Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:29:08.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of interference between plots on yield performance in crop variety trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. Talbot ,
A. D. Milner ,
M. A. E. Nutkins  and
J. R. Law
M. Talbot
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service, University of Edinburgh, Kings Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK
A. D. Milner
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service, University of Edinburgh, Kings Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK
M. A. E. Nutkins
Affiliation:
National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 OLE, UK
J. R. Law
Affiliation:
National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 OLE, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Methods are described for estimating interplot interference in variety trials. The effects on variety yield performance of interference from varieties in adjacent plots was studied for more than 600 UK National and Recommended List variety trials in the years 1987–1991. The crops examined were barley, wheat, oats, grain peas, beans, oilseed rape, forage maize and sugarbeet. Estimates of differences in variety performance may be biased by as much as 4% in some crops. Factors associated with interference included plant height, standing ability and disease susceptibility. An approach is outlined for limiting the effects of interference through controlled randomization within trials.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 124 , Issue 3 , June 1995 , pp. 335 - 342
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.)

References

Aastveit, A. H., Buraas, T. & Gullord, M. (1989). Interplot competition in oats and barley variety trials. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 39, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R. J. & Rossnagel, B. G. (1988). Interplot competition between wheat or barley cultivars of differing heights. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 68, 1129–1132.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
Bradshaw, J. E. (1986). Competition between cultivars of fodder kale (Brassica oleracea L.) in yield trials with single-row plots. Euphytica 35, 433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, J. E. (1989). Inter-plot competition in yield trials of swedes (Brassica napus ssp. rapifera L.). Euphytica 42, 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R. A. (1979). Are your results confounded by intergenotypic competition? In Proceedings of the Vth International Wheat Genetics Symposium, Vol. 2, pp. 767–777. New Delhi.Google Scholar
Jensen, N. F. & Federer, W. T. (1964). Adjacent row competition in wheat. Crop Science 4, 641–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawano, K., Amaya, A., Daza, P. & Rios, M. (1978). Factors affecting efficiency of hybridization and selection in cassava. Crop Science 18, 373–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempton, R. A. (1982). Adjustment for competition between varieties in plant breeding trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 98, 599–611.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. & Lockwood, G. (1984). Inter-plot competition in variety trials of field beans (Viciafaba L.). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempton, R. A., Gregory, R. S., Hughes, W. G. & Stoehr, P. J. (1986). The effect of interplot competition on yield assessment in triticale trials. Euphytica 35, 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipps, P. E. & Madden, L. V. (1992). Effects of plot size and border width on assessment of powdery mildew of winter wheat. Plant Disease 76, 299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parlevliet, J. E. & Van Ommeren, A. (1984). Interplot interference and the assessment of barley cultivars for partial resistance of leaf rust, Puccinia hordei. Euphytica 33, 685–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paysour, R. E. & Fry, W. E. (1983). Interplot interference: a model for planning field experiments with aerially disseminated pathogens. Phytopathology 73, 1014–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbot, M. & England, F. J. W. (1984). A comparison of cereal variety performance in national list and plant breeders' trials. Journal of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany 16, 499–505.Google Scholar
Talbot, M., Kempton, R. A., Mobbs, D. C., Law, J. R. & Nutkins, M. A. E. (1993). Plot Interference in National List Trials, Final Report on MAFF Project CSA 1970. Edinburgh: Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service.Google Scholar
Van Der Plank, J. E. (1963). Plant Diseases: Epidemics and Control. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar