Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:39:57.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Block Size and Orientation, and Allowance for Positional Effects, in Field Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

J. A. Warren  and
I. Mendez
J. A. Warren
Affiliation:
Office of Biometrics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA
I. Mendez
Affiliation:
Office of Biometrics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A random sample of 13 uniformity trials was examined in terms of sensitivity to choice of block size and orientation. Five trials were classified as insensitive and eight as sensitive. Trials insensitive to blocking choices showed little variation in experimental error for various sizes, shapes and orientations of blocks, but those sensitive to blocking choices showed considerable, sometimes drastic, effects of such choices. There was often an objectionable degree of inflation of experimental error due to large or improperly oriented blocks. It is proposed that the routine analysis of field experiments based on block designs be modified to reveal cases in which ineffective blocks have been used on sensitive sites.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 1981 , pp. 17 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

Capó, B. G. (1944). J. Agric. Univ. Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras 28:7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, J. D. & Stair, C. E. (1942). Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 41:315–320.Google Scholar
Joachim, F. (1935). Trop. Agric. Mag. Ceylon. Agric. Soc. 85:198–207.Google Scholar
Kalamkar, R. J. (1932). J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 22:783–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, H. J. (1980). J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 105:189–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lander, P. E., Narain, R. & Singh, A. (1938). Ind. J. Agric. Sci. 8:271–307.Google Scholar
Laycock, D. H. (1955). Trop. Agric., Trin. 32:107–114.Google Scholar
Le Clerg, E. L. (1966). In Plant Breeding (Ed. Frey, K. S.). Iowa State Univ. Press, Amos, Iowa.Google Scholar
Love, H. H. (1943). Experimental Methods in Agricultural Research. Agric. Expt. St. Univ. Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras.Google Scholar
Mendez, I. (1970). Mimeo Ser. 696, N. Carolina State Univ. Raleigh, N. Carolina.Google Scholar
Mercer, W. B. & Hall, A. D. (1911). J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 4:107–132.Google Scholar
Moore, J. F. & Darroch, J. G. (1956). Tech. Bull, Agric. Exp. Stn. Wash. St. 21.Google Scholar
Narain, R. & Singh, A. (1940). Ind. J. Agric. Sci. 10:844–853.Google Scholar
Parker, E. D. & Batchelor, L. D. (1932). Hilgardia 7 (2):81–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D., Williams, F. R. & Hunter, E. A. (1978). J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 90:395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1976). Expl. Agric. 12:151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1980). Trop. Agric., Trin. 57:1–10.Google Scholar
Smith, F. L. (1958). Hilgardia 28:43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stickler, F. C. (1960). Tech. Bull, Kans, Agric. Exp. Stn. 109.Google Scholar
Wassom, E. C. & Kalton, R. R. (1953). Iowa State College Res. Bull. 396.Google Scholar