Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T13:11:15.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulation study of three adjustment methods for the modified augmented design and comparison with the balanced lattice square design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. S. Lin ,
G. Poushinsky  and
P. Y. Jui
C. S. Lin
Affiliation:
Statistical Research Section, Engineering and Statistical Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, K1A 0C6, Canada
G. Poushinsky
Affiliation:
Statistical Research Section, Engineering and Statistical Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, K1A 0C6, Canada
P. Y. Jui
Affiliation:
Statistical Research Section, Engineering and Statistical Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, K1A 0C6, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Three adjustment methods using control plots to adjust for soil variation in a modified augmented design (Lin & Poushinsky, 1983) were studied by simulation. The results show that adjustment by design structure (row and column correction factors) is best when soil variation is relatively uniform in one or two directions, while adjustment by regression analysis is best when the variation is multi-directional. Adjustment using the control plot as a fertility index is least satisfactory. A modified augmented design in a replicated experiment is generally inferior to a balanced lattice square design but is competitive when the percentage of environmental variation attributable to soil factors is less than 70% of the total variation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 100 , Issue 3 , June 1983 , pp. 527 - 534
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

Briggs, K. G. & Shebeski, L. H. (1968). Implications concerning the frequency of control plots in wheat breeding nurseries. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 48, 149–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W. G. & Cox, G. M. (1957). Experimental Designs, 2nd edn, 611 pp. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Federer, W. T. (1956). Augmented (or Hoonuiaku) designs. Hawaiian Planters' Record 55, 191–208.Google Scholar
Johnson, I. J. & Murphy, H. C. (1943). Lattice and lattice square designs with oat uniformity data and in variety trials. Journal of American Society of Agronomy 35, 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, C. S. & Poushinsky, G. (1983). A modified augmented design for an early stage of plant selection involving a large number of test lines without replication. Biometrics (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townley-Smith, T. F. & Hurd, E. A. (1973). Use of moving means in wheat yield trials. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 53, 447–450.CrossRefGoogle 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. (1940). Lattice squares. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 30, 672–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar