Acta Scientiarum http://www.periodicos.uem.

br/ojs/
ISSN on-line: 1807-8621
Doi: 10.4025/actasciagron.v47i1.69264

BIOMETRY, MODELLING AND STATISTIC

Estimation of optimal plot size for chickpea experiments using

Bayesian approach with prior information

Jailson Ramos Magalhães* , Nermy Ribeiro Valadares, Rayane Aguiar Alves, Ana Clara Gonçalves
Fernandes, Iago Thomaz do Rosário Vieira, Clóvis Henrique Oliveira Rodrigues, André Luiz Mendes
Athayde and Alcinei Mistico Azevedo

Instituto de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Avenida Universitária, 1000, Bairro Universitário, 39404-547, Montes Claros, Minas
Gerais, Brazil. *Author for correspondence. E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT. Heterogeneity among experimental units can introduce experimental errors, necessitating the
use of techniques that enhance statistical inferences to address this issue. One effective approach is
determining the optimal plot size, which can reduce experimental error. While frequentist methods are
commonly employed for this purpose, Bayesian approaches offer distinct advantages. Therefore, our
objective was to estimate the optimal plot size for chickpea experiments using the Bayesian approach and
compare the results with those from the frequentist approach. We conducted two control experiments (with
no treatments) involving eight cultivation rows, each spanning seven meters in length, with 50 cm spacing
between rows and 10 cm spacing between plants. We evaluated the central six rows, totaling 60 plants per
cultivation row. At the end of the growth cycle, we assessed seed count, seed weight, harvest index, and
shoot dry mass. Data collection was conducted at the individual plant level. We determined the optimal
number of plots using both the frequentist approach (modified maximum curvature method) and Bayesian
approach, employing informative and uninformative prior distributions. The optimal plot size varied
depending on the specific experiments and the variables under analysis. However, there was consensus in
the estimation of the optimal experimental plot size between the two approaches. We recommend using 15
plants as the optimal plot size for chickpea cultivation.
Keywords: Cicer arietinum; agricultural experimentation; legume; Bayes’ theorem.

Received on August 11, 2023.

Accepted on November 23, 2023.

Introduction
In the realm of research, the precise determination of experimental unit size holds paramount importance.
This step significantly enhances the precision of experiments, a crucial aspect of experimental design. The
presence of heterogeneity among experimental units poses a challenge to experimental accuracy. Storck,
Garcia, Lopes, and Estefanel (2011) attributed this to various factors, including variations in soil fertility,
drainage, leveling, texture, and structure, among others.
To address the issue of such variations, it becomes imperative, among other measures, to establish the
appropriate plot size. Zimmermann (2014) notes that while we cannot entirely eliminate errors, procedures
such as standardizing experimental units and selecting suitable plot sizes are essential steps in minimizing
them. However, studies focused on determining optimal plot sizes for chickpea cultivation remain scarce in
the literature.
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) stands as a legume of immense global economic significance (Bidyarani,
Prasanna, Babu, Hossain, & Saxena 2016). Cultivated in over 50 countries, particularly in India, which boasts
the largest production and consumption rates (FAO, 2017), chickpea exhibits adaptability to various climatic
conditions. It thrives in poorly fertile soil, arid regions with dry and mild climates, and irrigated arid areas
(Nascimento, Silva, Artiaga, & Suinaga 2016). Nevertheless, chickpea research remains relatively limited,
with a notable lack of investigations into the adaptability of its varieties across different regions and
management practices.
The literature describes numerous methods for estimating the optimal plot size, often grounded in various
principles. One widely adopted approach involves regressing the variability associated with the response
Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, v. 47, e69264, 2025
Page 2 of 10 Magalhães et al.

variable against plot size. This method identifies a point of stabilization in variability, which can be determined
visually or through algebraic techniques (Lessman & Atkins, 1963). Within this context, the modified maximum
curvature method, as proposed by Méier and Lessman (1971), emerges as a prominent technique.
While these methodologies primarily adhere to the frequentist approach, Bayesian inference presents a
compelling alternative (Azevedo et al., 2017; Valadares et al., 2022). Bayesian inference allows for the
incorporation of a priori information, potentially enhancing the accuracy of estimations. As noted by
Carvalho, Beijo, and Muniz (2017), using informative prior distributions can improve inference precision by
harnessing existing knowledge from prior experiments. Thus, this study aims to estimate the optimal plot
size for chickpea cultivation using the Bayesian approach with informative priors and subsequently compare
the results with those obtained through the frequentist approach.

Material and methods

Location and characterization of the experimental area
The experiments were conducted between May and September 2019 at the Federal University of Minas
Gerais, Montes Claros Campus, situated at latitude 16°40'59.15" S and longitude 43°50'17.81" W. The region
falls under the Aw climate classification, characterized by dry winters and rainy summers (Alvares, Stape,
Sentelhas, Moraes Gonçalves, & Sparovek, 2013). To prepare for the experiments, soil samples were collected
from the 0-20 cm layer to assess the chemical and physical properties of the soil, following the methods
outlined by Teixeira, Donagemma, Fontana, and Teixeira (2017).
The experiments were conducted using Haplic Cambisol soil. The results for the soil's granulometric
composition were as follows: sand = 220 g kg-1, silt = 460 g kg-1, and clay = 320 g kg-1. For the chemical
properties, the results were: organic matter = 30.3 g kg -1, pH (H20) = 6.70, P (Mehlich-1) = 13.74 mg dm-3, K
(Mehlich-1) = 152 mg dm-3, Ca = 7.85 cmolc dm-3, Mg = 1.41 cmolc dm-3, Al (KCl) = 0.00 cmol c dm-3, H + Al =
1.19 cmolc dm-3, sum of bases = 9.50 cmolc dm-3, effective cation exchange capacity = 9.50 cmolc dm-3, potential
cation exchange capacity = 10.84 cmolc dm-3, and base saturation = 89%.

Experiment setup
The cultivar used belonged to the desi group, with the code CNPH 003. We conducted two control
experiments (without any treatments) in May 2019, with the following sowing dates: May 15 th and May 22nd.
Each experiment consisted of eight cultivation rows, each seven meters in length. For evaluation purposes,
we considered the central six rows as the usable areas, excluding 0.5 meters from each end of every crop row
(border). The spacing between crop rows was 0.5 meters, and the spacing between plants within the crop row
was 0.1 meters.
We pre-treated the seeds with the fungicide Protreat (Carbendazim + Thiram) at a concentration of 5 mL
kg-1. Planting was carried out manually, with two seeds sown per furrow, and thinning was performed 30 days
after emergence, maintaining a density of 10 plants per linear meter.
Fertilization during planting involved the application of 300 kg ha-1 of simple superphosphate, 160 kg ha-1 of
potassium chloride, and 300 kg ha-1 of ammonium sulfate. For topdressing, 25 days after emergence, we
applied 56 kg ha-1 of ammonium sulfate, following the recommendations of Nascimento et al. (2016).
Phytosanitary treatments and irrigation were administered based on crop requirements and regional
technical guidelines (Nascimento et al., 2016). Manual weed control was conducted as needed. The irrigation
system employed was a micro-sprinkler system with a four-day irrigation schedule.

Analyzed characteristics
The plots were evaluated on an individual plant basis, defined as the basic unit (BU). The following
characteristics were assessed: seed weight (SW), number of seeds (NS), harvest index (HI), and shoot dry
mass (SDM). SW was determined by drying the seeds in an oven at 105°C for 24 hours to ascertain
moisture content, which was subsequently adjusted to 13%. NS was determined by counting th e seeds.
HI, expressed as a percentage (%), was calculated using the formula [(seed weight/shoot biomass) x 100].
Lastly, to determine SDW in grams per plant (g plant -1), a forced air circulation oven was used at 65°C
until a constant weight was achieved. All assessments were conducted at the conclusion of the 120-day
crop cycle following sowing.
Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, v. 47, e69264, 2025
Optimal plot size for chickpea experiments Page 3 of 10

Statistical analysis
The optimal plot size was determined using the modified maximum curvature method as proposed by
Lessman and Atkins (1963) through Equation 1, as follows:
𝑎
𝐶𝑉𝑖 = + 𝑒𝑖 (1)
𝑋𝑖𝑏

where: 𝐶𝑉𝑖 represents the coefficient of variation between the plots associated with the i-th number of basic
units (BUs), 𝑋𝑖 is the i-th number of BUs used to form the plot, 𝑎 is the intercept, and 𝑏 is the regression
coefficient. To estimate parameters 𝑎 and 𝑏 via the least squares method, the equation was logarithmized,
resulting in Equation 2:
𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝐶𝑉𝑖 ) = 𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑎) − 𝑏. 𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑋) (2)
In a generalized form, the model is given by Equation 3:
𝑌𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑋𝑖 + 𝑒𝑖 (3)

where: 𝑌𝑖 is the logarithm of the coefficient of variation associated with the i-th BU, 𝛽0 is the logarithm of the
intercept a, 𝛽1 is the regression coefficient, 𝑋𝑖 is the logarithm of the number of BUs, and 𝑒𝑖 is the random errors.
The optimal plot size was determined using the modified maximum curvature method proposed by Meier
and Lessman (1971) in Equation 4:
1
𝑎2 𝑏 2 (2𝑏+1) 2𝑏+2
𝑋𝑜 = { } (4)
𝑏+2

where: 𝑋𝑜 represents the optimal plot size, and 𝑎 and 𝑏 are parameters estimated in the previous function.
For the frequentist approach, the regression coefficients were obtained using the 𝑙𝑚 function of the R software
(R Core Team, 2019) for both experiments, and the optimal plot size was determined programmatically.
In the Bayesian approach, assuming that each observation 𝑌𝑖 follows a distribution as 𝑌𝑖 ~𝑁(𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑥𝑖 ; 𝜎²),
the likelihood function for each plot size i is given by Equation 5:
𝑎
2
1 1
𝐿𝑖 (𝛽0 , 𝛽1 , 𝜎 , 𝑌𝑖 ) = ∏ 𝑒𝑥𝑝 {− [𝑦 − (𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑥𝑖 )]2 }
√2𝜋𝜎 2 2𝜎 2 𝑖
𝑖=1
1 1
= 𝑒𝑥𝑝 {− ∑𝑎𝑖=1 [𝑦𝑖 − (𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑥𝑖 )]²} , ∀𝑖 (5)
(√2𝜋𝜎²)𝑎 2𝜎²

For estimating the model parameters, prior distributions need to be assigned. For 𝛽0 , 𝛽1 , and 𝜎², the
following distributions were considered: 𝛽0 ~𝑁(𝜇0 , 𝜎02 ), 𝛽1 ~𝑁(𝜇1 , 𝜎12 ) and 𝜎²~gamaInv(α:β), the latter an
inverse range with mean and variances equal to β/(α-1) and β²/[(α-1)² (α-2)] respectively.
Assuming independence between the parameters in these distributions, the joint posterior distribution for
each plot size is given by Equation 6:
1 1
𝑃𝑖 (𝛽0 , 𝛽1 , 𝜎², 𝑌𝑖 ) = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 {− [(𝛽0 , 𝜇0 )²]} ⨯
√2𝜋𝜎02 2𝜎02

1 1 1 1 𝛼+1
𝑒𝑥𝑝 {− [(𝛽 , 𝜇 )²]} ⨯ ( )
√2𝜋𝜎12 2𝜎12 1 1 [𝛽 𝛼 𝐺(𝛼)] 𝜎²
1 1 1
𝑒𝑥𝑝 {− } ∝ 𝑒𝑥𝑝 [− (𝛽 , 𝜇 )²] ⨯
𝛽𝜎² 2𝜎² 0 0 √2𝜋𝜎12
1 1 𝛼+1 1
𝑒𝑥𝑝 [− (𝛽1 , 𝜇1 )²] ⨯ ( ) 𝑒𝑥𝑝 {− } (6)
2𝜎12 𝜎² 𝛽𝜎²

To make inferences about the parameters of interest, their posterior marginal distributions should be
obtained. By denoting the vector of parameters by 𝜃𝑝 = (𝛽1, 𝛽2, 𝜎 2 3), where: p = 1, 2, 3; the posterior
marginal distribution for the parameter θp was obtained by the following integral: 𝑃(𝜃𝑝 |𝑥) = ∫ 𝑃(𝜃𝑝 |𝑥) 𝑑𝜃𝑝 ,
that is, the integral regarding all parameters of the vector except the p-th component.
Most of these integrals are complex and lack exact solutions. To address this, Markov chains were
employed using the Monte Carlo method to determine the moments of interest of the marginal distributions.
Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, v. 47, e69264, 2025
Page 4 of 10 Magalhães et al.

In this study, the Bayesian approach was implemented in the R program (R Core Team, 2019) using the rJags
package (Plummer, 2019).
In the first experiment, an uninformative prior was adopted for the Bayesian approach. Thus, the following
distributions were used: 𝛽0 ~𝑁(𝜇0 = 0, 𝜎02 = 1,000,000), 𝛽1 ~𝑁(𝜇1 = 0, 𝜎12 = 1,000,000), and 𝜎 2 ~𝐺𝑎𝑚𝑎𝐼𝑛𝑣(𝛼 =
0.0001, 𝛽 = 5,000). In the second experiment, the means and variances of the posterior distributions from the
first experiment were considered as prior information. This was incorporated through the values assumed for
the parameters of the prior distributions, referred to as hyperparameters. This resulted in the distributions:
𝛽0 ~𝑁(𝜇0 = ̅̅̅ ̅̅̅0 )), 𝛽1 ~𝑁(𝜇1 = ̅̅̅
𝛽0 , 𝜎02 = 𝑉𝑎𝑟(𝛽 ̅̅̅1 )), and 𝜎²~𝐺𝑎𝑚𝑎𝐼𝑛𝑣(𝛼, 𝛽), Where: ̅̅̅
𝛽1 , 𝜎12 = 𝑉𝑎𝑟(𝛽 𝛽0 stands for the
mean of the posterior distribution of 𝛽0 obtained in the first experiment, ̅̅̅ 𝛽1 is the mean of the posterior
distribution of 𝛽1 obtained in the first experiment, 𝑉𝑎𝑟(𝛽 ̅̅̅0 ) is the variance of the posterior distribution of 𝛽0
obtained in the first experiment, 𝑉𝑎𝑟(𝛽 ̅̅̅1 ) is the variance of the posterior distribution of 𝛽1 obtained in the
first experiment, and 𝛼 and 𝛽 are the values obtained considering the posterior distribution of the mean
square of the residue obtained in the first experiment by solving the system composed of Equation 7 and
Equation 8.
𝜎̅ 2 = β/(𝛼 − 1) (7)
𝑉𝑎𝑟(𝜎²) = β2 /[(𝛼 − 1)2 (𝛼 − 2)] which was
(𝜎 2 )2 (𝜎 2 )3
𝛼= +2; β= +1 (8)
̅ 2)
𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝜎 ̅ 2)
𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝜎

In the Bayesian analysis, 110,000 iterations were considered in the Gibbs algorithm for each parameter of
the regression model, with a burn-in period of 10,000 iterations. To obtain an uncorrelated sample, a thinning
interval of 10 iterations was used, as in studies from other fields of knowledge (Nascimento et al., 2011;
Teodoro, Nascimento, Torres, Barroso, & Sagrilo, 2015; Euzébio et al., 2018).
In both approaches, the optimal plot size is estimated algebraically, resulting in non-integer values. As
the plots consist of plants in this study, the values were rounded to the nearest whole number in the
discussion of results, rounding up to avoid underestimating the optimal number of plots.

Results
In the study, various variables were analyzed, including the number of seeds (NS), seed weight (SW), harvest
index (HI), and shoot dry mass (SDM). The mean squared residues (MSR) for Experiment I were higher than those
for Experiment II, except for the variable NS, which had a higher estimate in Experiment II (Figure 1).

Figure 1. A posteriori distribution of the mean squared residues (MSR) for experiment I (______) and experiment II (______) with informative
prior of the variables number of seeds (NS), seed weight (SW), harvest index (HI), and shoot dry mass (SDM) of chickpea.

The coefficient "a" (intercept) was higher in Experiment I for all variables. Among the analyzed variables,
HI had the highest value for Experiment I and the lowest for Experiment II. For Experiment I, the estimates
of coefficient "a" decreased in the following order: HI, SW, NS, and SDM. For Experiment II, it decreased in
the order: NS, SW, SDM, and HI (Figure 2).
Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, v. 47, e69264, 2025
Optimal plot size for chickpea experiments Page 5 of 10

Figure 2. A posteriori distribution of coefficient "a" (intercept) for experiment I (______) and experiment II (______) with informative prior of
the variables number of seeds (NS), seed weight (SW), harvest index (HI), and shoot dry mass (SDM) of chickpea.

Coefficient "b" showed similar results for all variables in Experiment I. In contrast, the values of "b" in
Experiment II were lower than those in Experiment I for all variables, with HI having the lowest value
(Figure 3). As for the other variables, coefficient "b" varied differently between experiments. For experiment
I, it decreased in the following order: SW, HI, SDM, and NS. And, for experiment II, the order was NS, SW,
SDM, and HI. Moreover, we noted that, as the values of coefficients "a" and "b" increased, the estimated
optimal plot sizes also showed an increase.

Figure 3. A posteriori distribution of coefficient "b" (regression coefficient) for experiment I (______) and experiment II (______) with
informative prior of the variables number of seeds (NS), seed weight (SW), harvest index (HI), and shoot dry mass (SDM) of chickpea.

The optimal plot size varied depending on the variables analyzed and the experiments conducted. In
the Bayesian approach, for the variable number of seeds, using an informative prior in the second experiment
led to a lower estimate of the coefficient of variation compared to the uninformative prior, reducing from
38.55 to 29.62%, respectively (Table 1).
For the variable number of seeds and seed weight, the optimal plot size was 14 BUs in the first experiment
for both the frequentist and Bayesian approaches. In the second experiment, 12 BUs were recommended for
different approaches, considering informative or uninformative a priori distributions (Table 1).
Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, v. 47, e69264, 2025
Page 6 of 10 Magalhães et al.

Table 1. Residual variance (σ²), coefficient "a," coefficient "b," optimal number of base units (BUs) by frequentist and Bayesian
approaches, mode, coefficient of variation (CV), limit inferior (LI), and limit superior (LS) by Bayesian approach for the variable number
of chickpea seeds (NS).

Variable Experiment Approach Estimate σ² a b BUs

Frequentist 0.00695 115.347 0.63211 13.2225
Mode 0.00649 115.835 0.63219 13.2158
Exp. 1 CV 44.8183 352.227 5.87350 5.73139
Bayesian
LI 0.00360 91.8050 0.55857 11.6958
LS 0.01353 145.171 0.70228 14.6278
Frequentist 0.00729 88.2208 0.51903 11.5616
Number of Mode 0.00667 87.9170 0.52337 11.5168
seeds CV 38.5498 462.289 7.21485 7.35899
Bayesian (Uninformative)
LI 0.00366 69.8821 0.44150 9.86551
Exp. 2 LS 0.01388 111.219 0.58857 13.1867
Mode 0.00688 88.6602 0.52416 11.6042
CV 29.6174 331.522 6.79942 6.95345
Bayesian (Informative)
LI 0.00401 69.8027 0.44974 9.93040
LS 0.01198 109.257 0.59002 13.1003
Exp. 1: Experiment I; Exp. 2: Experiment II.

For the variable seed weight, similar to the variable number of seeds, in the first experiment, the
recommended optimal plot size was 14 BUs, whether using the frequentist or Bayesian approaches. In the
second experiment, 12 BUs were recommended for various approaches, regardless of whether informative or
uninformative a priori distributions were considered (Table 2).

Table 2. Residual variance (σ²), coefficient "a," coefficient "b," optimal number of base units (BUs) by frequentist and Bayesian
approaches, mode, coefficient of variation (CV), limit inferior (LI), and limit superior (LS) by Bayesian approach for the variable weight
of chickpea seed (SW).

Variable Experiment Approach Estimate σ² a b BUs

Frequentist 0.00583 125.194 0.66843 13.6488
Mode 0.00529 128.004 0.65995 13.5831
Exp. 1 CV 46.8124 211.333 5.25432 5.09285
Bayesian
LI 0.00294 101.967 0.60107 12.3365
LS 0.01138 155.718 0.73525 14.9482
Frequentist 0.00195 86.4697 0.49382 11.4412
Seed Mode 0.00186 86.0716 0.49076 11.4003
weight Bayesian CV 51.1435 30.7896 4.11980 4.24251
(Uninformative) LI 0.001027 76.4643 0.45374 10.5238
Exp. 2 LS 0.00385 97.4370 0.53012 12.3228
Mode 0.00288 87.7736 0.48408 11.5389
Bayesian CV 30.0186 41.7114 4.60626 4.68540
(Informative) LI 0.00158 74.8673 0.44979 10.3656
LS 0.00490 99.0859 0.53836 12.4475
Exp. 1: Experiment I; Exp. 2: Experiment II.

Regarding the harvest index, the estimated optimal plot size differed from the previously mentioned
variables. In the first experiment, both approaches indicated an optimal plot size of 15 BUs. However, in the
second experiment, it significantly reduced to six BUs for both approaches, whether considering informative
or uninformative a priori distributions (Table 3).
For shoot dry mass, in the first experiment, both the frequentist and Bayesian approaches recommended
a 13 BU optimal plot size. However, in the second experiment, the optimal plot size decreased to nine BUs for
both approaches without informative prior information. When an informative prior was used, the optimal
plot size increased to 10 BUs, slightly higher than the Bayesian approach with an uninformative prior. It is
important to note that shoot dry mass was the only variable with differing results between the two
methodologies (Table 4).
In summary, when considering informative prior distributions, the Bayesian approach consistently yielded
lower coefficient of variation estimates and narrower credible intervals for all analyzed variables. Among
Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, v. 47, e69264, 2025
Optimal plot size for chickpea experiments Page 7 of 10

these variables, shoot dry mass (Table 4) had the lowest coefficient of variation at 28.23%, while harvest index
(Table 3) had the highest at 30.29%.

Table 3. Residual variance (σ²), coefficient "a," coefficient "b," optimal number of base units (BUs) by frequentist and Bayesian
approaches, mode, coefficient of variation (CV), limit inferior (LI), and limit superior (LS) by Bayesian approach for the variable harvest
index (HI) of chickpea.

Variable Experiment Approach Estimate σ² a b BUs

Frequentist 0.00503 133.044 0.65556 14.2546
Mode 0.00454 138.124 0.65553 14.1658
Exp. 1 CV 43.4579 125.808 4.87104 4.68621
Bayesian
LI 0.00262 108.869 0.59506 12.9053
LS 0.00966 159.794 0.71622 15.3865
Frequentist 0.00340 41.9277 0.25315 5.60878
Harvest Mode 0.00300 41.9230 0.25269 5.69638
index Bayesian CV 81.8720 176.747 10.2124 11.8035
(Uninformative) LI 0.00176 35.7469 0.20378 4.36143
Exp. 2 LS 0.00663 49.1380 0.30420 6.92078
Mode 0.00362 41.8106 0.25125 5.67957
Bayesian CV 30.2875 192.4855 10.6133 12.2886
(Informative) LI 0.00217 35.5053 0.20119 4.30459
LS 0.00654 49.2424 0.30328 6.94197
Exp. 1: Experiment I; Exp. 2: Experiment II.

Table 4. Residual variance (σ²), coefficient "a," coefficient "b," optimal number of base units (BUs) by frequentist and Bayesian
approaches, mode, coefficient of variation (CV), limit inferior (LI), and limit superior (LS) by Bayesian approach for the variable shoot
dry mass (SDM) of chickpea.

Variable Experiment Approach Estimate σ² a b BUs

Frequentist 0.00737 106.343 0.65884 12.4320
Mode 0.00711 105.250 0.65258 12.4414
Exp. 1 CV 35.6417 365.794 5.70754 5.67514
Bayesian
LI 0.00390 83.2787 0.58280 11.0129
LS 0.01413 133.481 0.73321 13.7797
Frequentist 0.00395 63.2767 0.36458 8.89337
Shoot dry Mode 0.00354 63.1185 0.35785 8.93527
mass Bayesian CV 39.3837 114.220 7.35117 7.97789
(Uninformative) LI 0.00215 53.4872 0.31127 7.47220
Exp. 2 LS 0.00767 74.5377 0.41640 10.2454
Mode 0.00474 63.1395 0.36569 9.02325
Bayesian CV 28.2299 206.013 8.24029 8.91865
(Informative) LI 0.00291 52.5786 0.307031 7.39396
LS 0.00847 76.3052 0.42441 10.4777
Exp. 1: Experiment I; Exp. 2: Experiment II.

In Experiment I, the choice of approach did not significantly impact the recommended optimal number of
BUs. However, there was a slight variation depending on the analyzed variable, ranging from 13 BUs for shoot
dry mass to 15 BUs for harvest index. In Experiment II, when informative prior information was used, the
estimated optimal plot size for all analyzed variables was consistent with the other approaches. The only
exception was shoot dry mass, where seed weight and number of seeds suggested a higher optimal size of 12
BUs. In situations where the optimal plot size varies depending on the analyzed variables, it is advisable to
choose the larger plot size, which is 15 BUs.

Discussion
Defining the optimal plot size plays a crucial role in crop planning, contributing to enhanced statistical
inference precision while reducing resource costs. The literature offers a range of methods for this purpose, and as
shown in this study, the selection of a method can lead to divergent outcomes based on the chosen parameters. In
this research, a plot size of 15 Basic Units (BUs) for chickpeas was found to be suitable across all variables and
approaches studied, ensuring that it does not underestimate plot size under any circumstance.
Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, v. 47, e69264, 2025
Page 8 of 10 Magalhães et al.

The optimal plot size for chickpeas remains a topic of debate, with studies in the literature proposing
different sizes. For instance, Hoskem et al. (2017) and Avelar, Costa, Brandão Junior, Paraíso, and Nascimento
(2018) used 10-m² plots with eight plants per plot, while Khaitov and Abdiev (2018) examined 10 plants within
28.8-m² plots. In contrast, Almeida Neta et al. (2020) conducted their research with plots totaling 4 m² and
using 10 representative plants. Although the number of plants evaluated in these studies is relatively close to
the number of BUs recommended in our study, it falls short of the BUs required for achieving greater
experimental precision.
The modified maximum curvature method is commonly employed to determine the optimal plot size for
various crops. However, in the context of chickpea, there is a scarcity of studies in the existing literature. An
example of such a study can be found in Egypt, where Bayoumi and El-Demardash (2008) estimated optimal
plot sizes under normal and water-stressed conditions. They suggested 5 m² (equivalent to 200 plants) for
normal irrigation conditions and 8 m² (equivalent to 320 plants) for water-stress conditions. These values
differ significantly from those obtained in the present study. The disparities in results may be attributed to
the different methods employed by the authors, with Bayoumi and El-Demardash (2008) using the maximum
curvature method and the comparison of variances method. Additionally, variations in environmental
conditions can lead to different outcomes due to the influence of soil heterogeneity.
Magalhães et al. (2023) employed the Hatheway method to determine the optimal plot size for chickpeas
and suggested plots consisting of 25 BUs for the conditions they investigated, which included the evaluation
of variables such as the number of seeds, seed weight, and shoot dry mass. Santos, Haesbaert, Lúcio, Storck,
and Cargnelutti Filho (2012) emphasized the importance of determining plot sizes for an entire crop, even in
situations where the crop may be exposed to different conditions than those initially considered.
In practical terms, it is crucial to use whole numbers when defining the optimal plot size to avoid
underestimating it. In this regard, the frequentist approach in this study revealed that for Experiment I, the
estimated optimal plot size ranged from 13 to 15 basic units, while in Experiment II, it varied from 6 to 12
basic units. This variability in estimates depending on the analyzed variables is consistent with findings from
previous studies, such as those by Schmildt, Schmildt, Cruz, Cattaneo, and Ferreguetti (2016) on papaya and
Guimarães, Donato, Aspiazú, Azevedo, and Carvalho (2019) on forage cactus. When such variability exists, it
is recommended to choose the largest plot size to avoid underestimation (Lúcio, Haesbaert, Santos, & Benz,
2011), particularly since multiple characteristics are often analyzed simultaneously (Guimarães et al., 2019).
Experiment II displayed a greater discrepancy in recommended plot sizes among the variables analyzed,
with a notable difference between the estimates for the harvest index and shoot dry mass compared to
Experiment I. This discrepancy can be attributed to the lower estimates of coefficients "a" and "b" for these
variables. In this context, there is a strong association between these coefficients and plot size, as larger plot
sizes tend to result from higher values of coefficients "a" and "b". A similar relationship was observed in a
study on potato crops conducted by Oliveira, Storck, Lúcio, Lopes, and Martini (2006).
In the quest to determine the optimal plot size, it is noteworthy that using a priori information in the
Bayesian approach yielded results similar to the frequentist approach. However, the Bayesian approach
offered the advantage of achieving lower coefficients of variation for all the variables analyzed. A reduction
in the coefficient of variation signifies gains in experimental accuracy, which is a crucial aspect in agricultural
research (Lorentz & Lúcio, 2009).
The use of Bayesian inference has been increasingly applied in various fields of plant breeding,
resulting in more accurate results when informative priors are available. This approach has been
employed in studies such as the analysis of adaptability and stability of alfalfa genotypes (Nascimento et
al., 2011), the selection of cowpea genotypes (Teodoro et al., 2015), the selection of carioca bean
genotypes (Euzebio et al., 2018), the determination of the optimal number of evaluations in kale half -sib
progenies (Azevedo et al., 2021), and the estimation of genetic parameters and selection of sweet potato
half-sib progenies (Valadares et al., 2022).
Martins Filho, Silva, Carneiro, and Muniz (2008) highlighted that employing Bayesian inference in
small sample sizes helps minimize estimation bias, leading to more accurate credible intervals for the
parameters. Additionally, this approach is efficient in predicting future values compared to fre quentist
inference (Azevedo et al., 2017). Teodoro et al. (2015) emphasized that the use of informative priors in
Bayesian analysis contributes to obtaining more accurate results when compared to the frequentist
approach. Furthermore, it is expected that the accuracy of Bayesian inference increases as more a priori
information becomes available.
Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, v. 47, e69264, 2025
Optimal plot size for chickpea experiments Page 9 of 10

Conclusion
Our findings suggest that the optimal plot size for chickpea field experiments is 15 plants. Both the
frequentist and Bayesian approaches yielded similar results for estimating the optimal plot size, even when
informative priors were incorporated into the Bayesian analysis.

References
Almeida Neta, M. N., Pegoraro, R. F., Sampaio, R. A., Costa, C. A., Fernandes, L. A., & Ferreira, J. M. (2020).
Does inoculation with Rhizobium tropici and nitrogen fertilization increase chickpea production? Ciência
e Agrotecnologia, 44, 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-7054202044016520
Alvares, C. A., Stape, J. L., Sentelhas, P. C., Moraes Gonçalves, J. L., & Sparovek, G. (2013). Köppen’s climate
classification map for Brazil. Meteorologische Zeitschrif, 22(6), 711-728.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507
Avelar, R. I. S., Costa, C. A., Brandão Júnior, D. S., Paraíso, H. A., & Nascimento, W. M. (2018). Production
and quality of chickpea seeds in different sowing and harvest periods. Journal of Seed Science, 40(2), 146-
155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1545v40n2185719
Azevedo, A. M., Andrade Júnior, V. C., Santos, A. A., Sousa Júnior, A. S., Oliveira, A. J. M., & Ferreira, M. A.
M. (2017). Population parameters and selection of kale genotypes using Bayesian inference in a multi-
trait linear model. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, 39(1), 25-31.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v39i1.30856
Azevedo, A. M., Silva, D. J. H., Seus, R., Freitas, E. M., Afonso, D. F., Gomes, C. L., & Aspiazu, I. (2021).
Determination of the optimal number of evaluations in half-sib progenies of kale by Bayesian approach.
Horticultura Brasileira, 39(1), 20-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-0536-20210103
Bayoumi, T. Y., & El-Demardash, I. S. (2008). Effect of Water Deficit on Soil Variability, Plot size, Shape and
Number of Replications for Chickpea. Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 33(6), 589-603.
Bidyarani, N., Prasanna, R., Babu, S., Hossain, F., & Saxena, A. K. (2016). Enhancement of plant growth and
yields in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) through novel cyanobacterial and biofilmed inoculants.
Microbiological Research, 188-189, 97-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2016.04.005
Carvalho, D. T., Beijo, L. A, & Muniz, J. A. (2017). Uma abordagem Bayesiana para modelar a isoterma de
Langmuir. Revista Brasileira de Biometria, 35(2), 376-401.
Euzébio, M. P., Fonseca, I. C. B., Fonseca Júnior, N. S., Nascimento, M., Giordani, W., & Gonçalves, L. S. A.
(2018). Adaptability and stability assessment of bean cultivars of the carioca commercial group by a
Bayesian approach. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, 40(1), 1-8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v40i1.35272
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation [FAO]. (2017). Food and agriculture organization, fao
statistical year book. Retrieved on Dec. 5, 2019 from http://faostat.fao.org/site/291/default.aspx
Guimarães, B. V. C., Donato, S. L. R., Aspiazú, I., Azevedo, A. M., & Carvalho, A. J. (2019). Size of plots for
experiments with cactus pear cv. Gigante. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental, 23(5),
347-351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v23n5p347-351
Hoskem, B. C. S., Costa, C. A., Nascimento, W. M., Santos, L. D. T., Mendes, R. B., & Menezes, J. B. C. (2017).
Productivity and quality of chickpea seeds in Northern Minas Gerais, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ciências
Agrárias, 12(3), 261-268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5039/agraria.v12i3a5445
Khaitov, B., & Abdiev, A. (2018). Performance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to bio-fertilizer and nitrogen
application in arid condition. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 41(5), 1980-1987.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2018.1484134
Lessman, K. J., & Atkins, R. E. (1963). Optimum plot size and relative efficiency of lattice designs for grain sorghum
yield tests. Crop Science, 3(6), 477-481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1963.0011183X000300060006x
Lorentz, L. H., & Lúcio, A. D. (2009). Tamanho e forma de parcela para pimentão em estufa plástica. Ciência
Rural, 39(8), 2380-2387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782009005000202
Lúcio, A. D., Haesbaert, F. M., Santos, D., & Benz, V. (2011). Estimativa do tamanho de parcela para experimentos
com alface. Horticultura Brasileira, 29(4), 510-515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-05362011000400011
Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, v. 47, e69264, 2025
Page 10 of 10 Magalhães et al.

Magalhães, J. R., Azevedo, A. M., Valadares, N. R., Fernandes, A. C. G., Alves, R. A., Freitas, I. C., ... Costa, C.
A. (2023). Optimum plot size and number of replications for experiments with the chickpea. Ciência
Agronômica, 54, 1-10. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5935/1806-6690.20230032
Martins Filho, S., Silva, F. F., Carneiro, A. P. S., & Muniz, J. A. (2008). Abordagem Bayesiana das curvas de
crescimento de duas cultivares de feijoeiro. Ciência Rural, 38(6), 1516-1521.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782008000600004
Meier, V. D., & Lessman, K. J. (1971). Estimation of optimum field plot shape and size testing yield in
Crambe abyssinica hochst. Crop Science, 11(5), 648-650.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1971.0011183X001100050013x
Nascimento, M., Silva, F. F., Sáfadi, T., Nascimento, A. C. C., Ferreira, R. P., & Cruz, C. D. (2011). Abordagem
bayesiana para avaliação da adaptabilidade e estabilidade de genótipos de alfafa. Pesquisa Agropecuária
Brasileira, 46(1), 26-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2011000100004
Nascimento, W. M., Silva, P. P., Artiaga, O. P., & Suinaga, F. A. (2016). Grão-de-bico. In W. M. Nascimento
(Ed.), Hortaliças Leguminosas (p. 89-118). Brasília, DF: Embrapa.
Oliveira, S. J. R., Storck, L., Lúcio, A. D., Lopes, S. L., & Martini, L. F. D. (2006). Índice de heterogeneidade,
coeficiente de variação e tamanho ótimo de parcela em batata. Ciência Rural, 36(6), 1710-1716.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782006000600007
Plummer, M. (2019). rjags: Bayesian Graphical Models using MCMC. R package (version 4-10). Retrieved on
Dec. 10, 2022 from https://cran.r-project.org/package=rjags
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, AT: R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. Retrieved on Dec. 10, 2022 from https://www.R-project.org/
Santos, D., Haesbaert, F. M., Lúcio, A. D., Storck, L., & Cargnelutti Filho, A. (2012). Tamanho ótimo de
parcela para a cultura do feijão-vagem. Ciência Agronômica, 43(1), 119-128.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-66902012000100015
Schmildt, E. R., Schmildt, O., Cruz, C. D., Cattaneo, L. F., & Ferreguetti, G. A. (2016). Optimum plot size and
number of replications in papaya field experiment. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 38(2), 1-9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452016373
Storck, L., Garcia, D. C., Lopes, S. J., & Estefanel, V. (2011). Experimentação vegetal (3. ed.). Santa Maria, RS:
UFSM.
Teixeira, P. C., Donagemma, G. K., Fontana, A., & Teixeira, W. G. (2017). Manual de métodos de análise de
solo (3. ed.). Brasília, DF: Embrapa.
Teodoro, P. E., Nascimento, M., Torres, F. E., Barroso, L. M. A., & Sagrilo, E. (2015). Perspectiva bayesiana
na seleção de genótipos de feijão: caupi em ensaios de valor de cultivo e uso. Pesquisa Agropecuária
Brasileira, 50(10), 878-885. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2015001000003
Valadares, N. R., Fernandes, A. C. G., Rodrigues, C. H. O., Brito, O. G., Gomes, L. S. P., Magalhães, J. R., ...
Azevedo, A. M. (2022). Bayesian approach to estimate genetic parameters and selection of sweet potato
half-sib progenies. Scientia Horticulturae, 294, 1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110759
Zimmermann, F. J. P. (2014). Estatística aplicada à pesquisa agrícola (2. ed.). Brasília, DF: Embrapa.

Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, v. 47, e69264, 2025