Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9knnw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-05T12:19:26.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Population × Environment Interactions in Maize Trials and their Implications on Testing Procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

A. Tunde Obilana  and
Tunde Fatunla
A. Tunde Obilana
Affiliation:
Federal Department of Agricultural Research, PMB 5042, Ibadan, Nigeria
Tunde Fatunla
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The important interactions in a 2-year maize trial were population × location, location × year and population × year × location, and our analyses suggest that eight locations, two years and three replications will allow the detection of a 5% differential in yield. The most effective way of obtaining the true value of a variety is by increasing the number of years, and the least effective is by increasing the number of replications. Since locations can be effectively substituted for years, increasing the number of locations will expedite the release of improved cultivars.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , October 1976 , pp. 379 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Allard, R. W. & Bradshaw, A. D. (1964). Crop Sci. 4, 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. L. & Bankcroft, T. A. (1952). Statistical Theory in Research. Chicago: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Eberhart, S. A. & Russell, W. A. (1966). Crop Sci. 6, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhart, S. A., Penny, L. H. & Harrison, M. N. (1973). E. Afr. Agric. For. J. 39, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, G. H. L., Hayne, E. G. & Walter, T. L. (1966). Crop Sci. 6, 135.Google Scholar
Miller, P. A., Williams, J. C. & Robinson, H. F. (1959). Agron. J. 51, 132.Google Scholar
Obilana, A. T., Raghunathan, K. R. & Ebong, U. U. (1974). Fed. Dept Afric. Res. Memo. III.Google Scholar
Olayide, S. O., Olatunbosun, D., Idusogie, E. O. & Abiagon, J. D. (1972). Fed. Dept of Agric. Publ. (unnumbered).Google Scholar
Rasmusson, D. C. & Lambert, J. W. (1961). Crop Sci. 1, 261.Google Scholar
Schutz, W. M. & Bernard, R. L. (1967). Crop Sci. 7, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, G. F. & Federer, W. T. (1951). Agron. J. 43, 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar