Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5959bf8d4d-2zkqf Total loading time: 0.358 Render date: 2022-12-10T06:48:22.381Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Performance of empirical BLUP and Bayesian prediction in small randomized complete block experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2012

J. FORKMAN*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Production Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7082, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden
H-P. PIEPHO
Affiliation:
Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: johannes.forkman@slu.se

Summary

The model for analysis of randomized complete block (RCB) experiments usually includes two factors: block and treatment. If treatment is modelled as fixed, best linear unbiased estimation (BLUE) is used, and treatment means estimate expected means. If treatment is modelled as random, best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) shrinks the treatment means towards the overall mean, which results in smaller root-mean-square error (RMSE) in prediction of means. This theoretical result holds provided the variance components are known, but in practice the variance components are estimated. BLUP using estimated variance components is called empirical best linear unbiased prediction (EBLUP). In small experiments, estimates can be unreliable and the usefulness of EBLUP is uncertain. The present paper investigates, through simulation, the performance of EBLUP in small RCB experiments with normally as well as non-normally distributed random effects. The methods of Satterthwaite (1946) and of Kenward & Roger (1997, 2009), as implemented in the SAS System, were studied. Performance was measured by RMSE, in prediction of means, and coverage of prediction intervals. In addition, a Bayesian approach was used for prediction of treatment differences and computation of credible intervals. EBLUP performed better than BLUE with regard to RMSE, also when the number of treatments was small and when the treatment effects were non-normally distributed. The methods of Satterthwaite and of Kenward & Roger usually produced approximately correct coverage of prediction intervals. The Bayesian method gave the smallest RMSE and usually more accurate coverage of intervals than the other methods.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Albert, J. (2009). Bayesian Computation with R, 2nd edn. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, R. A. (2008). Design of Comparative Experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D. M. (2006, May 19). [R] lmer, p-values and all that. Available online at: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2006-May/094765.html (verified 6 April 2012).Google Scholar
Besag, J. & Higdon, D. (1999). Bayesian analysis of agricultural field experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Statistical Methodology 61, 691746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. & Wei, L. (2003). A comparison of recent methods for the analysis of small-sample cross-over studies. Statistics in Medicine 22, 28212833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p<0.05). American Psychologist 49, 9971003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copas, J. B. (1983). Regression, prediction and shrinkage. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Statistical Methodology 45, 311354.Google Scholar
Cotes, J. M., Crossa, J., Sanches, A. & Cornelius, P. L. (2006). A Bayesian approach for assessing the stability of genotypes. Crop Science 46, 26542665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullis, B. R., Smith, A., Hunt, C. & Gilmour, A. (2000). An examination of the efficiency of Australian crop variety evaluation programmes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 135, 213222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Datta, G. S. & Smith, D. D. (2003). On propriety of posterior distributions of variance components in small area estimation. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 112, 175183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. W. & Jannink, J.-L. (2006). Bayesian modeling of heterogeneous error and genotype by environment interaction variances. Crop Science 46, 820833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1964). The replication of variety trials. Biometrics 20, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galwey, N. W. (2006). Introduction to Mixed Modelling: Beyond Regression and Analysis of Variance. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ghavi Hossein-Zadeh, N. & Ardalan, M. (2011). Bayesian estimates of genetic parameters for cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum and foot and leg diseases in Iranian Holsteins via Gibbs sampling. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 149, 119124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giesbrecht, F. G. & Burns, J. C. (1985). Two-stage analysis based on a mixed model: large sample asymptotic theory and small sample simulation results. Biometrics 41, 477486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, M. H. J. (1998). Improving Efficiency by Shrinkage. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Guiard, V., Spilke, J. & Dänicke, S. (2003). Evaluation and interpretation of results for three cross-over designs. Archives of Animal Nutrition 57, 177195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, C. R. (1963). Selection index and expected genetic advance. In Statistical Genetics and Plant Breeding: A Symposium and Workshop Sponsored by the Committee on Plant Breeding and Genetics of the Agricultural Board at the North Carolina State College, Raleigh, N. C. (Eds Hanson, W. D. & Robinson, H. F.), pp. 141163. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences – National Research Council.Google Scholar
James, W. & Stein, C. (1961). Estimation with quadratic loss. In Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability 1: Contributions to the Theory of Statistics (Ed. Neyman, J.), pp. 361380. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
John, J. A., & Williams, E. R. (1995). Cyclic and Computer Generated Designs, 2nd edn. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenward, M. G. & Roger, J. H. (1997). Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53, 983997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenward, M. G. & Roger, J. H. (2009). An improved approximation to the precision of fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 53, 25832595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y., Nelder, J. A. & Pawitan, Y. (2006). Generalized Linear Models with Random Effects: Unified Analysis via H-likelihood. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., Wolfinger, R. D. & Shabenberger, O. (2006). SAS for Mixed Models, 2nd edn, Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Williams, E. R. (1976). A new class of resolvable incomplete block designs. Biometrika 63, 8392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawitan, Y. (2001). In All Likelihood: Statistical Modelling and Inference Using Likelihood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Piepho, H.-P. & Möhring, J. (2007). Computing heritability and selection response from unbalanced plant breeding trials. Genetics 177, 18811888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piepho, H.-P., Möhring, J., Melchinger, A. E. & Büchse, A. (2008). BLUP for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing. Euphytica 161, 209228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piepho, H.-P. & Williams, E. R. (2006). A comparison of experimental designs for selection in breeding trials with nested treatment structure. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 113, 15051513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prasad, N. G. N. & Rao, J. N. K. (1990). The estimation of the mean squared error of small-area estimators. Journal of the American Statistical Association 85, 163171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Real, D., Gordon, I. L. & Hodgson, J. (2000). Genetic advance estimates for red clover (Trifolium pratense) grown under spaced plant and sward conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 135, 1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, G. K. (1991). That BLUP is a good thing: the estimation of random effects. Statistical Science 6, 1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarker, A., Singh, M. & Erskine, W. (2001). Efficiency of spatial methods in yield trials in lentil (Lens culinaris ssp. culinaris). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 137, 427438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute (2008). SAS/STAT 9.2 User's Guide: the Mixed Procedure (book excerpt). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bulletin 2, 110114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savin, A., Wimmer, G. & Witkovsky, V. (2003). On Kenward–Roger confidence intervals for common mean in interlaboratory trials. Measurement Science Review 3, 5356.Google Scholar
Schaalje, G. B., McBride, J. B. & Fellingham, G. W. (2002). Adequacy of approximations to distributions of test statistics in complex mixed linear models. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 7, 512524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, S. R. (1971). Linear Models. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Searle, S. R., Casella, G. & McCulloch, C. E. (1992). Variance Components. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A., Cullis, B. R. & Gilmour, A. (2001). The analysis of crop variety evaluation data in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics 43, 129145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B., Cullis, B. R. & Thompson, R. (2005). The analysis of crop cultivar breeding and evaluation trials: an overview of current mixed model approaches. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 143, 449462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B., Lim, P. & Cullis, B. R. (2006). The design and analysis of multi-phase plant breeding experiments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 144, 393409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spilke, J., Piepho, H.-P. & Hu, X. (2005). A simulation study on tests of hypotheses and confidence intervals for fixed effects in mixed models for blocked experiments with missing data. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 10, 374389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spilke, J., Piepho, H.-P. & Meyer, U. (2004). Approximating the degrees of freedom for contrasts of genotypes laid out as subplots in an alpha-design in a split-plot experiment. Plant Breeding 123, 193197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanek, E. J. III (1997). Estimation of subject means in fixed and mixed models with application to longitudinal data. In Modelling Longitudinal and Spatially Correlated Data (Eds Gregoire, T. G., Brillinger, D. R., Diggle, P. J., Russek-Cohen, E., Warren, W. G. & Wolfinger, R. D.), pp. 111122. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theobald, C. M., Roberts, A. M. I., Talbot, M. & Spink, J. H. (2006). Estimation of economically optimum seed rates for winter wheat from series of trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 144, 303316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theobald, C. M., Talbot, M. & Nabugoomu, F. (2002). A Bayesian approach to regional and local-area prediction from crop variety trials. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 7, 403419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tierney, L. (1994). Markov chains for exploring posterior distributions (with discussion). Annals of Statistics 22, 17011762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, G. & Lesaffre, E. (1996). A linear mixed-effects model with heterogeneity in the random-effects population. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91, 217221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Forkman supplementary material

Appendix

Download Forkman supplementary material(File)
File 23 KB
10
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Performance of empirical BLUP and Bayesian prediction in small randomized complete block experiments
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Performance of empirical BLUP and Bayesian prediction in small randomized complete block experiments
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Performance of empirical BLUP and Bayesian prediction in small randomized complete block experiments
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *