ay
to
~
a
>
He reports the figure of 9.23.
Didn't you have Enolits figures?
feldopars and things like that? Bow, also ecil is rock
Pour and
Glay, and it {s very hard to ses why there should be a
or a 100
‘
ao
.
fy
¢ he? ~-
.
What I was getting at, Knoll aleo ran. some recks --
p waters.
.
Nake
4
i
4 bee vn
|
oat
fold enrichment over the rock flour wiich I think reais 1-2 on the
saste,
hy
».re
° lhe ote wt
ey
3) ey
he
fo
‘i
Fe.
. ‘a te
;it
*“
pele we ake tee’
Knoll gives two values, & and 9, for surface and sub
> *
| omtiar ee beat
‘act
nt ke sae
aaa Pay?
:
ly
we
Odum gotthe value for ssa water andind 10 — vitoh I finktn rights 3
gt
&
=
Stay
That was Knollts data and I think the theory was rather
done, so that is all the data we have co the soil, but I
should be a question mark after it on thet basis.
‘
TR
az
eR:
g
.
In the neighborhood of 2 -- probably @ little higher.
Bhink there ~:
|
Tt A true that these figures have to be looked atvary
at Least
derivation of these ratios eansce unsertatsty,
values of the measureaente.
DEHAVEN
The naturalwater would cut right through some of these
You eee the water value there, so maybe the soil repre
nearly the water value, and the deeper rocks not.
There ie some evidence of that exchange to the sea.
Plem se yy
i
af mresy
.
oo