EurekaMag
+ Translate
+ Most Popular
Advantages and disadvantages of bordeaux mixture and of lime-sulphur used on apples in the growing season
Observations on the Umaria marine bed
10 years of hearing conservation in the Royal Air Force
Chocolate crumb - dairy ingredient for milk chocolate
Effect of daily gelatin ingestion on human scalp hair
Comparison of rice bran and maize bran as feeds for growing and fattening pigs
The composition of pampas-grass (Cortaderia argentea.)
The Accraian Series:
The mechanism of the Liebermann-Burchard reaction of sterols and triterpenes and their esters
Cerebrovascular Doppler ultrasound studies (cv-Doppler)
Toria: PT-303 - first national variety
Hair growth promoting activity of tridax procumbens
Productivity of Pekin x Khaki Campbell ducks
A stable cytosolic expression of VH antibody fragment directed against PVY NIa protein in transgenic potato plant confers partial protection against the virus
Solar treatment of wheat loose smut
Swimmers itch in the Lake of Garda
Bactofugation and the Bactotherm process
The effects of prefrontal lobotomy on aggressive behavior in dogs
Visual rating scales for screening whorl-stage corn for resistance to fall armyworm
Breakdown of seamounts at the trench axis, viewed from gravity anomaly
Kooken; pennsylvania's toughest cave
Recovery of new dinosaur and other fossils from the Early Cretaceous Arundel Clay facies (Potomac Group) of central Maryland, U.S.A
Zubor horny (Bison bonasus) v prirodnych podmienkach Slovensku
The extended Widal test in the diagnosis of fevers due to Salmonella infection
Hair of the american mastodon indicates an adaptation to a semi aquatic habitat

Response surface designs


Response surface designs



Bulletin, Commonwealth Bureau of Pastures and Field Crops 50: 11-32



The advantages and drawbacks in agricultural applications of the class of designs introduced by G.E.P. Box and his co-workers during the fifties are discussed.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 000486150

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

Related references

Asymptotically efficient estimation in response adaptive trials. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 138(10): 2899-2905, 2008

The Construction of Exact D-Optimum Experimental Designs with Application to Blocking Response Surface Designs. Biometrika 76(3): 515-526, 1989

Use of response surface statistical designs to detect effects of biologic response modifiers such as IL-2. Biotechnology Therapeutics 5(1-2): 15-26, 1994

Irregular Four-level Response Surface Designs. Journal of Applied Statistics 31(9): 1043-1048, 2004

Response surface designs for experiments in bioprocessing. Biometrics 62(2): 323-331, 2006

Minimax designs for estimating the optimum point in a quadratic response surface. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 31(2): 235-244, 1992

Construction of asymmetrical response surface designs. Applied statistics in agriculture: proceedings of the Kansas State University Conference on Applied Statistics in Agriculture: 64-176, 1998

On the generation of cost effective response surface designs. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 133: 37-45, 2017

Response surface designs for conduct of agricultural experimentation. Journal 26 (2) 19-32, 1974

Some aspects of response surface theory, and the philosophy of statistical experimental design. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 25(3): 415-435, 1990

Construction of response surface designs for qualitative and quantitative factors. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 71(1-2): 331-348, 1998

Compound optimal designs for percentile estimation in doseresponse models with restricted design intervals. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 137(12): 3838-3847, 2007

An algorithm for the choice of optimal response surface designs. Journal 31(2): 50-54, 1979

Minimax second- and third-order designs to estimate the slope of a response surface. Biometrika 72: 3-8, 1985

A comparison of response surface and factorial designs in agricultural research. Rev. Mktg agric. Econ., Sydney 36(4): 165-77, 1968