Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:29:15.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Designs for controlling interplot competition in variety trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

O. David ,
R. A. Kempton  and
I. M. Nevison
O. David
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Biométrie, INRA, Route de Saint-Cyr, 78026 Versailles Cedex and Laboratoire de Statistique et Probabilités, Université Paul Sabatier, 31062 Toulouse Cedex, France
R. A. Kempton
Affiliation:
Biotnathematics and Statistics Scotland, The King's Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK
I. M. Nevison
Affiliation:
Biotnathematics and Statistics Scotland, The King's Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Interplot competition in crop variety trials leads to biased estimates of variety differences. Modified alpha designs are proposed which aim to control competition by restricting the randomization so that adjacent varieties show similar competition effects. The designs are available in the computer program Alpha +.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 127 , Issue 3 , November 1996 , pp. 285 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

Azaïs, J.-M., Bailey, R. A. & Monod, H. (1993). A catalogue of efficient neighbour-designs with border plots. Biometrics 49, 1252–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, O. & Kempton, R. A. (1996). Designs for interference. Biometrics 52, 224–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarrett, A. F. & Chanter, D. O. (1981). The design and interpretation of nutrient film technique experiments. Horticultural Research 21, 49–56.Google Scholar
Kempton, R. A. & Fox, P. N. (1997). Statistical Methods for Plant Variety Evaluation. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Kempton, R. A. & Lockwood, G. (1984). Inter-plot competition in variety trials of field beans (Vicia faba L.). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monod, H. & Bailey, R. A. (1993). Valid restricted randomization for unbalanced designs. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 55, 237–251.Google Scholar
Nevison, I. M. & Law, J. R. (1995). Applications of designs to control interplot interference in variety trials. Aspects of Applied Biology 43, 19–24.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1957). Experimenting with organisms as blocks. Biometrika 44, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbot, M. (1984). Yield variability of crop varieties in the UK. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbot, M., Milner, A. D., Nutkins, M. A. E. & Law, J. R. (1995). Effect of interference between plots on yield performance in crop variety trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 124, 335–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. R. & Talbot, M. (1993). Alpha +, Experimental Designs for Variety Trials. CSIRO, Canberra and SASS, Edinburgh.Google Scholar