Premium
Willcox's Agrobiology: IV. Review of Willcox's Reply 1
Author(s) -
Black C. A.,
Kempthorne O.,
White W. C.
Publication year - 1955
Publication title -
agronomy journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.752
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1435-0645
pISSN - 0002-1962
DOI - 10.2134/agronj1955.00021962004700110001x
Subject(s) - white (mutation) , citation , library science , computer science , information retrieval , mathematics , chemistry , biochemistry , gene
HE July, 1954, issue of Agronomy Journal contains a T series of three papers,3 in which the authors set forth a theoretical and experimental examination of the subject matter of “Willcox’s Agrobiology.” The same issue contains another series of four papers4 representing Willcox’s reply. In reviewing his reply, we may first pass through our papers, taking the headings that point up the criticisms, and giving what we consider to be Willcox’s reply: I . Early contradict ion.Wil1cox states that the early contradiction should be attributed to the lack of “perspective that comes only with wide observation.” 2. Willcox’s “derivatiod’ of the nitrogen constant 318. -No satisfactory reply. Willcox merely gives his original words in a different permutation. 3. T h e Mitscherlich equation.-a. VaLidity. Nothing new is added by Willcox, except that he quotes the “rule of halved increments.” This “rule” is mathematically equivalent to the Mitscherlich equation. b. Constancy of c. Willcox replies that Van der Paauw’s least-squares method of fitting the parameters in the Mitscherlich equation for certain data on barley and rye results in an unrealistic representation of the facts (see below). c. Value of c. Willcox restates his original position that 0.122 is the correct value. He says that the value 0.2, recently adopted by Mitscherlich and Atanasiu as more suitable than 0.122, applies to cases in which there is some yield depression. 4. Yield response aizd nutrient absorptio~z.-WIllcox’s statements do not have logical continuity, and hence do not constitute a satisfactory reply. 5 . Recovery of added nitrogen.-No reply. 6. Obscurities in method of application.-a. T h e question of the proper plant part. No reply. b. T h e question of the proper nitrogen percentage. No reply. 7. Experimental data contradicting Willcox’s conclusions. -a. Observed nitrogen content of plants in pot experiments. No reply. b. Extrapolated nitrogen content of plants in field experiments. No reply. c. Observed nitrogen content of plants i n field experiments. N o reply. d. Nutrients other than nitrogen. N o reply. 8. Experimental tests o n the inverse yield-nitrogelz law. -Willcox introduces his own special statistical methods, from which he reaches a conclusion opposite to that of the authors (see below).