English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The use of nearest neighbors and spatial models (SPAT) to analyze field trial data has become commonplace in recent years. These two types of analyses improve precision compared to ANOV A when trials are poorly blocked, but results are less clear in well-blocked trials. We examined data from wheat trials containing 60 cultivars, conducted at five locations, where each location was set up as an alpha lattice design. We compared the relative efficiency of detecting cultivar differences for spatial models and nearest neighbors analyses (NNA) to ANOV A, fit of the models, and correlations of ranked cultivars. Though the SPAT and NN A generally outperformed the ANOV A, the selection of desirable cultivars remained relatively unchanged when using a well-blocked design analyzed with an ANOV A.

ARE SPATIAL MODELS NEEDED WITH ADEQUATELY BLOCKED FIELD TRIALS?