Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T05:41:26.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficient Control of Spatial Variation in Yield Trials Using Neighbour Plot Residuals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

J. Vollmann ,
H. Buerstmayr  and
P. Ruckenbauer
J. Vollmann
Affiliation:
University of Agriculture, Plant Breeding Department, Gregor Mendel Str. 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria
H. Buerstmayr
Affiliation:
University of Agriculture, Plant Breeding Department, Gregor Mendel Str. 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria
P. Ruckenbauer
Affiliation:
University of Agriculture, Plant Breeding Department, Gregor Mendel Str. 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effect of spatial variation on experimental error variance and the significance of differences between genetic entries was evaluated in five performance trials. A significant portion of spatial variation could be detected in all the experiments investigated and various neighbour plot residuals were applied to adjust for local field trends. Neighbour plot adjustment was clearly more efficient than the randomized complete block design in reducing error variance and in detecting significant differences between entries. It was also more efficient than lattice designs in trial fields exhibiting short distance trends, which could not be covered efficiently by incomplete blocks. In most experiments with long and narrow plots, longitudinal adjustment using two neighbours at each side of a test plot was superior to adjustment by only one ‘nearest’ neighbour.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 185 - 197
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

Ball, S. T., Mulla, D. J. & Konzak, C. F. (1993). Spatial heterogeneity affects variety trial interpretation. Crop Science 33:931–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besag, J. & Kempton, R. (1986). Statistical analysis of field experiments using neighbouring plots. Biometrics 42:231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownie, C., Bowman, D. T. & Burton, J. W. (1993). Estimating spatial variation in analysis of data from yield trials: a comparison of methods. Agronomy Journal 85:1244–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castrignano, A., Di Bari, V. & Colucci, R. (1994). Estimating spatial patterns in some physical properties of a field in southern Italy. In Third Congress of the European Society for Agronomy, 460–461 (Eds Borin, M. and Sattin, M.). Abano-Padova, Italy: ESA.Google Scholar
Clarke, F. R., Baker, R. J. & DePauw, R. M. (1994). Moving mean and least squares smoothing for analysis of grain yield data. Crop Science 34:1479–1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W. G. & Cox, G. M. (1957). Experimental Designs. Second Edition. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cullis, B. R. & Gleeson, A. C. (1989). Efficiency of neighbour analysis for replicated variety trials in Australia. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 113:233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Bari, V., Castrignano, A. & Colucci, R. (1994). Spatial variability of some soil chemical properties in a field of southern Italy. In Third Congress of the European Society for Agronomy, 476–477 (Eds Borin, M. and Sattin, M.). Abano-Padova, Italy: ESA.Google Scholar
Dobek, A. (1994). Asymptotic normality of parameter estimators for some nearest neighbour models. Biometrical Journal 36:103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, P. S. (1991). A bibliography of nearest neighbour methods in design and analysis of experiments. Biometrical Journal 33:455–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleeson, A. C. & Cullis, B. R. (1987). Residual maximum likelihood (REML) estimation ofa neighbour model for field experiments. Biometrics 43:277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P., 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
Lin, S. C., Binns, M. R., Voldeng, H. D. & Guillemette, R. (1993). Performance of randomized block designs in field experiments. Agronomy Journal 85:168–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnussen, S. (1993). Bias in genetic variance estimates due to spatial autocorrelation. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 86:349–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papadakis, J. S. (1937). Methodé statistique pour des expériences sur champ. Bulletin de l'institut d'amélioration des Plantes à Salonique, No. 23.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
Preece, D. A. (1990). R. A. Fisher and experimental design: a review. Biometrics 46:925–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosielle, A. A. (1980). Comparison of lattice designs, check plots, and moving means in wheat breeding trials. Euphytica 29:129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute (1988). SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 6.03 edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Scharf, P. C. & Alley, M. M. (1993). Accounting for spatial yield variability in field experiments increases statistical power. Agronomy Journal 85:1254–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzbach, E. (1984). A new approach in the evaluation of field trials. The determination of the most likely genetic ranking of varieties. Vortraege fuer Pflanzenzuechtung 6:249–259.Google Scholar
Sibbensen, E. (1986). Soil movement in long-term field experiments. Plant and Soil 91:73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroup, W. W., Baenziger, P. S. & Mulitze, D. K. (1994). Removing spatial variation from wheat yield trials: a comparison of methods. Crop Science 86:62–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Utz, H. F. (1988). Plabstat (Plant Breeding Statistical Program). Stuttgart: University of Hohenheim.Google Scholar
van Es, H. M. & van Es, C. L. (1993). Spatial nature of randomization and its effect on the outcome of field experiments. Agronomy Journal 85:420–428.CrossRefGoogle 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 45:151–211.Google 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
Zimmerman, D. L. & Harville, D. A. (1991). A random field approach to the analysis of field-plot experiments and other spatial experiments. Biometrics 47:233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar