Luận văn Thạc sĩ Nông nghiệp: Xác định lượng giống và tổ hợp phân bón thích hợp trong thâm canh lúa hương thơm số 1 tại huyện Điện Biên tỉnh Điện Biên – Vụ xuân năm 2007
9,334
597
123
Công thức G3P1
G60+100N
+90K
2
O
Công thức G1P2
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:08
ANALYSI S OF VARIAN CE TABLE FOR C2T
SOURCE DF SS MS F P
───── ───── ───
────
───── ─────
───── ─────
───── ──
───── ─
PHAN (B)
2
33.34 2
16.67 1
34.10
0.003 1
LGGIO N
(C)
2
1.362 2
6.811 1E-01
1.39
0.347 4
B*C
4
1.955 6
4.888 9E-01
NL ( A)
2
5.235 6
2.617 8
1.04
0.375 4
A*B*C
16
40.18 4
2.511 5
─────── ────── ─ ─── ─────── ───
TOTAL 26 82 .080
GRAND AVERAGE 1 1 .1907E +04
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 20:09
LSD (T) PAIRWISE CO MPARISONS OF MEANS OF C2T BY PHAN
PHAN
MEAN
HOMOG ENEOU S
GROUP S
───── ────
───── ─────
───── ───── ─
3
22.22
I
2
21.24
.. I
1
19.53
.... I
THERE ARE 3 GROUPS IN W HICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITICA L T VALUE 2.776 REJECTI ON LEVEL 0.050
CRITICA L VALUE FOR C OMPARISON 9.1514 E-01
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 3.2961 E-01
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:09
ANALYSI S OF VARIAN CE TABLE FOR C4T
SOURCE DF SS MS F P
───── ───── ───
────
───── ─────
───── ─────
───── ──
───── ─
PHAN (B)
2
50.46 9
25.23 4
109.4 5
0.000 3
LGGIO N
(C)
2
49.66 9
24.83 4
107.7 2
0.000 3
B*C
4
9.222 2E-01
2.305 6E-01
NL ( A)
2
11.00 7
5.503 3
1.62
0.229 0
A*B*C
16
54.40 0
3.400 0
─────── ────── ─ ─── ─────── ───
TOTAL 26 16 6.47
GRAND AVERAGE 1 3 .6542E +04
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:09
LSD (T) PAIRWIS E CO MPARISONS O F MEANS OF C4T BY PHAN
PHAN
MEAN
HOMOG ENEOU S
GROUP S
───── ────
3
───── ─────
38.51
───── ───── ─
I
2
36.69
.. I
1
35.17
.... I
THERE ARE 3 GROUPS IN W HICH THE MEANS AR E
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITICA L T VALUE 2.776 REJECTI ON LEVEL 0.050
CRITICA L VALUE FOR C OMPARISON 6.2845 E-01
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 2.2635 E-01
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:09
LSD (T) PAIRWISE CO MPARISONS OF MEANS OF C4T BY LGGION
HOMOG ENEOU S
LGGIO N
MEAN
GROUP S
───── ────
───── ─────
───── ───── ─
3
38.44
I
2
36.80
.. I
1
35.12
.... I
THERE ARE 3 GROUPS IN W HICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITICA L T VALUE 2.776 REJECTI ON LEVEL 0.050
CRITICA L VALUE FOR C OMPARISON 6.2845 E-01
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 2.2635 E-01
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:09
ANALYSI S OF VARIAN CE TABLE FOR C6T
SOURCE DF SS MS F P
───── ───── ───
────
───── ─────
───── ─────
───── ──
───── ─
PHAN (B)
2
78.96 5
39.48 3
60.19
0.001 0
LGGIO N
(C)
2
123.7 8
61.89 0
94.36
0.000 4
B*C
4
2.623 7
6.559 3E-01
NL ( A)
2
6.276 3
3.13 81
1.66
0.220 4
A*B*C
16
30.16 4
1.885 2
─────── ────── ─ ─── ─────── ───
TOTAL 26 24 1.81
GRAND AVERAGE 1 1 .1374E +05
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:09
LSD (T) PAIRWISE CO MPARISONS O F MEANS OF C6T BY PHAN
PHAN
MEAN
HOMOG ENEOU S
GROUP S
───── ────
───── ─────
───── ───── ─
3
66.99
I
2
64.92
.. I
1
62.80
.... I
THERE ARE 3 GROUPS IN W HICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITI CAL
T VA LUE
2.776
REJECTI ON LEVEL
0.050
CRITI CAL
VALUE FOR
COMPA RISON
1.060 0
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 3.8179 E-01
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3 .5 23 NOV 8, 20:10
LSD (T) PAIRWISE CO MPARISONS OF MEANS OF C6T BY LGGION
LGGIO N
MEAN
HOMOG ENEOU S
GROUP S
───── ────
───── ─────
───── ───── ─
3
67.51
I
2
64.93
.. I
1
62.27
.... I
THERE ARE 3 GROUPS IN WHICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITI CAL
T VA LUE
2.776
REJECTI ON LEVEL
0.050
CRITI CAL
VALUE FOR
COMPA RISON
1.060 0
STANDAR D E RROR FOR COMPARI SON 3. 8179E -01
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:10
ANALYSI S OF VARIAN CE TABLE FOR C8T
SOURCE DF SS MS F P
───── ───── ───
────
───── ─────
───── ─────
───── ──
───── ─
PHAN (B)
2
50.68 1
25.34 0
33.25
0.003 2
LGGIO N
(C)
2
54.83 6
27.41 8
35.98
0.002 8
B*C
4
3.048 1
7.620 4E-01
NL ( A)
2
7.654 1
3.827 0
0.35
0.707 3
A*B*C
16
172.9 9
10.81 2
─────── ────── ─ ─── ─────── ───
TOTAL 26 28 9.21
GRAND AVERAGE 1 1 .7421E +05
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:10
LSD (T) PAIRWISE CO MPARISONS OF MEANS OF C8T BY PHA N
PHAN
MEAN
HOMOG ENEOU S
GROUP S
───── ────
3
───── ─────
81.99
───── ───── ─
I
2
80.36
.. I
1
78.63
.... I
THERE ARE 3 GROUPS IN W HICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITI CAL
T VA LUE
2.776
REJECTI ON LEVEL
0.050
CRITI CAL
VALUE FOR
COMPA RISON
1.142 5
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 4.1151 E-01
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:10
LSD (T) PAIRWISE CO MPARISONS OF MEANS OF C8T BY LGGION
HOMOG ENEOU S
LGGIO N
MEAN
GROUP S
───── ────
───── ─────
───── ───── ─
3
81.98
I
2
80.5 0
.. I
1
78.50
.... I
THERE ARE 3 GROUPS IN W HICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITI CAL
T VA LUE
2.776
REJECTI ON LEVEL
0.050
CRITI CAL
VALUE FOR
COMPA RISON
1.142 5
STANDAR D ERROR FOR COMPARISO N 4.1 151E-01
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:10
ANALYSI S OF VARIAN CE TABLE FOR C10T
SOURCE DF SS MS F P
───── ───── ───
────
───── ─────
───── ─────
───── ──
───── ─
PHAN (B)
2
141.7 6
70.88 0
88.31
0.000 5
LGGIO N
(C)
2
71.22 1
35.61 0
44.37
0.001 9
B*C
4
3.210 4
8.025 9E-01
NL ( A)
2
12.83 6
6.418 1
1.15
0.340 5
A*B*C
16
89.05 0
5.565 6
─────── ────── ─ ─── ─────── ───
TOTAL 26 31 8.08
GRAND AVERAGE 1 2 .1390E +05
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:11
LSD (T) PAIRWISE CO MPARISONS O F MEANS OF C10T BY PHAN
PHAN
MEAN
HOMOG ENEOU S
GROUP S
───── ────
3
───── ─────
91.30
───── ───── ─
I
2
89.84
.. I
1
85.88
.... I
THERE ARE 3 GROUPS IN W HICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITI CAL
T VA LUE
2.776
REJECTI ON LEVEL
0.050
CRIT ICAL
VALUE FOR
COMPA RISON
1.172 5
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 4.2232 E-01
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:11
LSD (T) PAIRWISE CO MPARISONS OF MEANS OF C10T BY LGGION
HOMOG ENEOU S
LGGIO N
MEAN
GROUP S
───── ────
───── ─────
───── ───── ─
3
90.98
I
2
89.04
.. I
1
87.00
.... I
THERE ARE 3 GROUPS IN W HICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITI CAL
T VA LUE
2.776
REJECTI ON LEVEL
0.050
CRITI CAL
VALUE FOR
COMPA RISON
1.172 5
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 4.2232 E-01
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:11
ANALYSI S OF VARIAN CE TABLE FOR C12T
SOURCE DF SS MS F P
───── ───── ───
────
───── ─────
───── ─────
───── ──
───── ─
PHAN (B)
2
29.86 9
14.93 4
14.75
0.014 3
LGGI ON
(C)
2
54.56 2
27.28 1
26.95
0.004 8
B*C
4
4.048 9
1.012 2
NL ( A)
2
12.64 7
6.323 3
3.55
0.05 29
A*B*C
16
28.47 3
1.779 6
─────── ────── ─ ─── ─────── ───
TOTAL 26 12 9.60
GRAND AVERAGE 1 2 .2622E +05
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:11
LSD (T) PAIRWISE CO MPARISONS OF MEANS OF C12T BY P HAN
PHAN
MEAN
HOMOG ENEOU S
GROUP S
───── ────
3
───── ─────
92.69
───── ───── ─
I
2
91.77
I
1
90.14
.. I
THERE ARE 2 GROUPS IN W HICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE ANOTHER .
CRITI CAL
T VA LUE
2.776
REJECTI ON LEVEL
0.050
CRITI CAL
VALUE FOR
COMPA RISON
1.316 8
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 4.7428 E-01
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:11
LSD (T) PAIRWISE CO MPARISONS OF MEANS OF C12T BY LGGION
HOMOG ENEOU S
LGGIO N
MEAN
GROUP S
───── ────
───── ─────
───── ───── ─
3
93.32
I
2
91.43
.. I
1
89.84
.... I
THERE ARE 3 GROUPS IN W HICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITI CAL
T VA LUE
2.776
REJECTI ON LEVEL
0.050
CRITI CAL
VALUE FOR
COMPA RISON
1.31 68
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 4.7428 E-01
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:11
ANALYSI S OF VARIAN CE TABLE FOR N2T
SOURCE DF SS MS F P
───── ───── ───
────
───── ─────
───── ──── ─
───── ──
───── ─
PHAN (B)
2
3.229 6E-01
1.614 8E-01
10.90
0.024 0
LGGIO N
(C)
2
1.451 9E-01
7.259 3E-02
4.90
0.084 0
B*C
4
5.925 9E-02
1.481 5E-02
NL ( A)
2
4.740 7E-02
2.370 4E-02
1.39
0.277 3
A*B*C
16
2.725 9E-01
1.703 7E-02
─────── ────── ─ ─── ─────── ───
TOTAL 26 8. 4741E -01
GRAND AVERAGE 1 1 36.91
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:12
LSD (T) PAIRWISE CO MPARISONS OF MEANS OF N2T BY PHAN
PHAN
MEAN
HOMOG ENEOU S
GROUP S
───── ────
3
───── ─────
2.378
───── ───── ─
I
2
2.267
I I
1 2.111 .. I
THERE ARE 2 GROUPS IN W HICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIGNI FICANTLY DIFF ERENT FROM ONE AN OTHER.
CRITICA L T VALUE 2.776 REJECTI ON LEVEL 0.050
CRITICA L VALUE FOR C OMPARISON 1.5931 E-01
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 5.7378 E-02
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:12
LSD (T) PAIRWISE COMPAR ISONS OF MEANS OF N2T BY LGG ION
HOMOG ENEOU S
LGGIO N
MEAN
GROUP S
───── ────
───── ─────
───── ───── ─
1
2.356
I
2
2.200
I
3
2.200
I
THERE ARE NO SIGNIFI CANT PAIRWI SE DIFFERENCE S AMONG THE MEA NS.
CRITICA L T VALUE 2.776 REJECTI ON LEVEL 0.050
CRITICA L VALUE FOR C OMPARISON 1.5931 E-01
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 5.7378 E-02
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:12
ANALYSI S OF VARIAN CE TABLE FOR N4T
SOURCE DF SS MS F P
───── ───── ───
────
───── ─────
───── ─────
───── ──
───── ─
PHAN (B)
2
6.429 6E-01
3.214 8E-01
54.25
0.001 3
LGGIO N
(C)
2
1.096 3E-01
5.481 5E-02
9.25
0.031 6
B*C
4
2.370 4E-02
5.925 9E-03
NL ( A)
2
4.740 7E-02
2.370 4E-02
0.50
0.613 4
A*B*C
16
7.525 9E-01
4.703 7E-02
─────── ────── ─ ─── ─────── ───
TOTAL 26 1. 5763
GRAND AVERAGE 1 2 47.82
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:12
LSD (T) PAIRWISE CO MPARISONS OF MEANS OF N4T BY PHAN
PHAN
MEAN
HOMOG ENEOU S
GROUP S
───── ────
3
───── ─────
3.222
───── ───── ─
I
2
3.022
.. I
1
2.844
.... I
THERE ARE 3 GROUPS IN W HICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITICA L T VALUE 2.776 REJEC TION LEVEL 0. 050
CRITICA L VALUE FOR C OMPARISON 1.0075 E-01
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 3.6289 E-02
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:12
LSD (T ) PAIRW ISE COMPARISON S OF MEAN S OF N4T BY LGGIO N
HOMOG ENEOU S
LGGIO N
MEAN
GROUP S
───── ────
───── ─────
───── ───── ─
1
3.111
I
2
3.022
I I
3 2.956 .. I
THERE ARE 2 GROUPS IN WHICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITICA L T VALUE 2.776 REJECTI ON LEVEL 0.050
CRITICA L VALUE FOR C OMPARISON 1.0075 E-01
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 3.6289 E-02
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:13
ANALYSI S OF VARIAN CE TABLE FOR N6T
SOURCE DF SS MS F P
───── ───── ───
────
───── ─────
───── ─────
───── ──
───── ─
PHAN (B)
2
1.087 4
5.437 0E-01
91.75
0.000 5
LGGIO N
(C)
2
5.807 4E-01
2.903 7E-01
49.00
0.001 5
B*C
4
2.370 4E-02
5.925 9E-03
NL ( A)
2
1.540 7E-01
7.703 7E-02
0.74
0.491 5
A*B*C
16
1.659 3
1.037 0E-01
─────── ────── ─ ─── ─────── ───
TOTAL 26 3. 5052
GRAND AVERAGE 1 9 52.89
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:13
LSD (T) PAIRWISE CO MPARISONS OF MEANS OF N6T BY PHAN
PHAN
MEAN
HOMOG ENEOU S
GROUP S
───── ────
3
───── ─────
6.20 0
───── ───── ─
I
2
5.911
.. I
1
5.711
.... I
THERE ARE 3 GROUPS IN W HICH THE MEANS ARE
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITICA L T VALUE 2.776 REJECTI ON LEVEL 0.050
CRITICA L VALUE FOR C OMPARISON 1.0075 E-01
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 3.6289 E-02
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF
STATIST IX 3.5 23 NOV 8, 2 0:13
LSD (T) PAIRWIS E CO MPARISONS O F MEANS OF N6T BY LGGION
HOMOG ENEOU S
LGGIO N
MEAN
GROUP S
───── ────
───── ─────
───── ───── ─
1
6.133
I
2
5.911
.. I
3
5.778
.... I
THERE ARE 3 GROUPS IN W HICH T HE MEA NS AR E
NOT SIG NIFICANTL Y DIFFEREN T FROM ONE A NOTHER .
CRITICA L T VALUE 2.776 REJECTI ON LEVEL 0.050
CRITICA L VALUE FOR C OMPARISON 1.0075 E-01
STANDAR D ERROR FOR C OMPARISON 3.6289 E-02
ERROR TERM U SED: P HAN*LGGION , 4 DF