Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T22:10:44.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Border Effects and Optimum Plot Sizes for Climbing Beans (phaseolus vulgaris) and Maize in Association and Monoculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

J. H. C. Davis ,
M. C. AmÉZQuita  and
J. E. MuÑOZ
J. H. C. Davis
Affiliation:
CIAT, Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia
M. C. AmÉZQuita
Affiliation:
CIAT, Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia
J. E. MuÑOZ
Affiliation:
CIAT, Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Minimal competition was observed between adjacent plots of climbing bean varieties and maize in association, but there was a large head border effect which was not uniform among varieties. Head borders of 1 m at each end of the plot are recommended and a net plot size of 11 m2 with 3 replications for climbing bean varieties associated with maize was found to be adequate to detect significant differences in yield of beans of 24% of the mean. For climbing beans in monoculture a somewhat smaller plot (8 m2) would achieve the same level of precision. Larger plot sizes in general were needed for maize comparisons, especially in association.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 1981 , pp. 127 - 135
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

Amézquita, M. C., Muñoz, J. E. & Voysest, O. (1977). Efficiency and precision of lattice designs with different number of repetitions and plot sizes in yield trials of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Memoirs of the XXIII meeting of the PCCMCA, Panamá, 21–24 March 1977 (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Federer, W. (1955). Experimental Design. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Francis, C. A. (1978). Multiple cropping potentials of beans and maize. Hort Science 13(1):12–17.Google Scholar
Hatheway, W. H. (1961). Convenient plot size. Agronomy Journal 53:279–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, J. E., Amézquita, M. C. & Voysest, O. (1977). Border effects in yield trials with beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Memoirs of the XXIII meeting of the PCCMCA, Panamá, 21–24 March 1977 (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Rappaport, R. A. (1971). The flow of energy in an agricultural society. Scientific American 224:116–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santhirasegarem, K. & Black, J. N. (1968). The distribution of leaf area and light intensity within wheat crops differing in row direction, row spacing and rate of sowing; a contribution to the study of under-sowing pasture with cereals. Journal of the British Grassland Society 23:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. F. (1938). An empirical law describing heterogeneity in yields of agricultural crops. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 28:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar