Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:07:53.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Size and shape of sampling units for estimating incidence of sharp eyespot, Rhizoctonia cerealis, in plots of wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. A. Gilligan
C. A. Gilligan
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biology, University of Cambridge, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DX
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has long been known that the size and shape of sampling units used to assess crop yield may have significant effects upon the precision of the estimates (Smith, 1938; Hudson, 1939) but little is known about the effects when estimating incidence of disease. Gilligan (1980) showed that estimates of the incidence (i.e. presence or absence of disease) of stem canker (Phomx, lingam, perfect state Lepto sphaeria maculans)of oil-seed rape were more precise when large square sampling units rather than long rectangular units of similar area or small square sampling units were used. Moreover, estimates derived from the frequently used method of sampling by removal of 25 stems, supposedly at random from each plot, were shown to be biased.

Type
Short Note
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 99 , Issue 2 , October 1982 , pp. 461 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boerema, G. H. & Verhoeven, A. A. (1977). Checklist for scientific names of common parasitic fungi. Series 2b: Fungi on field crops: cereals and grasses. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 83, 165–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1972). An Introduction to Statistical Science in Agriculture. Oxford, London, Edinburgh, Melbourne: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gilligan, C. A. (1980). Size and shape of sampling units for estimating incidence of stem canker on oil-seed rape stubble in field plots after swathing. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 493–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, H. G. (1939). Population studies with wheat. I. Sampling. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 29, 76–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le, Clerg E. L. (1970). Field experiments for assessment of crop losses. In Crop Loss Assessment Methods 2.1/1–16 (loose leaf) F.A.O. Manual on the evaluation and prevention of losses by pests, diseases and weeds. Slough, England: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Scott, P. R. & Hollins, T. W. (1974). Effects of eyespot on the yield of winter wheat. Annals of Applied Biology 78, 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. Fairfield (1938). An empirical law, describing heterogeneity in the yields of agricultural crops. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 28, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar