• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Introduction
 Site characterization
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix I. Summary tables of results,...
 Appendix II. Scatter plots for...
 Appendix III. Confidence intervals...






Title: On-farm research
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00075661/00001
 Material Information
Title: On-farm research
Physical Description: 1 v. (various leaves) : ; 22 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Johnson, Todd
Cook, Steven
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville FL
Publication Date: 1992
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural systems   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Research   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Todd Johnson and Steven Cook.
General Note: "Farming Systems Research and Extensio sic methods, AGG 5813, Spring 1992, Dr. P. Hildebrand."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00075661
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 83775522

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Site characterization
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 2a
        Page 2b
    Methods
        Page 3
    Results
        Page 4
        Page 4a
    Discussion
        Page 5
        Page 5a
        Page 5b
        Page 5c
        Page 6
        Page 6a
        Page 6b
        Page 7
        Page 7a
        Page 7b
        Page 7c
        Page 8
        Page 8a
        Page 8b
    Appendix I. Summary tables of results, by team - Response curves across treatments, by farm
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Appendix II. Scatter plots for all environments (EIs) - Scatter plots for low EI environments
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
    Appendix III. Confidence intervals for better environments (Pecan Grove) - Confidence intervals for poorer environments (Fifield)
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
Full Text




ON-FARM
RESEARCH


+&(C~i5x /2


- YR8~~


Todd Johnson
Steven Cook
Farming Systems Research and Extensio Methods
AGG 5813
Spring 1992
Dr. P. Hildebrand








INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement

The Green Revolution brought many improvements in the potential for very high yields to

agriculture with high levels of inputs. Most of this work was carried out at the International

Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) scattered around the world. The research conducted at these

research stations often produced few benefits for low-resource farmers who could not dominate their

environments. These farmers needed lower input solutions that were more sustainable. Methodologies

for more effective research in sustainable agriculture were needed to replace existing ones borrowed

from on-station trials. Traditional experimental design focused on replications and predictable

environments. Hypothesis testing and means separation were the predominant concerns.



Farming Systems Research and Extension, in contrast, focused on small farm problems by

conducting on-farm research (OFR). OFR involves an entirely different set of criteria from those used

for experiment station work. FSRE on-farm research recognizes the fact that farms and farmers are

highly variable and targets this variability. (Wotoweic, et al.,1988). Research domains ideally contain

a wide range of environments which can be associated with farms, fields, or even portions of fields.



As an exercise in Farming Systems Research Methods two "villages" were selected on which

seven 3-person teams were to establish fertilizer trials on a "farm" in each village. The objectives of

the exercise were: 1) to learn the process of farmer-managed on-farm trials; and 2) to familiarize

ourselves with the different analytical procedures required for OFR.



SITE CHARACTERIZATION

Village Level

Two village sites were established on the University of Florida campus Agronomy Farm: 1)

behind Fifield Hall, on a plot formerly used for perennial peanut research for many years; and 2) near


1








INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement

The Green Revolution brought many improvements in the potential for very high yields to

agriculture with high levels of inputs. Most of this work was carried out at the International

Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) scattered around the world. The research conducted at these

research stations often produced few benefits for low-resource farmers who could not dominate their

environments. These farmers needed lower input solutions that were more sustainable. Methodologies

for more effective research in sustainable agriculture were needed to replace existing ones borrowed

from on-station trials. Traditional experimental design focused on replications and predictable

environments. Hypothesis testing and means separation were the predominant concerns.



Farming Systems Research and Extension, in contrast, focused on small farm problems by

conducting on-farm research (OFR). OFR involves an entirely different set of criteria from those used

for experiment station work. FSRE on-farm research recognizes the fact that farms and farmers are

highly variable and targets this variability. (Wotoweic, et al.,1988). Research domains ideally contain

a wide range of environments which can be associated with farms, fields, or even portions of fields.



As an exercise in Farming Systems Research Methods two "villages" were selected on which

seven 3-person teams were to establish fertilizer trials on a "farm" in each village. The objectives of

the exercise were: 1) to learn the process of farmer-managed on-farm trials; and 2) to familiarize

ourselves with the different analytical procedures required for OFR.



SITE CHARACTERIZATION

Village Level

Two village sites were established on the University of Florida campus Agronomy Farm: 1)

behind Fifield Hall, on a plot formerly used for perennial peanut research for many years; and 2) near


1








two pecan trees on a field where winter rye had been growing. These villages we called Fifield and

Pecan Grove, respectively. The simulation of on-farm research lacked interaction with farmers/ land

managers. It was, however, useful as an exercise in methods of conducting on-farm trials. The

process is probably best learned as a simulation first, in order for mistakes to be made before the

researchers' credibility with farmers is added as another of the many uncontrollable factors inherent

in on-farm research.



Pecan Grove had a discernable, fairly constant slope toward the southeast corner. A soil

sample revealed slightly more acidic (pH=6.0) conditions than optimum for radish production

(pH =6.5). Fifield was originally to be situated in a fertile area, long used as a experimental garden.

Because of miscommunication however, the area actually donated for our use and tilled was the tractor

entrance road adjacent to the garden. This area therefore had a history of heavy compaction and

exhibited a plow-pan several inches below the surface. The soil sample from this farm had pH of 7.6,

which was significantly higher than the 6.5 considered optimal. The high pH at Fifield may have

contributed to poor results obtained.



Farm Level

Differences in farm environments were more pronounced at Pecan Grove than at Fifield

primarily because the "farms" were neither contiguous nor even in line. The Fifield farms were mostly

in line and, with the exception of two treatment plots, represented the same environment.



We conducted a pre-plowing qualitative assessment of the existing micro-environments at

Pecan Grove. A transect was taken using a meter tape and a Growth Quality Index value

(scale = 1 > > 10) assigned, based on vigor and greenness of the cover crop, in this case winter rye.

(See Figure 1).















, *, ,B -7


a~.
4.


..: >








- c


A-; ~fl)l
,.. ,.. .. -
.- ,- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.: ....! ::.....".-:-".:i-.--.:.... ..i:- .: :.: -'..


-oO
Cr1
-. : : -- .--. -"- "... -" -

-, .. -,
.. .. .: ..~ ~ ~.. -,. .: .- .. .
_. ". .t :. .
.. .- .- : : '....... ." ... ..'
.. ,. ._ . _. : .... ,,

,..~~ ,. ,..
.o : '. : : _' ,.., -- -. :.. .


*'


~~`


- -


'"'
i
~-. _1
-. ~--~I


"' -:'-;;


::


::


'"~-








III. METHODS

On-Farm Trials

Each of the seven farming systems teams was assigned, in each village, a "farm" composed

of five 4 x 5 ft plots, for a total of 14 farms of 100 ft2 each. Teams prepared their plots and sowed

radishes on 29 February, 1992. Each 20 ft2 plot corresponded to one treatment -- rate of ammonium

nitrate fertilizer (33-0-0 NH4NO0) application. The treatments (in Kg of elemental N applied) were: a)

0 Kg N; b) 100 Kg N; c) 200 Kg N; d) 300 Kg N; and e) 400 Kg N. No replicating was done on

individual farms, rather, the farms themselves became replicates, consistent.with OFR practices. All

teams harvested on 4 April, 1992. We weighed radish yields per plot in grams (w/o greens), then

calculated per-acre yields in tons, based on the area harvested.



Description of the 14 farms [see SITE CHARACTERIZATION] gave a research domain.

Biophysical similarities reduced heterogeneity across the research domain to less than would be

expected in an actual OFR project. However, a range of environments emerged, presumedly based

primarily on differences in management practices. Variability of e.g. intensity of land preparation,

seeding rates (plant density), or plot aspect (orientation and slope) was common between teams, but

homogenized within the teams' farms. Also, the watering, weeding, thinning and hilling that teams

practiced varied over a heterogeneous population of homogeneous individual farms. This conforms to

OFR standards. Calculation of the Environmental Index (El) accounts for these management

differences, i.e. they are embedded in Els, the mean response over all treatments for each individual

farm.



Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using the Modified Stability Analysis (MSA) procedure. Because of

blocking errors invalidating their results, two farms were removed from the data set. Among the

remaining twelve farms, one exhibited an El several orders of magnitude larger than the other eleven.









Thus, two recommendation domains became obvious, based on high or low El. Since only one farm

fell into the high environment category, further analysis concentrated on the poor-environment farms.



Regression of radish yields per treatment, as a function of environment, gave prediction

equations for response across all environments in the population of interest. Differences in radish yield

within treatments were identified and separated. Diffusion domains corresponding to the two villages

resulted.



Further partitioning of farm by treatment variation proved difficult. An additional parameter

was generated based on the differences in management practices described earlier. This gauge of

input levels we called the Overall Management Index (OMI). El was regressed against water input and

against OMI.



Confidence intervals were calculated for yields per SUS of cash cost input at each treatment

level. From these intervals, we computed an estimation of relative risk in both better and poorer

environments. Results are now presented, and discussed later.



S IV. RESULTS

Appendix I contains summary tables of results on each farm. These are grouped by teams, one

farm per team in each of the two villages. Also included in Appendix I are graphs of results, by farm,

across all treatments. The data are summarized in Table 1. Els are defined as mean responses at each

location across all treatments. Scatter plots of data points at each treatment level across all Els are

given in Appendix II. The first set of scatter plots are for all Els, while a second set shows data spread

for only the poorer environments.



Based on the shape of data spread, orders of parameters were determined for modelling line


4



















TOTAL YIELD (TONS/ACRE) PER TREATMENT
Radish Trials; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992

LOCAT 0 100 200 300 400 El
111 I II


0.096
0.101
0.096
0.000
0.180
0.000
0.296
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000


0.366
0.568
0.911
0.473
1.162
0.240
4.242
0.425
0.041
0.042
0.000
0.036
0.042
0.545


0.497
1.270
0.473
0.467
0.863
0.485
4.969
0.018
0.286
0.036
0.180
0.012
0.473
1.056


0.294
0.621
0.348
0.444
0.252
0.222
4.689
0.000
0.212
0.024
0.042
0.030
0.515
0.234


0.210
0.633
0.288
0.348
0.252
0.270
5.057
0.024
0.168
0.024
0.030
0.000
0.665
0.072


0.292438
0.638457
0.422994
0.346442
0.541624
0.243252
3.850484
0.093466
0.141350
0.025164
0.050328
0.015578
0.339114
0.381425


Table 1. Yield as tons/acre of all radishes >$0.10 in 14 plots on University of Florida
Agronomy Farm, 2 sites. Five treatments (Kg N / Ac). Environmental Index (El)
calculated as mean yield across all treatments.


Table 1









equations. For the AII-Els graph, linear relationships described the data distribution for all levels of

fertilization. The Low-Els plots, however, differed in their relationships. Data were distributed thus:

a) 0 Kg treatment level -- linear; b) 100 Kg --quadratic; c) 200 Kg -- cubic; d) 300 Kg -- linear; and e)

400 Kg -- linear. Regressions of yield against El, using the appropriate order of parameter (linear,

quadratic or cubic) allowed generation of prediction equations at each treatment level. These lines are

in Figures 2 and 3 (AII-Els and Low-Els).



Characterization of the environments produced a Growth Quality Index (GQI) and an Overall
Ba *
Management Index (OMI) (Table 2) [see SITE CHARACTERIZATION and STATISTICAL ANALYSIS].

Attempts to partition the environmental variability were conducted. A regression of El as a function

of water input (Figure 4) showed little influence. Also, El did not appear to be strongly correlated with

GQI (Figure 5) or the estimate of aggregated management practices, OMI (Figure 6). There remains

a large amount of unexplained variation in El.



V. DISCUSSION

Recommendations based on the All-El Treatment Responses (Figure 2) must be prefaced with

the warning that the vast differences between the lowest eleven environments and the single high one

(far right) distort the scale and shape of the treatment curves. The only point that can be made based

on this view of the results is that the zero nitrogen treatment is clearly the lowest across environments.



The Low-El Treatment Responses (Figure 3) graph disaggregates those eleven lowest

environments. Again, the zero treatment was lowest across all environments. In addition, the

environments begin to separate into three subgroups that can be considered different recommendation

domains; the five clustered to the left side (00.2), the four in the middle (0.20.5), and the

two to the right (0.50.7). These subgroups will be referred to as Groups 1, 2, and 3,

respectively. All groups showed a similar basic trend in which the 200 and 100 treatments appear


5









ALL-E.I. TREATMENT RESPONSES
Radishes; Pecan Grove and Fifield; 1992
5.0
000 Kg



w .0
cc...' 200 Kg

< 0 ------ - - ------- --. ---. --. ---- -- -- -- -- -- --------- ---- ------------------- --- 4 0 0 K
2.0- -------------------------------------------------------------- Kg


2 1 0 .0. . .
40Kg



--------------------------------------------

-III Il I I I

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX


Figure 2









LOW-E.I. TREATMENT RESPONSES
Radishes; Pecan Grove and Fifield; 1992
1.0
200 000 Kg

0.8 -------- -.--------------------------------- ------------- -------- -"-- ------ 100 Kg
100
200 Kg
S 0.6 300--------- --------------- ---
S..-0 300 Kg
)--*-.--- 400 -
S0.4 -4 .t ------------------------ 400 Kg

S.......................................................................................
0 --- ------- -- --: ---- ----- -
^ --"'"^*''"'


-AAA A A A A A A A A

-0.'0 0.2 0.4 0.6
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX


Figure 3







OVERALL MANAGEMENT INDEX (O.M.I.)

SOIL
LOCAT TEAM VILLAGE PREP


FERT
APPL


WATER
APPL


THIN
FREQ


WEED
FREQ


SOIL
MOUND


0.096
0.096
7.656
0.096
0.096
11.436
83.256
7.656
18.996
22.776
41.676
11.436
7.656
98.376


AREA OF
HARVES


8.00
8.00
8.00
6.65
8.00
8.00
6.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00


O.M.I. LOCAT


47.596
74.096
31.656
62.746
89.096
51.436
151.256
55.156
97.996
46.776 -
108.176
110.436
52.656
188.376


LOCAT
TEAM
VILLAGE
SOIL PREP
FERT APPL
WATER APPL
THIN FREQ
WEED FREQ
SOIL MOUND
AREA OF HARVEST =
O.M.I.


location number assigned to each farm
Farming Systems team number
village of farm location-- PG: Pecan Grove; FF: Fifield
pre-planting land preparation; relative intensity (1-5 scale 10)
fertilizer applied as a single band (1) or as double bands (2)
liters of water applied per plot, including rainfall
number of thinnings (5 points assigned per occurrence)
number of weeding treatments (10 points assigned per occurrence)
number of times radishes mounded after thinning/weeding/watering (5 points per occurrence)
average area (sq. ft.) harvested per plot
summation of above factors for each farm


Table 2


KEY:








stated above) the zero treatment gave the lowest yields. Group 1's yields were perhaps slightly better

at the 200 treatment than the 100 treatment although a means separation would have to be performed

to be more certain. In Groups 2 and 3 the results look similar except that the differences between

treatment yields appear more clearly delineated than in Group 1. Responses to 100 Kg of nitrogen per

acre were higher than those for 200 in Group 2. Finally, in Group 3 the responses of the top two

treatments are reversed and 200 is better than 100.



Yield responses are per acre projections based on very small actual-yields per plot. Despite the

fact that droughts are experienced by real farmers, dry periods of the type we experienced are rare in

North Florida in March. Any recommendations based on separation of data means from on-farm trials

with real farms and farmers would probably show real differences in response to similar treatments.



Further partitioning of variation in El was attempted. We tried to explain differences based first

on the most obviously varying management practice: water input. Figure 4 is a curve obtained by

regressing liters H20 applied per plot against El. The model contains a quadratic function (R2=.284),

yet maintains linear shape. This suggests that a simpler model would do as well in explaining the

variation. The relatively flat slope of the line {E(Y) = a +x + 4x2 ; = 0.005973- W = 0.000112} across

a wide range of water application rates shows that El is not very responsive to watering. Another

source of variability might be identified.



Figure 5 indicates that the Growth Quality Index (GQI) also does not explain the prevalence of

low Els. The single high El, while on the highest quality site, is nevertheless an outlier when compared

S to all other environments. The remaining higher growth environments did not exhibit substantially

higher yields or Els. There is a mild trend, however, of slightly increasing Els for successively higher

quality sites. More detailed analysis, using larger sample sizes, would be needed for this observed

trend to be described as significant. The sample size for our trials was not large enough to allow


6










ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION

Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992
A-.


0 30 40 50 60 t0 80
WATER APPLICATION RATE (I/plot)


- PRED.


* ACTUAL


Figure 4


3


2


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- -....................................................................................................................
> - . - . . . . . . . . . .



^^ "7"___


1


"6


n


100







ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION
Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992


GROWTH QUALITY INDEX (GQI)


Figure 5









interaction terms to be included in a model.


The Overall Management Index (OMI) represents another attempt at environmental

characterization or explaining variation among Els (Figure 6). Admittedly based on subjective

observatiori, and in some cases relatively arbitrary assignment of values, OMI is a tool for possibly

quantifying differing levels of management input. We tried to be as objective as we could in assigning

values for e.g. degrees of soil preparation, weeding and thinning, and water input. The scaling for

different parameters included in the OMI was based on general trends of relative effects on plant

growth, as contained in the body of agronomic knowledge. More complete, detailed data on the

various parameters could make OMI a more useful tool.



Application of OMI to our data set, by regressing it against the response variable El, gave

similar results as did the water input curve. The model {E(Y) =a+4x+ Yx2 ; #=0.010183, =-3.9E-

06} explained only 18% of the variation in El when all 14 data points were included. Next, we

considered the relationship between OMI and El at each farm location. As Figure 7 indicates, higher

levels of management input did not necessarily result in a higher El. What about a possible correlation

of GQI, OMI, and El? Since our sample size of 14 farms was only one-third of that needed for the

simplest linear interaction model (E(Y) = a +x + w +A v}, a bar chart (Figure 8) proved the only means

of observing the relationship. The X-axis is a sorted listing of progressively larger GQI values. OMI

values are paired with corresponding Els and scaled on opposite Y-axes. The low Els observed, even

at relatively high OMI levels, indicate very little relationship between El and OMI, or any evidence of

interaction with GQI. We could not explain nor identify factors influencing El.



Appendix III contains confidence bands for each treatment. Unlike the other analyses discussed

so far, which were based on the researchers' criterion (yield per unit land area), the confidence bands

use a criterion more commonly important for farmers: yield per unit cash outlay. From the lower values


7








ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION
Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992
A-


34----------------------------------------------------------------


2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


140


1i6o 1i


200


* ACTUAL


"aI
-- - - - - - -- - - ---------------
---------
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----


n


hI


100


120


OVERALL MANAGEMENT INDEX


- PRED.


Figure 6


- --


20







ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION
Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992


LOCATION NUMBER


O.M.I. E.I.


Figure 7









ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION
Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992


200 X
LU
180
160 z
I-

120
0
100 <
z
80 <

60 _.
-J
-40

-20
0


GROWTH QUALITY INDEX


E.I. O.M.I.


Figure 8


X
Q


H-
z
Z
LU

0

LU








usa .In crlifiiiu inure cominiily iniapuatfIrnf^ rmerg yield pnr uinit cach outatfy. Fruiim tlia Inwa~i V 5rp

of the confidence intervals, estimations of risk were calculated. These are given in Figures 9 and 10,

for the poorer and better environments, respectively. The better environments are found in Pecan

Grove, while Fifield had the poorer environments.



Looking at Figure 9, we see that farmers requiring yields of 0.2 Kg for every $US spent could

choose to apply either 100 or 200 Kg N/ac, depending on the level of acceptable risk. Application of

200 Kg entails a slightly lower risk of not obtaining the required yield. Conversely, if a different farmer

was seeking to maximize yield per dollar spent, pnd was willing to accept that 25% of the time she

may not reach the peak yield, then 100 Kg of N/ac would be a more logical choice. In the better

environments of Pecan Grove* village (Figure 10), 100 kilos of nitrogen applied per acre is optimum

at all levels of acceptable risk.






























8
8









RISK ESTIMATION, RADISH
POORER ENVIRONMENTS (FIFIELD)
0.6
sa -m--
100 Kg

0.5..----------------------------------..------...--------------- 200 Kg
-A-
---- 300 Kg
Cf)0.4 ------------------------------------------------ ---------------- ----------------

I I I I I




5 10 15 20 25 Kg
.3-------E ---------------------------- ------------------------

-r ....X.-
0 0 ..........................................-..............-- - ..... ..-...........----......

-/ ----
0----------------------------------- ----

-. .-: -.......x.

0 5 10 15 20 25
PERCENT OF TIME BELOW VALUE


Figure 9









RISK ESTIMATION, RADISH
BETTER ENVIRONMENTS (PECAN GROVE)
6
100 Kg
--,.-4--.
5- ------------------------------------------------------...............----------....................... ------------------------------------------------------- 200 Kg
at-A-
300 Kg
-- 4- ....300 Kg........-.. -.................................................................................... ....
0 400 Kg

CO ) 3- ----- --- -- --- ------------ ----------- --.----- --------..------------- ----------: ......------------... ...........
< /- ---------------- -
0) / - ---


A -----------~
1-- "" ........-- ... ... -.-----.-
.- ......-...................--................... ......................


0 5 10 15 20 25
PERCENT OF TIME BELOW VALUE



Figure 10
















APPENDIX I








Summary tables of results, by team




Response curves across treatments, by farm







FSR ON-FARM TRIALS: RADISH RESPONSE TO FERTILIZATION
TEAM 1 TEAM 1


PECAN GROVE


PECAN GROVE


RADISH #
TRTMNT > $.05
Kg/ha N
0 2
100 46
200 43.
300 31
400 46


TOTALS

# TRTs


TOTAL
NO.


RADISH WT


grams
15
501
614
570
598


28 196


2298


grams
22
30
8
17
35


TOTAL AREA OF
WT. HARVEST
grams ft*ft
37 6
531 6
622 6
587 6
633 6


2410


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons / acre
0.119828
4.002267
4.904974
4.553477
4.777157


30 18.357702


> $.10
tons / acre
0.175748
0.239657
0.063908
0.135805
0.279599

0.894718


GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)

ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El)


FIFIELD


FIFIELD


RADISH # TOTAL RADISH WT
TRTMINT > $.05 > $.10 NO. > $.05


grams
0
75
159
21
0


grams
0
16
34


TOTAL
WT.
grams
0
91
193


AREA OF
HARVEST
ft*ft
8
8
8


80 335


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons / acre
0.000000
0.449356.
0.952635
0.125820
0.000000


1.527811


GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)


ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El) 0.401425


TOTAL
YIELD
tons/ acre
0.295577
4.241923
4.968882
4.689283
5.056756


19.252421

3.850484


Kg/ha N
0
100
200
300
400

TOTALS

# TRTs


> $.10
tons / acre
0.000000
0.095863
0.203708
0.107846
0.071897

0.479313


TOTAL
YIELD
tons / acre
0.000000
0.545219
1.156344
0.233665
0.071897


2.007125








PECAN GROVE: TEAM I (LOCAT 7)
6

large
5 -------------------------------------------------------- ----------------......................................................
total

4 ---------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c I
I4-

C


I
2$------------------------------------
C





0 100 200 300 400
NITROGEN APPLICATION RATE (Kg/ac)








FIFIELD: TEAM I (LOCAT 14)
1.25

large

1 total




LU
S 0.75 ------------------------------------ ------- ----------------- ---- ---------------------------------------------


0
S0.5 -------------------------.....---- ------------------------------------------------------------------.....--.....................---------------


0.25------------- -------- -------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------


100 200 300
NITROGEN APPLICATION RATE (Kg/ac)








FSR ON-FARM TRIALS: RADISH RESPONSE TO FERTILIZATION
TEAM 2 TEAM 2


PECAN GROVE


PECAN GROVE


RADISH # TOTAL RADISH WT
TRTMNT > $.05 > $.10 NO. > $.05 > $.10


Kg/ha N
0
100
200
300
400

TOTALS

# TRTs


grams
0
0
29
10
10


grams
0
40
52
27
35


49


TOTAL AREA OF
WT. HARVEST
grams ft*ft
0 8
40 8
81 8


203


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons / acre
0.000000
0.000000
0.173751
0.059914
0.059914


40 0.293579


tons / acre
0.000000
0.239657
0.311554
0.161768
0.209700

0.922678


GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)

ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El)


RADISH #
> $.05 > $.10

0 0
0 3
0 27
5 11
9 11


TOTAL
NO.

0
3
27
16
20


RADISH WT
> $.05 > $.10


grams
0
0


.grams
0
7


0 79


TOTAL
WT.
grams
0
7
79


FIFIELD

AREA OF
HARVEST
ft*ft
8
8
8


42 86
46 111


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons / acre
0.000000
0.000000.
0.000000
0.263622
0.389442


40 0.653064


GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)


ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El) 0.339114


TOTAL
YIELD
tons / acre
0.000000
0.239657
0.485305
0.221682
0.269614


1.216258

0.243252


FIFIELD


TRTMNT
Kg/ha N
0
100
200
300
400

TOTALS

# TRTs


> $.10
tons / acre
0.000000
0.041940
0.473322
0.251640
0.275605

1.042507


TOTAL
YIELD
tons / acre
0.000000
0.041940
0.473322
0.515262
0.665047


1.695571










PECAN GROVE: TEAM II (LOCAT 6)


100


200


300


NITROGEN APPLICATION RATE (Kg/ac)


.00- .%-


0.754- .---- -- ---------------------------------


C"
0


LU
>-


-mr-

large


total


0.5-




0.25-


_I


n


.Ini


400


--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------




---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- -------------- ..........


0









FIFIELD: TEAM II (LOCAT 13)
1.25
-I.-
large

1- total



co 0.75 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0.5- -------------1-----------------------------------------------------------






0 .25 ----------------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------------ ---- -----------------------
0.7

S0.5-

-j
0.5-





0.2$-----i'-------------if--------------


0 100 200 300 400
NITROGEN APPLICATION RATE (Kg/ac)








FSR ON-FARM TRIALS: RADISH RESPONSE TO FERTILIZATION
TEAM 3 TEAM 3


PECAN GROVE


PECAN GROVE


RADISH # TOTAL RADISH WT
TRTMNT > $.05 > $.10 NO. > $.05 > $.10


grams
25
139
108


Kg/ha N
0
100
200
300
400

TOTALS

# TRTs


55 102


301


TOTAL AREA OF
WT. HARVEST


grams grams
5 30
55 194
36 144
24 42
31 42


' 151


452


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons / acre
0.149785
0.832807
0.647073
0.107846
0.065906


> $.10
tons / acre
0.029957
0.329528
0.215691
0.143794
0.185734


40 1.803417 0.904704

GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)

ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El)


FIFIELD


RADISH #
> $.05


TOTAL
NO.


RADISH WT
> $.05 >
grams
0
0
0
0
0


TOTAL AREA OF
$.10 WT. HARVEST


grams
0
6
2
5
0


grams
0
6
2
5
0


0 13


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons / acre
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000


40 0.000000


GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)


ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El) 0.015578


TOTAL
YIELD
tons / acre
0.179743
1.162335
0.862764
0.251640
0.251640


2.708121

0.541624


FIFIELD


TRTMNT
Kg/ha N
0
100
200
300
400

TOTALS

# TRTs


> $.10
tons / acre
0.000000
0.035949
0.011983
0.029957
0.000000

0.077888


TOTAL
YIELD
tons / acre
0.000000
0.035949
0.011983
0.029957
0.000000


0.077888









PECAN GROVE: TEAM III (LOCAT 5)


NITROGEN APPLICATION RATE (Kg/ac)


c:
0

Q
-j
0
w

(I)


large


total









FIFIELD: TEAM III (LOCAT 12)
1.25T


0.75 ----------...-----------------------......----------------------------------------------------.........................


0.54 --- .------------------------------------------- --------------......----


0.25- --.........................................-------------------..........


I-IE


100


200


300


AMMONIUM NITRATE [45-0-0] RATE (Kg/ac)


large


total


,1.


400


Cl)
C
0
4-a

O


I
co

CE


I R K


14 ------------------------------------ --------------- --------------


-----)---- -r-









TEAM 4

PECAN GROVE


FSR ON-FARM TRIALS: RADISH RESPONSE TO FERTILIZATION
TEAM 4

PECAN GROVE


RADISH #
TRTMNT > $.05
Kg/ha N
0 0
100 3
200 4
300 4
400 4


TOTAL
NO.


RADISH WT


grams
0
15
21
17
23


grams
0
S22
57
34
35


TOTAL
WT.
grams
0
37
78
51
58


76 148


TOTALS

# TRTs


AREA OF
HARVEST
ft*ft
8
3.75
8
5.5
8


33.25


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons / acre
0.000000 '
0.191725
0.125820
0.148151
0.137803


0.603499


>$.10
tons / acre
0.000000
'0.281197
0.341511
0.296303
0.209700

1.128710


GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)

ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El)


FIFIELD


RADISH #
> $.05 > $.10

0 0
0 0
2 9
0 3
0 2

2 14


TOTAL
NO.

0
0
11
3
2

16


RADISH WT
> $.05 >$.10
grams grams
0 0


22.5


TOTAL
WT.
grams
0
0
30
7
5


34.5


AREA OF
HARVEST
ft*ft
8
8
8
8
8

40


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons / acre
0.000000
0.000000.
0.044936
0.000000
0.000000

0.044936


GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)


0.251640


ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El) 0.050328


TOTAL
YIELD
tons / acre
0.000000
0.472923
0.467331
0.444454
0.347502


1.732210

0.346442


FIFIELD


TRTMNT
Kg/ha N
0
100
200
300
400

TOTALS


# TRTs


TOTAL
YIELD
tons / acre
0.000000
0.000000
0.179743
0.041940
0.029957


> $.10
tons / acre
0.000000
0.000000
0.134807
0.041940
0.029957

0.206704








PECAN GROVE: TEAM IV (LOCAT 4)


0.75-------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


100 200 300
NITROGEN APPLICATION RATE (Kg/ac)


1.25-


large

total


)


400


14 --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------


-- - - - - -- -- - - - - - -------.----------.~-_-__ ~_,


0.5



0.25-



0:









FIFIELD: TEAM IV (LOCAT 11)
1.251


0.754 -----------...----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------


0.5 ---------------------------------------- -- --------


0.254 --------------------------------- ------------ ------- ----------------------------


200


300


r


large

total
total


400


NITROGEN APPLICATION RATE (Kg/ac)


c:
0
c)

I
w

U)
0


iLp~


..................


0


100








FSR ON-FARM TRIALS: RADISH RESPONSE TO FERTILIZATION
TEAM 5 TEAM 5


PECAN GROVE


PECAN GROVE


RADISH #
TRTMNT > $.05
Kg/ha N
0 1
100 13
200 6
300 10
400 8


TOTAL
NO.


RADISH WT
> $.05
grams
9
128
52
48
34


grams
7
24
27


TOTAL
WT.
grams
16
152
79


AREA OF
HARVEST
ft*ft
8
8
8
8
8


82 353


TOTALS

# TRTs


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons/ acre
0.053923
0.766901
'0.311554
0.287588
0.203708


1.623674


tons / acre
0.041940
0.143794
0.161768
0.059914
0.083880

0.491296


GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)

ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El)


FIFIELD


FIFIELD


RADISH # TOTAL RADISH WT
TRTMNT > $.05 > $.10 NO. > $.05 > $.10


Kg/ha N
0
100
200
300
400

TOTALS

# TRTs


grams
0
0
0
0
0


TOTAL AREA OF
WT. HARVEST


grams grams
--0 0
7 7
6 6
4 4
4 4


ft*ft
8
8
8
8
8


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons / acre
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000


40 0.000000


GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)


ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El) 0.025164


TOTAL
YIELD
tons / acre
0.095863
0.910695
0.473322
0.347502
0.287588


2.114970

0.422994


> $.10
tons / acre
0.000000
0.041940
0.035949
0.023966
0.023966

0.125820


TOTAL
YIELD
tons / acre
0.000000
0.041940
0.035949
0.023966
0.023966


0.125820







PECAN GROVE: TEAM V (LOCAT 3)


NITROGEN APPLICATION RATE (Kg/ac)


large

total









FIFIELD: TEAM V (LOCAT 10)
1.25 1


1-



0.75-



0.5-



0.25-


lit ----~ -


200


300
300


NITROGEN APPLICATION RATE (Kg/ac)


r-
0


w
LU
>-
I
0)
Q


large

total
total


400


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


100








FSR ON-FARM TRIALS: RADISH RESPONSE TO FERTILIZATION
TEAM 6 TEAM 6


PECAN GROVE


PECAN GROVE


RADISH #
TRTMNT > $.05
Kg/ha N
0 1
100 9
200 20
300 13
400 11


> $.10

6
15
18
15
18


TOTAL
NO.

7
24
38
28
29


RADISH WT
> $.05
grams
5.77
56.71
160.46
70.95
61.96


grams
11.14
38.06
51.45
32.64
43.67


TOTAL AREA OF
WT. HARVEST
grams ft*ft
16.91 8
94.77 8
211.91 8
103.59 8
105.63 8


72 126 355.85 176.96 532.81


TOTALS

# TRTs


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons / acre
0.034570
0.339773
0.961383
0.425091
0.371228


40 2.132046


> $.10
tons / acre
0.066744
0.228033
0.308258
0.195560
0.261645

1.060241


GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)

ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El)


FIFIELD


RADISH WT
> $.05
grams
0
0
25.2
9.08
16.15


41 50.43


grams
0
6.8
22.46


TOTAL AREA OF
WT. HARVEST
grams ft*ft
0 8
6.8 8
47.66 8


26.33 35.41
11.94 28.09

67.53 117.96


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons / acre
0.000000
0.000000
0.150984
0.054402
0.096761


40 0.302147


GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)


0.706748


ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El) 0.141350


TOTAL
YIELD
tons / acre
0.101315
0.567807
1.269641
0.620651
0.632873


3.192287

0.638457


FIFIELD


TRTMNT
Kg/ha N
0
100
200
300
400

TOTALS


TOTAL
NO.


RADISH #
> $.05 > $.10

0 (
0
5
2 11
3


# TRTs


TOTAL
YIELD
tons / acre
0.000000
0.040742
0.285551
0.212156
0.168299


tons / acre
0.000000
0.040742
0.134567
0.157754
0.071538

0.404600







PECAN GROVE: TEAM VI (LOCAT 2)


NITROGEN APPLICATION RATE (Kg/ac)


large

total









FIFIELD: TEAM VI (LOCAT 9)
1.25-i


0.75 ------------------------------------------------------------------ --- --- ------ --


0.5-



0.25-


4


iiipp~


0


100


200


300


0


NITROGEN APPLICATION RATE (Kg/ac)


-I~--
large

total
total


400


CD
0




I
r-
CO3


11 t--------------------------------------------------------- --------------------


----------------------------------------------------- --------------- -----------------------------------------








FSR ON-FARM TRIALS: RADISH RESPONSE TO FERTILIZATION
TEAM 7 TEAM 7


PECAN GROVE


PECAN GROVE


RADISH #
> $.05

1
7
10
3
2


TOTAL RADISH WT
> $.10 NO. > $.05


grams
6
38
46
25
9


>$.10
grams
10
23
37
24
26


124 o 120


TOTAL
WT.
grams
16
61
83
49
35


244


AREA OF
HARVEST
ft*ft
8
8
8
8
8


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons / acre
0.035949
0.227674
0.275605
0.149785
0.053923


40 0.742936


>$.10 .
tons / acre
0.059914
0.137803
0.221682
0.143794
0.155777

S0.718970


TRTMNT
Kg/ha N
0
100
200
300
400

TOTALS

# TRTs


FIFIELD


RADISH #
> $.05


TOTAL
NO.


RADISH W1
> $.05
grams
0
52
0
0
0


T TOTAL AREA OF
> $.10 WT. HARVEST
grams grams ft*ft
0 0 8
19 71 8
3 3 8
0 0 8
4 4 8


YIELD BY SIZE
> $.05
tons/ acre
0.000000
0.311554
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000


> $.10
tons / acre
S0.000000
0.113837
0.017974
0.000000
0.023966


40 0.311554 0.155777

GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)


ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El) 0.093466


GRAND TOTAL YIELD (GTY)

ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (El)


TOTAL
YIELD
tons / acre
0.095863
0.365476
0.497288
0.293579
0.209700


1.461906

0.292381


FIFIELD


TRTMNT
Kg/ha N
0
100
200
300
400

TOTALS

STRTs


TOTAL
YIELD
tons / acre
0.000000
0.425391
0.017974
0.000000
0.023966


0.467331









PECAN GROVE: TEAM VII (LOCAT 1)
1.25

large

total


5 0.75- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------


1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ to a
LU)

0.5----- --------------------------- -------
0



0.25t-------,--..-pl~"




0 100 200 300 400
NITROGEN APPLICATION RATE (Kg/ac)







FIFIELD: TEAM VII (LOCAT 8)


400


NITROGEN APPLICATION RATE (Kg/ac)


large

total
















APPENDIX II








Scatter Plots for all environments (EIs)




Scatter Plots for low El environments









NO FERTILIZATION: ALL E.I.s
Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992


0.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0.24 ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------


0.1 .------- ---- ----------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------.-------------


1.5


2.0


2.5


ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX


LIN


1.0


3.0


3.5


4.0


0.5-


0.3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ---


0.0 IA0.5-A-
0.0 0.5









100 Kg FERTILIZATION: ALL E.I.s
Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992


3.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2.0 ------------------------ : .--- ..-- ----.. .---.... .......--- -- .---.----- .......-- ... -


1.0 .-----------;L -----..-------------- ..---.--


AL


1.5


2.0


2.5


3.0


3.5


LIN


4.0


ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX


A
4.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0.5


1.0


0.0
0.0


3n









200 Kg FERTILIZATION: ALL E.I.s
Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992
5.0


4.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---


3.0 ---------------------- ....-------------------------------- ---..- .--......................


2.0 ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1.0 -------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I I I


1.5 2.0 2.5
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX


LU
C/)
Z

C/)
O

0


w
LU




LU


LIN


A


nn


0.0


0.5


3.0


3.5


4.0


r








300 Kg FERTILIZATION: ALL E.I.s
Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992
5.0-


W 4.0- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -


0 3.0- ------------ -- .--------------------------------------
Cr
0
C/ 3.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
w
I- 2.0 .......-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.<

cf) 10--------------------------------- --------------------"----"--------- -- ---------
I-


ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX


AJA'e









400 Kg FERTILIZATION: ALL E.I.s
Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992


I I Inn


1.5 2.0 2.5
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX


6.0


4.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


3.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------


nn


U.Ua
0.0


0.5


1.0


3.0


3.5


4.0


1~1


r


>


5.0o4 --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ................A--.


1.04 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


,a4t~aa


ll










NO FERTILIZATION: LOW E.I.s
Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992


0.5-1


0.44- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0.34-----..-....... -----.............................................................................................


0.24..................----------------------------------- .........-----------------------------


An


I A A


0.0


A A


0.1


A A .


0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX


(D

Cd

0
_I
-U
Li


LI


0.6


0.7


0.1 -------.-..-..-.................... ....- .................... .....................-------------------------------.............-.........










100 Kg FERTILIZATION: LOW E.l.s
Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992


0.6-


...................................................................................................................................................................................................................


0.3 ..................--------------------------------------------------.. ..---.. ------


IA*


0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX


0
C)
a

LU

t


0n


A


0.0


0.1
0.1


0.6


0.7


1.2 ------.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .- A ------------.-.-----------


0.9------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------.................................----..-.......--


I









200 Kg FERTILIZATION: LOW E.I.s
Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992
1.5-


0.6j -------------- -- ------------------- -------- ------------------ --
A A A


.... .............--------------------------.... ..--------------------.-.--...------------ -------


0.1


1 f 8 I


0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX


LI


CD


C
0
_J

>-


0.3-


0.0


0.6


0.7


1.2 ------------------------------------- --- -- --- --- ---- -- -- --- ------- -- ------ --I


0.9 --------------------... ----- ...------------...-- --... ..--- -..-................... .. ...... ..............


nt









300 Kg FERTILIZATION: LOW E.I.s
Radishes;Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992
5I


0.9---------------------------------------- --- -----------------


A
A
--- --- -- --- --- -- --- ----------------------..- & ------------ I ----------------------------- : ---------------------------


A


0.1


0.2


0.3


0.4


0.5


0.6


0


1.


ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX


(I)

C-
-1
W
t


0.0


.7


1.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


.6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- -- --------- .A ......


0.3-










400 Kg FERTILIZATION: LOW E.I.s
Radishes; Pecan Grove & Fifield; 1992
r-


0.94------------------------------- -- ------------------


AA




A
........................................ .: ...-.... ...... .....- .- ..- .- ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
.A "


I I I I ....


0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX


CD
L.
O
C,)

r"
0

4J
w


0.6-


0.3-


"nI


U.U 1A
0.0


.A A A


0.1


0.6


0.7


1.2 ------------------------------------


LIN












APPENDIX m





Confidence Intervals for better environments (Pecan Grove)



Confidence Intervals for poorer environments (Fifield).




I.








DISTRIBUTION OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
Radish; 100 Kg N/Ac; PECAN GROVE; 1992
20


15------------------------------------------------------------------------



I

c/)
1 5 .--- -- -- -- ----. -. -.-. -. .-.-.----- --- --- --- -.. ---.-.. .- ..-.-.-- . -










50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT WITHIN INTERVAL








DISTRIBUTION OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
Radish; 200 Kg N/Ac; PECAN GROVE; 1992
10




O
O
I
80-----------------------------------------------


|/ 6 -------------------------------- --------- ----------------------- -- -- --------- -- --- --- ---










S0 60 70 80 90 100
0




I --------*-------0



50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT WITHIN INTERVAL r







DISTRIBUTION OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
Radish; 300 Kg N/Ac; PECAN GROVE; 1992
<0. _------------- ---


g4 5


100


PERCENT WITHIN INTERVAL


2.5-


i-
c)
0
0
cO/)
I<
0

0)


1.5-
1-
0.5-


_n


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------- --- ---------------- -----------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------- m ------------------------- ------------------------
---------------------------- ) -----
----------- -- -----------------------
....... -------------
.................. --------------------


24


50O








DISTRIBUTION OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
Radish; 400 Kg N/Ac; PECAN GROVE; 1992,
2.5





0
I




0- .5----------------------------------|
0 --------------------- I- --------.- --.-.- .-.-- ---- -- ---------- .----- ------------------------------------- -- /
--- -------------






0 .5 ,,,,,,
50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT.WITHIN INTERVAL









DISTRIBUTION OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
Radishes; 100 Kg N/Ac; FIFIELD; 1992
8

6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S 4- ------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------


I
0C
2 - -- - ----------------------- ---------- -- --------------- ------ ------------------- -------



C) 40- ------------------------------------------------- -------- ----- ---------------- ----------- -------------- -------
< -------- ---






-46................------....-.. .-- ). -----.-..----

6 II I I 0 I I I
P50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT WITHIN INTERVAL








DISTRIBUTION OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
Radishes; 200 Kg N/Ac; FIFIELD; 1992
3



F-



< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
0









50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT WITHIN INTERVAL










DISTRIBUTION OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
Radishes; 300 Kg N/Ac; FIFIELD; 1992

1.5






O
1.5--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------



O 0

-0)
0 ----------------------------------- ---- ---- ------------------------- -- ------------ -------



-0.5- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------
-.05-------------------------- ---------



-1 I I I I I11 1
50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT WITHIN INTERVAL


i











DISTRIBUTION OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS

Radishes; 400 Kg N/Ac; FIFIELD; 1992

0.81 1


0.6-






I
)- 0.4-

O
S0.2-
r




')
S-0.2-


-0.4-


-0.6-
5


0


100


PERCENT WITHIN INTERVAL


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------


------------- 7 -------------------------------------------------- ft-ft ---------


---------------------------------- -------------- ft ------------------------- -------------------- ft -------- ft --------


------------------------------------------------ w -------------------------- -------- ----------------- --


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ft -------------------------------




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs