Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Binomial Sampling to Estimate Rust Mite (Acari: Eriophyidae) Densities on Orange Fruit

Authors: David G, Hall; Carl C, Childers; Joseph E, Eger;

Binomial Sampling to Estimate Rust Mite (Acari: Eriophyidae) Densities on Orange Fruit

Abstract

Binomial sampling based on the proportion of samples infested was investigated for estimating mean densities of citrus rust mite, Phyllocoptruta oleivora (Ashmead), and Aculops pelekassi (Keifer) (Acari: Eriophyidae), on oranges, Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck. Data for the investigation were obtained by counting the number of motile mites within 600 sample units (each unit a 1-cm2 surface area per fruit) across a 4-ha block of trees (32 blocks total): five areas per 4 ha, five trees per area, 12 fruit per tree, and two samples per fruit. A significant (r2 = 0.89), linear relationship was found between ln(-ln(1 -Po)) and ln(mean), where P0 is the proportion of samples with more than zero mites. The fitted binomial parameters adequately described a validation data set from a sampling plan consisting of 192 samples. Projections indicated the fitted parameters would apply to sampling plans with as few as 48 samples, but reducing sample size resulted in an increase of bootstrap estimates falling outside expected confidence limits. Although mite count data fit the binomial model, confidence limits for mean arithmetic predictions increased dramatically as proportion of samples infested increased. Binomial sampling using a tally threshold of 0 therefore has less value when proportions of samples infested are large. Increasing the tally threshold to two mites marginally improved estimates at larger densities. Overall, binomial sampling for a general estimate of mite densities seemed to be a viable alternative to absolute counts of mites per sample for a grower using a low management threshold such as two or three mites per sample.

Keywords

Population Density, Mites, Fruit, Animals, Insect Control, Citrus sinensis

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    8
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
8
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!