Abstract

We evaluated whether new information could be drawn from additional data collection and unconventional statistical analyses of an on-farm trial. First, we compared a conventional sampling method using a biomass estimate of weed abundance to repeated visual assessment of the percentage ground cover of weeds. The biomass was sampled once after the treatment, whereas the ground cover was repeatedly sampled once before weed control plus several occasions after weed control. Second, we contrasted the outcomes from analysis of variance (ANOVA), taking samples from a single point in time with repeated measures (rm)ANOVA and a multivariate method. As the outcomes and conclusions drawn were relatively similar, we conclude that the ground cover estimate of weed abundance was as reliable as the biomass estimate. The rm ANOVA enabled us to follow the temporal trend in response to treatments in the most abundant species, including possible initial differences. Multivariate analysis went even further, by clearly displaying species-wise responses and treatment selectivity.

Keywords

ground cover; multivariate methods; repeated measures analysis of variance; weed control

Published in

Weed Biology and Management
2007, Volume: 7, number: 2, pages: 132-139
Publisher: BLACKWELL PUBLISHING

UKÄ Subject classification

Agricultural Science


Publication identifier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-6664.2007.00247.x

Permanent link to this page (URI)

https://res.slu.se/id/publ/63760