Model Selection and Validation for Yield Trials with Interaction

Clicks: 2
ID: 302103
1988
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #232 of 238 articles by views in biometrics

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 238 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
SUMMARY The additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) model first applies the additive analysis of variance (ANOVA) model to two-way data, and then applies the multiplicative principal components analysis (PCA) model to the residual from the additive model, that is, to the interaction. AMMI analysis of yield trial data is a useful extension of the more familiar ANOVA, PCA, and linear regression procedures, particularly given a large genotype-by-environment interaction. Model selection and validation are considered from both predictive and postdictive perspectives, using data splitting and F-tests, respectively. A New York soybean yield trial serves as an example. Yield trials generate observations of yield, ordinarily replicated, for a number of genotypes grown in a number of environments (site-year combinations). Often the data are rather noisy, with a standard deviation for plot yields in excess of 25 % of the mean. An additional challenging feature of these data is the frequent presence of important and complex genotype-by-environment (GE) interactions. Plant breeders use yield trials to identify promising genotypes, and agronomists use them to make recommendations for farmers. The level of success in meeting these goals depends critically on two factors: (i) the accuracy of yield estimates, and (ii) the magnitudes of genotype-by-site, genotype-by-year, and genotype-by-site-by-year interactions (Talbot, 1984). In essence, these two factors reflect within-trial accuracy and between-trial predictability. This paper addresses only the first concern. Nothing is said regarding between-trial predictability, or agrotechnology transfer, other than to observe that success with withintrial accuracy is a necessary prelude to success with between-trial predictability. The within-trial accuracy of a statistical model may be assessed by two fundamentally different criteria: Postdictive success concerns a model's fit to its own data, whereas predictive success concerns the fit between a model constructed using part of the data and validation data not used in modelling. In either case, the statistical setting is that of an incompletely specified model, where empirical considerations enter into the decision to include a given' potential source in the model, or alternatively to relegate it to the model's residual (Bancroft, 1964). Whenever the data are noisy, postdiction and prediction are different tasks, and in general the model chosen by predictive criteria will be different and simpler than the model chosen by postdictive criteria. Because the several replicates of a yield trial constitute a noisy sample, a model chosen by predictive criteria may be expected to provide yield estimates that are closer to the true means (and to validation observations) than will a model chosen by postdictive criteria. This claim is readily subjected to experimental test. In what follows, the relative performances of statistical models chosen
Reference Key
openalex_W2026607452 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Hugh G. Gauch
Journal biometrics
Year 1988
DOI
10.2307/2531585
URL
https://doi.org/10.2307/2531585
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.