Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T22:29:52.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Importance of the Shape of Plots in Field Experimentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Basil G. Christidis
Basil G. Christidis
Affiliation:
Greek Ministry of Agriculture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the course of the last 20 or 25 years it has been established clearly that agricultural experiments carried out under field conditions are subject to an appreciable error, due chiefly to soil heterogeneity. In order to avoid the effect of this disturbing factor, which greatly affects the reliability of data given by field trials, two questions had to be carefully considered: (1) how to secure greater uniformity in soil conditions; and (2) what is the best method of getting a criterion of the accuracy of the experiment and an adequate interpretation of the results obtained?

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 1931 , pp. 14 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1931

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

(1)Day, J. M.The relation of size, shape and number of replications of plots to probable error in field experimentation. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1920), 12, 100–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Enqledow, F. L. and Yule, G. U.The Principles and Practice of Yield Trials. Published by the Empire Cotton Growing Corp., London, 1927.Google Scholar
(3)Fisher, R. A.Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Third edition. Edinburgh, 1930.Google Scholar
(4)Fisher, R. A. and Wishart, J. The arrangement of field experiments and the statistical reduction of the results. Tech. Com. No. 10, of the Imp. Bureau of Soil Science, Rothamsted, 1930.Google Scholar
(5)Hayes, H. K. and Arny, A. C.Experiments in field technic in rod row tests. J. Agric. Res. (1917), 11, 399–419.Google Scholar
(6)Kiesselbach, T. A.Studies concerning the elimination of experimental error in comparative crop tests. Res. Bull. Nebraska Agric. Sta. (1918), No. 93, 1–95.Google Scholar
(7)Kiesselbach, T. A.Competition as a source of error in comparative corn yield. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1923), 15, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Love, H. H.The experimental error in field trials. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1919), 11, 212–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Lyon, T. L.Some experiments to estimate errors in field plot tests. Proc. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1911), 3, 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Mercer, W. B. and Hall, A. D.The experimental error of field trials. J. Agric. Sci. (1911), 4, 107–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Montgomery, E. G.Competition in cereals. Bull. Nebraska Agric. Exp. Sta. (1912), No. 127, 1–22.Google Scholar
(12)Pearson, E. D.Census of a Small Plot of Wheat. (Unpublished.) Cambridge (1929).Google Scholar
(13)Stadler, L. J. Experiments in field plot technic for the preliminary determination of comparative yields in the small grains. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. (1921), Bull. 49.Google Scholar
(14)Stephens, J. G.Experimental methods and the probable error in field experiments with sorghum. J. Agric. Res. (1928), 37, 629–46.Google Scholar
(15)Stringfield, G. H.Intervarietal competition among small grains. J. Agric. Soc. Agron. (1927), 19, 971–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)“Student” On testing varieties of cereals. Biometrika (1923), 15, 271–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar