Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-18T19:20:19.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic Designs for Spacing Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

J. K. A. Bleasdale
J. K. A. Bleasdale
Affiliation:
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne, Warwick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two types of design are described, in which the number of plants per unit area varies systematically within any one plot in the field, the plant arrangement being held constant. Any desired range of spacing can be covered in either design and the calculations necessary to establish specific sets of dimensions are given. In addition descriptions are given of the laying-out, planting (or sowing), management and recording of experiments using these designs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 1967 , pp. 73 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1967

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

Berg, M. A. (1958). Agron. J. 50, 713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, G. (1967). A mathematical model for relating plant yield with plant arrangement for regularly spaced crops. (In press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. (1963). Crop spacing and management under weed-free conditions, in Crop Production in a Weed free Environment, London: Blackwell Sci. Publ.Google Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. (1966). J. hort. Sci. 41, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. (In press.)Google Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. & Nelder, J. A. (1960). Nature, Lond. 188, 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, H. J. (1935). Sci. Agric. 15, 488.Google Scholar
Nelder, J. A. (1962). Biometrics 18, 283.Google Scholar
Sale, P. J. M. (1966). J. hort. Sci. 41, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar