Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-vcmr7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-09T04:44:10.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analyzing designed experiments: Should we report standard deviations or standard errors of the mean or standard errors of the difference or what?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2019

Marcin Kozak Open the ORCID record for Marcin Kozak [Opens in a new window]  and
Hans-Peter Piepho
Marcin Kozak*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW, Nowoursynowska 159, 02-766 Warsaw, Poland
Hans-Peter Piepho
Affiliation:
Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstr. 23, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
*
*Corresponding author. Email: nyggus@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

ANOVA, one of the most common statistical methods applied in agronomy, offers a variety of results we can report when analyzing designed experiments. The focus, of course, is on treatment means, but what should we report to characterize precision? Should we choose treatment standard deviations (SDs) or standard errors of the mean or standard errors of the difference (SEDs)? We discuss why treatment raw SDs should not be reported as the result of ANOVA, and point out that most of the time it is SEDs that should be provided.

Keywords

Standard deviationStandard errorResiduals

Information

Type
Review
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 312 - 319
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Agresti, A. and Franklin, C. (2013). Statistics: The Art and Science of Learning from Data. 3rd Edn. Oak View, CA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Fiorini, A., Boselli, R., Amaducci, S. and Tabaglio, V. (2018). Effects of no-till on root architecture and root-soil interactions in a three-year crop rotation. European Journal of Agronomy 99, 156–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozak, M., Bocianowski, J. and Rybiński, W. (2013). Note on the use of coefficient of variation for data from agricultural factorial experiments. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 19(4), 644–646.Google Scholar
Kozak, M. and Piepho, H.P. (2018). What’s normal anyway? Residual plots are more telling than significance tests when checking ANOVA assumptions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 204(1), 86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. (2019). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.3.5.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (accessed 14 October 2019).Google Scholar
Ndoli, A., Baudron, F., Sida, T.S., Schut, A.G., Van Heerwaarden, J. and Giller, K.E. (2019). Do open-pollinated maize varieties perform better than hybrids in agroforestry systems? Experimental Agriculture 55(4), 649–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piepho, H.P., Williams, E.R. and Fleck, M. (2006). A note on the analysis of designed experiments with complex treatment structure. HortScience 41(2), 446–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, G.P. and Keough, M.J. (2002). Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. (accessed 14 October 2019).Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (2009). PROC GLM Statement. SAS/STAT® 9.2 User’s Guide, 2nd Edn. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. Available at https://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63033/HTML/default/viewer.htm#statug_glm_sect042.htm (accessed 14 October 2019).Google Scholar
Searle, S.R., Speed, F.M. and Milliken, G.A. (1980). Population marginal means in the linear model: An alternative to least squares means. American Statistician 34(4), 216–221.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. (1995). Biometry: The Principles of Statistics in Biological Research. New York, NY: WH Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Thakur, A.K., Uphoff, N. and Antony, E. (2010). An assessment of physiological effects of system of rice intensification (SRI) practices compared with recommended rice cultivation practices in India. Experimental Agriculture 46(1), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, R. (2001). Statistics to support soil research and their presentation. European Journal of Soil Science 52(2), 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar