Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-tq7bh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T10:41:53.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Statistical analysis of two-dimensional variation in variety yield trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. A. Kempton ,
J. C. Seraphin  and
A. M. Sword
R. A. Kempton
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK
J. C. Seraphin
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK
A. M. Sword
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Methods of adjustment for two-dimensional spatial heterogeneity of grain yield were investigated for 224 UK cereal trials. The methods used row and column ‘block’ analysis of plot yields and neighbour analysis based on first differences of plot yields. In 36% of trial analyses for block models and 30% for neighbour models the average variance of variety differences was reduced by more than 10% compared with the better of the one-dimensional row or column models. Compared with complete blocks, 2-D block analysis had a mean efficiency of 153% whereas the conventional 1-D block analysis (by rows) had a mean efficiency of 127%. Similarly, 2-D neighbour analysis had a mean efficiency of 159% whereas the 1-D analysis had a mean efficiency of 137%. Recently, general statistical methods have been developed for two-dimensional design and analysis; their wider use should lead to major gains in the precision of variety trials.

Information

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 122 , Issue 3 , June 1994 , pp. 335 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Ainsley, A. E., Paterson, L. J. & Patterson, H. D. (1987). A method of predicting the efficiency of incomplete-block trials. Biometrics 43, 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, D. & Mead, R. (1991). The empirical efficiency and validity of two neighbour models. Biometrics 47, 1473–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besag, J. & Kempton, R. (1986). Statistical analysis of field experiments using neighbouring plots. Biometrics 42, 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W. G. & Cox, G. M. (1957). Experimental Design. 2nd edn.New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cullis, B. R. & Gleeson, A. C. (1989). Efficiency of neighbour analysis for replicated variety trials in Australia. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 113, 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullis, B. R. & Gleeson, A. C. (1991). Spatial analysis of field experiments – an extension to two dimensions. Biometrics 47, 1449–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmour, A. (1992). TwoD: a program to fit mixed linear model with two dimensional spatial adjustment for local trend. NSW Agriculture, Orange NSW 2800, Australia.Google Scholar
Gleeson, A. C. & Cullis, B. R. (1987). Residual maximum likelihood (REML) estimation of a neighbour model for field experiments. Biometrics 43, 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleeson, A. C. & Eccleston, J. A. (1992). On the design of field experiments under a one-dimensional neighbour model. Australian Journal of Statistics 34, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P. J., Jennison, C. & Seheult, A. H. (1985). Analysis of field experiments by least squares smoothing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 47, 299–315.Google Scholar
John, J. A. & Whittaker, D. (1993). Construction of resolvable row-column designs using simulated annealing. Australian Journal of Statistics 35, 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempton, R. A. & Howes, C. W. (1981). The use of neighbouring plot values in the analysis of variety trials. Applied Statistics 30, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lill, W. J., Gleeson, A. C. & Cullis, B. R. (1988). Relative accuracy of a neighbour method for field trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 111, 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. J. (1979). A subclass of lattice processes applied to a problem in planar sampling. Biometrika 66, 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. J. (1990). The use of time-series models and methods in the analysis of agricultural field trials. Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods 19, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, N. K. & Williams, E. R. (1993). An algorithm for constructing resolvable row-column designs with v < 100. Australian Journal of Statistics 35, 363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Hunter, E. A. (1983). The efficiency of incomplete block designs in National List and Recommended List cereal variety trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 427–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Robinson, D. L. (1989). Row-and-column designs with two replicates. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 112, 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Thompson, R. (1971). Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58, 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Williams, E. R. (1976). A new class of resolvable incomplete block designs. Biometrika 63, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. L., Kershaw, C. D. & Ellis, R. P. (1988). An investigation of two-dimensional yield variability in breeders' small plot barley trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 111, 419–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seraphin, J. C. (1992). Variance-distance relationships in agricultural field plot experiments. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, G. N., Eckert, S. R., Hancock, T. W. & Mayo, O. (1983). Nearest neighbour (NN) analysis of field experiments (with Discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 45, 151–211.Google Scholar
Williams, E. R. (1986). A neighbour model for field experiments. Biometrika 73, 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. R. & Talbot, M. (1993). ALPHA + Experimental Designs for Variety Trials. Design User Manual. CSIRO, Canberra & SASS, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Williams, E. R., Ratcliff, D. & van Ewijk, P. H. (1986). The analysis of lattice square designs. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 48, 314–321.Google Scholar
Yates, F. (1937). A further note on the arrangement of variety trials: Quasi-Latin squares. Annals of Eugenics 7, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1949). Lattice squares. Journal of Agricultural Science 30, 672–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar