Search Results

You are looking at 61 - 70 of 1,264 items for :

  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Full access

Justin M. Vitullo and Clifford S. Sadof

foliar application on these measures (weekly, biweekly, every 4 weeks, and none) were tested in one-way analyses of variance [ANOVAs (PROC GLM; SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.)]. All percentage data were arcsin square-root-transformed to correct for non

Free access

Kim S. Lewers, Patricia R. Castro, John M. Enns, Stan C. Hokanson, Gene J. Galletta, David T. Handley, Andrew R. Jamieson, Michael J. Newell, Jayesh B. Samtani, Roy D. Flanagan, Barbara J. Smith, John C. Snyder, John G. Strang, Shawn R. Wright, and Courtney A. Weber

USA, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Means and ranges were determined in lieu of analyses of variance (ANOVAs) estimates due to the subjective nature of the measures, the broad range environmental conditions during measurement, and/or the number of measures ( n

Free access

Michael J. Costello and W. Keith Patterson

transformation. All data were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) with mean separation by Tukey’s honestly significant difference ( SAS Institute, 2010 ). Differences were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. For the Frankel yield data, there

Free access

Dieter Foqué, Jan G. Pieters, and David Nuyttens

wooden frame. First, a factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate how the tested techniques influenced the deposition on different layers of the crop. Some preliminary analyses indicated that the logarithmically transformed [natural

Free access

Elise B. Benhase and John G. Jelesko

replicated four times with each replication initiated on a different day. The resulting data were analyzed using a General Linear Model analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey correction, or t test using Minitab Version 14 (State College, PA) using α ≤ 0

Free access

Lea Corkidi, Donald J. Merhaut, Edith B. Allen, James Downer, Jeff Bohn, and Mike Evans

of Osmocote. Replicates of each treatment were randomly arranged on a greenhouse bench. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with inoculum and fertilizer treatments as factors was performed on plant growth (root, shoot, total dry mass, and root

Free access

John C. Beaulieu, Rebecca E. Stein-Chisholm, and Deborah L. Boykin

nonparametric test for treatment differences will not work with abundant zeros ( Conover, 1971 ). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine cultivar and harvest treatment effects for each compound individually and in groups with SAS (Version 9.1; SAS

Open access

Sabahudin Hadrović, Filip Jovanović, Sonja Braunović, Saša Eremija, Zoran Miletić, Snežana Stajić, and Igor Golić

. Comparison and determination of the difference between the means were carried out using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Fisher’s least significant difference ( lsd ) test. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to show the overall

Full access

Lea Corkidi, Jeff Bohn, and Mike Evans

intersection method of McGonigle et al. (1990) . Data analysis. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with bifenthrin rate and mycorrhizal inoculum as factors was performed on plant growth (root, shoot, total dry mass, and root:shoot ratio). One-way ANOVA was

Free access

Timothy L. Righetti, David R. Sandrock, Bernadine Strik, and Anita Azarenko

statistical analyses. The PROC MIXED procedure with a RANDOM statement was used to conduct an analysis of variance (ANOVA) and to make pairwise comparisons of SAS LSMEANS for all split plot analyses. When a split plot analysis that included N rate was