The Size of the Uniformity Trial Affects the Accuracy of Plot Size Estimation in Eggplant


  •  Dionatan K. Krysczun    
  •  Alessandro D. Lúcio    
  •  Bruno G. Sari    
  •  Maria I. Diel    
  •  Tiago Olivoto    
  •  José A. G. da Silva    
  •  Cinthya S. Santana    
  •  Patrícia J. Melo    
  •  Sabrina M. Gomes    

Abstract

The plot size estimation is based on uniformity trials, however little is known about and how the size of uniformity trial affects the estimate of the plot size. That way, the aim of this study was to determine the influence of uniformity trial size on the estimation of plot size in the eggplant crop. Two uniformity trials were performed with the eggplant culture in a plastic tunnel. The fresh mass of fruit and number of fruits were assessed in six harvests, with a seven-day interval between harvests. For each trial (Tunnel 1 and 2), 25 uniformity trials of different sizes were simulated (3, 4, 5, … 28 BEU) per harvest and harvest row (individual and grouped) since they presented heteroscedasticity. For each planned uniformity trial, bootstrap procedure was used to estimate 3,000 plot sizes by the maximum coefficient of variation curvature method. The mean and 95% confidence interval width was calculated by the difference between the 97.5th and 2.5th percentiles. The AIC95% and plot size averages were higher in individual harvests than grouped harvests. As the size of the simulated uniformity trial increased, it was verified a reduction of the AIC95% of the plot size. However, the mean plot size did not change with increasing uniformity trial size. In this way, it is possible to state that the size of the uniformity trial affects accuracy the plot size estimation because trials with few numbers of basic experimental units present high experimental variability and inaccurate estimates.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27

Contact