Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T22:24:26.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative accuracy of a neighbour method for field trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

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

Summary

Two scries of simulation experiments were used to investigate the accuracy of treatment and variance estimation with a neighbour analysis of field trials proposed by Gleeson & Cullis (1987). The first series examined the accuracy of residual maximum likelihood (REML) estimation of seven theoretical error models applicable to field trials. REML estimation provided accurate estimates of the variance parameters, but the Ftest of treatments was slightly biased upward (to +2·4%) for first differences models and slightly biased downwards (to –1·4%) for second differences models. The second series of simulations, based on 19 uniformity data sets, illustrated that treatment effects were consistently estimated more accurately by the REML neighbour (RN) analysis of Gleeson & Cullis (1987) than by incomplete block (IB) analysis with recovery of interblock information. The relative gain in accuracy of RN over IB depends on the amount of systematic variation or ‘trend’ in the trial, and ranged from 6 to 18% with an average of 12% for a range of trend and error variances commonly encountered in field trials. The predicted average standard errors of pairwise treatment differences from the RN analysis were in close agreement with their empirical estimates, indicating that the predicted average S.E.D. is approximately valid.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 111 , Issue 2 , October 1988 , pp. 339 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Ansley, C. F. & Newbold, P. (1979). On the finite sample distribution of residual autocorrelations in autoregressive moving average time series models. Biometrika 66, 547–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besag, J. & Kempton, R. (1986). Statistical analysis of field experiments using neighbouring plots. Biometrics 42, 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D. M. & Thompson, R. (1977). A note on the estimation of the parameters of the autoregressive-moving average process. Biometrika 64, 625–628.Google Scholar
Cullis, B. R. (1987). Analysis of repeated measures data from designed experiments. Ph.D. thesis, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Garber, R. J., McIlvaine, R. C. & Hoover, M. M. (1926). A study of soil heterogeneity in experimental plots. Journal of Agricultural Research 33, 255–268.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. J., Jennison, C. & Seheult, A. H. (1985). Analysis of field experiments by least squares smoothing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 47, 299–315.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
Kiefer, J. & Wynn, H. P. (1981). Optimum balanced block and latin square designs for correlated observations. Annals of Statistics 9, 737–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, C. S., Poushinsky, G. & Jui, P. Y. (1983). Simulation study of three adjustment methods for the modified augmented design and comparison with the balanced lattice square design. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100, 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. J. (1986). On the design of experiments under spatial correlation. Biometrika 73, 247–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadakis, J. S. (1937). Methode statistique pour des expériences sur champ. Bulletin de l' Institut d' Amélioration des Plantes à Salonique, No. 23.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Hunter, E. A. (1983). The efficiency of incomplete block designs in National List and Recommended List cereal variety trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 427–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Thompson, R. (1971). Recovery of interblock information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58, 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D., Williams, E. R. & Hunter, E. A. (1978). Block designs for variety trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swallow, W. H. & Monahan, J. F. (1984). Monte Carlo comparison of ANOVA, MIVQUE, REML and ML estimators of variance components. Technometrics 26, 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weibe, G. A. (1935). Variation and correlation in grain yield among 1500 wheat nursery plots. Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 331–357.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, G. N., Eckert, S. R., Hancock, T. W. & Mayo, O. (1983). Nearest neighbour (NN) analysis of field experiments (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 45, 152–212.Google Scholar
Williams, E. R. (1986). A neighbour model for field experiments. Biometrika 73, 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1936). A new method of arranging variety trials involving large numbers of varieties. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 26, 424–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar