or late in the fall, the soil was carefully ridged up to the tree row by disking in order to provide winter and spring surface drainage. In this orchard the ridges at the row were seven inches higher than the "dead furrow" between the rows of trees.

Barnyard manure applied at two or three-year intervals was prac­ tically the only source of organic matter and other nutrient material.

Nitrate of soda was used three times in the life of the orchard.

Systematic cover cropping was not practiced.

Heavy pruning was done throughout the life of the orchard. The tree height at maturity averaged about six feet. Complete crop failures were rare, although the crops were usually light. The crops in 1936 and 19^0 were especially light because of winter injury to the flower buds. Re­ placements of Elberta trees which died were made with earlier varieties, such as Rochester and South Haven, 36

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Original Vegetation Indicators: In order to determine the origi­

nal vegetation of the four orchard sites concerned, it was considered

desirable to study the original Ottawa County tree vegetation as a

whole. First a countyvide map of original tree vegetation was made.

The tree species were secured from original court house records and

a partial survey by Sears, The peninsula area in the eastern end of

the county was secured from the court house records available at the

Ottawa County engineer's office in Port Clinton, Second, the four

orchards were pin pointed and a determination made of the original

vegetation in their specific locations.

Figure 2 is a map of the original trees and their locations in

Ottawa County with the exception of the islands in Lake Erie, All trees could not be listed in a study of this type, but insofar as possible the prevailing species were listed. As indicated in the

description of the Kalb orchard, the more durable and permanent trees were likely given as boundary points. The trees listed in Figure 3 as the second part of this study were secured from original court house records, from former land owners and by observing and listing from nearby or adjacent stands of timber.

Soil Classifications and Soil Tests: Deficiencies or excesses of certain elements in soils may govern plant performance. Since several soil types were being considered in this dissertation it was deemed advisable to determine if there were any outstanding limiting nutrient factors involved in these soils. TREE DESIGNATIONS

A A SH CW COTTONWOOD B BEECH OW OOCWOOO P P O P L A R B A BLACK ASH E ELM RO RED OAK BO BURR OAK EL ELM UNDEN S SYCAMORE aw BLACK WALNUT H H IC K O R Y SM SUGAR MAPLE BC BLACK CHERRY HB HACKBERRY SO SWAMP OAK HL HONEY LOCUST W WILLOW •TOUSSAHT ftlVCII I tRONWOOfi WA WHITE ASH L LIN D EN WL WHITE LOCUST M M A P L E WO WHITE OAK

✓ SWAMP AREA

Figure 2* Original tree map of Ottawa County* Letter "M" designates red Maple. Circle Ho. 1 - Location of Peninsula orchard; No. 2 - The Miller orchard; Ho. 3 - The Balduf orchard; and Ho. k - The Kalb orchard. 38

The soil survey of Ottava county presented an excellent general soil classification of the soils of the county* This classification was not stifficiently detailed for a critical study of the four orchard areas* Soil samples vere taken systematically in the same area in each orchard where the other studies vere made*

The soils of the area are generally veil supplied with the so- called micro-nutrients and these vere not considered as being probable limiting factors* This was especially true since barnyard manure was the chief source of nutrient and organic material for these peach soils*

Critical observation of the leaves during several entire growing seasons gave no visual evidence of existing deficiencies* Deficiencies, however, which often did occur in Ottava County soils vere nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and calcium* Organic matter and water percentages vere determined in order to find if these might be limiting or significant factors* Since pH is frequently a factor this was also considered in the determinations made*

Calcium and potassium vere measured as exchangeable cations and phosphorus as a weak acid extraction by the Universal soil testing proce­ dure described by Morgan (29); pH by the use of the Beckman glass elecr* trode and total organic matter by oxidation of hot potassium dichromate

(173° C) to chromic sulphate*

Capillary and Non-capillary Soil Porosity: Samples for this particular study vere secured during the latter part of October and early November of

19^0, The soil vas relatively dry, hence, the matter of securing samples was not as difficult as in an excessively dry soil or in a very vet soil* 39

Since the soil in each case was of a somewhat heavy nature and hard to penetrate it was difficult to secure sufficient weight from a motor car or ordinary tractor to thrust the sampling apparatus into the soil at the lower depths. In order to overcome this difficulty, a padding of heavy cardboard was placed over the sampling cylinder to act as a buffer to reduce Jar* By vising wooden mallets, the sampling cylinder was driven slowly into the soil* The paper buffer absorbed the heavy shock and by tapping lightly, the cylinder was driven into the soil with­ out disturbing or compacting the soil unduly* In the heavier soil, such as the Fulton silt loam-heavy phase in the Kalb orchard, several hundred light strokes were necessary to drive the cylinder to the required depth*

Check samples were procured almost adjacent to the original samples in order to reduce the potential error due to changes in soil type from one point to another* The soil sample determinations for total pore space, non-capillary pore space and volume weight were made according to the tensiometer methods outlined by Baver (2),

Water Levels in Tile Wells: Preparations for securing water level determinations for an entire growing season were made early in 19^1 *

The general plan for determining soil water levels was similar to that sug­ gested by Gourley and Hewlett (l8). On January k, holes were dug to a depth of about k5 Inches in comparable locations in each of the four orchards* Four-inch drainage tile were set end to end from the bottoms of these holes and extended from four to six inches above the soil level* 40

In order to avoid interference vith orchard cultural operations, these holes vere dug about three feet from the trees along the tree rovridges*

Rainfall was less than average In the fall of 1940 In Ottava County but by January 4, 1941, the date of digging the first set of holes, fairly heavy rains had fallen. A period of protracted cold veather, maintaining the temperature Just below the freezing point, prevailed for most of the period until about March 26, 1941* The soil had thaved out completely by April 2, The first water level readings were taken on

April 25, 1941* Most of the readings vere taken at approximately two** week Intervals during the growing season vith longer Intervals during early spring, late fall, and winter*

Near the end of the 1941 growing season, it was felt that additional water level findings at a lover depth might be interesting and reveal further information* Therefore, on November 11, 1941, holes were dug to a depth of 55 inches for the 1942 season and the tile vere placed in a similar manner to the 45-inch holes dug in 1941* These second holes vere located about 20 feet from the 1941 season holes, in adjacent rows and in comparable positions* The fall digging was done in order to allow time for the soil to settle around the tiles before the measurements vere begun in January 1942*

During 1942 water level readings vere taken In both the 45-inch and

55-inch tile veils at approximately 2 -week intervals vith additional read­ ings at shorter intervals on April 29, 30, May 1, 2, and 5j on June 3, 4,

5, and June 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27* Readings were made at tvo-day inter­ vals on Jbly 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24, 1942* i f l

Water Movement from T.lleWellei Two series of measurements of

water movement from the upright tile were used. The first teat

involved water movement for a 120-minute period. The second teat

covered a period of 120 hours*

In the first teat, water wae poured rapidly into the upright tile until the water level remained stationary. Water level readings wore taken at five-minute intervals for the first hour. The rate of water movement began to slow up at that time so the final reading wae made at the end of 120 minutes. Figure 10 indicates the averages of two sets of readings. The first set was made on Jbly l*i and the sec­ ond on October 20, 19^1*

The general procedure Involved in obtaining the data for the second part of this study and which formed the basis for the data in

Figure 11 was secured in the following manner* Water was poured freely into the four-inch upright tiles set in the soil until the water level remained practically stationary for about 10 minutes at a depth a few inches from the surface* That point at which the water remained stationary was used as the first reading* Readings were then taken at 2^-hour intervals for 120 hours and the rate of disappearance In inches was recorded*

Three series of determinations were started but two of them had to be discarded because showers occurred at one or more orchards before the test wasceonpleted* Satisfactory measurements were secured during the period of October 20 to 25, 19^1 • There were several factors which might have had bearing of rate of water disappearance from the tile*

Underground tiling in an orchard, disturbance of surrounding soil when upright. tile ware being aoI., anil the moisture content or the soli would

Influence water movement. however, since the determine!ions were ee« cured on the same days In all, roup orchards (.lie results shoe Id be reasonably comparable.

Root Studies! This investigation was divided Into two part*. The first part connlatod of digging a tranch from tha tree outward somewliat after the manner of Beckenbaoh and Gourley ( ) and plotting root a Use and locations. The second part oonalated of the modification of studies by Ruth (^l) and the New York atudlea (i) (30) (31 ) (32 ) (33 ) (31*) (3 O)

It) which the total root maes of a given area wae determined. For purposes of Identification in this study, the first part of the study was desig­ nated as the "Root Mapping" portion and the second part as the "Root Mass" determination.

Root Distribution! Trenches were dug to locate the roots of the peach trees and to map the soil profile in each of the four orchards.

These trenches extended eight feet In a northeasterly direction from a point four feet south of the tree trunk. Bee Figure 12. The trenches were dug several feet below the depth at which the deepest located roots were found. This was considered necessary since studies by Ilavls and Gourley

(21), working with peach roots In a Trumbull silt loam, showed the pres­ ence of roots at six to seven feet when no roots were observed at four feet.

Horlton designations were made In accordance with those established for the U.S.Department of Agriculture (k9) soil classification handbook. >u Hoot Maas I As Indicated previously, all the soils involved .In

this study wore rolatively heavy. W«wh Inn* the heavy soli from (.ho

roots by means of a high pressure spray rig did not work well. If the

pressure of the water were great enough to separate soil from rooks,

small pari.Idles of the roots wore driven through the sieve and thus

were unavailable for measurement. Putting the soli through a quarter-

inch mesh sieve, I1' I guru 16, wan therefore more feasible than washing

away the soil as was done by Hulh pll). Hoots thus secured wore

cleaned and air dried Jn a warm room for several months before weighing.

The treuohes were dug In seutlons In a northeasterly direct Ion

from the tree outward and the roots obtained by sieving the soil as

soon as It was dug. The trendies were one foot wide and extended from

one to nine feet Inclusive. It was not considered advisable to dig

beyond this distance because of the possibility of roots from nearby trees growing into the area. The trenches in this case were again

dug down about two feet deeper than was thought necessary to find Die

deepest roots. The roots were divided into four group sizes, namely,

0-1 mm, 1-2.5 mm, 2.5-5 mm and 5-10 mm as shown in Figure 10.

Peach Leaf Studios I Leaf surface area has long been considered as an index of tree vigor. It was so considered for the orchards involved in this study. Chandler (9) noted that leaves which were large and

J green were expressions of vigor. Pickett (33) working with apple leaves found considerable variation existed between varieties as to their ability to function photosynthetlcally. Since the variety in each of kk

the four peach orchards involved in this study wae Klberta, variation

between varieties wae not. a factor*

Leaves ware collected from each of the four orchards on October 17#

1939* While no heavy frost had occurred the leaves no longer clung

tenaciously to the twigs but no appreciable number of leaves had yet

dropped* In order to secure representative comparative samples# only

leaves from the middle one-third of the current season's twig growth

from all parts of the tree were secured. About one-third of the twigs

from which leaves were taken were in the tops of the trees and the remainder were taken from branohes within reach from the ground*

Over 1 , 0 0 0 leaves were selected per orchard but shattering during the drying process reduced the number as shown in Tabic 17* Approxi­ mately 75 leaves per tree were secured. Because of the curling nature of

Elberta peach leaves it was found necessary to press the leaves with a warm electric flat-iron in order to lay them flat in the pressing deviae used* This process wilted the leaves slightly and facilitated materially the task of getting them ready for leaf area determination*

After the leaves had been flattened And air dried# measurements were made according to the method described by Potter (39)* In keeping with that method# all readings were originally expressed as a percentage*

Every seventh reading was a control* The apparatus used was calibrated by making successive readings with known areas of leaves as determined by a planimeter* 1*5

All the data concerning the peach leaves and shoots were analyzed

statistically using the "t" test for unpaired comparisons as described

by Goulden (l6),

As additional factors which might have some significance in this

study, it was decided to make several other types of measurements but

on a much smaller scale. These determinations consisted of leaf length,

leaf width, leaf thickness, midrib thickness and petiole thickness#

Leaf length and width measurements were taken in centimeters and the

thickness readings were taken in millimeters.

A micrometer with a delicate spring release which would not crush

the leaf tissue was used to take the measurements of leaf thickness,

midrib thickness and petiole thickness. In the case of the leaf thick-

ness the measurements were taken between lateral leaf veins immediately to the right side of the midrib near the midpoint of the leaf. Midrib thickness readings were taken at the midpoint of the leaf immediately to the left of the leaf thickness readings. Because the Elberta peach

leaf petiole is somewhat U shaped in cross section, the readings were taken sideways at the base of the U, Less variation in the measure­ ments due to crushing made this a better method than taking the measurements at the base and open end of the U# The micrometer was applied on the petiole midway between the leaf and stem end.

Peach Shoot Studies: In order to obtain further information as to the relative vigor of the trees in the four orchards involved in this study, shoot measurements were made of the current season's growth# Both length and thickness measurements were taken. Only the 1939 season's terminal growth was taken. Shoots growing near points where heavy pruning was done the previous season were rejected as not heing comparable.

The shoots were gathered from all four orchards on March 1 prior to pruning. This permitted a fairly uniform sampling method to be used.

Samples were taken from fifteen Elberta trees in each orchard. About two-thirds of the shoots were taken from branches which could be readily reached from the ground. The remaining one-third were obtained from the top center of the trees.

The shoots were measured In the order gathered to eliminate the slight difference in thickness caused by desiccation. In order to minimize the error further all shoots were kept in a closed container until measured and no shoots were brought into a heated room unless measurement could be completed in a very short time. By using three workers each lot was completely measured within two hours thus reducing still further the possible errors caused by desiccation.

Length measurements were not difficult to secure with a long ruler.

Thickness measurements were somewhat difficult to take. Peach shoots are ovate in cross section, they vary considerably in thickness from the base to the tip and swelling occurs near the buds. The methods followed in taking thickness measurements were, therefore, as follows}

Thickness measurements were taken of the narrow diameter of the ovate cross-section half way between the tip and the base of the shoot and half way between the two buds nearest the midpoint of the shoot. The micrometer with a delicate release was also used in taking

thickness measurements. By means of this release, crushing of the

wood and hark was reduced and more accurate and comparable measure­

ments were secured.

Survival and Longevity Studies: A factor of considerable impor­

tance in evaluating the desirability of a peach orchard site, is

discovering what length of life peach trees might be expected to have

at that location.

With this general thought in mind, a careful survey was made in

each of the four orchards in question in order to determine the per­

centage of dead or replaced trees. For the purposes involved in this

study a replaced or a replanted tree was considered in the same classi­

fication as a dead tree. The replaced trees indicated that the tree had been replaced because another tree had died there in previous years.

The first complete count was made in 19^+0, This count included all varieties in the orchard. On May 2k in 19^5 a count of the Elberta variety was made. This count was necessitated on that date because the

Kalb orchard was removed a day or two previously and the pulled trees were still lying in the orchard. The number of trees which had been alive could be determined by the presence of leaves still remaining on the uprooted trees. In October 195^ the orchard foreman of the

Peninsula orchard stated that the removal of the trees in September

195 ^ was not occasioned because of the small percentage of trees remaining alive, but because of the low prices received for peaches that year. if8

PRESENTATION OP DATA

Original Vegetation Indicators: It should be stated that there is no exact succession of plants. Trends or associations of plants and trees are commonly found together in combination or a series of combi­ nations, Trees are considered to be better ecological indicators than shorter lived plants because they represent expressions of ecological conditions over longer periods of time.

In Ottawa County, Ohio, the soils and vegetation are comparatively young in a geological sense. For this reason, the so-called permanent vegetation probably does not yet represent a complete climax. Figure 3 indicates a complete range of plants from a wet or swampy habitat to a much drier habitat. An almost complete climax is represented by the beech-maple association as found in Ottawa County, Both of these latter species were present in the county but they were somewhat scat­ tered rather than being dominant.

In addition to the ecological factors involved in this study, a comparison of the original trees and the forest trees standing adjacent or near the Peninsula, Miller, Balduf and Kalb orchards might be an additional indication as to the peach performance potential of the soil sites involved. It was necessary that the forest trees listed as existing on the original orchard sites be from the same elevation in order to have a comparative situation. One of the interesting factors involved in this phase of the study was the gradation or succession of the type of plants found in

Ottawa County, This ranged from the water lilies and cattail type of swamp vegOtation to a near climax of the beech-maple association. It can be readily observed in Figure 2 that there is some overlap­

ping of species on the four orchard sites. It is equally evident, however,

that in the case of the Peninsula and Miller orchards the trend is upward

toward the beech-maple climax. The Balduf site originally supported

species that are common to wetter, more poorly drained areas. The Kalb

site when considered from the standpoint of the treeswhich formerly grew

there was somewhat betterdrained than the Balduf but not as well as the

peninsula or Miller slteB.

Dry Habitat Peninsula Millera Balduf Kalb

^ Sugar Maple Beech Red Oak * * Linden White Oak * * * Bur Oak * * * * Black Oak * White Ash * * Black Walnut * * * Shagbark Hickory * * * * Swamp White Oak * Black Ash * * Pin Oak * Elm * * Red Maple * Sycamore Cottonwood * Willow Blue Stem Marsh Grasses Cattails Water Lilies Wet Habitat

Figure 3. Occurrence of Species in the Four Orchard Sites

Mulberry present on original site. This tree apparently exists under many conditions and has no local significance as to soil and drainage. 50

Figure 2 would further indicate that if red oak, linden or possibly white oak were present on the original soil site in Ottawa

County, a reasonably good peach soil site was available at that location.

If, however, elm, pin oak, black ash or possibly swamp white oak were present, it would be indicative of a wetter and more imperfectly drained soil site. It would further indicate that the breaking point between a fairly good peach soil site and a fairly poor peach soil site might be

judged by the existence of native shagbark hickory.

Soil Classification and Soil Tests in the Four Orchards: Detailed soil classification studies were made in accordance with the standards outlined in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey Manual (k9)*

Soil borings were made at a central location in each orchard which was considered to be most representative of the area studied. Samples for soil analysis were also secured from approximately the same areas. A presentation of findings follows. 51

Soil Type Descriptions of Peninsula, Miller, Balduf and Kalb Orchards

PENINSULA ORCHARD - Lucas Loam:

Soil Profile

1. A^ + Ag 0 - 8 in* Mixture of A-^ + Ag or plow layer. Light brownish gray friable loam; weak crumb structure#

2. Ag remnant 8-10^ in# Gray friable silt loam; platy structure,

3. Bg 10|-32 in. Pale brown with gray and yellowish brown mottling tough clay; blochy structure.

If, C 32+ in. Light brown calcareous silt loam.

MILLER ORCHARD - Fulton Silt Loam:

Soil Profile

1. A^ + 0 - 7 in. Mixture of A^ + Ag or plow layer. Light yellowish brown friable silt loam; faintly developed weak crumb structure,

2, Ag remnant J -11 in. Light brownish gray friable heavy silt loam; poorly developed platy structure,

3* Bg ii -4q in. Pale brown with large amounts of gray and yellowish brown mottling tough clay; blocky structure,

I*. C 40 -54 in. Light brown calcareous silty clay loam. 52

BALDUF ORCHARD - Toledo Silty Clay:

Soli Profile

1. A 0 - 10 in. Brownish gray tenacious silty clay. Intensive farming has re­ duced the granular structure naturally occurring in this horizon to a massive state.

2, B, 10 - Ik in. Brownish gray with yellowish brown mottling tenacious silty clay; angular structure.

3. Bg Ik - 3 ^ in. Light brownish gray with large amounts of yellowish brown mottling tenacious silty clay; angular structure.

b 3 3^ - 56 in. Same as Bg layer except that it contains a greater amount of yellowish brown mottling.

5. C 56+ in, Highly calcareous silty clay.

KALB ORCHARD - Fulton Silt Loam - Heavy Phase:

Soil Profile

1, + A2 0 - 9 in. Cultivation has mixed A^ + Ag horizons. Grayish brown friable heavy silt loam; weak crumb structure. 2. Bg 9 - 30 in. Light yellowish brown with gray mottling tough clay; weakly developed blocky to angular struc­ ture approaching a massive state. 3- C 30 - kO in. Highly calcareous heavy silty clay loam.

k. C kO - 3k in. Highly calcareous silty clay .loam containing small quantities of gravel. 53

Table 5* Soil Test Comparisons of the Four Orchards

Per Cent Per Cent Water Lost Organ ic Orchard Ca* P* K* pH at 110° C. Matter

Peninsula 3000 100 90 5.30 6.6 2.0 Miller 1875 87.5 150 5.15 6. if 2.5 Balduf 2250 100 150 6.10 13.1 2.If Kalb 3000 87.5 175 6.20 9.9 2 .6

Expressed in pounds per acre.

This soil teBt revealed no unusual factors which would satisfac­ torily account for differences in tree growth or fruit production.

Since peach trees are fairly tolerant to acid soils it is doubtful if relatively low pH inhibited tree performance unduly in any of these orchards. Doth of these orchards would, very likely, have benefltted from applications of lime insofar as cover crops would be concerned.

The soil test reveals the Peninsula orchard soil as having the lowest organic matter content of the four and the Kalb orchard soil as having the highest. High organic matter content is frequently found In poorly drained soils, such as the Pulton silt loam heavy phase as found in the

Kalb orchard.

Capillary and Non-capillary Porosity: Data in Tables 6, 7, 8, and

9 show the total pore space, the non-capillary pore space and volume of weight of each of these orchard soils at four depths.

Table 6 - Peninsula Orchard - Lucas Loam Soil Depth in Total Pore Space Non-capillary Pore Space Volume Weight Inches Per cent by volume Per cent by volume Grams/cc, 6.3 Jf7.§0 9.30 1.37 3.6 JfO.OO 5.01 1.58 12-15 lf5.80 2.52 l.if3 2if-27 l£.50 1.03 1.51 The upper soil was open and permeable but the non-capillary pore apace diminished in subsoil. A slower rate of water percolation in lower area. Table ?• Miller Orchard - Pulton 8,tit Loom Boll

Depth Total Pore Space Son-capillary Pore Space Volume WI-. in inches Per centby Volume Per cent by Volume Grams/ co*

0-3 l»8*90 »i*30 1.3>l 3-6 W .10 l.fcO l.?2 18-1^ h5.00 3*20 gl»-37 _JM. .... _ 2.23 -.. M 9 .... The upper eoil lacKb non-capillary pore space ana becomes even less at 3-o Inches. An Increase in lover area suggests the possibility of somewhat more rapid water movement below the 6-inch level*

Table 8* Balduf Orchard - Toledo Silty Olay Soil Bepth fetal )Pore §paoe Mon-capillary f’or e ipaca Volume W t ‘,

0-3 VT*80 2*10 1.39 3-6 ho* 80 1*25 l.hO 12-15 h 3*20 3*61 1 . M 2 k~ 2 7 i*5.80 ...... S i2SL...... ___ _k i t i . Extreme pore space resiriction characierlied tlhis In the lower areas the situation was similar to that found in the Fulton silt loam In the Miller orchard*

Table 9* Kalb orchard - Fulton Slit Loam-heavy Phase Soil

BeptK folia!"?oreSpace’l’’ i#6n-capill.lary Pore lpace Volume'^t.r""

0-3 h7.0 8,77 1.39 3-6 ^ 5.9 2.75 1 .1*2 1 2 - 1 3 ^ 3.1 .9^ 1.50 2 h -27 U .3 ...... » - i s a ...... M J t __ The non-capillary pore space diminishes gradually to a depth of 5 Inches but is greatly reduced below that level* This situation Indi­ cates very slow water movement In the sub-soli. T n — r"“ !— r— l N on-capil !ary Pore Space

1 Capillary Pore Space Soil w \ \ \ \ \ g 2 0 ^ \ \ \ \ \ \ Q kwww 25 S,\ i\N i\,\N 1__ L 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of Total Volume of Sot! System

Figure PeciEEula Orchard - Lucas L o s e S o i l . \ \ l » 1 " 1 I"' \ l rryi I | « | I |— r—|— R— L v Non-capillary yj J • • * • « • • / 5 ^ ^ Pore Space, T _c s\\\\\\\ * ...... * * W W w w m \L ...... tn 15L. Capillary Pore .Space • • Soil • * • • • « UA » .c W WW W Qg-20 W\W W\ w w w w 25 wwnnnn; 0 10 20 30 4 0 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of Total Volume of Soil System

Figure 5« Miller Orchard - Fulton Silt Loam. S ^ v I 1 I 1 ! f y Non-capr flary

_ 5 Pore Space 01(A Fv \ -C u ^ n w w w Y £ 1 0 ^ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Y I O to L CapillaryPore Space ^ 15 Soil o s\\\\\\\ J20-I o s > \ \ \ \ \ \ \ s \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 25 ^ i\ N i^ N N N i _L J i L 0 [0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of Total Volume of Soil System

Figure 6, Balduf orchard - Toledo Silty Clay Soil* \ i 1 1 1 r Non-capillary ^ Pore Space.

JC o \\\\\\\N £ . 1 0 \\\\\\\ o if) u- 15L. CapillaryPore Space Soil O JZ \ WWW' §■20 w w w V s w\w w 2 5 \ WN.WM L 1 X 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of Total Volume of Soil System

Figure 7* Kalb Orchard - Fulton Silt Loam - Heavy Phase Soil* 59

The significance of knowing more about the nature of the pore space

is brought out in a comparison of the Peninsula, Miller, Balduf and

Kalb soils* The total pore space 1b 1+7*8 per cent, 1+8*9/ 1+7*2, and

1+7*0 per cent respectively* A division of this pore space into capillary and non-capillary at 0-3 inches, however, shows that these soils differ considerably in air capacity. The Peninsula has an air capacity of 9*30 per cent; whereas the Miller has an air capacity of l+*30 per cent, and the Balduf 2.10, the Kalb 8*77 per cent at the 0-3 inch depth.

In addition to the foregoing results, Figures 1+, 5, 6 , and 7 show the pore space distribution in these soils at the lower depths* The relative amount of non-capillary pore space and the degree of aeration may be seen in these figures*

From the standpoint of aeration and drainage, these soils would be classified from best to poorest in the following order: 1* Peninsula,

2* Miller, 3* Balduf, 1+. Kalb* There was not a great deal of differ­ ence between the Miller and the Balduf soils, but on the basis of these results, the Miller soil was slightly better drained and better aerated in the upper area. The Kalb soil was comparatively open and well aerated in the surface 5 inches but below that depth, it was relatively impermeable*

Water Levels in Tile Wells: Examination of the soil water level records as shown in Figure 8 indicates a high degree of correlation in the uniformity of the rise and fall of the water in the tiles in all of 6o

Table 10. Inches of Rainfall - January to December, 19^1

Jan* Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

1 .02 .02 - .35 .07 .37 .01 2 .32 .20 3 .01 .53 .55 .01 1* 1.00 .77 .50 .11 5 .07 .22 .62 6 .01 .25 .72 7 .08 .1*8 .28 .50 .55 .10 8 .11* .72 .05 .02 9 .10 .02 .85 10 .2 0 .10 .01 11 .72 .12 .12 12 .10 .1*0 13 .01 .20 lit- . U-0 15 .05 .02 1.02 .50 .82 16 .33 .16 .25 .22 17 .20 .25 .03 .01 18 .o»* .65 19 .61 .10 20 .05 .18 21 22 .15 .01* .25 .18 23 .01 .35 .1*0 21* .2 0 .50 25 .72 .03 26 .10 .02 27 .05 .1*2 28 .02 .02 29 .02 .78 .01 .03 30 •6o .25 .02 31 .1 0 .70 .02 .37

1.37 .81* 1.25 2.50 3.92 2.51 2.66 1.81* 1.06 3.19 1.78 1.1*3

Precipitation in inches recorded at Catawba Island Weather Bureau Station for 19^1* Data Becured from the U.S. Weather Bureau, Department of Commerce, Columbus, Ohio* 6l

Table 11. Inches of Rainfall January to December, 19to

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

1 .12 .12 .21 2 .to T T .35 3 T .63 • 5^ .12 .18 .10 4 .02 .25 .10 .18 5 .30 .12 .21 .07 6 .12 1.18 .39 .15 7 .to .80 ,82 8 .32 1.21 9 T .kl .60 .27 .15 .80 10 .01 .03 .92 .11 .02 .62 11 .06 .10 .02 .33 T 12 T 13 .10 Ik .12 .^0 .31 15 .12 .85 .30 .12 .35 T 16 .50 1.10 .25 .12 .03 .06 17 .22 .10 .01 .20 .20 18 .06 .05 .51 .06 19 .18 20 .55 21 .12 1.75 .05 .to 22 T .08 .10 .15 .35 23 .15 .25 .05 2k .05 .92 25 .18 26 .kl 27 .35 .19 .81 T .10 28 .12 .02 .02 I.03 .30 29 .35 .35 .20 30 .22 .22 .to 31 .62 .4° 1.12 2.90 .16

1.05 2.30 2.38 2.78 to 79 3.19 to58 to 18 1.66 2.00 k,2k 2.to

Data secured from the U.S. Weather Bureau, Department of Commerce, Columbus, Ohio* 62

10

M I — I KALI I — • W I M U I A 0-— 0 H I L L E R 1— 4 nm

4 0

JURE OCTOBEROCCIMKI ANIL HAY JUKE JULY KfflMtt 0CT0MR

DATES OF MEASUREMENTS IN 1941 AND IN 1942

Figure 8, Water Levels in V5*inch Deep Tile Wells in Four Orchard Soils, iue9 WtrLvl in Water 55-inchLevels Deep inTile WellsFour 9.Figure

DEPTH or WATER LEVEL IN JANUARY Orchard Orchard Soils, MARCH 3 6 IL R P A A UEJULY JUNE MAY

AE O ME URE NT I 1942 4 9 1 IN TS EN EM R SU EA M OF DATES I 1 GUST U UG A TEMBER E B M E PT E S 0 ■ ----• KALB ------• t A ------... ------0 A ■ PENINSULA ■ OUF U IO A B

ILLER M OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 6k

the four orchards. There were certainly localized showers which

undoubtedly affected the water depth in the orchard involved. For

example, a localized rain fell at the Miller orchard on July 3» 19^2.

This was reflected in the Miller water level measurement taken on

that date. The water levels on August 8 and 15, 19^2, indicate a

high water level in the Peninsula and Kalb orchards but not in the

Miller and Balduf orchards. This difference in levels was probably due

in part to localized rains. Field notes Indicate heavy rains occurring

on August 8, 9, and 10, 191*2. The readings for Peninsula and Kalb on

November 19, 19^2, suggest the possibility of similar localized rain

occurring on that date.

The water levels In the 55-inch test holes dug for observation in

I9k2, Figure 9, show a similar riBe and fall in water levels in the k$-

inch holes shown for that year in Figure 8.

Figure 9 indicates in a somewhat more clear-cut manner the fact

that the water in the Kalb orchard rose closer to the surface than in

the other three orchards. However, the water level also fell lower in

June and July in that orchard than in the other three orchards.

Weather bureau rainfall records were secured from the U.S. Weather

Bureau. The observation point was at Catawba Island at a point which

was almost midway between the Miller and Balduf orchards to the west

and the Peninsula Kalb orchards to the east.

It can be seen in Tables 10 and 11 and Figures 8 and 9 that a rise

In water levels was usually preceded by fairly heavy rains. A 1.75 inch rain on June 21, 19^2, was reflected almost Immediately by a rise in 65 water levels in the tile wells of each of the four orchards.

Water Movement from Tile Wells: As a correlation study with both water level and porosity studies a plan was devised for the determina­ tion of water movement from the tiles when poured into the test holes.

This was done in each of the four orchards. No rainfall was involved at anytime during these tests*

In the two-hour water movement studies as shown in Figure 10, the water level fell most rapidly in the Balduf tile well. Figure 11 also shows graphically that the rate of water disappearance was most rapid for the first 2^ hours in the Balduf orchard soil. Furthermore, as shown in the previous study in Figure 10 the rate slowed down materially after the first rapid downward movement. The water level in the Miller orchard continued downward until it reached the bottom of the tile at

25 inches in 72 hours. Another factor worthy of observation is that the rate of disappearance in the Peninsula orchard was somewhat slower during the first part of the test hut the water level continued to fall for the entire 120 hours*. In the Kalb orchard the water level fell more slowly and levelled off at a higher level than any of the remaining three.

Figure 11 indicates that the water reached the greatest depth of the four orchards in the Miller orchard. It also suggests continuation of an advantageous non-capillary porosity in the Miller orchard to a depth greater than shown in Figure 5 of the non-capillary studies.

It was evident that the rate of water disappearance of the Peninsula,

Miller and Kalb orchards was about the same. The Kalb orchard soil of

Fulton silt loam, heavy phase, absorbed the water quite slowly while the d e p th of w a t e r l e v e l, in i n c h e s 20 25 30 35 40 L U e 0 Wtr ees n or rhrs fe flooding. after orchards four in levels WaterPLgUre 10. iue 0 Wtr ees n or Orchards Pour in Water Levels 10, figure 6 6 1. I r i IE F ESRMN ATR FLOODING AFTER MINUTES) (IN TIME OF MEASUREMENT 40 50 • - 60 ■ 0 A ------0 1 P E N I N S U L A BALDUFA MILLER 120 DEPTH OF WATER LEVEL IN INCHES 35 50 45 30 40 25 20 10 Figure 11* Hate of disappearance Hate water from L5-inch tile wells. 11*Figure 2 4 7 9 120 96 72 48 24 0 IE F ESRMN ATR LOIG I HOURS) (IN FLOODING AFTER MEASUREMENT OF TIME 1 67

BALDUF A MILLER O PENINSULA ■ --- KALB • -O- o — 60

Peninsula and Miller soils were next in the order named* Figures 4,

5, and 7 dealing with the porosity studies indicate the same relation­ ship and partially explain the cause* If the percentage of free air space in the Miller soil continued downward into the subsoil below 2J inches, it may give a clue to the causes for the rate of water disap­ pearance as seen in Figure 11*

The outstanding feature of this study was the rapid rate of water absorption by the soil and the lowering of the water levels within the tiles in the Toledo silty clay of the Balduf orchard* When correlated with the fact that a functioning tiling system was in operation in this soil at a depth of about 30 inches, it is reasonable to explain water disappearance to a depth of 30 inches* The continued downward movement below that depth may bo further explained upon examination of the soil profile in this orchard soil as shown in Figure 6* Drought cracks, which permitted the Infiltration of organic bearing surface soil Into the subsoil, provided an absorption and dispersion medium for the water which did not exist In the Peninsula, Miller, and Kalb orchard soils*

Further examination of Figure 10 indicates that after the water had reached a depth of about 37 Inches in the Balduf orchard, the rate of water disappearance was almost non-existent within the time limit in­ volved*

Boot Studies: Peach tree root size and distribution studies were made to discover whether there was any correlation between these findings and other data* Figures 12, 13, 14, and 15 indicate the root sizes and locations In the four orchards* Root Diotribut Ion - Peninsula Orchard, Lucan Loam Qo Lll An

excellent distribution of poach treo rooto Ip ovldant la the Pouiuoula

orchard noil, Figure ,13* While there are only throe of the .Larger

sized roota evident at the point nearest the troo, It Id noteworthy that the medium, small and fibroua roots wore very well spaced throughout the area otudiod. Many of those rooto ponotrated to a dopth of nearly three feet# The medium sized carrot-shaped root shown at tho extreme loft of Figure 13 ponot rated to a depth of Ml- inches along the face of tho profile. This soil was found to be relatively open and well drained thus permitting good root penetration and dis­ tribution. No tile were considered necessary to secure adequate drainage.

Root Distribution - Miller Orchard, Fulton Silt Loam Soil:

Fairly good root distribution was found in the Miller orciiard,

Figure lh. The large roots were somewhat more widely spaced than in the Lucas loam of the Peninsula orchard but the overall root spacing, distribution and penetration was not as good as in the Peninsula orchard soil. The roots which grew downward were of smaller size and in all cases were of the small fibrous type. The soil in general was somewhat heavier and its internal structure somewhat more compact and harder to drain than the lucas loam in the Peninsula orchard. Surface slope was relied upon in the Miller orchard to remove excess water to a catch basin after heavy rains. The tile drains in this type soil function only moderately well since percolation through the soil is too slow to move large quan­ tities of water rapidly. Figure 12. F e e t

S°1L Surface Line o-

Oo

Figure 13. Peach tree root distribution - Peninsula Orchard - Lucas Silt Loam Soil.

Root diameters: 5.0 to 104- nan.; €) * 2.5 to 5*0 mm.; 0 * 1.0 to 2.5 mm.; • = 0.0 to 1.0 mm. F e e t

Figure 3A-. Peach tree root pattern - Miller Orchard - Fulton Silt Loam*

Root Diameters: (%) = 5«0 to 10+ mm#; ( D - 2,5 to 5*0 S 0 = 1*0 to 2,5 mm,;

^ z 0,0 to 1,0 mm. F e e t

' Figure 15* Peach tree root distribution - Balduf Orchard - Toledo Silty Clay Soil*

Root diameters: (S) * 5*0 to lOf- mm*; Q • 2,5 to 5«0 mm,; 0 = 1,0 to 2*5 mm,; • s 0*0 to 1*0 mm* Feet

Soil_Surface Line A, 8 A;

■fr

Figure 16. Peach tree root distribution - Kalb Orchard - Fulton Silt Loam - heavy phase* Root diameters: <8 * 5*0 to 10F mm*; 0 * 2*5 to 5*0 mm*; 0 * 1 .0 to 2*5 mm*; = 0*0 to 1*0 mm* Root distribution - Kalb Orchard* Fulton Silt Loam - Heavy Phase

Soil: In the Kalb orchard soil, there were few roots of the larger

size, Figure 16. The distribution of the small fibrous roots was

fairly good throughout the area to a depth of about 2k inches but

became widely spaced and less numerous below that depth. There was a

tendency for the downward growing roots to divide and subdivide and to

be quite crooked. Possibly this was due to the internal compaction of

the subsoil. The percolation downward through the soil was very slow

due to the impervious subsoil. The excess surface and soil water

tended to remain late in the spring.

It was evident that the spacing and the depth penetration of the

roots in the Peninsula orchard were much better than in the Balduf

and Kalb orchards. Root distribution in the Miller orchard appeared

to be relatively good but did not equal that of the Peninsula, It was

interesting to note the re-establishment of roots in the upper few

inches of the soil after being destroyed by cultural operations

earlier in the season. This was evident in each of the four orchards.

In these studies as in the New York investigations, there was no appar­

ent relationship between root location and soil horizon.

Root Mass: Root mass studies revealed inconsistencies with other

findings. The greatest root penetration in the Peninsula and Miller

orchards was to a depth of about five feet, Tables 12 and 13, It was

noted in the Balduf orchard, Table 14, that there was no root penetra­ tion below thirty inches. All roots listed for this orchard in the three-foot depth were, therefore, within the upper 30 inches. Roots in Figure 17. Tools used to dig out and sift soil to secure root samples* Screen is one-quarter inch mesh. The soil was first sifted into bushel basket and then scanned carefully for roots missed at time of screening. 77

Figure l8a Root material from Peninsula, Miller, Balduf, and Kalb orchards* Sizes reading from iight to left are as follows * 5“10+ mm*, 2.5-5 ,0 mm*, 1-2 .5 mm*, 0-1*0 mm* 70

Table 12. Root Diameters, Weights and location In Peninsula Orchard

Distance In Feet Feet From Tree 1-2 2-*i i,-7 7 -10

Diameter Wt. In Wt. In Wt. in Wt. In Depth In mm. Grams 0 rams 0 rams G rams

0-1 5.2 6. If 7.8 *1.0 1 1-2.5 6.5 1.2 3.2 1.2 2.5 “5 22.6 Ji.9 *1.0 1.2 5-10f 550.0 56.0 26.0 0.0

0-1 1.0 3.6 2.2 3.2 2 1 -2.5 0.8 3.8 2.8 1.2 2 .5-5 2.2 8Jj 7.8 11,8 5 -10* 8.2 127.0 18.6 12.0

0-1 0.8 1.0 2.6 0.8 3 1-2.5 0.0 2.2 0.8 2 .5-5 1.6 3.8 1.0 5-10* 108.6 0.0 9.8

0-1 0.2 k 1 -2.5 0.*i 2 .5-5 1.2 5-10* 0.0

0-1 0.1 5 1-2.5 0.5 2 .5-5 5-10*

The absence of roots In the four- to five-foot depth at one to four feet and seven to ten feet from tree is Indicated by the above table. Table 11. Root Diameters, Weights, and Location In Mil,lei- Orchard B— ■«— i■e*M a*aaw»»i

Diameter Wt, In Wt. in Wt. in Wt. in Depth in mm. Qramw Grama Grams Grams

0-1 6 . a Y.o 5.6 1.2 1. 1-2.5 (>.‘i 2.6 2.0 0.0 2.5-5 17.6 a.a 0.0 0.0 •j-1,01 551.2 ;'i6.6 2.6 0,0

0-1 1.6 a. 6 10, a ->.a 2 1-2.5 O »X I 5. *t 6 .a 5.0 2 . 5-5 !>•£ 10,0 23.0 7J| 5-101 2l|,6 15a. 2 61. a 67.2 0-1 1.2 i.a 2 , a 1.6 3 i-a.5 1.6 1.8 i.a 2.2 2.5-5 o.a 3.0 7.2 7.6 5-101 7. a a. it 11J1 )«2 .a

0-1 0.1 0.0 1» 1-2.5 0.0 0.3 a.5-5 it.2 0.0 5-101 0.0

0-1 0.0 5 1-2.5 0.3 2.5-5 5-101

No roots wore round at the four- and, five-foot depth from one to four feet Inclusive* Somewhat similar to the situation found In the Peninsula orchard. 60

Table ll. Hoot. Diameters» Weights, ami t.oml.ton in J'lalrtut* Orchard

Distance in Feet Feet From Tret 1-2 8 -1 1 "'{ 7-10

Diameter Wt. In Wt. in Wt, in Wt. In Dept. 11 in mm. (1 rams Grams U rams Grams

0-1 3.0 6,3 6.3 1.0 1 1-8.3 3*0 5.2 5.8 1.7 a . 3-3 6,1 8.1 7.1 l .6 3-101 18, a 106,7 251.8 23.9

0-1 2.0 3.2 6.1 6.0 8 1-8.5 3.1 1.0 6.9 7.6 2.3-3 16.8 1,8 13.1 10.1 3-lot 306.0 10.0 11.0 92.8

0-1 0 .B 1.3 3.7 8.7 3 1-2.5 1,1 8.5 1.7 3.6 2.5-3 2.8 2.0 5.5 3.1 5-101 1.9 11.0 1.3 1

3

•

Although not shown here the roots were restricted to upper 30 Inches of depth. 81

Table lt>. Root Dinniotoru, Wolghtti and Locution in Khlb Orchard

Dio tanco in Feet Feet, From 'free 1-2 2-l| 1,-7 7-10

Diameter Wt. in Wt. in Wt • in Wt. in Depth in nun. Gramti 0 ratlin Grams Grama

0-1 3.0 11.0 7.6 5.6 1 1 -2.5 5.2 8.8 2.1 3.1 2 .5-5 lit, 2 13.0 1. 2 1.2 5-10+ 633.6 7M1.8 135.2 38.'*

0-1 0.8 3.2 6,2 5.2 2 1-2.5 1.6 2,1| 9.2 7.0 2* 5-5 0,8 2.2 20.1 6.5 5 -10+ 11.8 7.2 60.8 56,‘t

0-1 2.0 0.0 2.5 0.7 3 1 -2.5 2.V 0.0 5.8 Ojt 2 .5-5 8.0 2,h 1.8 1.0 5-10+ 3.8 0.0 0.0 10.8

0-1 O.lf 0.6 0.8 k 1 -2.5 0.0 2.9 0.7 2 .5-5 6.2 0.5 1.7 5-10+ 3.8

5

No roots ware found below four feet* There were also no roots below the three-foot depth within one foot of the tree. ea the Kalb orchard, Table 15,penetrated four feet. A condensed table, Table 16, of the four orchards Indicates the root amounts at varying distances from the tree and at various depths. Thus, it is evident that the Kalb orchard provided the greatest root mass. It is also evident In Table 16 that the major portion of the root mass In the Kalb orchard was in the 5-1CH- mm. size.

However, It is further noted that in all sizes the root mass was greater in the Khlb orchard than in the Peninsula orchard. While the differences were not as great in the Balduf and Miller orchards the association was in the same direction. Percentages of total weights for comparable sizes between the four orchards were fairly close, Table 16, The downward growing tendency of roots in the four orchards was quite evident.

While no particular mention is made of the fact, Oskamp and

Batjer (3*0 showed by talbes an instance where apple roots in an imperfectly drained soil exceeded in percentage, size and weight those obtained from a well-crained soil. Havis (20) also found a higher percentage of medium and large peach roots in the first foot of Trumbull silt loam than in the better drained silt loams of

Wooster, Canfield, and Volusia soils. In this particular study, the evidence indicates greater root mass in the less desirable fruit soils as can be seen in Table l6 . Table l6# Condensed Table of Root Diameters, Weights and Percentages of Each Size in Peninsula, Miller, Balduf and Kalb Orchards

Grams Per Cent Grams Per Cent Grams Per Cent Grams Per Cent 0 to of 1 to of 2*5 to of 5 to of Total Orchard 1 mm Total 2.5 mm. Total 5 Total 10+ mm Total Weight ______Size______Size______Size______Size______

Peninsula 38.9 3.67 24.6 2.32 70.5 6.66 925.0 87.35 1059.0

CD Miller 58.9 4.42 40.3 3.03 89.6 6.73 1142.2 85.82 1331.0 w

Balduf 49.4 3.62 53.9 3.95 90.0 6.59 1172.4 85.85 1365.7

Kalb 51.2 2.7 52.4 2.76 80.8 4.26 1714.6 90.32 1398.4 81f

Peach Leaf Studies: A number of measurements may be taken into consideration when comparing leaves from the trees of one orchard with leaves from another orchard. These may be decided differences in area of leaves, length, width, thickness, midrib thickness and petiole thickness. Leaf area is considered to be a reliable index of tree vigor. The samples supplying the information tabulated in

Tables 17, 18, 19 and 20 were gathered on October 17, 1939•

Table 17. Mean Leaf Area of Samples from Four Orchards

Sample Mean leaf "t" test value Orchard Size Area cm^ Peninsula Miller Balduf Kalb

Peninsula 99^ k2.3 7.21** IO.63 ** 17.9M**

Miller 975 38.2 07** 10.07**

Balduf 872 35.5 it. 71*.**

Kalb IO85 32.6

x Each value represents the mean of 30 leaves.

** Significant at the one per cent point.

It was evident that the Peninsula leaves were the largest in area with the Miller, Balduf and Kialb leaves respectively being smaller. The l,t" test revealed that the differences between the mean leaf area were highly significant in all cases. 85

Table 18. Mean Leaf Length of Samples from Four Orchards

Mean Leaf Orchard length cm* Peninsula Miller Balduf Kalb Peninsula 14.17 4.20** 4.18** 4.99"**

Miller 12.37 0.06 0.92

Balduf 12.34 0.84

Kalb 12.01 x Each value represents the mean of 30 leaves. ** Significant at the one per cent point.

It was quite evident that leaf length measurements in Table 19

showed the Peninsula leaves to be significantly longer than those of the Miller, Balduf, and Kalb leaf samples. The differences between the means of the Miller, Balduf and Kalb samples were so small that no further comparison could be made concerning leaf length differ­

ences in these samples on the basis of these results. Leaf length

in the Kalb orchard was less than in the Miller and Balduf orchards but the differences failed to achieve statistical significance.

Table 19* Mean Leaf Width of Samples from Four Orchards

Mean Leaf "t1' Test Value Orchard Width cm.^ Peninsula Miller______Balduf Kalb Peninsula 1.52 0.14 1.73 0.14 Miller 1.52 1.49 0.26 Balduf 1.46 1.72 Kalb 1.53

x Each value represents the mean of 30 leaves. No significance at either one or five..per cent level*

As evidenced by Table 19, the differences of leaf width in this case were not significant. Furthermore, the "t" test reveals no significant differences between mean values. Table 20* Mean Leaf Thickness of Samples from Four Orchards

Mean leaf t" test value Orchard thickness mm.X Peninsula Miller Balduf Kalb

Peninsula 0.137 6 .05** 5.13** 0.00 Miller O.lH*. 0.18 6.97**

Balduf 0.117 r QQ wjl

Kalb 0.137

x Each value represents the mean of 30 leaves.

** Significant at the one per cent point.

These data show interesting variation in mean leaf thickness. It will be noted from Table 20 that both the Peninsula and Kalb orchards were characterized by relatively thick leaves as compared to those of the Miller and Balduf orchards. The "t" test shows that the value obtained for Peninsula leaves was significantly greater than those of either Miller or Balduf. There was no significant difference between the Miller and the Balduf samples. However, since the mean thickness of the Kalb leaves was the same as for the Peninsula it follows that there was identical significance with Miller and Balduf.

Table 21 shows that the midrib thickness of the Peninsula leaf samples was significantly greater than the Miller, Balduf and Kalb.

The differences between the Peninsula and Kalb leaves, however, was not as great and was significant only at the five per cent level. The thickness of both Miller and Balduf leaf midribs is less, but more nearly similar to each other than to either the Peninsula or the

Kalb*

Table 21* Mean Leaf Midrib Thickness of Samples from Four Orchards.

Mean midrib _ "t" test value Orchard thickness mm.x Peninsula Miller Balduf Kalb

Peninsula 0.667 3.1M** 3 .18** 2 .12*

Miller 0.598 O.87 0.80

Balduf 0.578 1.38

Kalb 0,6lk x Each value represents the mean of 30 leaves* ^Significant at the five per cent £olnt* **S ignifleant at the one per cent point*

The mean petiole thickness of leaves from the Peninsula orchard as shovn in Table 22 vas significantly greater than that of the Balduf and although larger than the Miller the difference was not significant*

The mean of the Miller sample vas also significantly larger than the

Balduf, The Balduf sample, being the smallest of the four samples, vas significantly smaller than the Kalb* Even though the Kalb leaf petioles were the thickest of the four, the difference vas significantly larger than only one - namely, the Balduf* 0 8

Table 22. Mean Petiole Thickness of Samples from Four Orchards

"t" test value Orchard Peninsula Miller Balduf Kalb

Peninsula 1.301 0.16 2.93** 0.65

Miller 1.296 2,97** 0.82

Balduf 1.212 3 .21*#

Kalb 1.325 x Each value represents the mean of 30 leaves.

** Slgnifcant at the one per cent point.

Peach Shoot Studies: Shoot length extensions were considered to be fairly reliable Indicators of the vigor* Although shoot thickness

is not so widely used as an index of vigor, some Investigators have considered it to be another desirable determination* It vas for these reasons that both length and thickness measurements were made*

Table 23* Mean Shoot Length samples from the Four Orchards

No. of Mean shoot TfTflt" test value Farm shoots

Peninsula 301* 28.75 11.68#* 10.90** 22.15**

Miller 350 20.1*2 0.41 10.37**

Balduf 338 20.70 10.00**

Kalb 332 ll*.10

** Indicates significances at the one per cent level* 89

The outstanding difference between the mean of the Peninsula

shoots and those of the other three samples was very evident* The mean

differences between Peninsula and Miller, and Peninsula and Balduf

while highly significant, were a great deal less than between Peninsula

and Kalb. The ihean' length of the shoots of the Peninsula samples were

more than twice the mean length of the Kalb. Both Miller and Balduf

samples were approximately one and one-half times longer than the Kalb.

The outstanding feature of these data as can be seen in Table 23 was

the extreme length of the shoots from the Peninsula orchard and the

relatively short shoots found in the Kalb orchard.

Table 21*. Mean Thickness of Shoot Samples from Four Orchards

Number Mean shoot ^t" Test Value Farm______of shoots thickness mm. Peninsula Miller Balduf Kalb

Peninsula 301* 3.^5 6.80** 8.21*** 8.09**

Miller 350 3.11 1.82 1.00

Balduf 338 3.03 0.98

Kalb 332 3.07

ft Indicates significance at the one per cent level.

The dominant feature of the shoot thickness measurements vas the

striking difference between shoot thickness of the samples from the

Peninsula orchard as contrasted to those of the other three orchards.

It will be noted from Table 21* that the shoots from the Peninsula orchard were significantly thicker than those of any of the other orchards and that shoot thickness did not vary significantly between 9 9

the Miller, Balduf and Kalb orchards. This trend 1b similar to that

exhibited by shoot length. Here, however, the shoot thickness for

samples from the Kalb orchard were almost identical to measurements

taken of samples from Miller and Balduf, whereas in the case of

shoot length the Kalb orchard was characterized by exceedingly short

shoots•

Survival and Longevity Studies* An orchard which would continue

to live and produce until it was 30 years old would be much more

profitable than one which would live to be only 15. From 3 to 5 years

are required to grow a peach tree to commercial bearing age in Ottawa

County,

Table 25 provides an index of tree performance as far as longevity

and survival were concerned. Counts were made in 19k0 in each of the

four orchards involved in the study to determine the number of surviving

trees.

Table 25, Peach Tree Survival - All Varieties - 19k0

Original Total Percentage Orchard Planting Trees Dead of Dead Date Counted Trees Trees

Peninsula 192k 500 52 10, ko

Miller 1927 500 52 10. ko

Balduf 1926 399 121 30.33

Kalb 1923 300 96 32,00 VI

It should bo pointed out that although tho Balduf orchard was

set In the spring of 1926, many trees were loot during that same

oeason because of high water. The dead trooo wore replaced the

following year. The period of high water camo during the summer

months and for several dayo standing water covered practically all

of the land surface of the orchard. Thin was the reason for tiling

the orchard Immediately thereafter* In this caso 00 well as the

findings of Fleming and Aldefer (13) tiling did not prove to bo the

solution to the problem. It was not possible to determine accurately at the time of the count of trees, which ones had been set In 1926

or which ones in 1927* Therefore, all trees were counted ao of 1926*

The general findings indicate that the high percentage of loss places the orchard and its site in one of the less desirable categories.

Attention should be called to the fact that there were a few trees of several varieties such as Early Elberta, Lemon Free, Red Bird and

Rochester on one side of the orchard which suffered greater mortaillty than the portion of the orchard devoted entirely to elbertas. This was also true in the Kalb and in the Miller orchards.

In May 19^5* Table 26, another count was made of the Eslberta trees only, in each orchard,at the time the Kalb orchard vas pulled.

This count had to be made at this time because the trees in the entire area of the Kalb orchard devoted to this study were to be pulled out.

The average vigor had been so low and the number of living trees so small that the owner no longer considered the orchard worth keeping. 9? Table 26. Tree Survival Elberta Variety, May I9U5

Original Total Percentage Orchard Planting Trees Dead of Dead Year Counted Trees Trees Peninsula 1924 500 78 15.60

Miller 1927 500 220 38.19 Balduf 1926 207 ho 19.32

Kalb 1923 265 17h 65*91

The greater percentage change of mortality in the Miller orchard between the two surveys, Figures 26 and 27, is very apparent. The greater mortality in the Miller orchard was evident in the higher and lower lying portions of the orchard rather than on the slight slopes.

This might conceivably be explained by the situation described by

Hedrick (21*) where excessive wetness or dryness gives conditions favorable for winter killing. In view of the greater mortality, noted in the Balduf orchard in the first survey, between the miscellaneous varieties and the Elbertas, a careful record was made of the Elberta variety alone in l^?* This record showed that only 19*32 per cent of the trees of Elberta variety were dead. For purposes of comparison, out of a total of 225 trees of other varieties 1^1 were dead or re­ placed thus giving a mortality percentage of 62.66. M

Tab la 27, Year of Tree Removal ami Tree Ago mb Removal - Klberta Variety

.... Year"--- - Last Crop Tree Age at Orchard Planted fear Time of Removal .... Xrs...... Peninsula 192** 199** 30

Miller 1927 19**9 as

Balduf* 1926 19**7* 21 Kalb* 1923 19***»* 21

*Whlie the Kalb and Balduf oroharda ware removed In 19**5 and

19**8 respectively, It was considered necessary to list them as of

1 9 M and 19**7 since the trees were pulled out prior to the following season's cj?Op. The other orchards listed were removed In the years given but after the crops had been harvested. Figure 19* Peninsula Elberta orchard on May 2k f 19^5* Trees still in good vigor* This orchard vas not pulled out until 195^- vhen trees were 30 years old* Note partial cultivation as cospared vith clean cultivation of Miller and Balduf orchards* 4 Hr j

Figure 20* Miller orchard on May 2h, 19^-5 ♦ Orchard shows declining tree population hut not yet serious enough to remove entire planting* Fill in tree planting evident* Elberta orchard removed in 19^9 at age of 22 years. Figure 21, Balduf orchard on May 2k, 19^-5 • Elherta trees in background still in production but not too thrifty. Area in foreground formerly set to varieties such as Early Elberta, Lemon Free, Red Bird and Rochester, Elberta trees were pulled out in 19^7 at age of 21 years. Figure 22, Kalb orchard on May 2k, 19^5* Uprooted Elberta Peach Trees, Orchard vas no longer considered profitable due to dead and missing trees. Orchard 21 years old at this time. Trees had been pulled a day or two previously. 98

DISCUSSION

Ottawa County, Ohio, is an area which presents an interesting

ecological study* The land was formed by the recession of Lake Erie

and is a part of a large section of northwestern Ohio which was known

as the Black Swamp. Except for some rocky outcrops on the islands

and the ridges in the eastern part of the mainland of the county, much

of the soil has been made tillable by draining with ditches and under­

ground tile. Occasional small knolls in the central and western areas

of the county rise slightly above the low, flat, black soils. The knolls

are difficult to drain with tile, and surface drainage is relied upon

to remove excess water. To accelerate movement of water in the late

fall, winter, and early spring, furrows are plowed in such a manner as

to provide drainage to the black soils where underground tile function well.

The original tree vegetation of the area ranged from willow,

cottonwood, red maple, elm, pin oak, of the lower elevations to the near beech-maple climaxes of the higher elevations. Solid stands of beech-maple did not exist but were interspersed with species such as red oak,linden, white oak, bur oak, white ash and black walnut.

Higher elevations in the eastern end of the county, were first considered as potential grape planting sites. During the period between

1875 and 1900 the peach largely supplanted the grape on the mainland.

High prices for peaches caused great expansion of the peach industru un­ til 1900 when it reached a peak of 1,230,966 trees in county. As the 9 b acreage expanded, growers had fewer favorable locations and the less

desirable sites were utilized* The area devoted to peach production

moved westward in the county. The slight knolls were first utilized,

but with high prices and the resultant urge to expand, growers began to

plant the lower, flatter, darker soils which were less favored for

peach production. Soils of the lower, blacker types ware ridged by plowing

in order to secure more elevation for the trees. Inhibiting effects of

impervious subsoils and high water levels on peach tree roots were only partially nullified by this soil ridging.

The trees on the less favored locations declined rapidly. An

extremely cold winter in 1917-1918 killed many of the trees and hastened the decline in tree numbers. Winter killing was much more severe in the western and central portion of the county and especially on the lower-

lying soils. This decline in tree numbers continued until 195** when

only 153*15** peach trees were listed for Ottawa County by the U. S.

Bureau of the Census, It was thought that a detailed study of ecological factors would indicate the causes of the deterioration in peach numbers or

indicate under what conditions deterioration did not occur.

Four representative orchards were selected for study. These were the Peninsula, Miller, Balduf and Kalb orchards. Nine ecological evalu­ ation factors were considered as the basis of comparison between orchards.

Each of these will be discussed briefly on the basis of the data secured.

Original tree or other plant vegetation will sometimes give an in­ dication as to the suitability of soils for citrus groves or blueberry plantings. In connection with this study it was thought that an 100 enumeration of tree species originally occupying the four orchard sites might Indicate which sites were or were not suitable for peach growing* In an area which is as geologically young as the land area of Ottawa county and in which all areas are relatively level, no sharp dividing lines of tree vegetation were evident. Gradation and merging of species were usually found* It is pertinent, however, that in securing Information from all available sources such as court house survey records, land owners* statements, and nearby timber lots, the tree species were definitely determined and a striking similarity of species was found from these several sources* The Peninsula and Miller orchard sites revealed that the more dominant the original species which approached the beech-maple ecological climax the better the orchard site*

Conversely the closer the original species were to the cottonwood, willow, red maple, and elm communities the poorer the peach location*

These latter species had formerly occupied the Balduf and Kalb sites*

The species which indicated the dividing line between the better or the less desirable locations was the shagbark hickory* In the selection of a favorable peach orchard site in Ottawa County, the selection could par­ tially be based on the original vegetation of the site*

Soil classification was considered as being merely an index to the suitability of soils for peach trees* The differences between the

Lucas loam of the Peninsula orchard and the Toledo silty clay of the

Balduf orchard as classified were fairly definite and clear-cut* The former proved to be a good peach soil and the latter a poor peach soil*.

Both the Miller and the Kalb soils were classified as being Fulton silt 101

loam, but the Kalb orchard was planted in a heavy phase, Fulton silt

loam soil* In tree performance the Miller planting was clearly

superior to the Kalb planting.

Unless a soil test is correlated with other factors its use has

limited value. It may, however, reveal striking differences between

soils which may Indicate approaches to a study. There were no decided excesses or deficiencies noted in this study which might be limiting

factors in tree growth and performance. The calcium content in the

Miller and Balduf soils was Indicated as being somewhat lower than the

Peninsula and Kalb. The pH of Balduf and Kalb soils was definitely higher than the soils in the Peninsula and Miller orchards. Very likely all four orchards* soils would have benefltted from applications of lime

insofar as cover crops were concerned. Peach trees, however, are generally considered to be fairly tolerant to soils of low pH, so it is doubtful if low pH inhibited tree performance unduly. It should be noted, however, that the organic matter content found In the Kalb orchard soil was the highest of the four while the Peninsula was the lowest. It would appear, therefore, that there Is no direct relationship between tree performance and organic matter. Poorly drained soils are frequently found to be high in organic matter content. This may partially explain the higher organic matter content of the Kalb orchard soil. It also offers an explanation for the relatively high non-capillary porosity found in the upper three Inches of the Kalb orchard soil as shown In

Figure 7* 102

Soil aeration is an Important factor In peach tree growth and fruit

production. All of the soils of the four orchards were heavy and rela­

tively impermeable. Peach orchards of other peach-growing areas are

usually grown on soils which are in general much better aerated than

those of the Peninsula, Miller, Balduf and Kalb orchards, A slightly

greater amount of non-capillary porosity in the Lucas loam of the

Peninsula orchard was reflected in considerably better tree performance.

The greatly reduced aeration in the Fulton silt loam-heavy phase soils

of the Kalb orchard contributed to poor tree performance. When the non­

capillary values of the four soils were compared, it provided an explana­

tion for the poor tree root distribution in the Kalb orchard. It does

not offer any explanation as to the greater root weights found in the

poorly drained Balduf and Kialb orchard soils,

A factor of considerable Importance in all orchards, but of special

significance when dealing with Ottawa county peach orchards, is that

of water levels. Water table Influence on horticultural crops has been

Investigated and reported extensively in the literature. Securing soil

water levels by the tile well method employed which has significance to

peach orchard performance, leaves much to be desired. The method of placing upright tile in holes and then replacing the soil to the out­

side of the tiles as used in this study, although considered reasonably

acceptable by some investigators, has certain drawbacks when working

with heavy soils. Water moveB into the upright tile rather quickly after a heavy rain but remains in the tile for several days when a well dug nearby at that time might reveal no water present at that level. m

Furthermore, tile wells placed only 18-20 feet apart showed extremely

variable water levels in the tile. In this study it found necessary

bo present water level data of two tile wells in separate graphs since the variation in water height between two nearby wells in the same orchard was so great. When dealing with heavy soils the rate of water movement outward from the tile wells was found to be very slow.

Water movement In these peach soils may be correlated with non- capillary porosity of the soil as well as with water levels. Very heavy soils may inhibit downward percolation of water whereas very open soils may be excessively drained. Desirable peach soils are those which are relatively open at the surface and permit fairly rapid perco­ lation to the subsoil but have sufficient clay content in the subsoil for adequate water retention during drought periods. Since all of the soils of the four orchards were heavy and relatively poorly drained water movement was slow. In the tests conducted by pouring water into the upright tile wells the rate of water movement was determined.

A relatively rapid movement of water in the Balduf orchard from the tile wells immediately after filling could be accounted for by two factors; first, the presence of functioning underground drainage tile and second, organic matter which had infiltrated the former drought cracks of the soil. The extent of this filling in may be noted In

Figure 15. Water movement after the first 3D minutes was much slower in the Balduf well and was nearly stationary for the next 90 minutes, thus indicating an Impervious subsoil. In the Peninsula, Miller, and Kalb 10W tile, the well water movement downward waa much Blower during the first 30 minutes but continued at a reduced rate for 120 minutes.

In the portion of the study which relates to the water movement, over a 120-hour period, water movement downward In all orchards was relatively rapid for the first day but slowed up considerably after

hours. At the end of 72 hours, however, the water in the Miller tile had reached the bottom of the well at Inches, In the Balduf wall the water level remained stationary at 1*2 inches after 72 hours.

This was also the case with the Kalb well. In the Peninsula orchard the water movement continued downward but at a reduced, rate. The two significant features of the 12-hour water movement were! first, that the water in the Kalb well at the end of 120 hours was at the highest level of any of the four orchards! and secondly, that the water had completely disappeared In the Miller well by the end of 72 hours.

This latter fact may be correlated with a slightly greater percentage of non-capillary porosity in the Miller orchard subsoil, A greater non-capillary porosity would permit freer water movement. The relatively high level of water In the Kalb orchard was undoubtedly due to a reduced non-capillary porosity percentage In the subsoil,

A well-distributed and extensive peach tree root system is prefer­ able to a restricted system. Depth of root penetration Is also con­ sidered to be desirable since roots located deep Into the subsoil

Indicated better Internal drainage. Roots of all sizes In the Peninsula orchard were more deeply spaced and better distributed than In the other three, A somewhat better depth distribution was also found In the Miller 109 orchard as compared with the Kalb* The Khlb roots were twisty and tortuous with a downward growing tendency which was probably due to the blocky angular structure of the subsoil, Restriction of the

Balduf tree roots to a 30-inch depth indicated the influence of bile drainage to that depth. Undoubtedly this degree of root restriction occasioned by a high water taJble and a compact subsoil contributed to the unsatisfactory performance of trees on this site.

Root mass information concerning peach trees is quite limited.

This study adds but little to what Is known about root weights. From the data herein presented the trees growing on the poorer soil sites were found to have greater mass than those growing on the better sites.

Root distribution In the root mass studies as in the root location data was found to be muah better in the Peninsula and Miller orahards than In the Balduf and Kalb orchards. The Miller and Peninsula roots penetrated about two and one-half feet deeper than those in the Balduf orchard and were one foot deeper than the Kalb tree roots. In percentages of total weights in various root sizes no consistent trend could be established.

No logical explanation can be presented as to the greater root mass In the more poorly drained locations* Oskamp and Batjer (3*0 found the same trend with apple roots and Havls (20) also presented data showing the same trend with peach roots. These Investigators offered no explanation for their findings. It Is regretted that a more detailed study was not made vhidh might have presented additional data. xoe

Since leaf surface area is considered a good Indication of tree vigor, leaves were collected from each of the four orchards and measured for surface area, length, width, thickness, midrib thickness and petiole thickness. The mean leaf area showed a definite gradation from greatest to least In the same order as the majority of the other tests that is, Peninsula first, with Miller second, Balduf third, and

Kalb fourth. While some of these leaf investigations showed variations, the mean leaf length measurements followed the same pattern as the leaf area comparisons. Both were significant at the one per cent level.

There was some variation in the mean leaf width measurement, mean leaf thickness, mean midrib thickness and mean petiole thickness, Each of these last four comparisons showed Peninsula and Kalb to be more nearly equal. Since there was no trend indicated by the last four sets of measurements, only the leaf area and leaf length measurements could be regarded as being significant#

Tree vigor is usually indicated by shoot extension. Shoot measure­ ments were made of the previous season's growth and showed outstanding differences between the mean length of the shoots from the Peninsula orchard and the other three orchards# The mean length of the shoots from the Peninsula orchard was more than twice as great as that of the

Kalb orchard while Miller and Balduf mean shoot lengths were approxi­ mately one and one-half times greater than the Kalb#

These same shoots were measured for thickness and the outstanding feature of the shoot thickness measurements was the striking difference between the Peninsula and the other three. In this instance, however, 107

the shoot thickness of samples from the Kalb orchard was more nearly

similar to that of the Miller and Balduf, whereas in the shoot length

measurements the Kalb orchard was characterized by very short shoot

extension.

Length of tree life in a peach orchard is an important consider­

ation in view of the fact that from three to five years are required

to grow the trees to a commercially productive fruiting age. A survey

count of dead or replaced trees was made in 19^0 when the orchards were of productive age. All varieties were counted. At that time it was found that the Elberta variety sustained fewer losses than the miscellaneous varieties such as Early Elberta, Lemon Free, Red Bird and Rochester. It is well known by growers that the Elberta variety will grow fairly well in areas that would be considered to be unsuit­ able for many other varieties. Table 25 shows very clearly that the percentage of dead trees in the Balduf and Kalb orchards in 19^0 was approximately, three times as great as the Peninsula and Miller.

In May 19^5 the owner of the Kalb orchard decided that the orchard was no longer profitable on that location and pulled the trees on short notice. This necessitated counting the trees in all four orchards, in order to secure comparative figures for the Elberta variety. The results are indicated in Table 26. Figures 19, 20, 21, and 22 show the trees of the four orchards on May 2 k , 19^5* The leaves on the uprooted Kalb trees had withered and some of them had dropped off at the time the picture was taken. 108

The trees in the remaining three orchards were removed as indicated in Table 27. The greater age of the Peninsula trees at the time of removal is significant. It was unfortunate that complete data relative to the number of surviving trees were not secured at the time of removal of the Peninsula, Miller, and Balduf orchards. Since the Peninsula, Miller, Balduf, and Kalb orchards had been rated respectively as first, second, third, and fourth at the beginning of this study, it was an interesting fact that their deterioration occurred in approximately reverse sequence, i.e., the

Kalb trees were 21 years, Balduf 21, Miller 22, Peninsula 30 years old at the time of removal.

Over a period from 1900 to 195^ the impact of various ecological factors was largely responsible for the decline from r,?30,9&> to

153A ? 1* trees in the county. Poor sites, unsuitable soils, lack of soil porosity, high water levels, slow water movement, poor root distribution, lack of tree vigor and shortened tree life were definite contributing factors. It is unlikely that the peach indus­ try can continue to exist in Ottawa County without giving some atten­ tion to the favorable ecological factors which contribute to desirable peach tree growth*

In order to correlate the findings of this study which may have application to the relatively flat areas existing in northern and northwestern Ohio, it should be indicated which ecological factors are of major importance in growing peaches under obviously unsatis­ factory conditions. 109

Much of the northwestern and western Ohio land area does not have soils which have appreciable elevation# GraveUy or sandy upper soils with 15 per cent non-capillary pore space are almost non-existent.

Clay subsoils with 5 to 8 per cent non-capillary pore space at four- to five-foot depths are entirely lacking. Soils which possess these qualities are generally considered to be ideal for peach production.

This study, among other things, should call attention to the need for full utilization of the ecological factors which are essential for success in a highly competitive enterprise such as peach production.

Examination of weather bureau records would show the likelihood of extremely cold winter weather or late spring frosts which might kill flower buds or blossoms. Areas which are more than 15 or 20 miles from Lake Erie would be subject to greater hazards than those within the area. This would be especially true if soil elevation were lacking Since differences in elevation are comparatively small in northwestern and western Ohio, these differences although small, might be of great importance when each small factor may determine success or failure in peach growing.

It is in connection with this principle of utilizing small advantages effectively that the determination of original species occupying a site might be important. The existence of forest trees which ordinarily inhabit the higher elevations would be indicative of the more desirable peach soils of the area.

Since artificial drainage,as shown by Fleming and Aldefer (13) and the Balduf findings in this study were not effective, surface drainage 110 appears to be necessary. Where this surface drainage cannot he secured to remove excess water, peach trees in the area will not thrive. Subsoils must be sufficiently open to receive water but must be sufficiently retentive to hold reserve soil water during drought periods. These favorable factors were not evident in the Kalb soil.

Undoubtedly the water did not penetrate the subsoil quickly after a rain neither were the roots well distributed in the subsoil. This lack of good root distribution was probably due to compaction of the subsoil and water logging which inhibited depth of root penetration.

Soil classification as to type is important to the peach only to the extent that elevation or good internal drainage are indicated. Plant nutrients can usually be readily supplied in sufficient quantity to the elevated soils of the area to promote satisfactory growth.

Organic matter reserves are important in these soils to increase the non-capillary porosity* Penetration of water to the subsoil would be especially facilitated by the presence of organic matter in the lower soil horizons. The need for subsoil aeration suggests the possibility of using deep-rooted crops such as alfalfa or sweet clover before plant­ ing a site to peaches. During the investigations of this study, Which involved digging in the subsoil, peach roots were often found growing downward in former root channels. It would thus appear that the establishment of such channels by the legumes suggested would induce depth of root penetration. After the establishment of the orchard, annual cover crops could be utilized to maintain organic reserves of the upper soil. i n

It is unlikely that the peach Industry can continue to exist in

Ottawa County, Ohio, without giving considerable attention to the

favorable ecological factors which contribute to desirable peach

tree growth and maintenance*

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1. On the basis of this study, the soil sites originally occupied

by tree vegetation such as red oak and white oak were better peach

sites than those occupied by cottonwood and red maple* While shagbark

hickory prevailed on the four orchard sites of Peninsula, Miller,

Balduf and Kalb orchards, it appeared to establish a division line between good and poor orchard sites*

2. In the Ottawa County, Ohio, area, with climatic conditions about

equal, the Lucas loam was the most desirable of the four orchard soils

studied* This soil was followed in descending order of desirability by Fulton silt loam, Toledo silty clay, and the Fulton silt loam - heavy phase*

3* There were no decided differences revealed by soil tests in the four orchards which might account for differences in tree performance*

The soil content of calcium, phosphorus, potassium and organic matter were within reasonable limits in the four orchards* The organic matter content was highest in Kalb orchard where the problem of drainage was most acute*

if. On the basis of physical measurements and from the standpoint of aeration and drainage as determined by non-capillary porosity studies, 1CL2

these orchard soils would he classified from best to poorest in the

following order: Peninsula, Miller, Balduf and Kalh. Hone of the

four orchard soils involved in this study contained the 10 per cent

by volume of non-capillary pore space considered desirable for good

tilth,

5, Water levels exhibited extreme fluctuation in theftur orchards.

No consistent pattern could be determined. The water levels In the

Kalb orchard rose higher than in any other orchard. The fluctuation

pattern between two locations in each orchard in 19^2 indicated a

general similarity of rise and fall of water in upright placed tile

wells,

6. Water poured freely into upright tile wells exhibited consider­

able variation in rate of water movement into the adjacent soil areas.

The water level dropped most rapidly in the Balduf orchard for 30 minutes and then remained almost stationary from 30 until 120 minutes.

The water in the Kalb orchard dropped more slowly and remained at a

higher level than the other three within the same time limit. The

levels in the Peninsula and Miller orchards dropped slowly and gradually but more nearly like the Kalb than the Balduf, The rapid movement of water from the tile wells In the Balduf orchard can probably be ac­

counted for by the tile drainage system In the orchard and the exis­ tence of former drought cracks which had filled with surface soil and organic matter and acted as a water dispersion medium. 1*3

7* Water disappearance studies over a five-day period indicated

that the water level in the Kalb orchard dropped more slowly and

remained at a higher level at the end of 120 hours than in any of the

other three orchards. The water level in the Balduf tile dropped

most rapidly for the first H8 hours and then slowed down materially.

This Indicates the lessened percolation rate at a depth below the

drainage tile. The rate of disappearance in the Peninsula orchard

while somewhat slow continued more or bss evenly for the five-day

period.

The water level in the Miller orchard reached the hottom of the

tile in 72 hours. This was more rapid than in any other of the three

orchards, hut no logical explanation can he given except the possibility

of greater non-capillary soil proosity in the subsoil.

8. Peach tree root size, location and distribution were best in

the Peninsula orchard. The root locations and sizes in the Miller and

Kalb orchards were quite comparable with perhaps a slightly better size

distribution in the case of the Miller orchard. The roots in the Balduf

orchard were confined to the upper 30 inches of soil. This suggests the

influence of drainage tile in removing excess water to a 30 -inch depth below which the roots could not function due to the presence of water.

The greater portion of the roots were in the first foot of soil.

9. The Kalb tree roots were greatest in mass with Balduf, Miller, and Peninsula following in descending order. Although this appears to be a reversal of the usual concept of tree root weight, the findings in this study are not without precedence since Havis (20) and Oskamp and I l k

Batjer (31*-) showed evidence that trees on a poorly-drained soil had greater mass.

10* A study of leaf areas and Blzes in the four orchards showed the mean leaf area of the Peninsula samples to he greatest with an average area of 42.3 square centimeters. The Miller, Balduf and Kalb leaves followed in the order named with 38*2, 35,5 and 32,6 square centimeters. These differences were significant at the one per cent point.

In length, the Peninsula leaves were alno significantly longer at the one per cent point. There was no signlfleant difference between the leaf widths of the leaves from the four orchards. Peninsula leaves were significantly thicker than those of Miller and Balduf but the same thickness as the Kalb leaves.

The midribs of the Peninsula leaves were significantly thicker than the Miller and Balduf at the one per cent point and were signifi­ cantly thicker than the Kalb at the five per cent point. The

Peninsula, leaf petlole-thickness was the greatest of the four samples but was significantly greater than only the Balduf at the one per cent point.

Considering leaf measurements of area, length, thickness of mid­ rib and petiole, the four orchards would rate in the following order:

Peninsula, Miller, Balduf and Kalb, Leaf thickness and width measure­ ments did not follow this general pattern. ll§

11. As another index of vigor, the peach tree shoot length growth of the Peninsula was found to he significantly greater at tho one per cent point than those of Miller, Balduf and Kalb. The mean lengths were

28.73# 20.t2, 20.70 and lt.10 cm. respectively. Shoot thickness fol­ lowed the same general pattern with means of 3.11, 3 .03 ,and 3.07 mm. respectively.

12. In 19^5, at the time the first orchard had passed its period of usefulness to the grower, the percentage of dead Elberta trees in the Rsninsula orchard was 15.60, the Miller was 38.19, Balduf 19.32 and

Kalb 65.91* The Peninsula orchard was removed when 30 years old, the

Miller at 22 years, the Balduf at 22 years, and the Kalb at 21 years.

The Peninsula orchard was removed In 195^.

The superiority of the Peninsula orchard over the other three orchards was clearly Indicated in the various ecological determinations of this study. The greatest differences were between the Peninsula and

Kalb orchards with Miller and Balduf In an intermediate position.

Ecological evaluation factors which were considered to be of significance in this study included the following; original tree vegetation, soil capillary and non-capillary percentages, peach root distribution and location, leaf size, shoot size, and peach tree longevity. Factors which were not entirely conclusive in the same direction were: soil tests, water levels in tile wells, water movement from tile wells, and root mass determinations. 116 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1, BatJar, L,P. and Joseph Oskarap, Soils In Relation to Fruit growing In N»Y., Part VII, Cornell Uni vers iby Bxp, Sta., Ithaca, N,Y. Bui, 6291 Ap.

2 , Baver, L. D., Boll Porosity aa an Index of Utructura. Am, Boll Survey Asb o o , Bui, I41 U3-u7, 1933,

3» , Boll Physics, John Wiley & Boris, Inc., N,¥,, 19tQ,

A, Bedcenbach, Joseph and J, H, (Jour ley, Some effects of different. cultural methods upon root distribution of apple trgeg. Amer, 0oc, Hart, Col, Proo,, 29th annual meeting, 202-tOA,

5, Beers, J, H., Commemorative Biographical Record of the Counties of QanduakyandOttawa, Otuo, J, II, Beer is a Co^, Chloago, 111, J# 6, Boynton, Damon and R. W, Harris, Relationships Between Leaf Dimen*

of Hort,

7, Bradfield, R. and V. C, Jamison, Boll Structure -- Attempts at QuantitatIve Characterisation. Proa, Boil Sal, Boo, Amer, 3* 76-76, 193B,

8, Camp, A. E., Citrus Industry of Florida, Dept, of Agr. in coopera­ tion with University of Florida, Aug, 1955# 19-22.

9, Chandler, Wm, Henry, Fruit Crowing. Houghton Mifflin Co,, Riverside Press, Boston, Mass* 1925, It.

10, Childers,re, Norman F.F, and David 0.C. White, Some Physiological Effe

11, Farnsworth, A.B., The Effects of Soil Structure on Sugar Beet Growth. Reprints from Abstracts of Doctoral Dissertations No, 35 , The Ohio State Unlv, Press, 19tl,

12. Fenneman, N. M, Physiographic plylsions of the United States^ Ann, Assoc, Amer, Oeogr, 61 (19J-98, Ulus, 1917*

13, Fleming, Harold and Russell Alderfor, Unpublished report of Experimental work 19tt-19tfl In Erie County, Penna, Data available Dept, of Agronomy, Penna, Sta, Univ., University Park, Penna, 117 14. Gardner, V. R., F. C. Bradford and II* D, Hooker, Fundamentals of Fruit Production, McOraw Hill Book Co., Inc., N.Y., 19^3, 62S-SS3.

15* Gould, H*P*, Peach Growing, Macmillan Co., N.Y*, 1910.

16 , Goulden, Cyrus H*, Methods of Btatlotleal Analysis, 2nd Edition, John Wiley 8* Sons, Inc*, Now York.

17. Oourley, J.H., Textbook of Pomology, Macmillan Co., 1923, 22^- 226, 130-139*

10. ______and Freeman S. Howlett, Modern Fruit Production. Macmillan Co., N.Y., 1941.

19. Hardesty, H.H., Illuotrated Historical Atlas of Ottawa County. Ohio, Chicago, 107^.

20. Havis, Loon, Peach Tree Root Distribution, Ecology, Volume 19, No! 3, USl, July 1938.

21. Havis, Leon and J. H. Oourley, Peach Production in Ohio. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 501, May 1937*

22. Havis, Leon and I* P. Lewis, Winter In.lury of Fruit Trees in Ohio. Ohio Agr. Exp, Sta., Wooster, 6 ,, Bui. 59^, Nov. I^B.

23 . Hedrick, U.P., Peaches of New York, Rep. of N.Y. Agr. Exp. Sta. for 1916, 133-143.

24* , cited by Oourley in Textbook of Pomology, Macmillan Co., N.Y., 1923.

25. Hllgard, E.W., Soils, The Macmillan Co., N.Y. and London, 1930,

26. Hoffman, M. B. and G. R. Schlubatis, The Significance of Soil Variation in Raspberry Culture, Agr. Exp. Sta., Mich. - State Col., E. Lansing, Mich., Spec. Bui.177, 1920.

27. Johnston, Stanley, Private Communication, Mich. State University, South Haven Exp. Sta., South Haven, Mich., June 13, 1950.

28. Krause, M., Russlsche Forauchungen a u t d e m Oebrltte der Bodenatruck- ter. Landiv, Jahrb., 73, 193i.

2 9. Morgan, M. F., Chemical Soil Diagnosis by the Soil Testing System. (A Revision of Bui. 39^7 Bui. 450, Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta., New Haven, Conn., Oct. 1941. 118

30 . Oskamp, Joseph, Soils In Relation to Fruit Growing In New York. Part V, Cornell Univ. Agr.Exp, Sta., Ithaca, N.Y., Bui, 609, June 1934.

31* t Soils In Relation to Fruit Growing In N.Y.. Part IX,Cornell Univ.' Agr. Exp!, Sta., Ithaca, N.Y,, Bui, 653 , July 1936.

32. ______Soils In Relation to Fruit Proving In N.Y.. Part XIX, Cornell Univ. Agr, Exp, Sta,, Ithaca, N.Y., Bui. 703, Sept. 1938.

33* » Soils In Relation to Fruit Growing: In N.Y.. Part VI, Cornell University Agr. Exp. Sta., Ithaca, N.Y., Bui. 626, Jan. 1935.

34. Oskamp, Joseph and L. P. Batjer, Soils in Halation to Fruit Growing In Part XlT Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta,, Ithaca, N.Y., Bui. 550,Dec. 1932,

35. Partridge, N.L, and J.O, Veatch, The Relationship between Soil Profile and Boot Development of Fruit Trees. The Quar- terly Bulletin, Agr.Exp. Sta., Michigan State Col,, Bast Lansing, Mich., Vol. 14, No. 3, 200-207, Feb. 1932,

36 . Paschall, A.H., J. G. Steele, 0, W. Conrey and S. W. Phillips. Soil Survey of Ottawa County. Ohio, U.S.D.A, Bureau of Chemistry and Soils In cooperation with Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta., No. 26, Series 1926.

37. Peech, Michael, Chemical Studies on Soils from Florida Citrus Groves, tinlv. of frla. Agr. Ex p . Sta.. Bui. 448. 6-9. (A revision of Bui. 340 "by T. W. Young, 1948),

38. Pickett, Win. F,, The Relationship between the Internal Structure and the feotoaynthetlc Behavior of Apple Leaves. Agr. Ex p . Sta., Kansas State Coi.of Agr. and Applied Sci., Man­ hattan, Kan., Bui, 42, Feb. 1937*

39. Potter, G.F., Photoelectric Measurements of Apple Leaf Areas. Am. Soc. of Hort. Sci, Proc. 1937# 26o-£b2,

40. Proebsting, E.L., A Case History of a "Peach Replant1* Situation, Proc. of Am, Soc, for Hort. Sci.,"Vol. 56# 46-48, 1950.

41. Ruth, W. A., Quoted in "A Year's Progress in Solving Farm Problems of Illinois," Agr. Exp. Sta., Univ. of 111., 1928-29, 212- 214. 119

42. Sampson, H.C., Succession, in the Swamp Forest Formation In Northern Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Sci,, Vol. XXX, No. 5, Columbus, Ohio, Sept. 1930.

43# . The Mixed Mesophytic Forest Community of North Eastern Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Sci., Vol. XXX, No. 5, Columbus, Ohio, Sept. 1930.

44. Sampson, H.C. and E. N. Transeau, Original plant associations as indices to biotic habitats with special reference to corn borer. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 429. 153-163.1926.

45. Schumacher, Wilhelm, Die Physik 1, Die Physik des Bodens. Weigandt and Hempel, Berlin, 1&64.

46. Sears, Paul B., The Natural Vegetation of Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science, Columbus, Ohio, July 1926,

47. Shannon, Leland M, and Ernest G. Christ, Some Experiences vith Replanting Peaches in New Jersey, Proc. of Am. Soc. for Hort. Sci., Vol. 63 , 151-156, 1954,

48. Sweet, A.T. and Joseph Oskamp, Soils in Relation to Fruit Growing in New York, Part I, A Detailed Soil Survey of the Hilton Area, Monroe Co., Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta., Ithaca, N.Y. Bui. ?4l, July 1932.

49. U.S.D.A. Soil Survey Manual -- Soil Survey Staff -- Agr. Handbook No. l6, U.S.D.A.. Aug. 1951.

50. Wahler^ J.H. personal conversation, 1935.

51* White, David Gramner, Some Physiological EffectB of Excess Soil Moisture on Stayman Winesap Apple Trees, Abstracts of Doctoral Dissertations No. 53# The Ohio State Univ. Press, 1947* 120

AUTOBIOGRAPHY

I, Carl S. Bittner, was Born on a farm near Benton Harbor,

Michigan, on August 12, 1903* My grade school education was received at Sodus, Michigan, and my high school training at Benton

Harbor, Michigan, The Bachelor of Science degree was awarded at the Michigan State College in 1926, For the following four years I was employed at the Lakeview High School at Battle Creek, Michigan,

The next 21 months were spent at the Pennsylvania State College as

Instructor in Pomology Extension, It was during the summers of these latter two periods of employment that the Master of Science degree was earned at the Michigan State College, This degree was granted in June, 1933* Residence requirements for the Doctor of

Philosophy degree were met at The Ohio State University from 1932 to 193*4-• The years from 193*4- to 19*4-5 were spent as a county agricul­ tural agent in Mercer and Ottawa Counties, Ohio, From June, 19*4-5 until January, 19*4-7 I held the position of raw products supervisor at the Napoleon, Ohio,plant at Standard Brands Incorporated, From

January, 19*4-7 until the present time I have held appointments as

Associate Professor and Professor of Pomology Extension at The

Pennsylvania State College now The Pennsylvania State University,

The final requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy were completed during the autumn and winter quarters of the 1956-57 school year at The Ohio State University, ’ft

!> • Ai,j- • -hf a > * t j f i * ^ V** r.’ %\ M i W M W M f e e . .

,J^|,^<‘ v Pf «i l»

.i/vpvf.r”;r v , »*sYA4 ll i .1: ■> ! j 'f4nn . - JmAi m-.: - v !■?: Hi W, r ’JV,,

■.., , ' v f g p i tis i*l » - a *T ‘ V» ■ - Vr r i* 1 * * * L

-“■*9:*/"k y >■ r V"J? » '■' /■ ■*■'*' i * ■’ « r i • ’ "■ 1 . f ^V"'* V'-:: -‘ , TOw^^^tw^ryjfl??'"■ rt." -sl -, <> ' > y . ’ ■ 1 i 1 ',iS'><3±'X \ » , ’ ^ '. fr S '' TV H" - V 4r •&'* -»’t ■■ * I', ”- ^ ‘' ■ v 1 '* ■ ‘ 1 .* , ^ * 4 - '■'(i.'vi-’.^ A f. j '». ' ->. V ^ f f -i■ , : . -■''I?.-'..; .- |45h P ^ ^ ? ! ^ ¥ ■ *,: •>F ;^ x f & H n s ! f) s jlM ijg rtl-m norw df& ln tiili faro ir carried 'Is Unv«cti pairing .-T; 'AnnMnmHmRwmrtifrtttMAvffnAn^A^jTff^nlhiAi an fnTlnwi • *" -rx r iv* . 'iv i ‘can be jrg p aim t

J? \er& 'otw ilca nc

ifiCreary ot.'A?rJculturc mule; to tbe jd M U C Ii^ udMent tfwtSf

m m m MR

A'G10 , MOCALL,henry CHIEF, 0™ 3™ S ch,D£p0,w O T T A W A COUNTY ^ T 11 F, MAHSUT) ,M CHAHQB SQtL lllR v, v OHIO

J 8 B L

CONVENTIONAL SIGNS fftvtimtkiifoffil DRAINAGE RELIEF Randolph T oledo Bono Catnwba Danbury L ucas loam V iV m W in Nut I IMttilmhmul' UiM s ilt luam silty clay 1 linomam sandy loam silty-- clay loam I * ft - I P'f' I li*V :i yitu.iu'Qniinv llliiff.Rw'Wjawil, UWW In, ('iiiilinu'H I W n w i i l H ills lullW lllli'lll I l lW I'.artmiin \|in,uinui|iH 8uikinflcini|HuilRirt stiiiiiw Melon Catawba Eel clay loam silt loam silty day loam

bc I r.;ciOj \"W-\ iPf^ Inli'iiniiti'iil Slk'K' miiiLwwrihi' Smiililim liut'.Aniulliin' fM llffluidiuk KlIVIUIIS ma» p - r - 7| \ T oledo L»0 »M«l Randolph M a rs h .wiwrf iwiwrtf*™ silt loam illty .c la y c i n o m i r ti niifv.limiiUvu/liw Sh w iiji Snlmii’rfrtliiunnli mi/il iifawAWvSil/M. llillll IllllH b Hh I W f l n f t a y Itaiubu? llws HonulwyUiw SjiIi uuuwlms smi E iMottled-mbaoil phase UarK-coiorea ptiase F o x ■Waeeeon Stone quarries, mirn^ f m > l(D w n , C a ta w b a D anbury gravelly sandy loam, G enesee W m im ili Wiojeon- loam pita and dumps i gravelly loam v ery line sandy bam Bench-ridge phase fin e ii a d y lo s m BsiMisphate ■■ ■ HR < ■ ■

C a ta w b a L ucas N ap p a n o e T oledo Depressions lo a m * lo a m v e r y line landykm ssilty ilty clay bam veryflue landyk ■ ■ OTTAWA COUNTT OHIO T

LEGEND

iiMiMfiMiii ifltydwIona |01|fl niitluxm Ktonylemii Itwn , MiNnd ■ ■ m■B Hi t S Maumee lUniloliih Tuletlo a lylohin a fa mud limn dayluain Mfalmi

hit* Mlllidito lUiidiilpli Toledo atoeliy loim 4jlt)ain tQtSMphui phut lh)iltuui gftvtl, \lmm Stone prHeajib, r Uesdi'tiiiwUefidi*riilg« piiftio plifwo (Ins(Inieandy unity iW loam pltajuuj dumpi

■' ■BHH jLiy«,MWJ..J-1 ■bbBEw ■ HHH KBHA Dwibury Fulton Luom " Nttppnree KiMMl lufimwmw

< Uj i*irat!W|#

Iw i u m .