Published September, 1971
Estimation of OptimumField Plot Shape and Size for
1
Testing Yield in Crambeabyssinica Hochst.
2V. D. Meier and K. J. Lessman
ABSTRACT
A uniformity lest using Prophet crambe(Crambeabys.
sinica Hochst.) in a "solid seeding" of 1,296 basic units
(one basic unit equaled 1.47 ~) was conducted to deter-
minean appropriateplot shape and size for use in cramhe
yield testing.
In analyses using Smithsregression procedure,the soil
heterogeneity index, b, was calculated as 0.5361 and the
2.
optimumplot sDe was estimated to be 6.70 m
Results of analyses using the modified maximum curva-
ture technique developed by Lessmanand Atkins (1963)
-
indicated a plot size of 5.35 m as optimum.
Plot shape had an effect on plot-to-plot variability.
Long, narrowplots arranged with their greatest length
in the direction of greatest variation resulted in a lower
estimate of amongplot variance.
Additional index words: Uniformitytrial, Soil hetero-
geneity, Coefficient of variability.
C RAMBE (Crambe abyssinica
potential
Hochst.) has showh
as a new oil seed crop. Crambe seeds
contain 35 to 50~ oil that is high in erncic acid (50 to
60%). The refined oil itself, the erucic acid consti-
tuent, and oil derivatives have wide potential for nse in
industry (Bruun and Matchett, 1963). Papanthana-
sion, Lessman, and Nyquist (1966) evaluated 11 initial
introductions of crambe for yield, plant height, num-
ber of primary branches, number of pods, and seed
2.
weight. The harvested plot size used was 4.9 m
Plants were grown in row spacings of .36 and .97 m.
Significant differences were found among introduc-
tions for number of primary branches. Differences for
all other characters were nonsignificant.
The inability to detect differences of statistical
nificance among introductions for so many characters
may have been the result of one or more factors.
troductions may have been samples from the same
population, ff this were correct, their average perform-
ance would be expected to be similar. Another pos-
sibility may be that this species of crambe contains
little or no genetic variability for the particular char-
acters chosen for study. However, this would seem
unlikely, considering the experience with many other
plant species in which natural variability is abundant
when plants representing a broad sample of the species
are studied. Finally, variation due to experimental
error may have been too large to detect significant
differences among introductions for traits evaluated.
In field research technique, number and size of repli-
cations, care and handling of individual plot samples
as well as size and shape of plots are all factors that
influence variation attributable to experimental error.
Since no information is available as to the effects
of plot size and shape in minimizing experimental
~ Contribution from the Department of Agronomy, Purdue
University, Agricultural Experiment Station. Journal Paper No.
4345. Received Feb. 17, 1971.
~Graduate Research Assistant and Professor of Agronmny,
Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind.
47907.
error in cratnbe performance tests, a uniformity trial
was conducted to determine optimum plot size and
shape for evaluating differences in yield potential
among crambe lines and introductions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A uuiformity trial was conducted on the Purdue University
AgronomyFarm near Lafayette, Ind. in 1968. Approximately
0.45 ha of Prophet crambe was broadcast-seeded. Before
harvest 0.97-m-widealleys were cut, leaving 36 ranges extending
the width of the trial area. Thirty-six plots 0.97 m wide by
1.52 m long (one plot was considered a basic unit) were har-
vested in each range, allowing a total of 1,296 basic units.
Plants from each basic unit were bagged and threshed, and
the resulting seed was cleaned and weighed. Weight values
from adjacent basic units were combined for estimating yields
from plots of different lengths and widths. Length was con-
sidered to be in the direction perpendicular to alleys while
width was considered to be in the direction parallel to alleys.
In the following discussion plots with their greatest dimen-
sion (in number of basic units) perpendicular to alleys are
called "long" plots, and plots with their greatest dimension
parallel to alleys are called "wide" plots.
Two main methods were used to estimate optimum plot
size. The first was that developed by Smith (1938). In this
method the optimum plot size is determined by the equatiou
X0 = bK~/(l--b)K,, [1]
where ~ (expressed in number of square meters) is the opti-
nlunl plot size, b is the soil heterogeneity index, K~(expressed
in man-hours per plot) is that part of the cost dne to number
of plots, and K2 (expressed in man-hours per square meter)
that part of the cost due to size of plot. The cost factors, K~
and K,,., were determined by itemizing costs in man-hours,since
labor is usually the major cost component when conducting
tield plot experiments. Smith (1938) derived equation [1]
sig- after proposing an empirical relationship between plot size
and plot variance and expressing it as:
In- ~
V~ : V~/X [2]
where Vxis the variance on a per-nnit basis of plots consisting
of X basic units and V1 is the variance of plots of one basic
unit. Equation [2] may be expressed in logarithms as:
log Vx = log V, -- b log X
in which b is estimated as a linear regression coefficient. In
this study b was weighted according to number of degrees of
freedomavailable for each log V.~ as proposedby Federer (1955)
and was computed using the Weighted Regression Analysis
Program in the CDC~500 computer. Variance per basic unit
was calculated as
~
V~ = V~)/X
where V(~ is the among-plot variance.
The oth.er procedure used was the modified maximumcurva-
ture technique presented by Lessman and Atkins (1963).
this methodthe optimumplot size is determined by first locat-
ing the region of maximmncurvature of the curve relating
coefficients of variability with their corresponding plot sizes.
The general equation y = aXw closely estimates this relation-
ship wherey is the coefficient of variability and X is the corre-
spondingplot size in basic units. If the above equation is con-
verted to logarithms, the constants a and b can be found by
a weighted regression analysis as above. Lessmanand Atkins
(1963) reasoned that the r.egion of maximum curvature of the
given curve could be located between the two successive tangent
lines with the largest angle of intersection. However,slopes
of each successive tangent line were determined at equal incre-
ments along the X-axis, which would bias the region of maxi-
648
 MEIER & LESSMAN: OPTIMUM FIELD PLOT SHAPE AND SIZE 649

mumcurvature toward lower values of X with a curve defined
by y ~ a/Xu. A better method would be to take equal incre-
lnents along the length of the curve. Curvature at any point
along a line can be determined using the equation:
K = y"/(1
where K is the curvature of the line, and y and y" are the first
and second derivatives of the function defining the line (Gran-
ville, Smith, and Longley 1962). Curvature is maxilnum where
the derivative of K with respect to X is 0. For the function
y = a/X b the point of maximumcurvature, X~, of the line
depicting the function is
X : [a~be(2b q- ])/(b q- ~/(~b + "
The above equation converted to logarithms is
log X~___ 1/(2b -t- 2) log [a2b~(2b -t- 1)/(b -5 2)].
After X. is determined, it is modified by cost factors using K~
and K.. which were used in Smiths procedure as follows:
X0 =_ X~K~/XoK2A
where A is the area of the basic unit and Xo is the optimum
plot size in numberof basic units. Lessmanand Atkins modified
X, using only K~ and K~ which were calculated on a percentage
basis. Marani (1963) pointed out that calculating K~ and
iu percentages biases the results. The above equation simplifies
tO
~/~.
Xo -~- (X.Ka/Ko~A)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Amongplot variances, variances per basic unit, and
coefficients of variability for each plot size and shape
are presented in Table 1. The relationship between
coefficients of variability and their correspondingplot
sizes was that of" a decrease in the coefficients of vari-
ability with an increase in plot size.
The relative rate of reduction was less with larger
plots. This relationship is similar to that reported
previously in other field plot technique problems
(Smith, 1938; Lessrnan and Atkins, 1963).
With regard to plot shape, a general trend indicated
more variation associated with "wide"plots than with
"long" plots. To study the effects of plot shape on
plot yield variances F tests were used to determine
whetherdifferences existed betweenequal size plots of
different shapes. The F test consists of the ratio of the
larger amongplot variance over the smaller among
plot variance. "Long"plots consistently showed sig-
nificantly less variation amongplots than "wide"plots.
To determine the effect of plot shape on the regres-
sion coefficient, b, separate b estimates were obtained

Table 1. Variances and coefficients of variability of various plot sizes and shapes, calculated from crambeuniformity trial yield data.
Plot size and shape Plot size and shape
Size Length Width Total Among Corr. Size Length Width Total Among CoeL
(No. o[ (No. of (No. of number plot Variance of (No. of (NO. of (No. of number plot Vartance o~
basic busic basic of variance per basic wtr. basic basic basic of variance per basic wit.
units) units) malts) plots V~) unit V ~ units units) units plots V(x) unit V ~
x x
1 l 1 1,296 2,805 2,805 20.9
25 5 5 49 324,618 519 9.0
2 t 2 648 8,260 2,065 17.9
2 2 l 648 7,157 1,789 16.7 27 3 9 48 447,922 614 9. S
27 9 3 48 253,825 348 7.4
3 1 3 432 16,159 i,795 16. 7
3 3 i 432 13,031 1,448 15.0 28 .1 7 45 517,631 660 10.1
28 7 4 45 277,476 354 7.4
4 t 4 324 25,323 1,583 15.7
4 2 2 325 21,504 1,344 14.5 30 5 6 42 471,359 524 9,0
4 4 1 324 20,099 1,256 14.0 30 6 5 42 386,159 429 8,2
5 1 5 252 36,528 1,461 15.1 32 4 8 36 669,805 654 tO.l
5 5 1 252 24,843 994 i2.5 32 8 4 36 391,970 383 7.7
6 t 6 216 52,642 1,462 35 5 7 35 599,829 49{) 8.8
15.1
6 2 3 216 43,192 13.7 35 7 5 35 353,934 289 6,7
1,200
6 3 2 216 40,274 1,119 13.2 36 3 12 36 864,787 667 10,2
6 6 1 216 28,856 802 11. 2 36 4 9 36 758,928 586 9,5
7 l 7 18(I 63,244 1,291 14.2 36 6 6 36 563,987 435 8.2
7 7 1 180 658 36 9 4 36 419,369 325 7.1
32,225 I0. I 36 I2 3 36 426,284 329 7.2
S l 8 144 81,500 1,273 14. 1
S 2 4 162 66,393 1,073 12.7 40 5 8 28 774,686 484 8.7
8 4 2 162 62,394 975 12.3 40 8 5 28 493,035 308 6.9
8 8 1 144 41,050 641 10.0 42 6 7 30 701,948 398 7.9
9 i 9 144 89,203 1,iOi 13.1 42 7 6 30 529,553 30(I 6.8
9 3 3 144 81,772 1,010 12.5 45 5 9 28 775~105 383 7.7
9 9 ~ 144 45,702 564 9.4 45 9 5 28 538,456 266 6.4
10 2 5 126 95,503 955 12.2 48 4 12 27 1,407,139 611 9.8
I0 5 2 126 74,983 750 10.8 48 6 8 24 911,672 396 7.9
L2 L 12 108 157,586 1,094 13.0 48 8 6 24 740,804 322 7.1
12 2 6 10S 140,783 978 12.3 48 12 4 27 697,717 303 6.9
12 3 4 108 i28,489 892 Ii. 8 49 7 7 25 620,458 258 6.4
12 4 3 108 127,878 888 it.8
12 6 2 I08 36,907 604 9.7 54 6 9 24 936,625 32[ 7.4
12 12 1 108 69,625 484 8.7 54 9 6 24 795,818 273 6. 5
I4 2 7 90 i68,762 861 lt.6 56 7 8 20 722,177 230 6.0
14 7 2 90 95,070 485 8.7 56 8 7 20 919,690 293 6.8
15 3 5 84 186,840 829 11.4 60 5 12 21 1,586,793 441 8.3
60 12 5 2i 903,844 251 6.2
16 2 8 72 213,240 833 11.4 63 7 9 20 680,633 171 5.2
16 4 4 81 203,367 794 11. 1 63 9 7 20 968,611 244 6.2
t6 S 2 72 121,019 473 8.6 64 8 8 16 1,082,963 264 6.4
1~ 2 9 72 226,392 699 10.4 72 6 12 18 1,823,823 352 7.4
t8 3 6 72 274,879 848 t1.5 72 8 9 16 1,071,991 207 5.7
18 6 3 72 174,125 537 9.1 72 9 S 16 1,240,959 239 6.
18 9 2 72 i30,350 4O3 7. 9 72 12 6 18 1,377,189 266 6.4
20 4 6 63 280,805 702 81 9 9 16 1,171,593 179 5.3
20 5 4 63 236,485 591 9.6
84 7 12 15 1,511,982 2[4 5.8
21 3 7 60 336,218 765 tO. 9 84 12 7 15 1,642,797 233 6.0
2I 7 3 60 179,150 406 8.0
96 ~ 12 12 2,272,326 247 6,2
24 2 12 54 424,949 738 10.7 96 12 8 12 2,029,495 220 5.9
24 3 8 48 427,460 742 10.8
24 4 6 54 425,401 739 10.7 108 9 12 12 2,800,305 240 6.1
24 6 4 54 285,817 496 8.8 108 12 9 12 2,021,090 173 5.2
24 8 3 48 24i, i04 419 8.1 144 12 12 9 4,465,671 215 5,8
24 12 2 54 205,512 357 7.4
650 CROP SCIENCE, VOL. 11, SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1971

using data from "long" and "wide" plots. Data from length in the direction of more variation were con-
plots with equal number of basic units in length and sidered as optimum for plot shape.
width were not used. These estimates were 0.5828 and With regard to plot size, Smith's procedure was the
0.4983 for "long" and "wide" plots, respectively. To first method used. The b estimate was calculated as
determine if the difference between the b estimates 0.5361, which indicated intermediate soil heterogeneity
was statistically significant, the following t-test was in the experimental site. Cost factors calculated were
applied (Steele and Torrie, 1960); 0.3822 man-hour per plot for K! and 0.0659 man-hour
per square meter for K2. Equation [1] indicated an
t = (hi - b2) / Vs2,, (1/Sx*,, + l/Sxz,) optimum plot size of 6.70 m2 using these values for
KI and K2.
where s2p is the pooled variance about regression and With the modified maximum curvature technique
2x2 is the corrected sum of squares of log X. A t value the constants a' and b' were computed to be 21.08 and
of 2.80 was calculated. Such a t value is highly un- 0.2678. Using these constants the point of maximum
likely on the basis of chance if the b estimates were curvature, Xc, was determined as 3.36 basic units.
not truly different. It was concluded that estimates Modifying Xc by the cost factors resulted in an opti-
of b may be affected by plot shape. mum plot size estimate of 3.64 basic units or 5.35 m2,
Smith stated that b should range from 0, indicating which is 20% smaller than the plot size estimated by
complete uniformity, to 1, indicating random soil Smith's procedure. Since Smith noted that little effi-
variability or a strong productiivty gradient. Thus, ciency was lost by using a plot size up to 50% larger
less variability among plots would be expected in a or smaller than the optimum plot size, very little loss
fairly uniform experimental area. Conversely, more in efficiency would result using a plot size calculated
variability among plots would be expected with more by the modified maximum curvature technique.
random soil variability. In this investigation data
from "long" plots showed less among plot variability
and a larger b estimate than that from "wide" plots.
These contradictory results may be partly explained
in that ranges were separated by 0.97-m alleys, and
"long" plots were oriented with their greatest dimen-
sion perpendicular to the alleys. Therefore, the actual
length of "long" plots was greater proportionally than
that of "wide" plots, even though their lengths were
the same in terms of basic units. Since basic units
were farther apart in "long" plots, their composition
could be considered more random. Thus, a larger b
estimate would be expected for "long" plots. Also,
basic units were farther apart in simulated "long"
plots; hence, more variation should occur within
"long" plots resulting in less among plot variation.
Since "long" plots had the least variation among plots
at any given size, long narrow plots with their greater