Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T12:07:36.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Plot Shape on Variability in Smith's Variance Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

M. Narayana Reddy  and
C. K. Ramanatha Chetty
M. Narayana Reddy
Affiliation:
All India Co-ordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad – 500 659, AP, India
C. K. Ramanatha Chetty
Affiliation:
All India Co-ordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad – 500 659, AP, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Fairfield Smith's variance law is extended to study simultaneously the effect of plot size and its rectangularity (which quantifies shape) on variance. This model is fitted to two seasons' data on sorghum grain yield generated from uniformity trials under rainfed conditions. Some implications of the fitted model are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 1982 , pp. 333 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

Federer, W. T. (1955). Experimental Designs. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hatheway, W. H. (1961). Convenient plot size. Agronomy Journal 53: 280–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatheway, W. H. & Williams, E. J. (1958). Efficient estimation of the relationship between plot size and the variability of crop yields. Biometrics 14: 206–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. F. (1938). An empirical law describing heterogeneity in the yields of agricultural crops. Journal of Agricultural Science 28: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiedemann, A. M. & Leininger, L. N. (1963). Estimation of optimum plot size and shape for safflower yield trials. Agronomy Journal 55: 222–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar