Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T20:12:33.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter-plot interference and nearest-neighbour analysis of field experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. E. Ainsley,
G. V. Dyke and
J. F. Jenkyn
A. E. Ainsley
Affiliation:
IACR-Rothamsted, Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ, UK
G. V. Dyke
Affiliation:
IACR-Rothamsted, Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ, UK
J. F. Jenkyn
Affiliation:
IACR-Rothamsted, Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ, UK
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Results obtained from the plots of a field experiment may be subject to’ representational errors'; that is, they may not exactly reproduce the results that would be expected if the same treatments were applied to whole fields. In particular, the treatment applied to one particular plot often has the potential to affect the adjacent plots; such an effect may be positive or negative according to circumstances, and its magnitude cannot easily be estimated. This paper shows, on theoretical grounds and by simulations, that nearest-neighbour (NN) analysis cannot be relied upon to mitigate the effects of such inter-plot interference, even when the residual variance of the NN analysis is substantially, and by normal criteria significantly, smaller than that of conventional (randomized block) analysis. In certain circumstances, NN analysis of data affected by interference produces greater average bias in estimated treatment differences than conventional analysis.

Information

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 125 , Issue 1 , August 1995, pp. 1 - 9
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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
Bartlett, M.S. (1938). The approximate recovery of information from replicated field experiments with large blocks. Journal of Agricultural Science 28, 418–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, M. S. (1978). Nearest neighbour models in the analysis of field experiments. [With Discussion.] Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 40, 147–174.Google Scholar
Besag, J. & Kempton, R. (1986). Statistical analysis of field experiments using neighbouring plots. Biometrics 42, 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chin, K. M., Wolfe, M. S. & Minchin, P. N. (1984). Hostmediated interactions between pathogen genotypes. Plant Pathology 33, 161–171.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
Glasbey, C. A. (1988). Standard errors resilient to error variance misspecification. Biometrika 75, 201–206.CrossRefGoogle 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, Series 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 infestans). Phytopathology 63, 1269–1275.CrossRefGoogle 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. & Dyke, G. V. (1985). Interference between plots in experiments with plant pathogens. Aspects of Applied Biology 10, Field trials methods and data handling, 75–85.Google 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., Dyke, G. V., Stedman, O. J. & Todd, A. D. (1989). Interactions between plots in experiments with the splash-dispersed pathogen Rhynchosporium secalison winter barley. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 112, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempton, R. A. (1985). Statistical models for interplot competition. Aspects of Applied Biology 10, Field trials methods and data handling, 111–120.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
Kempton, R. A. & Lockwood, G. (1984). Inter-plot competition in variety trials of field beans (Viciafaba L.). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, H. G. (1985). Interference between small plots in winter barley nitrogen fertiliser experiments. Aspects of Applied Biology 10, Field trials methods and data handling, 99–110.Google Scholar
Papadakis, J. S. (1937). Methode statistique pour des experiences sur champ. Thessaloniki Plant Breeding Institute Bulletin No. 23.Google Scholar
Papadakis, J. S. (1984). Advances in the analysis of field experiments. Proceedings of the Athens Academy 59, 326–342.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
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
Earce, S. C. (1957). Experimenting with organisms as blocks. Biometrika 44, 141–149.Google Scholar
Ripley, B. D. (1978). In discussion of Bartlett (1978), pp. 162–163.Google Scholar
Searle, S. R. (1971). Linear Models. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Smedegaard-Peterson, V. & Stolen, O. (1980). Resistance against barley powdery mildew associated with energyconsuming defence reactions which reduce yield and grain quality. Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark. Yearbook 1980, pp. 96–108.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. [With Discussion.] Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 45, 151–211.Google Scholar