Statistical aspects of on-farm experimentation
Hans-Peter Piepho A F , Christel Richter B , Joachim Spilke C , Karin Hartung A , Arndt Kunick D and Heinrich Thöle E
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A University of Hohenheim, Institute of Crop Science, Fruwirthstrasse 23, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany.
B Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture, Department of Crop and Animal Sciences, 10115 Berlin, Germany.
C Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Biometrics and Informatics in Agriculture Group, Karl-Freiherr-von-Fritsch-Str. 4, 06120 Halle, Germany.
D Agri Con GmbH, Precision Farming Company, Im Wiesengrund 4, 04749 Jahna, Germany.
E Julius-Kühn-Institut, Institute for Biosafety of Genetically Modified Plants, Messeweg 11712, 38104 Braunschweig, Germany.
F Corresponding author. Email: piepho@uni-hohenheim.de
Crop and Pasture Science 62(9) 721-735 https://doi.org/10.1071/CP11175
Submitted: 8 July 2011 Accepted: 2 September 2011 Published: 10 November 2011
Abstract
This paper reviews options for the design and analysis of on-farm experiments. It covers both older approaches that have been popular since the Green Revolution, and more recent developments made possible by the availability of online monitoring systems as used in precision farming. The roles of randomisation as well as of geostatistical methods of analysis for these kinds of experiments are critically discussed. Two case studies are provided for illustration.
Additional keywords: geostatistics, kriging, precision agriculture, precision farming, spatial statistics.
References
Atlin GN, Baker RJ, McRae KB, Lu X (2000) Selection response in subdivided target regions. Crop Science 40, 7–13.| Selection response in subdivided target regions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bachmaier M, Gandorfer M (2009) A conceptual framework for judging the precision agriculture hypothesis with regard to site-specific nitrogen application. Precision Agriculture 10, 95–110.
| A conceptual framework for judging the precision agriculture hypothesis with regard to site-specific nitrogen application.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bailey RA, Azaïs J, Monod H (1995) Are neighbour methods preferable to analysis of variance for completely systematic designs? ‘Silly designs are silly!’ Biometrika 82, 655–659.
Bishop TFA, Lark RM (2006) The geostatistical analysis of experiments at the landscape-scale. Geoderma 133, 87–106.
| The geostatistical analysis of experiments at the landscape-scale.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bradley JP, Knittle KH, Troyer AF (1988) Statistical methods in seed corn product selection. Journal of Production Agriculture 1, 34–38.
Buerkert A, Bationo A, Piepho HP (2001) Efficient phosphorus application strategies for increased crop production in sub-Saharan West Africa. Field Crops Research 72, 1–15.
| Efficient phosphorus application strategies for increased crop production in sub-Saharan West Africa.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Caliński T, Czajka S, Kaczmarek Z, Krajewski P, Pilarczyk W (2005) Analyzing multi-environment variety trials using randomization-derived mixed models. Biometrics 61, 448–455.
| Analyzing multi-environment variety trials using randomization-derived mixed models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chambers R (1981) Rapid rural appraisal: Rationale and repertoire. Public Administration and Development 1, 95–106.
| Rapid rural appraisal: Rationale and repertoire.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chambers R (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development 22, 953–969.
| The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cox DR (2009) Randomization in the design of experiments. International Statistical Review 77, 415–429.
| Randomization in the design of experiments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dobermann A, Ping JL, Adamchuk VI, Simbahan GC, Ferguson RB (2003) Classification of crop yield variability in irrigated production fields. Agronomy Journal 95, 1105–1120.
| Classification of crop yield variability in irrigated production fields.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Eilittä M, Sollenberger LE, Littell RC, Harrington LW (2003a) On-farm experiments with maize–mucuna systems in the Los Tuxlas region of Veracruz, Mexico. I. Mucuna biomass and maize grain yield. Experimental Agriculture 39, 5–17.
| On-farm experiments with maize–mucuna systems in the Los Tuxlas region of Veracruz, Mexico. I. Mucuna biomass and maize grain yield.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Eilittä M, Sollenberger LE, Littell RC, Harrington LW (2003b) On-farm experiments with maize–mucuna systems in the Los Tuxlas region of Veracruz, Mexico. II. Mucuna variety evaluation and subsequent maize grain yield. Experimental Agriculture 39, 19–27.
| On-farm experiments with maize–mucuna systems in the Los Tuxlas region of Veracruz, Mexico. II. Mucuna variety evaluation and subsequent maize grain yield.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Federer WT (1955) ‘Experimental design.’ (The MacMillan Company: New York)
Fielding WJ, Riley J (1998) Aspects of design of on-farm fertilizer trials. Experimental Agriculture 34, 219–230.
| Aspects of design of on-farm fertilizer trials.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gilmour AR, Cullis BR, Verbyla AP (1997) Accounting for natural and extraneous variation in the analysis of field experiments. Journal of Agricultural, Biological & Environmental Statistics 2, 269–293.
| Accounting for natural and extraneous variation in the analysis of field experiments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gotway Crawford CA, Bullock DG, Pierce FJ, Stroup WW, Hergert GW, Eskridge KM (1997) Experimental design issues and statistical evaluation techniques for site-specific management. In ‘The state of site-specific management for agriculture’. (Eds FJ Pierce, EJ Sadler) pp. 301–336. (American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI)
Griffin TW, Dobbins CL, Vyn TJ, Florax RJGM, Lowenberg-DeBoer JM (2008) Spatial analysis of yield monitor data: case studies of on-farm trials and farm management decision making. Precision Agriculture 9, 269–283.
| Spatial analysis of yield monitor data: case studies of on-farm trials and farm management decision making.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Groot JCJ, van der Ploog JD, Verhoeven FPM, Lantinga EA (2007) Interpretation of results from on-farm experiments: manure-nitrogen recovery on grassland as affected by manure quality and application technique. 1. An agronomic analysis. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 54, 235–254.
Hildebrand PE (1984) Modified stability analysis of farmer managed, on-farm trials. Agronomy Journal 76, 271–274.
| Modified stability analysis of farmer managed, on-farm trials.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hong N, White JG, Gumpertz ML, Weisz R (2005) Spatial analysis of precision agriculture treatments in randomized complete blocks: Guidelines for covariance model selection. Agronomy Journal 97, 1082–1096.
| Spatial analysis of precision agriculture treatments in randomized complete blocks: Guidelines for covariance model selection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hurley TM, Malzer GL, Kilian B (2004) Estimating site-specific crop response functions: A conceptual framework and geostatistical model. Agronomy Journal 96, 1331–1343.
| Estimating site-specific crop response functions: A conceptual framework and geostatistical model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM (1989) ‘An introduction to applied geostatistics.’ (Oxford University Press: New York)
John JA, Williams ER (1995) ‘Cyclic and computer generated designs.’ 2nd edn (Chapman and Hall: London)
Johnson DH (2006) The many faces of replication. Crop Science 46, 2486–2491.
| The many faces of replication.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lambert DM, Lowenberg-Deboer J, Bongiovanni R (2004) A comparison of four spatial regression models for yield monitor data: A case study from Argentina. Precision Agriculture 5, 579–600.
| A comparison of four spatial regression models for yield monitor data: A case study from Argentina.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lark RM, Wheeler HC (2003) A method to investigate within-field variation of the response of combinable crops to an input. Agronomy Journal 95, 1093–1104.
| A method to investigate within-field variation of the response of combinable crops to an input.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Leithold P, Traphan K (2006) On farm research (OFR)—a novel experimental design for Precision Farming. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 157–164.
Littell RC, Henry PR, Ammerman CB (1998) Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1216–1231.
Mead R (1988) ‘The design of experiments. Statistical principles for practical application.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
Milliken G, Willers J, McCarter K, Jenkins J (2010) Designing experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of precision agricultural practices on research fields: Part 1. Concepts for their formulation. Operations Research 10, 329–348.
Möhring J, Piepho HP (2009) Comparison of weighting in two-stage analyses of series of experiments. Crop Science 49, 1977–1988.
Mugwe J, Mugendi D, Kungu J, Muna MM (2009) Maize yields response to application of organic and inorganic input under on-station and on-farm experiments in Central Kenya. Experimental Agriculture 45, 47–59.
| Maize yields response to application of organic and inorganic input under on-station and on-farm experiments in Central Kenya.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXhsFWktbvP&md5=36160b9c6655256b0f4d1ed9a502f40cCAS |
Panten K, Bramley RGV, Lark RM, Bishop TFA (2010) Enhancing the value of field experimentation through whole-of-block designs. Precision Agriculture 11, 198–213.
| Enhancing the value of field experimentation through whole-of-block designs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Perry JN, Rothery P, Clark SJ, Heard MS, Hawes C (2003) Design, analysis and statistical power of the farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 17–31.
| Design, analysis and statistical power of the farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Petersen RG (1994) ‘Agricultural field experiments. Design and analysis.’ (Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York)
Piepho HP (1997) Analysis of a randomized complete block design with unequal subclass numbers. Agronomy Journal 89, 718–723.
| Analysis of a randomized complete block design with unequal subclass numbers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Piepho HP (1998) Methods for comparing the yield stability of cropping systems—a review. Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science 180, 193–213.
| Methods for comparing the yield stability of cropping systems—a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Piepho HP, Möhring J (2005) Best linear unbiased prediction for subdivided target regions. Crop Science 45, 1151–1159.
| Best linear unbiased prediction for subdivided target regions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Piepho HP, Büchse A, Richter C (2004) A mixed modelling approach to randomized experiments with repeated measures. Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science 190, 230–247.
| A mixed modelling approach to randomized experiments with repeated measures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Piepho HP, Richter C, Williams ER (2008) Nearest neighbour adjustment and linear variance models in plant breeding trials. Biometrical Journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift 50, 164–189.
| Nearest neighbour adjustment and linear variance models in plant breeding trials.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ping JL, Dobermann A (2003) Creating spatially contiguous yield classes for site-specific management. Agronomy Journal 95, 1121–1131.
| Creating spatially contiguous yield classes for site-specific management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Plant RE (2007) Comparison of means of spatial data in unreplicated trials. Agronomy Journal 99, 481–484.
| Comparison of means of spatial data in unreplicated trials.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pringle MJ, Cook SE, McBratney AB (2004a) Field-scale experiments for site-specific crop management. Part I: Design considerations. Precision Agriculture 5, 617–624.
| Field-scale experiments for site-specific crop management. Part I: Design considerations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pringle MJ, McBratney AB, Cook SE (2004b) Field-scale experiments for site-specific crop management. Part II. Geostatistical analysis. Precision Agriculture 5, 625–645.
| Field-scale experiments for site-specific crop management. Part II. Geostatistical analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Raman KA, Ladha JK, Kumar V, Sharma S, Piepho HP (2011) Stability analysis of farmer participatory trials for conservation agriculture using mixed models. Field Crops Research 121, 450–459.
| Stability analysis of farmer participatory trials for conservation agriculture using mixed models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Riley J, Alexander C (1997) Statistical literature for participatory on-farm research. Experimental Agriculture 33, 73–82.
| Statistical literature for participatory on-farm research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ritter C, Dicke D, Weis M, Oebel H, Piepho HP, Büchse A, Gerhards R (2008) An on-farm research approach to quantify yield variability and derive decision rules for site-specific weed management. Precision Agriculture 9, 133–146.
| An on-farm research approach to quantify yield variability and derive decision rules for site-specific weed management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Robinson GK (1991) That BLUP is a good thing: The estimation of random effects. Statistical Science 6, 15–32.
| That BLUP is a good thing: The estimation of random effects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rothery P, Clark SJ, Perry JN (2003) Design of the farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Environmetrics 14, 711–717.
| Design of the farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Senn S, Stevens L, Chaturvedi N (2000) Tutorial in biostatistics—repeated measurements in clinical trials: simple strategies for analysis using summary measures. Statistics in Medicine 19, 861–877.
| Tutorial in biostatistics—repeated measurements in clinical trials: simple strategies for analysis using summary measures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3gtVKnsA%3D%3D&md5=459a1c2bf325b8281a061331aab43a65CAS |
Smith A, Cullis BR, Gilmour A (2001) The analysis of crop variety evaluation data in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics 43, 129–145.
| The analysis of crop variety evaluation data in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Spaner D, Todd AG (2004) Farmer-directed on-farm experimentation examining the impact of companion planting barley and oats on timothy-alfalfa forage establishment in central Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 84, 217–221.
| Farmer-directed on-farm experimentation examining the impact of companion planting barley and oats on timothy-alfalfa forage establishment in central Newfoundland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Spilke J, Richter C, Piepho HP (2010) Model selection and its consequences for different split-plot designs with spatial covariance and trend. Plant Breeding 129, 590–598.
| Model selection and its consequences for different split-plot designs with spatial covariance and trend.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stroup WW, Hildebrand PE, Francis CA (1993) Farmer participation for more effective research in sustainable agriculture. In ‘Technologies for sustainable agriculture in the tropics’. American Society of Agronomy Special Publication 56. (Eds J Ragland, R Lal) pp. 153–186. (ASA: Madison, WI)
Talbot M (1984) Yield variability of crop varieties in the U.K. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 315–321.
Troyer AF, Wellin EJ (2009) Heterosis decreasing in hybrids: yield test inbreds. Crop Science 49, 1969–1976.
| Heterosis decreasing in hybrids: yield test inbreds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (2001) ‘Linear models for longitudinal data.’ (Springer: Berlin)
Virk DS, Pandit DB, Sufian MA, Ahmed F, Siddique MAB, Samad MA, Rahman MM, Islam MM, Ortiz-Ferrara G, Joshi KD, Witcombe JR (2009) REML is an effective analysis for mixed modeling of unbalanced on-farm varietal trials. Experimental Agriculture 45, 77–91.
| REML is an effective analysis for mixed modeling of unbalanced on-farm varietal trials.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Willers JL, Milliken GA, Jenkins JN, O’Hara CG, Gerard PD, Reynolds DB, Boykin DL, Good PV, Hood KB (2008) Defining the experimental unit for the design and analysis of site-specific experiments in commercial cotton fields. Agricultural Systems 96, 237–249.
| Defining the experimental unit for the design and analysis of site-specific experiments in commercial cotton fields.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wolfinger RD (1993) Covariance structure selection in general mixed models. Communications in Statistics A 22, 1079–1106.
Wuest SB, Miller BC, Alldredge JR, Guy SO, Karow RS, Veseth RJ, Wysocki DJ (1994) Increasing plot length reduces experimental error of on-farm tests. Journal of Production Agriculture 7, 211–215.
Yadav RL (2001) On-farm experiments on integrated nutrient management in rice-wheat cropping systems. Experimental Agriculture 37, 99–113.
| On-farm experiments on integrated nutrient management in rice-wheat cropping systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Yan W, Hunt LA, Johnson P, Stewart G, Lu X (2002) On-farm strip trials vs. replicated performance trials for cultivar evaluation. Crop Science 42, 385–392.
| On-farm strip trials vs. replicated performance trials for cultivar evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
