Determination of the influence of dispersion pattern of pesticide-resistant individuals on the reliability of resistance estimates using different sampling plans

R. Shah, S. P. Worner, R. B. Chapman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Pesticide resistance monitoring includes resistance detection and subsequent documentation/measurement. Resistance detection would require at least one (≥1) resistant individual(s) to be present in a sample to initiate management strategies. Resistance documentation, on the other hand, would attempt to get an estimate of the entire population (≥90%) of the resistant individuals. A computer simulation model was used to compare the efficiency of simple random and systematic sampling plans to detect resistant individuals and to document their frequencies when the resistant individuals were randomly or patchily distributed. A patchy dispersion pattern of resistant individuals influenced the sampling efficiency of systematic sampling plans while the efficiency of random sampling was independent of such patchiness. When resistant individuals were randomly distributed, sample sizes required to detect at least one resistant individual (resistance detection) with a probability of 0.95 were 300 (1%) and 50 (10% and 20%); whereas, when resistant individuals were patchily distributed, using systematic sampling, sample sizes required for such detection were 6000 (1%), 600 (10%) and 300 (20%). Sample sizes of 900 and 400 would be required to detect ≥90% of resistant individuals (resistance documentation) with a probability of 0.95 when resistant individuals were randomly dispersed and present at a frequency of 10% and 20%, respectively; whereas, when resistant individuals were patchily distributed, using systematic sampling, a sample size of 3000 and 1500, respectively, was necessary. Small sample sizes either underestimated or overestimated the resistance frequency. A simple random sampling plan is, therefore, recommended for insecticide resistance detection and subsequent documentation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)531-538
Number of pages8
JournalBulletin of Entomological Research
Volume102
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 1 2012

Fingerprint

pesticides
sampling
pesticide resistance
insecticide resistance
computer simulation
simulation models
monitoring

Keywords

  • dispersion pattern
  • Key words simple random sampling
  • patchy distribution
  • pesticide resistance documentation/measurement
  • pesticide resistance monitoring
  • systematic sampling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agronomy and Crop Science
  • Insect Science

Cite this

@article{552e230b723141c8a76b5899f95971bd,
title = "Determination of the influence of dispersion pattern of pesticide-resistant individuals on the reliability of resistance estimates using different sampling plans",
abstract = "Pesticide resistance monitoring includes resistance detection and subsequent documentation/measurement. Resistance detection would require at least one (≥1) resistant individual(s) to be present in a sample to initiate management strategies. Resistance documentation, on the other hand, would attempt to get an estimate of the entire population (≥90{\%}) of the resistant individuals. A computer simulation model was used to compare the efficiency of simple random and systematic sampling plans to detect resistant individuals and to document their frequencies when the resistant individuals were randomly or patchily distributed. A patchy dispersion pattern of resistant individuals influenced the sampling efficiency of systematic sampling plans while the efficiency of random sampling was independent of such patchiness. When resistant individuals were randomly distributed, sample sizes required to detect at least one resistant individual (resistance detection) with a probability of 0.95 were 300 (1{\%}) and 50 (10{\%} and 20{\%}); whereas, when resistant individuals were patchily distributed, using systematic sampling, sample sizes required for such detection were 6000 (1{\%}), 600 (10{\%}) and 300 (20{\%}). Sample sizes of 900 and 400 would be required to detect ≥90{\%} of resistant individuals (resistance documentation) with a probability of 0.95 when resistant individuals were randomly dispersed and present at a frequency of 10{\%} and 20{\%}, respectively; whereas, when resistant individuals were patchily distributed, using systematic sampling, a sample size of 3000 and 1500, respectively, was necessary. Small sample sizes either underestimated or overestimated the resistance frequency. A simple random sampling plan is, therefore, recommended for insecticide resistance detection and subsequent documentation.",
keywords = "dispersion pattern, Key words simple random sampling, patchy distribution, pesticide resistance documentation/measurement, pesticide resistance monitoring, systematic sampling",
author = "R. Shah and Worner, {S. P.} and Chapman, {R. B.}",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S0007485312000065",
language = "English",
volume = "102",
pages = "531--538",
journal = "Bulletin of Entomological Research",
issn = "0007-4853",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Determination of the influence of dispersion pattern of pesticide-resistant individuals on the reliability of resistance estimates using different sampling plans

AU - Shah, R.

AU - Worner, S. P.

AU - Chapman, R. B.

PY - 2012/10/1

Y1 - 2012/10/1

N2 - Pesticide resistance monitoring includes resistance detection and subsequent documentation/measurement. Resistance detection would require at least one (≥1) resistant individual(s) to be present in a sample to initiate management strategies. Resistance documentation, on the other hand, would attempt to get an estimate of the entire population (≥90%) of the resistant individuals. A computer simulation model was used to compare the efficiency of simple random and systematic sampling plans to detect resistant individuals and to document their frequencies when the resistant individuals were randomly or patchily distributed. A patchy dispersion pattern of resistant individuals influenced the sampling efficiency of systematic sampling plans while the efficiency of random sampling was independent of such patchiness. When resistant individuals were randomly distributed, sample sizes required to detect at least one resistant individual (resistance detection) with a probability of 0.95 were 300 (1%) and 50 (10% and 20%); whereas, when resistant individuals were patchily distributed, using systematic sampling, sample sizes required for such detection were 6000 (1%), 600 (10%) and 300 (20%). Sample sizes of 900 and 400 would be required to detect ≥90% of resistant individuals (resistance documentation) with a probability of 0.95 when resistant individuals were randomly dispersed and present at a frequency of 10% and 20%, respectively; whereas, when resistant individuals were patchily distributed, using systematic sampling, a sample size of 3000 and 1500, respectively, was necessary. Small sample sizes either underestimated or overestimated the resistance frequency. A simple random sampling plan is, therefore, recommended for insecticide resistance detection and subsequent documentation.

AB - Pesticide resistance monitoring includes resistance detection and subsequent documentation/measurement. Resistance detection would require at least one (≥1) resistant individual(s) to be present in a sample to initiate management strategies. Resistance documentation, on the other hand, would attempt to get an estimate of the entire population (≥90%) of the resistant individuals. A computer simulation model was used to compare the efficiency of simple random and systematic sampling plans to detect resistant individuals and to document their frequencies when the resistant individuals were randomly or patchily distributed. A patchy dispersion pattern of resistant individuals influenced the sampling efficiency of systematic sampling plans while the efficiency of random sampling was independent of such patchiness. When resistant individuals were randomly distributed, sample sizes required to detect at least one resistant individual (resistance detection) with a probability of 0.95 were 300 (1%) and 50 (10% and 20%); whereas, when resistant individuals were patchily distributed, using systematic sampling, sample sizes required for such detection were 6000 (1%), 600 (10%) and 300 (20%). Sample sizes of 900 and 400 would be required to detect ≥90% of resistant individuals (resistance documentation) with a probability of 0.95 when resistant individuals were randomly dispersed and present at a frequency of 10% and 20%, respectively; whereas, when resistant individuals were patchily distributed, using systematic sampling, a sample size of 3000 and 1500, respectively, was necessary. Small sample sizes either underestimated or overestimated the resistance frequency. A simple random sampling plan is, therefore, recommended for insecticide resistance detection and subsequent documentation.

KW - dispersion pattern

KW - Key words simple random sampling

KW - patchy distribution

KW - pesticide resistance documentation/measurement

KW - pesticide resistance monitoring

KW - systematic sampling

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872012801&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84872012801&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0007485312000065

DO - 10.1017/S0007485312000065

M3 - Article

C2 - 22420712

AN - SCOPUS:84872012801

VL - 102

SP - 531

EP - 538

JO - Bulletin of Entomological Research

JF - Bulletin of Entomological Research

SN - 0007-4853

IS - 5

ER -