Statistical analysis of genetics parameter

1. Statistical Analysis of Genetics Parameter
PRESENTED BY: Pawan Nagar
Reg. no.: 04-2690-2015
M.Sc.(Fruit Science)

2. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
RANDOMIZED COMPLETE BLOCK DESIGN (RBD)
Introduction:
In this design the whole experimental material is divided
into homogeneous groups, each of which constitutes a single
replication. Each of these groups is further divided into a number of
experimental units which are equal in all respects. The treatments
are applied to these units by any random process. It is important to note
that fresh randomization is done in each block. The number of plots in
each block is equal to the number of treatments, so that each block
is a replicate of each treatment. An important and essential point on
which the attention kept is that the experimental errors within each
group are to be kept as small as practically possible and the variation
from block to block as great as possible. In this way all the treatments
which are assigned to one group, experience the same type of
environmental effects and are therefore comparable.

3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Applications:
This experimental design is especially used in the fields of research where the experimental
material is expected to be heterogeneous but it is possible to group the homogeneous
experimental units in the form of blocks. It's use in agriculture is very common because the
fields on which the experiments are to be laid out are generally heterogeneous in nature, but
the fertility gradient of the soil might have a tendency towards a particular direction. It is also
possible that adjacent contagious plots forming a block will generally be homogeneous in
nature as compared to widely apart experimental plots, forming the experimental material to
which the treatments are to be superimposed. Similarly, in case of experiments on trees or
animals where it is possible to control the variation in some known characteristics is possible,
this design is used.

4. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Layout plan : No. of treatment : 5 (A,B,C,D,E), No. of replications : 4
I II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B C E A D D A C E B
III IV
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
A C D B E B D C A E
I II III
1 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 17 18 19 20
T6 T1 T4 T3 T5 T2 T7 T3 T3 T8 T5 T1
5 6 7 8 13 14 15 16 21 22 23 24
T7 T5 T2 T8 T4 T1 T6 T8 T6 T2 T4 T7
Layout plan 2 : Treatments = 8, No. of replications : 3

5. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Layout plan : No. of treatment : 5 (A,B,C,D,E), No. of replications : 4
I II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B C E A D D A C E B
III IV
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
A C D B E B D C A E
I II III
1 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 17 18 19 20
T6 T1 T4 T3 T5 T2 T7 T3 T3 T8 T5 T1
5 6 7 8 13 14 15 16 21 22 23 24
T7 T5 T2 T8 T4 T1 T6 T8 T6 T2 T4 T7
Layout plan 2 : Treatments = 8, No. of replications : 3
Note : Compact near to square block long and narrow plots.
Here the numbers indicate the numbers of experimental units constituting a block or
replication and the letters superimposed on the units indicate the randomly allotted treatments.

6. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Yij = m + ti + bj + eij
Where, Yij = Response or yield from the jth unit receiving the
ith treatment
m = General mean
ti = Effect of ith treatment
bj = Effect of jth replication
eij = Uncontrolled variation associated with ith
treatment in jth replication.
Statistical model:

7. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Source of
variation
DF Sum of Squares (SS)
M. S.
(SS/DF)
Cal. F
Replication (r-1) MSR MSR/MSE
Treatment (t-1) MST MST/MSE
Error (t-1)(r-1) By subtraction MSE
Total (rt-1)
Analysis of Variance
rt
Y
t
Y
r
j
ij
t
i
r
j
j  

1
2
11
2
. )(
rt
Y
r
Y
r
j
ij
t
i
t
i
i  

1
2
11
2
.
)(
rt
Y
Y
r
j
ij
t
i
r
j
ij
t
i

 


1
2
1
1
2
1
)(

8. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
r
MS
EmS E.. 
The standard error of mean =
Critical difference at 5 % level of significance
..2))(05.0()05.0( EmStCD edfp 
(when treatment F is significant)
100
GM
MSE
% CV
Standard error and critical difference:

9. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
1. Any number of treatments can be tried in this design. However, this depends
upon the homogeneity of the material within a group of replication.
2. Any number of replications can be had depending upon the availability of the
experimental material.
Advantages:

10. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout

11. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1
2
3
4
Two way table

12. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100
2
3
4
Two way table

13. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (3) 116 (2) 100
(2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124
2
3
4
Two way table

14. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (3) 116 (2) 100
(2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148
2
3
4
Two way table

15. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (3) 116 (2) 100
(2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124
(2) 116 (4) 124 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44
2
3
4
Two way table

16. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (3) 116
(4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156
(2) 116 (4) 124 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44
2 116 156 124 100
3
4
Two way table

17. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44
2 116 156 124 100
3 132 156 116 76
4 132 124 100 92
Two way table

18. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44 416
2 116 156 124 100 496
3 132 156 116 76 480
4 132 124 100 92 448
Two way table

19. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44 416
2 116 156 124 100 496
3 132 156 116 76 480
4 132 124 100 92 448
480 560 488 312
Two way table

20. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44 416
2 116 156 124 100 496
3 132 156 116 76 480
4 132 124 100 92 448
480 560 488 312 1840
Two way table

21. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44 416
2 116 156 124 100 496
3 132 156 116 76 480
4 132 124 100 92 448
480 560 488 312 1840
Two way table
Correction factor
𝐶𝐹 =
𝐺𝑇2
𝑟. 𝑡
=
18402
4𝑥4
= 211600

22. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44 416
2 116 156 124 100 496
3 132 156 116 76 480
4 132 124 100 92 448
480 560 488 312 1840
Two way table
Correction factor
𝐶𝐹 =
𝐺𝑇2
𝑟. 𝑡
=
18402
4𝑥4
= 211600
GM=
𝐺𝑇
𝑟.𝑡
=
1840
16
= 115

23. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Source of
variation
DF Sum of Squares (SS)
M. S.
(SS/DF)
Cal. F
Replication (r-1) MSR MSR/MSE
Treatment (t-1) MST MST/MSE
Error (t-1)(r-1) By subtraction MSE
Total (rt-1)
Analysis of Variance
rt
Y
t
Y
r
j
ij
t
i
r
j
j  

1
2
11
2
. )(
rt
Y
r
Y
r
j
ij
t
i
t
i
i  

1
2
11
2
.
)(
rt
Y
Y
r
j
ij
t
i
r
j
ij
t
i

 


1
2
1
1
2
1
)(

24. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Source of
variation
DF Sum of Squares (SS)
M. S.
(SS/DF)
Cal. F
Replication (r-1)=3
MSR MSR/MSE
Treatment (t-1)=3
MST MST/MSE
Error
(t-1)(r-1)
=9
MSE
Total (rt-1)=15
Analysis of Variance

25. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44 416
2 116 156 124 100 496
3 132 156 116 76 480
4 132 124 100 92 448
480 560 488 312 1840
Two way table
Correction factor
𝐶𝐹 =
𝐺𝑇2
𝑟. 𝑡
=
18402
4𝑥4
= 211600
GM=
𝐺𝑇
𝑟.𝑡
=
1840
16
= 115
Total SS = 1002+1242+…+922-CF
=13040

26. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44 416
2 116 156 124 100 496
3 132 156 116 76 480
4 132 124 100 92 448
480 560 488 312 1840
Two way table
Correction factor
𝐶𝐹 =
𝐺𝑇2
𝑟. 𝑡
=
18402
4𝑥4
= 211600
GM=
𝐺𝑇
𝑟.𝑡
=
1840
16
= 115
Total SS = 1002+1242+…+922-CF
=13040
944211600
4
448...416 22


SSTreat

27. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44 416
2 116 156 124 100 496
3 132 156 116 76 480
4 132 124 100 92 448
480 560 488 312 1840
Two way table
Correction factor
𝐶𝐹 =
𝐺𝑇2
𝑟. 𝑡
=
18402
4𝑥4
= 211600
GM=
𝐺𝑇
𝑟.𝑡
=
1840
16
= 115
Total SS = 1002+1242+…+922-CF
=13040
944211600
4
448...416 22


SSTreat
8272211600
4
312...480
.Re
22


SSpl

28. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44 416
2 116 156 124 100 496
3 132 156 116 76 480
4 132 124 100 92 448
480 560 488 312 1840
Two way table
Correction factor
𝐶𝐹 =
𝐺𝑇2
𝑟. 𝑡
=
18402
4𝑥4
= 211600
GM=
𝐺𝑇
𝑟.𝑡
=
1840
16
= 115
Total SS = 1002+1242+…+922-CF
=13040
944211600
4
448...416 22


SSTreat
8272211600
4
312...480
.Re
22


SSpl
3824827294413040 SSError

29. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Source of
variation
DF Sum of Squares (SS)
M. S.
(SS/DF)
Cal. F
Replication (r-1)=3 MSR MSR/MSE
Treatment (t-1)=3 MST MST/MSE
Error
(t-1)(r-1)
=9 By subtraction MSE
Total (rt-1)=15
Analysis of Variance
rt
Y
t
Y
r
j
ij
t
i
r
j
j  

1
2
11
2
. )(
rt
Y
r
Y
r
j
ij
t
i
t
i
i  

1
2
11
2
.
)(
rt
Y
Y
r
j
ij
t
i
r
j
ij
t
i

 


1
2
1
1
2
1
)(

30. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Source of
variation
DF Sum of Squares (SS)
M. S.
(SS/DF)
Cal. F
Replication (r-1)=3
SSR=8272 MSR MSR/MSE
Treatment (t-1)=3
SST=944 MST MST/MSE
Error
(t-1)(r-1)
=9
SSE=3824 MSE
Total (rt-1)=15
13040
Analysis of Variance

31. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Source of
variation
DF Sum of Squares (SS)
M. S.
(SS/DF)
Cal. F
Replication (r-1)=3
SSR=8272 MSR
=8272/3
=2757.33
MSR/MSE
Treatment (t-1)=3
SST=944 MST MST/MSE
Error
(t-1)(r-1)
=9
SSE=3824 MSE
Total (rt-1)=15
13040
Analysis of Variance

32. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Source of
variation
DF Sum of Squares (SS)
M. S.
(SS/DF)
Cal. F
Replication (r-1)=3
SSR=8272 MSR
=8272/3
=2757.33
MSR/MSE
Treatment (t-1)=3
SST=944 MST
=314.67
MST/MSE
Error
(t-1)(r-1)
=9
SSE=3824 MSE
=424.89
Total (rt-1)=15
13040
Analysis of Variance

33. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Source of
variation
DF Sum of Squares (SS)
M. S.
(SS/DF)
Cal. F
Replication (r-1)=3
SSR=8272 MSR
=8272/3
=2757.33
MSR/MSE
=2757.33
/424.89
=6.49
Treatment (t-1)=3
SST=944 MST
=314.67
MST/MSE
Error
(t-1)(r-1)
=9
SSE=3824 MSE
=424.89
Total (rt-1)=15
13040
Analysis of Variance

34. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Source of
variation
DF Sum of Squares (SS)
M. S.
(SS/DF)
Cal. F
Replication (r-1)=3
SSR=8272 MSR
=8272/3
=2757.33
MSR/MSE
=2757.33
/424.89
=6.49
Treatment (t-1)=3
SST=944 MST
=314.67
MST/MSE
0.74
Error
(t-1)(r-1)
=9
SSE=3824 MSE
=424.89
Total (rt-1)=15
13040
Analysis of Variance

35. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Source of
variation
DF Sum of Squares (SS)
M. S.
(SS/DF)
Cal. F
Replication (r-1)=3
SSR=8272 MSR
=8272/3
=2757.33
MSR/MSE
=2757.33
/424.89
=6.49
Treatment (t-1)=3
SST=944 MST
=314.67
MST/MSE
0.74
Error
(t-1)(r-1)
=9
SSE=3824 MSE
=424.89 --
Total (rt-1)=15
13040 -- --
Analysis of Variance

36. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Source of
variation
DF Sum of Squares (SS)
M. S.
(SS/DF)
Cal. F
Replication (r-1)=3
SSR=8272 MSR
=8272/3
=2757.33
MSR/MSE
=2757.33
/424.89
=6.49
Treatment (t-1)=3
SST=944 MST
=314.67
MST/MSE
0.74
Error
(t-1)(r-1)
=9
SSE=3824 MSE
=424.89 --
Total (rt-1)=15
13040 -- --
Analysis of Variance
Compare Cal F with Table F (0.05, 3, 9)=

37. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Source of
variation
DF Sum of Squares (SS)
M. S.
(SS/DF)
Cal. F
Replication (r-1)=3
SSR=8272 MSR
=8272/3
=2757.33
MSR/MSE
=2757.33
/424.89
=6.49
Treatment (t-1)=3
SST=944 MST
=314.67
MST/MSE
0.74
Error
(t-1)(r-1)
=9
SSE=3824 MSE
=424.89 --
Total (rt-1)=15
13040 -- --
Analysis of Variance
Compare Cal F with Table F (0.05, 3, 9)=(3.86)
df for numerator
df 1 2 3 4 5
1
161.4
5 199.50
215.7
1
224.5
8
230.1
6
2 18.51 19.00 19.16 19.25 19.30
3 10.13 9.55 9.28 9.12 9.01
4 7.71 6.94 6.59 6.39 6.26
5 6.61 5.79 5.41 5.19 5.05
6 5.99 5.14 4.76 4.53 4.39
7 5.59 4.74 4.35 4.12 3.97
8 5.32 4.46 4.07 3.84 3.69
9 5.12 4.26 3.86 3.63 3.48
10 4.96 4.10 3.71 3.48 3.33

38. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Source of
variation
DF Sum of Squares (SS)
M. S.
(SS/DF)
Cal. F
Replication (r-1)=3
SSR=8272 MSR
=8272/3
=2757.33
MSR/MSE
=2757.33
/424.89
=6.49
Treatment (t-1)=3
SST=944 MST
=314.67
MST/MSE
0.74
Error
(t-1)(r-1)
=9
SSE=3824 MSE
=424.89 --
Total (rt-1)=15
13040 -- --
Analysis of Variance
Compare Cal F with Table F (0.05, 3, 9)=(3.86)

39. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44 416
2 116 156 124 100 496
3 132 156 116 76 480
4 132 124 100 92 448
480 560 488 312 1840
Two way table
Here, Cal F (0.74)< Table F (0.05) (3 df, 9 df) (3.86),
Observed difference non-significant
Accept H0 : All treatment means are equal.

40. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44 416
2 116 156 124 100 496
3 132 156 116 76 480
4 132 124 100 92 448
480 560 488 312 1840
Two way table
Here, Cal F (0.74)< Table F (0.05) (3 df, 9 df) (3.86),
Observed difference non-significant
Accept H0 : All treatment means are equal.
31.10
4
89.424
.. EmS

41. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44 416
2 116 156 124 100 496
3 132 156 116 76 480
4 132 124 100 92 448
480 560 488 312 1840
Two way table
Here, Cal F (0.74)< Table F (0.05) (3 df, 9 df) (3.86),
Observed difference non-significant
Accept H0 : All treatment means are equal.
31.10
4
89.424
.. EmS
SEmtCD  2)9,05.0(

42. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Four wheat varieties of ‘Rust Resistant’ hybrids were put under yield trial against local
in randomized block design with four replications at the RRS farm. The layout is give
below.
Varieties: (1) Haura (local) (2) HY-12 (3) HY-65-4 (4) HY-11-6
Replication
I II III IV
(4) 132 (1) 124 (3) 116 (2) 100
(1) 100 (2) 156 (4) 100 (3) 76
(3) 132 (3) 156 (2) 124 (1) 44
(2) 116 (4) 124 (1) 148 (4) 92
Field Layout
Treat R1 R2 R3 R4 Total of
Treat
1 100 124 148 44 416
2 116 156 124 100 496
3 132 156 116 76 480
4 132 124 100 92 448
480 560 488 312 1840
Two way table
Here, Cal F (0.74)< Table F (0.05) (3 df, 9 df) (3.86),
Observed difference non-significant
Accept H0 : All treatment means are equal.
31.10
4
89.424
.. EmS
97.3231.10226.2 CD
9.17100
115
89.424
% CV

43. If there is a result is signicant then,
Reject the null Hypothesis(Ho) that’s means accept Alternate
Hypothesis(Ha)
For that we have calculate SEM(Standard Error Of Mean) and CD(Critical
Difference)
After that Draw a “BAR DIAGRAM”
Arrange the treatment mean in Ascending or Descending order
Ascending:-Pest population,Disease,Insect population etc.
Descending:-Production,Soil Fertility,Nutrient Uptakes etc.

44. If Difference between two Treatment mean is less than
CD→That Treatments are “At Par”
If Difference between two Treatment mean is more than
CD→That Treatments are significantly Differ.