Split-Plot Designs

✓ Usually used with factorial sets when the assignment of

treatments at random can cause difficulties
– large scale machinery required for one factor but not
another
• irrigation
• tillage
– plots that receive the same treatment must be
grouped together
• for a treatment such as planting date, it may be necessary to
group treatments to facilitate field operations
• in a growth chamber experiment, some treatments must be
applied to the whole chamber (light regime, humidity,
temperature), so the chamber becomes the main plot
Different size requirements
✓ The split plot is a design which allows the levels
of one factor to be applied to large plots while
the levels of another factor are applied to small
plots
– Large plots are whole plots or main plots
– Smaller plots are split plots or subplots
Randomization
✓ Levels of the whole-plot factor are randomly
assigned to the main plots, using a different
randomization for each block (for an RBD)
✓ Levels of the subplots are randomly assigned within
each main plot using a separate randomization for
each main plot
A2 A1 A3 Main Plot Factor

B2 Sub-Plot Factor

One Block B4
B1
B3
Randomizaton
Block I Block II
T3 T1 T2 T1 T3 T2
V3 V4 V2 V1 V2 V3
V1 V1 V4 V3 V1 V4
V2 V3 V3 V2 V3 V1
V4 V2 V1 V4 V4 V2

Tillage treatments are main plots

Varieties are the subplots
Experimental Errors
✓ Because there are two sizes of plots, there are
two experimental errors - one for each size plot
✓ Usually the sub-plot error is smaller and has
more degrees of freedom
✓ Therefore the main plot factor is estimated with
less precision than the subplot and interaction
effects
✓ Precision is an important consideration in
deciding which factor to assign to the main plot
Split-Plot: Pros and Cons
Advantages
✓ Permits the efficient use of some factors that require
different sizes of plot for their application
✓ Permits the introduction of new treatments into an
experiment that is already in progress
Disadvantages
✓ Main plot factor is estimated with less precision so larger
differences are required for significance – may be
difficult to obtain adequate degrees of freedom for the
main plot error
✓ Statistical analysis is more complex because different
standard errors are required for different comparisons
Uses
✓ In experiments where different factors require
different size plots
✓ To introduce new factors into an experiment that
is already in progress
Data Analysis
✓ This is a form of a factorial experiment so the
analysis is handled in much the same manner
✓ We will estimate and test the appropriate main
effects and interactions
✓ Analysis proceeds as follows:
– Construct tables of means
– Complete an analysis of variance
– Perform significance tests
– Compute means and standard errors
– Interpret the analysis
Split-Plot Analysis of Variance
Source df SS MS F
Total rab-1 SSTot
Block r-1 SSR MSR FR
A a-1 SSA MSA FA
Error(a) (r-1)(a-1) SSEA MSEA Main plot error

B b-1 SSB MSB FB

AB (a-1)(b-1) SSAB MSAB FAB
Error(b) a(r-1)(b-1) SSEB MSEB Subplot error
Computations
✓ Only the error terms are different from the usual
two- factor analysis

( )
2
SSTot  i  j  k Yijk − Y

( )
2
SSR ab  k Y..k − Y
rb  ( Y )
2
SSA i i.. −Y

( )
2
SSEA b  i  k Y i.k − Y − SSA − SSR

( )
2
SSB ra  j Y. j. − Y

( )
2

SSAB r  i  j Y ij. − Y − SSA − SSB

SSEB SSTot - SSR - SSA - SSEA - SSB - SSAB

F Ratios
✓ F ratios are computed somewhat differently
because there are two errors

✓ FR=MSR/MSEA tests the effectiveness of blocking

✓ FA=MSA/MSEA tests the sig. of the A main effect

✓ FB=MSB/MSEB tests the sig. of the B main effect

✓ FAB=MSAB/MSEB tests the sig. of the AB interaction
Standard Errors of Treatment Means

✓ Factor A Means
MSEA
rb

MSEB
✓ Factor B Means
ra

MSEB
✓ Treatment AB Means
r
 SE of Differences
✓ Differences between 2 A means 2 * MSEA with (r-1)(a-1) df
rb

✓ Differences between 2 B means 2 * MSEB with a(r-1)(b-1) df

ra

✓ Differences between B means at same level of A

e.g., ഥ
YA3B2 ‒ ഥ
YA3B4 2 * MSEB with a(r-1)(b-1) df
r
A2 A1 A3 Main Plot Factor

B2 Sub-Plot Factor

One Block B4
B1
B3
 SE of Differences
✓ Difference between A means at same or different level of B
e.g., ഥ
YA1B1 ‒ ഥ
YA3B1 or ഥ
YA1B1 ‒ ഥ
YA3B2
A2 A1 A3
Comparison of two A means at
B2 the same or different levels of B
involves both the main effect of
B1 B4 A and interaction AB
B1
2 * (b − 1) MSEB + MSE A 
B3 sed =
rb
One Block

critical tA has (r-1)(a-1) df

t =
( b − 1) MSEBtB + MSE A t A
critical tB has a(r-1)(b-1) df
(b − 1) MSEB + MSEA
use critical t’ to compare means
Interpretation
Much the same as a two-factor factorial:
✓ First test the AB interaction
– If it is significant, the main effects have no meaning
even if they test significant
– Summarize in a two-way table of AB means
✓ If AB interaction is not significant
– Look at the significance of the main effects
– Summarize in one-way tables of means for factors
with significant main effects
Variations
✓ Split-plot arrangement of treatments could be
used in a CRD or Latin Square, as well as in an
RBD
✓ Could extend the same principles to include
another factor in a split-split plot (3-way factorial)
✓ Could add another factor without an additional
split (3-way factorial, split-plot arrangement of
treatments)
– ‘axb’ main plots and ‘c’ sub-plots
or
– ‘a’ main plots and ‘bxc’ sub-plots
For example:
✓ A wheat breeder wanted to determine the effect
of planting date on the yield of four varieties of
winter wheat
✓ Two factors:
– Planting date (Oct 15, Nov 1, Nov 15)
– Variety (V1, V2, V3, V4)
✓ Because of the machinery involved, planting
dates were assigned to the main plots
✓ Used a Randomized Block Design with 3 blocks
 Comparison with conventional RBD
✓ With a split-plot, there is better precision for sub-plots than
for main plots, but neither has as many error df as with a
conventional factorial
✓ There may be some gain in precision for subplots and
interactions from having all levels of the subplots in close
proximity to each other
Split plot Factorial in RBD
Source df Source df
Total 35 Total 35
Block 2 Block 2
Date 2 Date 2
Error (a) 4 Variety 3
Variety 3 Var x Date 6
Var x Date 6 Error 22
Error (b) 18
Raw Data

Block I II III
D1 D2 D3 D1 D2 D3 D1 D2 D3
Variety 1 25 30 17 31 32 20 28 28 19
Variety 2 19 24 20 14 20 16 16 24 20
Variety 3 22 19 12 20 18 17 17 16 15
Variety 4 11 15 8 14 13 13 14 19 8
Construct two-way tables
Date I II III Mean
1 19.25 19.75 18.75 19.25 Block x Date
2 22.00 20.75 21.75 21.50 Means
3 14.25 16.50 15.50 15.42
Mean 18.50 19.00 18.67 18.72

Date V1 V2 V3 V4 Mean
1 28.00 16.33 19.67 13.00 19.25
Variety x Date 2 30.00 22.67 17.67 15.67 21.50
Means 3 18.67 18.67 14.67 9.67 15.42
Mean 25.56 19.22 17.33 12.78 18.72
ANOVA

Source df SS MS F
Total 35 1267.22
Block 2 1.55 .78 0.22
Date 2 227.05 113.53 32.16**
Error (a) 4 14.12 3.53
Variety 3 757.89 252.63 37.82**
Var x Date 6 146.28 24.38 3.65*
Error (b) 18 120.33 6.68
Report and Summarization

Variety
Date 1 2 3 4 Mean
Oct 15 28.00 16.33 19.67 13.00 19.25
Nov 1 30.00 22.67 17.67 15.67 21.50
Nov 15 18.67 18.67 14.67 9.67 15.42
Mean 25.55 19.22 17.33 12.78 18.72

Standard errors: Date=0.542; Variety=0.862; Variety x Date=1.492

Interpretation
✓ Differences among varieties depended on
planting date
✓ Even so, variety differences and date differences
were highly significant
✓ Except for variety 3, each variety produced its
maximum yield when planted on November 1
✓ On the average, the highest yield at every
planting date was achieved by variety 1
✓ Variety 4 produced the lowest yield for each
planting date
Visualizing Interactions

Mean Yield (kg/plot) 30

25 V1

V2
20

V3
15
V4
10

5
1 2 3
Planting Date