Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T19:28:02.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Data Analysis in Agricultural Experimentation. II. Some Standard Contrasts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

S. C. Pearce
S. C. Pearce
Affiliation:
Applied Statistics Research Unit, University of Kent at Canterbury, England.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In the preceding paper in this series (Pearce, 1992) it was explained how an experimenter can ask specific questions about the treatment responses and can obtain answers to them by using contrasts of interest. Here, two standard cases are examined, one in which treatments are quantitative in nature, like the amount of fertilizer applied or the dates on which spraying takes place, and the other in which the treatment set is formed from all combinations of two or more other sets. (Such a ‘factorial set’ might be formed from several kinds of herbicide being used with a range of cultivations.) Finally, a non-standard example is examined in which a well considered set of treatments provided information directly relevant to the subject of enquiry. The subject is considered with some emphasis on testing, but in many instances estimation would be better.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , October 1992 , pp. 375 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Dawkins, H. C. (1983). Multiple comparisons misused: Why so frequently in response curve studies? Biometrics 39:789–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, T. M. & Hills, F. J. (1978). Agricultural Experimentation. Design and Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1989). The size of a comparative experiment. journal of Applied Statistics 16:3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1992). Data analysis in agricultural experimentation. I. Contrasts of interest. Experimental Agriculture 28:245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, S. C., Clarke, G. M., Dyke, G. V. & Kempson, R. E. (1988). A Manual of Crop Experimentation. London: Charles Griffin. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar