Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T20:36:57.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Design Problems in Crop Experimentation. II. Multiple Blocking Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

S. C. Pearce
S. C. Pearce
Affiliation:
ASRU Ltd, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NF, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper describes the construction, usefulness and randomization of several designs for field experiments in which there is more than one set of blocks, namely: (a) row-and-column designs, in which there are two crossing sets of blocks, treatments being applied to the plots formed by their intersections; (b) row-and-column designs in which factors are applied to complete rows or complete columns, that is, criss-cross (or strip-plot) designs; and (c) split-plot designs, in which the plots in a study of one factor are used as blocks in the study of another. All are examples of a wider class of designs, with many ramifications, said to have ‘simple block structure’. It is suggested here that some of the assumptions underlying row-and-column designs are questionable. Some alternative approaches are indicated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , July 1995 , pp. 279 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Bartlett, M. S. (1938). The approximate recovery of information from field experiments with large blocks. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge) 28:418–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, M. S. (1978). Nearest neighbour methods in the analysis of field experiments (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B40:147–174.Google Scholar
Jenkin, J. F., Finney, M. E. & Dyke, G. V. (1983). Effects of nitrogen fertilizer and tridemorph on mildew, growth and yield of spring barley, 1975–7. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge) 101:517–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempton, R. A. & Howes, C. W. (1981). The use of neighbouring values in analysis of variety trials. Applied Statistics 30:59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, G. (1980). Adjustment by neighbouring plots in progeny trials with cocoa. Experimental Agriculture 16:81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadakis, J. (1937). Méthod statistique pour des expériences sur champ. Bulletin of the Institute for the Improvement of Plants, Salonika. 23.Google Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1978). The control of environmental variation in some West Indian maize experiments. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 55:97–106.Google Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1980). Randomized blocks and some alternatives. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 57:1–10.Google Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1992). Data analysis in agricultural experimentation. II. Some standard contrasts. Experimental Agriculture 28:375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1995). Some problems in crop experimentation. I. The use of blocks. Experimental Agriculture 31:191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, S. C. & Moore, M. H. (1976). Reduction of error in perennial crops, using adjustment by neighbouring plots. Experimental Agriculture 12:267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preece, D. A. (1991). Latin squares as experimental designs. In Latin Squares: New Developments in the Theory and Applications, Chapter 10 (Eds Dénes, J. and Keedwell, A. D.). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, G. N., Eckert, S. R., Hancock, T. N. & Mayo, O. (1983). Nearest neighbour (NN) analysis of field experiments (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B45:151–211.Google Scholar