A - Papers appearing in refereed journals
Welham, S. J., Gogel, B. J., Smith, A. B., Thompson, R. and Cullis, B. R. 2010. A comparison of analysis methods for late-stage variety evaluation trials. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics. 52 (2), pp. 125-149.
|Authors||Welham, S. J., Gogel, B. J., Smith, A. B., Thompson, R. and Cullis, B. R.|
The statistical analysis of late-stage variety evaluation trials using a mixed model is described, with one- or two-stage approaches to the analysis. Two sets of trials, from Australia and the UK, were used to provide realistic scenarios for a simulation study to evaluate the different methods of analysis. This study showed that a one-stage approach gave the most accurate predictions of variety performance overall or within each environment, across a range of models, as measured by mean squared error of prediction or realized genetic gain. A weighted two-stage approach performed adequately for variety predictions both overall and within environments, but a two-stage unweighted approach performed poorly in both cases. A generalized heritability measure was developed to compare methods.
|Keywords||Statistics & Probability|
|Year of Publication||2010|
|Journal||Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics|
|Journal citation||52 (2), pp. 125-149|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI)||doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.2010.00570.x|
|Open access||Published as non-open access|
|Funder||Grains Research and Development Corporation of Australia|
|Funder project or code||Centre for Mathematical and Computational Biology (MCB)|
|Strategic statistical research for crop improvement (GRDC National Statistics Project - KP2)|
|Online||25 May 2010|
|Copyright license||Publisher copyright|
Permalink - https://repository.rothamsted.ac.uk/item/8q681/a-comparison-of-analysis-methods-for-late-stage-variety-evaluation-trials