Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T04:59:01.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The response to selection of different procedures for the analysis of early generation variety trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

B. R. Cullis ,
A. C. Gleeson  and
F. M. Thomson
B. R. Cullis
Affiliation:
NSW Department of Agriculture Research Institute, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia
A. C. Gleeson
Affiliation:
NSW Department of Agriculture Research Centre, Tamworth, NSW 2340, Australia
F. M. Thomson
Affiliation:
NSW Department of Agriculture Research Institute, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A simulation study was conducted to determine the relative response to selection of a one-dimensional spatial analysis of field experiments (SAFE) specifically adapted for early generation trials. The primary purpose of the analysis in these trials is to obtain accurate estimates of genotypic effects of the unreplicated test lines by adjusting for local variation, using either the yields of all neighbouring plots or the yields of neighbouring plots of (replicated) check varieties. The response to selection of the SAFE analysis, relative to the use of unadjusted yields of test line plots, was consistently greater than the relative response to selection of check-plot-only analyses. The relative response to selection of SAFE increased as the percentage of trend variance increased.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 118 , Issue 2 , April 1992 , pp. 141 - 148
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

Becker, R. A., Chambers, J. M. & Wilks, A. R. (1988). The NEWS Language. Pacific Grove, California: Wadsworth & Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
Box, G. E. P. & Jenkins, G. M. (1970). Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control. Oakland, California: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Cullis, B. R. & Gleeson, A. C. (1989). Efficiency of neighbour analysis for replicated variety trials in Australia. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 113, 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullis, B. R. & Gleeson, A. C. (1991). Spatial analysis of field experiments — an extension to two dimensions. Biometrics 47, 1449–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullis, B. R., Gleeson, A. C., Lill, W. J., Fisher, J. A. & Read, B. J. (1989). A new procedure for the analysis of early generation variety trials. Applied Statistics 38, 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullis, B. R., McGilchrist, C. A. & Gleeson, A. C. (1991). Error model diagnostics in the general linear model relevant to the analysis of repeated measures and field experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 53, 409–416.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1981). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 2nd edition. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Gleeson, A. C. & Cullis, B. R. (1987). Residual maximum likelihood (REML) estimation of a neighbour model for field experiments. Biometrics 43, 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempton, R. A. (1984). The design and analysis of unreplicated field trials. Vorträge für Pflanzenzüchtung 7, 219–242.Google Scholar
Kempton, R. A. & Howes, C. W. (1981). The use of neighbouring plot values in the analysis of variety trials. Applied Statistics 30, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, C. S. & Poushinsky, G. (1985). A modified augmented design (type 2) for rectangular plots. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 65, 743–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. J. (1985). Some theoretical results on the design and analysis of experiments with second-order stationary spatially correlated errors. Proceedings of the Biometric Society Workshop on Spatial Methods for Field Experiments (Ed. Kempton, R. A.), pp. 22–23. Durham: University of Durham.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Hunter, E. A. (1983). The efficiency of incomplete block designs in National List and Recommended cereal variety trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 427–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Richey, F. D. (1926). The moving mean as a basis for measuring correlated variation in agronomic experiments. Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 1161–1175.Google Scholar
Williams, E. R. & Luckett, D. J. (1988). The use of uniformity data in the design and analysis of cotton and barley variety trials. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 39, 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1940). Modern experimental design and its function in plant selection. Empire Journal of Experimental Agriculture 8, 223–230.Google Scholar