CORN (SIGUE-SIGUE)

#1. Determine the physiological effect of entomopathogenic fungi in corn the production.

Principal Component Analysis: Growth and Yield Parameters of Corn (sigue-sigue)

Eigenanalysis of the Correlation Matrix
Loading Plot of Growth and Yield Parameters of Corn (sigue-sigue)
Eigenvalue 7.7500 2.2500 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 -0.0000 -0.0000 -0.0000 -0.0000
Proportion 0.775 0.225 0.000 0.000 -0.000 -0.000 -0.000
0.3 -0.000 -0.000
Cumulative 0.775 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 N0. of kernels per Rows
Plant Height (cm)
0.2
Eigenvalue -0.0000 No. of ears per plot Ear Height (cm)
Proportion -0.000 0.1
Cumulative 1.000

Second Component
0.0
Variable PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 PC8
Plant Height (cm) 0.346 0.180 -0.183 -0.322 -0.1
0.054 -0.151 -0.369 0.560
Ear Length (cm)
Ear Height (cm) 0.343 0.200 -0.165 0.182 0.127 0.577 -0.525 -0.391
-0.2
No. of ears per plot -0.355 0.106 -0.186 0.121 -0.385 0.634 0.166 0.423 Number of kernels per Ear
weight of ears per plot -0.299 -0.368 -0.071 0.123 -0.512 -0.233 -0.480 -0.281
-0.3
Weight per ear 0.196 -0.559 0.242 -0.138 -0.073 0.130
weight of ears-0.321
per plot 0.356
Ear Diameter (cm) 0.279 -0.419 0.156 0.600 0.110 0.110 0.194
Ear yield (Kg/ha)
0.194 Ear Diameter (cm)
-0.4
Ear Length (cm) 0.335 -0.241 0.248 -0.402 -0.073 0.255 0.331 -0.319
N0. of kernels per Rows 0.341 0.212 -0.087 0.523 -0.121 -0.299 0.051 0.052
-0.5
Number of kernels per Ear 0.336 -0.234 -0.737 -0.137 -0.312 -0.062 0.276 -0.087 Weight per ear
Ear yield (Kg/ha) -0.300 -0.367 -0.453 0.030 0.660
-0.6
0.031 -0.035 -0.001
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
First Component
Using the Kaiser criterion, through looking at the PC that contains an eigenvalue which is greater than 1; gave a result of 7.7500 and
2.2500 eigenvalue results for PC1 and PC2. These components explain a total of 100% of the variation of the data, which suggest that there were
two kinds of dependence of the tested parameters. The correlation table above showed in PC1 the dependence of Plant Height (0.346), Ear
Height (0.343), Ear Length (0.335), Number of kernels per rows (0.341), and Number of Kernels per ear (0.336) which were dependent and have a
positive correlation with each other but have a negative correlation to the number of ears per plot which have negative loading of -0.355. While
in PC 2, the dependence of Weight of ears per plot (-0.368), Weight per Ear (-0.559), Ear Diameter (-0.419), and Ear yield (-0.367) contains a
negative loading which have a positive correlation with each other.
 #3. Indicate which biological control agents more effective to the corn (sigue-sigue).
The following hypotheses were used in using Chi-square with 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 3,

where 𝑛 = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 data entry = 4 and 𝛼 = 0.05:

𝐻0: The distribution of the compared data of number of infested leaves before Treatment fit the distribution of the number infested leaves after
the treatment. (𝑀𝑆𝐸 < 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒)

𝐻1: The distribution of the compared data of number of infested leaves before Treatment is not fit the distribution of the number of infested
leaves after the treatment. (𝑀𝑆𝐸 ≥ 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒)

It follows that with 𝑑𝑓 = 3 and 𝛼 = 0.05, the computed critical value was 7.815.
Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after
application on 10th day (Treatment 1) application on 10th day (Treatment 2) application on 10th day (Treatment 3)
No. of infested Mean No. of infested Square Mean No. of infested Square Mean
Regression Line Regression Line Regression Line
leaves Differen Square of Squared leaves Differen of Squared leaves Differen of Squared
(y = 8.00 + 0.250 (y = 35.24 - (y = 3.661 +
Before ce Difference Error Before ce Differen Error Before ce Differen Error
After (y) x) After (y) 0.212x) After (y) 0.07995 x)
(x) (MSE) (x) ce (MSE) (x) ce (MSE)

5 4 9.25 -5.25 27.56 26 20 29.73 -9.73 94.63 56 8 8.14 -0.14 0.02

19 5 12.75 -7.75 60.06 32 21 28.46 -7.46 55.59 16 6 4.94 1.06 1.12
52.06 94.41 0.39
15 14 11.75 2.25 5.06 26 32 29.73 2.27 5.16 10 4 4.46 -0.46 0.21
13 22 11.25 10.75 115.56 29 44 29.09 14.91 222.25 10 4 4.46 -0.46 0.21
Total 208.25 Total 377.64 Total 1.57

Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after
application on 20th day (Treatment 1) application on 20th day (Treatment 2) application on 20th day (Treatment 3)
No. of infested Regression Line Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean
Differen Square of Differen Differen
Before (y = -2.685 + Squared Before (y = 14.97 - of Squared Before (y =5.699 + of Squared
After (y) ce Difference After (y) ce After (y) ce
(x) 0.09793 x) Error (x) 0.0063x) Differen Error (x) 0.1908x) Differen Error
30 5 0.25 4.75 22.53 39 7 14.72 -7.72 59.66 19 8 9.32 -1.32 1.75
49 9 2.11 6.89 47.42 26 15 14.81 0.19 0.04 11 10 7.80 2.20 4.85
106 10 7.70 2.30 5.31 33.04 19 18 14.85 3.15 9.92 22.18 8 9 7.23 1.77 3.15 4.20
124 17 9.46 7.54 56.88 54 19 14.63 4.37 19.10 5 4 6.65 -2.65 7.04
Total 132.15 Total 88.72 Total 16.79
 Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after
application on 30th day (Treatment 1) application on 30th day (Treatment 2) application on 30th day (Treatment 3)
No. of infested Regression Line Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean
Differen Square of Differen Differen
Before (y = - 1.68 + Squared Before (y =3.515 - of Squared Before (y = 4.838 - of Squared
After (y) ce Difference After (y) ce After (y) ce
(x) 0.8553x) Error (x) 0.1410x) Differen Error (x) 0.06923x) Differen Error
38 27 30.82 -3.82 14.60 5 3 2.81 0.19 0.04 4 5 4.56 0.44 0.19
49 45 40.23 4.77 22.76 15 2 1.40 0.60 0.36 15 4 3.80 0.20 0.04
69 61 57.34 3.66 13.43 18.01 13 1 1.68 -0.68 0.47 0.22 7 4 4.35 -0.35 0.12 0.11
74 57 61.61 -4.61 21.27 10 2 2.11 -0.11 0.01 8 4 4.28 -0.28 0.08
Total 72.06 Total 0.87 Total 0.44

Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after
application on 40th day (Treatment 1) application on 40th day (Treatment 2) application on 40th day (Treatment 3)
No. of infested Regression Line Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean
Differen Square of Differen Differen
Before (y = 32.27 + Squared Before (y = 3.091 + of Squared Before (y =2.423 - of Squared
After (y) ce Difference After (y) ce After (y) ce
(x) 0.0118x) Error (x) 0.1364x) Differen Error (x) 0.2692x) Differen Error
39 25 32.73 -7.73 59.76 8 4 4.18 -0.18 0.03 5 2 1.08 0.92 0.85
49 40 32.85 7.15 51.15 10 6 4.46 1.55 2.39 0 3 2.42 0.58 0.33
72 39 33.12 5.88 34.58 43.45 10 3 4.46 -1.46 2.12 1.14 3 0 1.62 -1.62 2.61 0.95
89 28 33.32 -5.32 28.30 6 4 3.91 0.09 0.01 2 2 1.88 0.12 0.01
Total 173.79 Total 4.55 Total 3.81

Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after
application on 50th day (Treatment 1) application on 50th day (Treatment 2) application on 50th day (Treatment 3)
No. of infested Regression Line Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean
Differen Square of Differen Differen
Before (y = 2.428 + Squared Before (y =4.500 - of Squared Before (y = 0.150 + of Squared
After (y) ce Difference After (y) ce After (y) ce
(x) 0.6215x) Error (x) 0.1667x) Differen Error (x) 0.4000x) Differen Error
22 18 16.10 1.90 3.61 3 1 4.00 -3.00 9.00 5 2 2.15 -0.15 0.02
15 12 11.75 0.25 0.06 5 5 3.67 1.33 1.78 3 0 1.35 -1.35 1.82
35 25 24.18 0.82 0.67 3.28 8 3 3.17 -0.17 0.03 3.54 6 3 2.55 0.45 0.20 0.79
25 15 17.97 -2.97 8.79 2 6 4.17 1.83 3.36 2 2 0.95 1.05 1.10
Total 13.13 Total 14.17 Total 3.15
 Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested leaves before and after the Application

Mean Squared Error (MSE)

Treatment
10th Day 20th Day 30th Day 40th Day 50th Day
1 52.06 33.04 18.01 43.45 3.28
2 94.41 22.18 0.22 1.14 3.54
3 0.39 4.20 0.11 0.95 0.79

The table above shows the summary of the results of chi-square analysis on the number of infested leaves before and after the
application of the treatments. In 10th day, Treatment 1 and 2 shows a significant difference when the number of infested leaves before and after
is being compared while Treatment 3 does not show a significant difference when the number of infested leaves before and after is being
compared. In 20th day, Treatment 1 and 2 shows a significant difference when the number of infested leaves before and after is being compared
while Treatment 3 does not show a significant difference when the number of infested leaves before and after is being compared. In 30 th day,
Treatment 1 shows a significant difference when the number of infested leaves before and after is being compared while Treatment 2 and 3 does
not show a significant difference when the number of infested leaves before and after is being compared. In 40 th day, Treatment 1 shows a
significant difference when the number of infested leaves before and after is being compared while Treatment 2 and 3 does not show a
significant difference when the number of infested leaves before and after is being compared. Lastly, in 40 th day, all Treatments does not show a
significant difference when the number of infested leaves before and after is being compared. Based on the results, treatment 1 is the best
treatment in reducing the infested leaves of the corn (sigue-sigue).
 The following hypotheses were used in using Chi-square with 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 3,

where 𝑛 = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 data entry = 4 and 𝛼 = 0.05:

𝐻0: The distribution of the compared data of number of infested leaves before Treatment fit the distribution of the number infested plants after
the treatment. (𝑀𝑆𝐸 < 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒)

𝐻1: The distribution of the compared data of number of infested leaves before Treatment is not fit the distribution of the number of infested
plants after the treatment. (𝑀𝑆𝐸 ≥ 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒)

It follows that with 𝑑𝑓 = 3 and 𝛼 = 0.05, the computed critical value was 7.815
Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after
application on 10th day (Treatment 1) application on 10th day (Treatment 2) application on 10th day (Treatment 3)
No. of infested Mean No. of infested Square Mean No. of infested Square Mean
Regression Line Regression Line Regression Line
Plants Differen Square of Squared Plants Differen of Squared Plants Differen of Squared
(y = 2.833 + (y = 60.52 - (y = 1.814 +
Before ce Difference Error Before ce Differen Error Before ce Differen Error
After (y) 0.4222 x) After (y) 1.310x) After (y) 0.08706 x)
(x) (MSE) (x) ce (MSE) (x) ce (MSE)

2 2 3.68 -1.68 2.81 28 19 23.84 -4.84 23.43 26 4 4.08 -0.08 0.01

11 4 7.48 -3.48 12.09 30 26 21.22 4.78 22.85 8 3 2.51 0.49 0.24
9.49 16.17 0.08
9 7 6.63 0.37 0.13 21 30 33.01 -3.01 9.06 4 2 2.16 -0.16 0.03
8 11 6.21 4.79 22.94 18 40 36.94 3.06 9.36 5 2 2.25 -0.25 0.06
Total 37.98 Total 64.70 Total 0.33

Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after
application on 20th day (Treatment 1) application on 20th day (Treatment 2) application on 20th day (Treatment 3)
No. of infested Regression Line Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean
Differen Square of Differen Differen
Before (y =0.862 + Squared Before (y = 1.034 + of Squared Before (y =1.893 + of Squared
After (y) ce Difference After (y) ce After (y) ce
(x) 0.09594x) Error (x) 0.2373x) Differen Error (x) 0.2143x) Differen Error
10 2 1.82 0.18 0.03 8 3 2.93 0.07 0.00 7 3 3.39 -0.39 0.15
17 2 2.49 -0.49 0.24 10 4 3.41 0.59 0.35 4 4 2.75 1.25 1.56
43 3 4.99 -1.99 3.95 2.38 18 6 5.31 0.69 0.48 0.67 3 2 2.54 -0.54 0.29 0.53
40 7 4.70 2.30 5.29 14 3 4.36 -1.36 1.84 2 2 2.32 -0.32 0.10
Total 9.52 Total 2.68 Total 2.11
 Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after
application on 30th day (Treatment 1) application on 30th day (Treatment 2) application on 30th day (Treatment 3)
No. of infested Regression Line Mean No. of infested Square Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean
Differen Square of Regression Line Differen Differen
Before (y = 3.625 + Squared Before of Squared Before (y = 2.421 - of Squared
After (y) ce Difference After (y) (y = 6.778 - 1.07x) ce After (y) ce
(x) 0.5389x) Error (x) Differen Error (x) 0.0526x) Differen Error
10 9 9.01 -0.01 0.00 3 3 3.57 -0.57 0.32 2 2 2.32 -0.32 0.10
21 15 14.94 0.06 0.00 5 1 1.43 -0.43 0.18 5 2 2.16 -0.16 0.02
30 20 19.79 0.21 0.04 0.03 2 5 4.64 0.36 0.13 0.24 3 2 2.26 -0.26 0.07 0.18
29 19 19.25 -0.25 0.06 5 2 1.43 0.57 0.33 3 3 2.26 0.74 0.54
Total 0.11 Total 0.96 Total 0.74

Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after
application on 40th day (Treatment 1) application on 40th day (Treatment 2) application on 40th day (Treatment 3)
No. of infested Regression Line Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean
Differen Square of Differen Differen
Before (y = 16.97 - Squared Before (y = 4.000 + of Squared Before (y =0.7500 + of Squared
After (y) ce Difference After (y) ce After (y) ce
(x) 0.1216x) Error (x) 0.000x) Differen Error (x) 0.0000x) Differen Error
18 11 14.78 -3.78 14.30 1 4 4.00 0.00 0.00 2 1 0.75 0.25 0.06
22 18 14.29 3.71 13.73 1 4 4.00 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.75 0.25 0.06
33 15 12.96 2.04 4.17 9.03 2 5 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1 0 0.75 -0.75 0.56 0.19
41 10 11.98 -1.98 3.94 2 3 4.00 -1.00 1.00 1 1 0.75 0.25 0.06
Total 36.14 Total 2.00 Total 0.75

Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after
application on 50th day (Treatment 1) application on 50th day (Treatment 2) application on 50th day (Treatment 3)
No. of infested Regression Line Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean No. of infested Regression Line Square Mean
Differen Square of Differen Differen
Before (y =9.398 - Squared Before (y =1.929 + of Squared Before (y = 0.0000 + of Squared
After (y) ce Difference After (y) ce After (y) ce
(x) 0.2771x) Error (x) 0.4048x) Differen Error (x) 0.5000x) Differen Error
10 9 6.63 2.37 5.63 3 1 3.14 -2.14 4.59 2 1 1.00 0.00 0.00
6 4 7.74 -3.74 13.95 5 3 3.95 -0.95 0.91 1 0 0.50 -0.50 0.25
5 11 8.01 2.99 8.93 7.79 8 6 5.17 0.83 0.69 2.83 2 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.13
10 5 6.63 -1.63 2.65 2 5 2.74 2.26 5.11 1 1 0.50 0.50 0.25
Total 31.16 Total 11.31 Total 0.50
 Chi-Square Analysis on the No. of infested Plants before and after the
Application
Mean Squared Error (MSE)
Treatment
10th Day 20th Day 30th Day 40th Day 50th Day
1 9.49 2.38 0.03 9.03 7.79
2 16.17 0.67 0.24 0.50 2.83
3 0.08 0.53 0.18 0.19 0.13

The table above shows the summary of the results of chi-square analysis on the number of infested plants before and after the
application of the treatments. In 10th day, Treatment 1 and 2 shows a significant difference when the number of infested plants before and after is
being compared while Treatment 3 does not show a significant difference when the number of infested plants before and after is being
compared. In 20th day, all Treatments does not show a significant difference when the number of infested plants before and after is being
compared. In 30th day, all Treatments does not show a significant difference when the number of infested plants before and after is being
compared. In 40th day, Treatment 1 shows a significant difference when the number of infested plants before and after is being compared while
Treatment 2 and 3 does not show a significant difference when the number of infested plants before and after is being compared. Lastly, in 40 th
day, Treatment 1 shows a significant difference when the number of infested plants before and after is being compared while Treatment 2 and 3
does not show a significant difference when the number of infested plants before and after is being compared. Based on the results, treatment 1
is the best treatment in reducing infested corn (sigue-sigue).
 Infestation Rate
Days After Planting
Treatment Rate of Increase
10 20 30 40 50
1 0.040 0.129 0.107 0.241 0.107 0.013
2 0.068 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.003 -0.013
3 0.018 0.018 0.015 0.005 0.015 -0.001
Mean Rate 0.00007

The table above shows the rate of increase of the infestation rate of the corn every treatment. Based
on the results, Treatment 1 has the highest rate of increase of 0.013, followed by Treatment 3, with the
rate of increase of -0.001, and Treatment 2 has lowest infestation rate of -0.013. This means that
infestation rate of treatment 2 and 3 was decreases since it has a negative value.

One-way ANOVA: Infestation Rate

Method Interval Plot of Infestation Rate

95% CI for the Mean
Null hypothesis All means are equal
Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Significance level α = 0.05 0.15

Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

Factor Information 0.10

Data

Factor Levels Values

Factor 3 Treatment 1, Treatment 2, Treatment 3 0.05

0.00

-0.05
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3

The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Factor 2 0.03971 0.019855 9.67 0.003
Error 12 0.02463 0.002053
Total 14 0.06434

Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

0.0453084 61.72% 55.33% 40.18%

Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Treatment 1 5 0.1247 0.0730 ( 0.0805, 0.1688)
Treatment 2 5 0.0168 0.0284 ( -0.0273, 0.0609) Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs
Treatment 3 5 0.01425 0.00533 (-0.02990, 0.05840) Difference of Means for Infestation Rate
Pooled StDev = 0.0453084

Based on the Anova results above, itentresulted

Treatm 2 - Treatmenta
1 p-value of 0.003 which is lesser than the alpha value

of 0.05. This suggests that we reject the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the different
treatments of the study.

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Treatment 3 - Treatment 1

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping

Treatment 1 5 0.1247 A Treatment 3 - Treatment 2
Treatment 2 5 0.0168 B
Treatment 3 5 0.01425 B
-0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.
 The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a significant difference on two comparisons which were: Treatment 2 and 1, and Treatment
3 and 1. This means that among all the Treatments, Treatment 1 has the highest infestation rate.

One-way ANOVA: Economic Injury Level

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Interval Plot of Economic Injury Level
Significance level α = 0.05 95% CI for the Mean
0.25
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

0.20
Factor Information

Factor Levels Values 0.15

Factor 3 Treatment 1_1, Treatment 2_1, Treatment 3_1

Data
Analysis of Variance 0.10
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
Factor 2 0.07212 0.036062 25.15 0.000
0.05
Error 9 0.01290 0.001434
Total 11 0.08503
0.00
Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) Treatment 1_1 Treatment 2_1 Treatment 3_1

0.0378649 84.82% 81.45% 73.02% The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.

Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Treatment 1_1 4 0.0400 0.0261 ( -0.0028, 0.0828)
Treatment 2_1 4 0.1925 0.0598 ( 0.1497, 0.2353)
Treatment 3_1 4 0.01825 0.00670 (-0.02458, 0.06108)

Pooled StDev = 0.0378649

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.000 which is lesser than the alpha value
of 0.05. This suggests that we reject the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the different
treatments of the study.

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs

Difference of Means for Economic Injury Level
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping

Treatment 2_ - Treatment 1_
Treatment 2_1 4 0.1925 A
Treatment 1_1 4 0.0400 B
Treatment 3_1 4 0.01825 B

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 1_

The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test,Tre

inawhich
tment 3_ it shows
- Treatment that
2_ all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a significant difference on two comparisons which were: Treatment 2 and 1, and Treatment
3 and 1. This means that the corn in Treatment 1 is the most affected by the insects/pests.
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.
#4. Find out the effectiveness of biological control agents to the growth of corn (sigue-sigue)?

One-way ANOVA: Plant Height (cm)

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Interval Plot of Plant Height (cm)
Significance level α = 0.05
95% CI for the Mean
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis. 300

Factor Information
250
Factor Levels Values
Factor 3 Treatment 1, Treatment 2, Treatment 3
200
Analysis of Variance
150
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Data
Factor 2 8149 4074 0.31 0.741
Error 9 118215 13135 100
Total 11 126364

Model Summary 50
S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)
114.608 6.45% 0.00% 0.00%
0
Means
-50
Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI
Treatment 1 4 148.3 123.2 ( 18.7, 278.0) Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3
Treatment 2 4 98.2 83.9 (-31.4, 227.9) The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.
Treatment 3 4 157.5 131.1 ( 27.9, 287.2)

Pooled StDev = 114.608

 Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.741 which is greater than the alpha
value of 0.05. This suggests that we accept the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the
different treatments of the study.

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs
Difference of Means for Plant Height (cm)
Factor N Mean Grouping
Treatment 3 4 157.5 A
Treatment 1 4 148.3 A
Treatment 2 4 98.2 A Treatment 2 - Treatment 1

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Treatment 3 - Treatment 1

Treatment 3 - Treatment 2

-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.

The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a no significant difference on all comparisons.
One-way ANOVA: Ear Height (cm)

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Significance level α = 0.05

Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

Factor Information
Factor Levels Values
Factor 3 Treatment 1_1, Treatment 2_1, Treatment 3_1 Interval Plot of Ear Height (cm)
95% CI for the Mean
Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value 220

Factor 2 250.70 125.35 12.12 0.003
Error 9 93.07 10.34
Total 11 343.76

Model Summary 215

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) Data
3.21572 72.93% 66.91% 51.87%

Means 210

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Treatment 1_1 4 206.90 3.17 (203.26, 210.54)
Treatment 2_1 4 214.10 2.41 (210.46, 217.74) 205
Treatment 3_1 4 217.93 3.89 (214.29, 221.56)

Pooled StDev = 3.21572 Treatment 1_1 Treatment 2_1 Treatment 3_1

The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.

 Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.003 which is lesser than the alpha value
of 0.05. This suggests that we reject the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the different
treatments of the study.
Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Difference of Means for Ear Height (cm)

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Treatment 2_ - Treatment 1_
Factor N Mean Grouping
Treatment 3_1 4 217.93 A
Treatment 2_1 4 214.10 A
Treatment 1_1 4 206.90 B
Treatment 3_ - Treatment 1_
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 2_

0 5 10 15 20

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.

The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a significant difference on two comparisons which were: Treatment 2 and 1, and Treatment
3 and 1. This means that among all the Treatments, Treatment 3 is the best in improving the Ear height of the corn, but Treatment 2 has a
possibility that could compete with Treatment 3. This is evident because Treatment 2 has a significant difference with Treatment 1, which is
shown on the above figure.
One-way ANOVA: No. of ears per plot

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal Interval Plot of No. of Ears per Plot
Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Significance level α = 0.05 95% CI for the Mean
120
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
110
Factor Information
100
Factor Levels Values
Factor 3 Treatment 1_2, Treatment 2_2, Treatment 3_2
90
Analysis of Variance
80
Data

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Factor 2 832.2 416.1 0.66 0.538 70
Error 9 5638.5 626.5
Total 11 6470.7 60

Model Summary 50

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 40

25.0300 12.86% 0.00% 0.00%
30
Means
Treatment 1_2 Treatment 2_2 Treatment 3_2

The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI
Treatment 1_2 4 63.3 22.2 ( 34.9, 91.6)
Treatment 2_2 4 83.5 34.3 ( 55.2, 111.8)
Treatment 3_2 4 71.25 14.50 (42.94, 99.56)

Pooled StDev = 25.0300

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.538 which is greater than the alpha
value of 0.05. This suggests that we accept the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the
different treatments of the study.

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs

Difference of Means for No. of Ears per Plot
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence
Factor N Mean Grouping
Treatment 2_2 4 83.5 A
Treatment 3_2 4 71.25 A Treatment 2_ - Treatment 1_
Treatment 1_2 4 63.3 A

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 1_

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 2_

-50 -25 0 25 50 75

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.
 The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a no significant difference on all comparisons.

Interval Plot of Weight of Ears per Plot

95% CI for the Mean
One-way ANOVA: Weight of Ears per Plot
Method 10

Null hypothesis All means are equal

9
Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Significance level α = 0.05
8
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

Factor Information Data 7

Factor Levels Values 6

Factor 3 Treatment 1_3, Treatment 2_3, Treatment 3_3

Analysis of Variance 5

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

4
Factor 2 11.42 5.710 2.84 0.111
Error 9 18.12 2.014 Treatment 1_3 Treatment 2_3 Treatment 3_3
Total 11 29.54
The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.
Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

1.41902 38.66% 25.02% 0.00%

Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Treatment 1_3 4 6.375 0.946 (4.770, 7.980)
Treatment 2_3 4 7.925 1.832 (6.320, 9.530)
Treatment 3_3 4 5.575 1.338 (3.970, 7.180)

Pooled StDev = 1.41902

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.111 which is greater than the alpha
value of 0.05. This suggests that we accept the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the
different treatments of the study.

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs

Difference of Means for Weight of Ears per Plot
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping

Treatment 2_3 4 7.925 A Treatment 2_ - Treatment 1_
Treatment 1_3 4 6.375 A
Treatment 3_3 4 5.575 A

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 1_

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 2_

-5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.
 The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a no significant difference on all comparisons.

One-way ANOVA: Weight per Ear

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Interval Plot of Weight per Ear
Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different 95% CI for the Mean
Significance level α = 0.05
0.250
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

Factor Information
0.225

0.200
Data

0.175
 0.150

Treatment 1_4 Treatment 2_4 Treatment 3_4

The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.

Factor Levels Values

Factor 3 Treatment 1_4, Treatment 2_4, Treatment 3_4

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Factor 2 0.000350 0.000175 0.10 0.907
Error 9 0.015875 0.001764
Total 11 0.016225

Model Summary
S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)
0.0419987 2.16% 0.00% 0.00%

Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Treatment 1_4 4 0.2000 0.0707 ( 0.1525, 0.2475)
Treatment 2_4 4 0.19000 0.00816 (0.14250, 0.23750)
Treatment 3_4 4 0.18750 0.01500 (0.14000, 0.23500)

Pooled StDev = 0.0419987

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.907 which is greater than the alpha
value of 0.05. This suggests that we accept the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the
different treatments of the study.

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence Difference of Means for Weight per Ear

Factor N Mean Grouping

Treatment 1_4 4 0.2000 A Treatment 2_ - Treatment 1_
Treatment 2_4 4 0.19000 A
Treatment 3_4 4 0.18750 A

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 1_

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 2_

-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10

 If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.

The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a no significant difference on all comparisons.

One-way ANOVA: Ear Diameter (cm)

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal Interval Plot of Ear Diameter (cm)
Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different 95% CI for the Mean
Significance level α = 0.05
16.25
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
16.00

15.75

15.50
Data
 15.00

14.75

14.50
Treatment 1_5 Treatment 2_5 Treatment 3_5

The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.

Factor Information

Factor Levels Values

Factor 3 Treatment 1_5, Treatment 2_5, Treatment 3_5

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Factor 2 0.3317 0.1658 0.69 0.528
Error 9 2.1775 0.2419
Total 11 2.5092

Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

0.491878 13.22% 0.00% 0.00%

Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Treatment 1_5 4 15.625 0.680 (15.069, 16.181)
Treatment 2_5 4 15.250 0.311 (14.694, 15.806)
Treatment 3_5 4 15.300 0.408 (14.744, 15.856)

Pooled StDev = 0.491878

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.528 which is greater than the alpha
value of 0.05. This suggests that we accept the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the
different treatments of the study.
Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Difference of Means for Ear Diameter (cm)

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping Treatment 2_ - Treatment 1_

Treatment 1_5 4 15.625 A
Treatment 3_5 4 15.300 A
Treatment 2_5 4 15.250 A

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 1_

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 2_
 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a no significant difference on all comparisons.

One-way ANOVA: Ear Length (cm)

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Significance level α = 0.05 Interval Plot of Ear Length (cm)
95% CI for the Mean
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
16

Factor Information

Factor Levels Values 15

Factor 3 Treatment 1_6, Treatment 2_6, Treatment 3_6

Analysis of Variance
14

Data
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
Factor 2 0.4550 0.2275 0.08 0.922
Error 9 25.0275 2.7808
13
Total 11 25.4825

Model Summary
12
S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)
1.66758 1.79% 0.00% 0.00%

Means 11
Treatment 1_6 Treatment 2_6 Treatment 3_6
Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI
Treatment 1_6 4 13.57 2.49 ( 11.69, 15.46)
The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.
Treatment 2_6 4 13.100 0.316 (11.214, 14.986)
Treatment 3_6 4 13.300 1.426 (11.414, 15.186)

Pooled StDev = 1.66758

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.922 which is greater than the alpha
value of 0.05. This suggests that we accept the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the
different treatments of the study.
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs
Difference of Means for Ear Length (cm)
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping

Treatment 1_6 4 13.57 A Treatment 2_ - Treatment 1_
Treatment 3_6 4 13.300 A
Treatment 2_6 4 13.100 A

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 1_

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 2_

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.

The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a no significant difference on all comparisons.
One-way ANOVA: No. of Kernels per Rows

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Alternative hypothesis
Significance level
At least one mean is different
α = 0.05
Interval Plot of No. of Kernels per Rows
95% CI for the Mean
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
32

Factor Information 31

Factor Levels Values 30

Factor 3 Treatment 1_7, Treatment 2_7, Treatment 3_7
29

Analysis of Variance 28
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
Data
Factor 2 1.772 0.8858 0.10 0.909 27
Error 9 82.305 9.1450
Total 11 84.077 26

Model Summary 25
S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)
24
3.02407 2.11% 0.00% 0.00%

Means 23
Treatment 1_7 Treatment 2_7 Treatment 3_7
Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI
The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.
Treatment 1_7 4 27.95 4.40 ( 24.53, 31.37)
Treatment 2_7 4 27.175 1.801 (23.755, 30.595)
Treatment 3_7 4 28.02 2.21 ( 24.60, 31.45)
Pooled StDev = 3.02407

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.909 which is greater than the alpha
value of 0.05. This suggests that we accept the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the
different treatments of the study.

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs

Difference of Means for No. of Kernels per Rows
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping

Treatment 3_7 4 28.02 A Treatment 2_ - Treatment 1_
Treatment 1_7 4 27.95 A

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 1_

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 2_

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.
 The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a no significant difference on all comparisons.

One-way ANOVA: Number of Kernels per Ear

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Significance level α = 0.05
Interval Plot of Number of Kernels per Ear
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis. 95% CI for the Mean
Factor Information 4800

Factor Levels Values 4600

Factor 3 Treatment 1_8, Treatment 2_8, Treatment 3_8
4400
Analysis of Variance
4200

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value 4000

Data

Factor 2 239194 119597 0.39 0.690

Error 9 2788361 309818 3800
Total 11 3027554
3600
Model Summary
3400

3200

3000
Treatment 1_8 Treatment 2_8 Treatment 3_8

The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.

 S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)
556.613 7.90% 0.00% 0.00%
Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Treatment 1_8 4 4057 877 (3427, 4686)
Treatment 2_8 4 3712 291 (3082, 4341)
Treatment 3_8 4 3861 275 (3231, 4490)

Pooled StDev = 556.613

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.690 which is greater than the alpha
value of 0.05. This suggests that we accept the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the
different treatments of the study.

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs

Difference of Means for Number of Kernels per Ear
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping

Treatment 1_8 4 4057 A Treatment 2_ - Treatment 1_
Treatment 3_8 4 3861 A
Treatment 2_8 4 3712 A

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 1_

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 2_

-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.
 The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a no significant difference on all comparisons.

One-way ANOVA: Ear yield (Kg/ha)

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Interval Plot of Ear yield (Kg/ha)
Significance level α = 0.05
95% CI for the Mean
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
4500
Factor Information

Factor Levels Values 4000

Factor 3 Treatment 1_9, Treatment 2_9, Treatment 3_9

Analysis of Variance 3500

Data

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Factor 2 2614387 1307193 2.90 0.107 3000
Error 9 4057792 450866
Total 11 6672179
2500

2000

Treatment 1_9 Treatment 2_9 Treatment 3_9

The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.

Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

671.465 39.18% 25.67% 0.00%

Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Treatment 1_9 4 3036 451 (2276, 3795)
Treatment 2_9 4 3779 862 (3019, 4538)
Treatment 3_9 4 2655 637 (1895, 3414)

Pooled StDev = 671.465

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.107 which is greater than the alpha
value of 0.05. This suggests that we accept the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the
different treatments of the study.

Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Difference of Means for Ear yield (Kg/ha)

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping Treatment 2_ - Treatment 1_

Treatment 2_9 4 3779 A
Treatment 1_9 4 3036 A
Treatment 3_9 4 2655 A

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different. Treatment 3_ - Treatment 1_

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 2_

-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.
 The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a no significant difference on all comparisons.