Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T01:11:59.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficiency of neighbour analysis for replicated variety trials in Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

B. R. Cullis  and
A. C. Gleeson
B. R. Cullis
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture and Fisheries Research Institute, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia
A. C. Gleeson
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture and Fisheries Research Centre, Tamworth, NSW 2340, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Use of a one-dimensional neighbour method of analysis in 1019 variety trials of a range of crops conducted by plant breeders in four states of Australia in 1985–87 resulted in an average reduction of 42% in variances of varietal yield differences compared with conventional randomized complete block analysis. Of these trials, 219 were designed as square, rectangular or generalized lattices and the average reduction in variances of varietal yields with incomplete block analysis and recovery of interblock information was 33%. The results emphasized that plots should be wide enough to avoid interplot competition, and that neighbour analysis is of most benefit in trials with short plots or when the field layout has many plots in a row.

Type
Review
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 113 , Issue 2 , October 1989 , pp. 233 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

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. & Kempton, R. (1986). Statistical analysis of field experiments using neighbouring plots. Biometrics, 42, 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullis, B. R., McGilchrist, C. A. & Gleeson, A. C. (1989). Error model diagnostics in the general linear model with applications to the analysis of repeated measures and field experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B (in press).Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. (1st edn) Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.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
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
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
Papadakis, J. S. (1937). Methodé statistique pour des expériences sur champ. Bulletin de l' Institut d' Amélioration des Plantes á Salonique, No 23.Google 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. & Thompson, R. (1971). Recovery of interblock 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. & Digby, P. G. N. (1987). REML – Residual Maximum Likelihood Program. Edinburgh: Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service.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, 152–212.Google Scholar
Williams, E. R. (1986). A neighbour model for field experiments. Biometrika, 73, 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. R. & Luckett, D. J. (1988). The use of uniformity data in the design and analysis of cotton and barley variety trials. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 39, 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1936). A new method of arranging variety trials involving a large number of varieties. Journal of Agricultural Science, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar