Only the corn with the holes by it died. She had dead spots of corn. I won’t argue this with you as the poster has stopped coming to the boards and can’t tell you herself.
Corrected after edit window was past 5 minutes.
She had spots of corn dieing before the rain. Only the corn with the holes by it died. She saw the holes draining water because there was a downpour. I won’t argue this with you as the poster has stopped coming to the boards and can’t tell you herself.
Of course she did. Patchy crop failure is the classic symptom of waterlogging.
When you put “signs of waterlogging” into Google the very first site returned states that the symptoms include “yellow areas develop in crops” and “water lying in low areas cause yield loss”. The second site notes that “Crops or pastures already sown may exhibit patchy growth in seasonally wettest areas, fungal diseases and decreasing yields.”
And you don’t think this has might have something to do with the fact that crayfish make their holes in locations where the water table is close to the surface because "The crawfish has to dig its burrow in order to be able to submerge in water beneath the water table"
So crayfish make thair burrows where the water table is close to the surface (ier where the soil is waterlogged). And maize is notoriously intolerantof waterlogging. And the maize died where the crayfish made thier burrows.
Yep, I can see how you concluded that the crayfish must have been responsible for the maize death.
Can we get the story straight? Was the water draining down the holes, or was it “standing water” with “holes that air came out of by the dead plants”. These two descriptions can’t both be true.
You would probably be better off not arguing it because it is a classic example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.