Statistical selection for estimating the accuracy in experimental corn trials.

Authors

  • Román Gordón-Mendoza Instituto de Investigación Agropecuaria de Panamá (IDIAP), Panamá.
  • Ismael Camargo-Buitargo Instituto de Investigación Agropecuaria de Panamá (IDIAP), Panamá.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15517/am.v26i1.16920

Keywords:

repeatability, coefficient of variation, mean square error, standard error of difference

Abstract

The objective of this study was to select the most optimal statistic to estimate the experimental accuracy and to assess the Coefficient of Variation often used to estimate the validity of experiments. For the analysis, 406 trials were included; from research conducted at El Ejido Experimental Station and at cornfields of contributing producers of Azuero Region, Panama, during 2000-2013. To each trial it was calculated the various components of variance or Mean Square (MS), Coefficient of Variation (CV), Repeatability, Rank, Least Significant Differences (LSD), Standard Error (SE), Coefficient of determination (R2) of treatment and residual. We found that the CV is more related than repeatability with the overall mean of the experiment (correlation index of 0.57 vs. 0.24), thus being less robust to indicate experimental accuracy. Increasing the number of repetitions of experiments with the same MS Error reduced the SE and increased accuracy. The repeatability of the experiment was highly related to both treatments R2 (0.93) and the unexplained fraction model (0.87), in contrast with the CV (0.23 and 0.23, respectively). When repeatability and CV were linked to the DMS/Range ratio, it was found that repeatability is highly correlated (R2 = 0.76) with this ratio, while the CV provided an R2 of 0.18. This result suggests that the repeatability is a better indicator than the CV for good experimental accuracy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Barreto, H., y W.R. Raun. 1990. La precisión experimental de los ensayos regionales con maíz (Zea mays) a través de Centroamérica. En: T.J. Smyth, W.R. Raun y F. Bertsch, editores, Segundo Taller Latinoamericano de manejo de suelos tropicales, San José, Costa Rica 9-13 julio. Soil Science Department, North Carolina State University, NC, USA. p. 99-105.

Bowman, D.T., y J.O. Rawlings. 1995. Establishing a rejection procedure for crop performance data. Agron. J. 87:147-151.

Bowman, D.T., y C.E. Watson. 1997. Measures of validity in cultivar performance trials. Agron. J. 89:860-866.

Bowman, D.T. 2001. Common use of the CV: a statistical aberration in crop performance trials (Contemporary Issue). J. Cotton Sci. 5:137-141.

Gauch, H.G., y R.W. Zobel. 1996. Optimal replication in selection experiments. Crop Sci. 36:838-843.

Gómez, K.A., y A.A. Gómez 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. John Wiley Inter Science, Hoboken, NJ, USA.

Martínez, A. 1988. Diseños experimentales: métodos y elementos de teoría. Editorial Trillas, México.

Martínez, E. 2005. Errores frecuentes en la interpretación del coeficiente de determinación lineal. Anuario Jurídico y Económico Escurialense 38:315-332.

Patel, J.K., N.M. Patel, y R.L. Shiyani. 2001. Coefficient of variation in field experiments and yardstick thereof-an empirical study. Curr. Sci. 81(9):1163-1164.

Pimentel, F. 1985. Curso de estatística experimental. Livraria Nobel S.A., São Paulo, Brasil.

Ruíz-Ramírez, J. 2010. Eficiencia relativa y calidad de los experimentos de fertilización en el cultivo de caña de azúcar. Terra Latinoamericana 28:149-154.

Ruíz, D., y A.M. Sánchez. 2006. Apuntes de estadística. www.eumed.net/libros-gratis/2006a/rmss/index.htm (Consultado 7 jul. 2014).

Silveira Jr., P., J.B. Da Silva, A. Almeida, y E.P. Zonta. 1986. Estatística geral. Estatística Experimental. Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Brasil.

Steel, R.G., y J.H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. A biometrical approach. 2nd ed. Mc Graw-Hill, NY, USA.

Taylor, S.L., M.E. Payton, y W.R. Raun. 1999. Relationship between mean yield, coefficient of variation, mean square error and plot size in wheat field experiments. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal 30:1439-1447.

Vargas, M., E. Combs, G. Alvarado, G. Atlin, K. Mathews, y J. Crossa. 2013. META: A suite of SAS Programs to analyze multi environment breeding trials. Agron. J. 105:11-19.

Vásquez, E.R., y A. Caballero. 2011. Inconsistencia del coeficiente de variación para expresar la variabilidad de un experimento en un modelo de análisis de varianza. Cultivos Tropicales 32(3):42-45.

Yan, W., y J.B. Holland. 2010. A heritability-adjusted GGE Biplot for test environmental evaluation. Euphytica 171:355-369.

Published

2015-01-01

How to Cite

Gordón-Mendoza, R., & Camargo-Buitargo, I. (2015). Statistical selection for estimating the accuracy in experimental corn trials. Agronomía Mesoamericana, 26(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.15517/am.v26i1.16920

Most read articles by the same author(s)