Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T06:50:35.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The efficiency of incomplete block designs in National List and Recommended List cereal variety trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. D. Patterson  and
E. A. Hunter
H. D. Patterson
Affiliation:
ARC Unit of Statistics, Edinburgh
E. A. Hunter
Affiliation:
ARC Unit of Statistics, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Use of generalized lattice designs instead of complete block designs in 244 cereal variety trials grown in the U.K. since 1975 has resulted in an average reduction of 30% in variances of varietal yield differences. The lattice designs were most effective when the number of varieties was more than 50 but worthwhile reductions in variance, averaging about 24%, were obtained in trials with fewer than 20 varieties. The data also provide guidance on the choice of block size and the potential for improvement by neighbour methods.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 101 , Issue 2 , October 1983 , pp. 427 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Bartlett, M. S. (1978). Nearest neighbour models in the analysis of field experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 40, 147–174.Google Scholar
Besag, J. (1977). Errora-in-variables estimation for Gaussian lattice schemes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 39, 73–78.Google Scholar
CLARK, I. (1979). PracticalQeostatistics. London: Applied Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Fairfield-Smith, H. (1938). An empirical law describing heterogeneity in the yields of agricultural crops. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 26, 1–29.Google 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
Mercer, W. B. & Hall, A. D. (1911). The experimental error of field trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 4, 107–132.Google Scholar
Papadakis, J. S. (1937). Méthode statistique pour des expériences sur champ. Bulletin de I'lnstitut d' Amélioration des Plantes á Salonique No. 23.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Ross, G. J. S. (1963). The effect of block size on the errors of modern cereal experiments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 60, 275–278.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Williams, E. R. (1976) A new class of resolvable incomplete block designs. Biometrika 63, 83–92.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D., Williams, E. R. & Hunter, E. A. (1978). Block designs for variety trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 395–400.Google Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1980). Randomized blocks and some alternatives: a study in tropical conditions. Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad 57, 1–10.Google Scholar
Pearce, S. C. & Moore, C. S. (1976). Reduction of experimental error in perennial crops, using adjustment by neighbouring plots. Experimental Agriculture 12, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, G. N., Eckert, S. R., Hancock, T. N. & Mayo, O. (1983). Nearest neighbour (NN) analysis of field experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. R. (1977). Iterative analysis of generalised lattice designs. Australian Journal of Statistics 19, 39–42.Google Scholar
Yates, F. (1936). A new method of arranging variety trials involving a large number of varieties. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 26, 424–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1939). The recovery of inter-block information in variety trials arranged in three-dimensional lattices. Annals of Eugenics 9, 135–156.Google Scholar
Yates, F. (1940). Lattice squares. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 30, 672–687.Google Scholar