Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:53:45.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interactions between plots in experiments with the splash-dispersed pathogen Rhynchosporium secalis on winter barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. F. Jenkyn ,
G. V. Dyke ,
O. J. Stedman  and
A. D. Todd
J. F. Jenkyn
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ
G. V. Dyke
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ
O. J. Stedman
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ
A. D. Todd
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Experiments of balanced design in harvest years 1981 and 1982 were used to measure interactions between plots of winter barley with different amounts of leaf blotch, caused by the splash-dispersed pathogen Rhynchosporium secalis. On the appropriate transform scales (logarithms of counts and logits of percentages), the effects of extreme treatments on neighbouring plots were up to 30% of the effects of the same treatments on the plots to which they were applied. Powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei) was commonly least severe in plots with most leaf blotch except soon after fungicide sprays had been applied which, although chosen to decrease leaf blotch, also had short-lived effects on mildew. Consequently, contrasts in mildew between differently treated plots changed sign during the season. The effects of the same treatments on neighbouring plots similarly changed with time but not necessarily in phase with their direct effects. Analyses of the rhynchosporium data that recognized the effects of neighbouring treatments typically had much smaller residual mean squares than analyses that ignored neighbour effects but assumed randomized block designs.

Treatments had mostly small effects on grain yield but these data from two of the experiments showed marked positional variation. Individual plots yields from one of these experiments, testing five treatments, are quoted in the appendix so that they are available to others with an interest in alternative methods, such as nearest-neighbour models, to adjust for local correlations between plots.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 112 , Issue 1 , February 1989 , pp. 97 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Anon. (1976). Manual of plant growth stage and disease assessment keys. London: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, A. & Jenkyn, J. F. (1976). Mildew reinfection in adjacent and separated plots of sprayed barley. Annals of Applied Biology 82, 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, K. L., Teng, P. S. & Roelfs, A. P. (1984). Negative interplot interference in field experiments with leaf rust of wheat. Phytopathology 74, 1157–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, N. R. & Guttman, I. (1980). Incorporating overlap effects from neighbouring units into response surface models. Applied Statistics 29, 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyke, G. V. & Shelley, C. F. (1976). Serial designs balanced for effects of neighbours on both sides. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87, 303–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitt, B. D. L. & McCartney, H. A. (1986). Spore dispersal in splash droplets. In Water, Fungi and Plants (ed. Ayres, P. G. & Boddy, L.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, M. F. (1981). Computer construction of experimental plans. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.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
Green, P., Jennison, C. & Seheult, A. (1985). Analysis of field experiments by least squares smoothing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 47, 299–315.Google Scholar
James, W. C., Shih, C. S., Callbeck, L. C. & Hodgson, W. A. (1973). Interplot interference in field experiments with late blight of potato (Phytophthora infeslans). Phytopathology 63, 1269–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. C., Shih, C. S., Hodgson, W. A. & Callbeck, L. C. (1976). Representational errors due to interplot interference in field experiments with late blight of potato. Phytopathology 66, 695–700.Google Scholar
Jenkyn, J. F. & Bainbridge, A. (1974). Disease gradients and small plot experiments on barley mildew. Annals of Applied Biology 76, 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkyn, J. F., Bainbridge, A., Dyke, G. V. & Todd, A. D. (1979). An investigation into inter-plot interactions, in experiments with mildew on barley, using balanced designs. Annals of Applied Biology 92, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkyn, J. F., Dyke, G. V. & Todd, A. D. (1983). Effects of fungicide movement between plots in field experiments. Plant Pathology 32, 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkyn, J. F., Stedman, O. J., Dyke, G. V. & Todd, A. D. (1989). Effects of straw inoculum and fungicides on leaf blotch (Rhynchosporium secalis), growth and yield of winter barley. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 112, 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. J. (1984). Some theoretical results on the design and analysis of experiments with second-order stationary spatially correlated errors and some fits for such error processes. In Spatial Methods in Field Experiments (Biometric Society Workshop at the University of Durham, 13 12 1984).Google Scholar
Parlevliet, J. E. & Van Ommeren, A. (1984). Interplot interference and the assessment of barley cultivars for partial resistance to leaf rust, Puccinia hordei. Euphytica 33, 685–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzbach, E. (1984). A new approach in the evaluation of field trials. The determination of the most likely genetic ranking of varieties. Vorträge für Pflanzenzüchtung 6, 249–259.Google Scholar
Van Der Plank, J. E. (1963). Plant Diseases: Epidemics and Control. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, G. N., Eckert, S. R., Hancock, T. W. & Mayo, O. (1983). Nearest neighbour (NN) analysis of field experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 45, 151–211.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, G. N. & Rogers, C. E. (1973). Symbolic description of factorial models for analysis of variance. Applied Statistics 22, 392–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar