University of California

Variation in the yields of fruit trees in relation to the planning of future experiments


E. R. Parker
L. D. Batchelor

Authors Affiliations

E. R. Parker was Assistant Horticulturist in the Citrus Experiment Station; L. D. Batchelor was Horticulturist in the Citrus Experiment Station, and Director, Graduate School of Tropical Agriculture and Citrus Experiment Station.

Publication Information

Hilgardia 7(2):81-161. DOI:10.3733/hilg.v07n02p081. October 1932.

PDF of full article, Cite this article


Abstract does not appear. First page follows.

The yields resulting from field trials have, in many cases, indicated the varying responses of plants to soil conditions which appear to be independent of the considerations of the trial. These normal fluctuations in yield constitute a source of experimental error to which all field trials are subject. They are of such importance that they must be taken into account in the planning of such experiments, as well as in the interpretation of the results.

In orchard trials such errors may be especially large. The great variation observed is due, in part, to the relatively large area of land involved in a single experiment, with the attendant possibilities of important changes in soil and topography. It is also due in some degree to the individuality of the trees. These two classes of factors ordinarily increase the observed variations greatly above those found in experiments with agronomic crops, for in the latter the use of a large number of plants in a single plot results in practical elimination of the effects of individual plant variation. In addition, the relatively small size of the plots permits them to be located on a small area of land.

Literature Cited

[1] Anthony R. D. Methods of interpreting results in orchard fertilizer experiments. Proc. Amer. Hort. Soc. 1919. 1919:113-117.

[2] Anthony R. D. Planning and analyzing apple orchard experiments by the use of “Student’s” method. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1926. 1926:71-73.

[3] Anthony R. D., Waring J. H. Methods of interpreting yield records in apple fertilization experiments. Pennsylvania Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 1922. 173:1-42.

[4] Batchelor L. D., Reed H. S. Relation of the variability of yields of fruit trees to the accuracy of field trials. Jour. Agr. Res. 1918. 12:245-283.

[5] Batchelor L. D., Parker E. R., McBride R. Studies preliminary to the establishment of a series of fertilizer trials in a bearing citrus grove. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 1928. 451:1-49.

[6] Chandler W. H. The trend of research in pomology. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1921. 1921:233-240.

[7] Chandler W. H. Fruit growing. 1925. New York City: Houghton Mifflin Co. 777p.

[8] Collison R. C., Harlan J. D. Variation and size relation in apple trees. New York [Geneva] Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 1930. 164:1-38.

[9] Conrad J. P. A comparative study of Student’s method and Bessel’s formula. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 1930. 22:949-963. DOI: 10.2134/agronj1930.00021962002200110006x [CrossRef]

[10] Elderton W. P. Frequency curves and correlation. 1927. 2nd ed. London: C. and E. Layton. 239p.

[11] Engledow F. L., Yule G. U. The principles and practice of yield trials. 1927. London: Empire Cotton Growing Corporation. 79p.

[12] Fisher R. A. Statistical methods for research workers. 1925. London: Oliver and Boyd. 239p.

[13] Gadd C. H. Experimental errors of field trials with Hevea. Dept. Agr. Ceylon Bul. 1923. 66: p. 1-22.

[14] Grantham J., Knapp M. D. Field experiments with Hevea brasiliensis. Archief voor de Rubberculture. 1918. 2: p. 613-636.

[15] Harris J. A. The value of inter-annual correlations. Amer. Nat. 1915. 49:707-712. DOI: 10.1086/279513 [CrossRef]

[16] Harris J. A. On a criterion of substratum homogeneity (or heterogeneity) in field experiments. Amer. Nat. 1915. 49:430-454. DOI: 10.1086/279492 [CrossRef]

[17] Harris J. A. Practical universality of field heterogeneity as a factor influencing plot yields. Jour. Agr. Res. 1920. 19:279-314.

[18] Harris J. A., Scofield C. S. Permanence of differences in the plots of an experimental field. Jour. Agr. Res. 1920. 20:335-356.

[19] Harris J. A., Scofield C. S. Further studies on the permanence of differences in plots of an experimental field. Jour. Agr. Res. 1928. 36:15-40.

[20] Hayes H. K. Control of soil heterogeneity and use of the probable error concept in plant breeding studies. Minnesota Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 1925. 30:1-21.

[21] Hedrick U. P., Anthony R. D. Twenty years of fertilizers in an apple orchard. New York [Geneva] Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 1919. 460:71-96.

[22] Hoffman M. B. The use of performance records in laying out a raspberry fertilizer experiment. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1929. 1929:203-207.

[23] Holtsmark G., Larsen B. R. Über die Fehler, welche bei Feldversuchen, durch die Ungleichartigkeit des Bodens bedingt werden. Landw. Versuchstationen. 1907. 65:1-22.

[24] Hummel A. Massenanbauversuche. Illustr. Landw. Ztg. 1911. 31:821-824.

[25] Kemp W. B. The reliability of the difference between two averages. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 1924. 16:359-362. DOI: 10.2134/agronj1924.00021962001600060003x [CrossRef]

[26] Kiesselbach T. A. Studies concerning the elimination of experimental error in comparative field tests. Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 1918. 13:1-91.

[27] Lehmann A. Ninth annual report of the agricultural chemist 1907-1908. Part II. 1909. Bangalore: Dept. of Agr., Mysore State. 51p.

[28] Livermore J. R. A critical study of some factors concerned in measuring the effect of selection in the potato. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 1927. 19:857-896. DOI: 10.2134/agronj1927.00021962001900100001x [CrossRef]

[29] Love H. H. The importance of the probable error concept in the interpretation of experimental results. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 1923. 15:217-224. DOI: 10.2134/agronj1923.00021962001500060001x [CrossRef]

[30] Love H. H. A modification of Student’s tables for use in interpreting experimental results. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 1924. 16:68-73. DOI: 10.2134/agronj1924.00021962001600010012x [CrossRef]

[31] Love H. H. Planning the plot experiment. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 1928. 20:426-432. DOI: 10.2134/agronj1928.00021962002000050002x [CrossRef]

[32] Love H. H., Brunson A. M. Student’s method for interpreting paired experiments. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 1924. 16:60-68. DOI: 10.2134/agronj1924.00021962001600010011x [CrossRef]

[33] McClelland C. K. New methods with check plots. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 1926. 18:566-576. DOI: 10.2134/agronj1926.00021962001800070002x [CrossRef]

[34] McEwen G. F. Methods of estimating the significance of differences in or probabilities of fluctuations due to random sampling. Univ. California, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Bul., Tech. Ser. 1929. 2:1-137.

[35] Mitscherlich E. Zur Methodik des Feldsdüngung und der Sorten-anban-Versuche. Landw. Jahrb. 1912. 42:415-421.

[36] Munson W. M. Experiments in orchard culture. Maine Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 1903. 89:1-24.

[37] Munson W. M. Experiments in orchard culture. Second report. Maine Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 1905. 122:181-204.

[38] Pearson K. Tables for statisticians and biometricians. 1914. Cambridge University Press. Ixxxiv + 143p.

[39] Pickering M. A. Experimental errors in horticultural work. Jour Bd. Agr. [London] Sup. 1911. 7:38-42.

[40] Richey F. D. Adjusting yields to their regression on a moving average as a means of correcting for soil heterogeneity. Jour. Agr. Res. 1924. 27:79-90.

[41] Richey F. D. The moving average as a basis for measuring correlated variation in agronomic experiments. Jour. Agr. Res. 1926. 32:1161-1175.

[42] Richey F. D. Some applications of statistical methods to agronomic experiments. Jour. Amer. Statistical Assoc. 1930. 25:269-284. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1930.10503129 [CrossRef]

[43] Rider P. R. A summary of the theory of small samples. Annals of Math. 1930. 31:577-628. DOI: 10.2307/1968155 [CrossRef]

[44] Roemer T. Der Feldversuch. Arbeit. Deut. Landw. Gesell. 1925. 32:1-132.

[45] Sax K. The place of stocks in the propagation of clonal varieties of apples. Genetics. 1923. 8:458-465.

[46] Sax K. The cause and permanence of size differences in apple trees. Maine Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 1923. 310:1-8.

[47] Sax K. The probable error in horticultural experiments. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1924. 1924:252-256.

[48] Sax K., Gowen J. W. Permanence of tree performance in a clonal variety, and a critique of the theory of bud mutation. Genetics. 1923. 8:179-211.

[49] Shamel A. D., Scott L. B., Pomeroy C. S. Citrus fruit improvement: A study of bud variation in the Washington Navel orange. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 1918. 623:1-146.

[50] Shamel A. D., Scott L. B., Pomeroy C. S. Citrus fruit improvement: A study of bud variation in the Valencia orange. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 1918. 624:1-120.

[51] Sheppard W. F. New tables of the probability integral. Biometrika. 1903. 2:174-190. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/2.2.174 [CrossRef]

[52] Shewart W. A. Correction of data for errors of averages. Bell Telephone Laboratories, Reprint. 1926. B-193:1-12.

[53] Stadler L. J. Experiments in field plot technique for the preliminary determination of comparative yields in the small grains. Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 1921. 48:1-78.

[54] Stadler L. J. Experimental error in field plot tests. Proc. International Congress of Plant Sciences, Ithaca, N. Y., Aug. 16-23, 1926. 1929. 1: Menasha, Wisconsin: Geo. Banta Publ. Co. 107-127.

[55] Stevens J. C., Vinall H. N. Experimental methods and the probable error in field experiments with sorghum. Jour. Agr. Res. 1928. 37:629-646.

[56] Stockberger W. W. Relative precision of formulae for calculating normal plot yields. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 1916. 8:167-175. DOI: 10.2134/agronj1916.00021962000800030005x [CrossRef]

[57] Student. The probable error of a mean. Biometrika. 1908. 6:1-25.

[58] Student. Tables for estimating the probability that the mean of an unique sample of observations lies between—and any given distance of the mean of the population from which the sample is drawn. Biometrika. 1917. 11:414-417.

[59] Student. On testing varieties of cereals. Biometrika. 1923. 15:271-293.

[60] Student. Mathematics and agronomy. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 1926. 18:703-719.

[61] Surface F. M., Pearl R. A method of correcting for soil heterogeneity in variety tests. Jour. Agr. Res. 1916. 5:1039-1050.

[62] Wagner P. Beiträge zur Begründung und Ausbildung einer exacter Methode der Dungungsversuche. Jour. Landw. 1880. 28:9-57.

[63] Waring J. H. The probable value of trunk circumference as an adjunct to fruit yield in interpreting apple orchard experiments. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1920. 1920:179-185.

[64] Webber H. J. Selection of stocks in citrus propagation. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 1920. 317:269-301.

[65] Webber H. J. The improvement of rootstocks used in fruit propagation. Jour. Heredity. 1920. 11:291-299.

[66] Webber H. J. Citrus rootstock problems. California Citrograph. 1922. 7:391 408-411.

[67] Webber H. J. Relation of stock to scions with special reference to Citrus. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1922. 1922:129-138.

[68] Webber H. J., Barrett J. T. Root-stock influence in citrus. Proc. Ninth Internatl. Hort. Congress, London. 1930. 1930:358-373.

[69] Wood T. B. The interpretation of experimental results. Jour. Bd. Agr. [London] Sup. 1911. 17:15-32.

[70] Yule G. U. An introduction to the theory of statistics. 1927. London: C. Griffin &; Co. 422p.

Parker E, Batchelor L. 1932. Variation in the yields of fruit trees in relation to the planning of future experiments. Hilgardia 7(2):81-161. DOI:10.3733/hilg.v07n02p081
Webmaster Email: sjosterman@ucanr.edu