1986
DOI: 10.1094/phyto-76-1299
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of Field Sampling Techniques for Estimation of Disease Incidence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
30
0
4

Year Published

1991
1991
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
30
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…In each of the six districts, fourteen farmers' fields separated by about 5 Km, were randomly selected along the road or path within the village. These fields were assessed for ALS bean disease occurrence and severity; while walking, following "W'' path within the field (Delp et al,1986;Crabb et al, 1994).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In each of the six districts, fourteen farmers' fields separated by about 5 Km, were randomly selected along the road or path within the village. These fields were assessed for ALS bean disease occurrence and severity; while walking, following "W'' path within the field (Delp et al,1986;Crabb et al, 1994).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, sample size and sampling pattern considerations are critical. For assessment of disease incidence, Delp et al (47) advocate the use of a stratified random sampling pattern in which the field is first divided into several strata (e.g., regions of higher or lower disease risk), followed by the random collection of samples within each stratum. Using this sampling design, percent error in disease estimates is reduced considerably compared with commonly used systematic sampling designs such as diagonal or W-shaped patterns.…”
Section: Sampling Methods Sample Size and Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A modified 'W' sampling pattern was used to select 10 random points for sampling at each season. These sampling points were used in each field (Delp et al, 1986). At each sampling point, 3.12 m 2 (two 3 m-rows spaced 0.52 m apart) were evaluated to determine disease incidence.…”
Section: Field Evaluation Of Charcoal Rot In Soybeanmentioning
confidence: 99%