Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:15:13.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Selection of Sampling Methods to Determine Weed Abundance in Apple (Malus domestica) Orchards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jeffery S. Conn
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., currently Res. Agron., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric, Agric. Exp. Stn., Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99701
Charles H. Proctor
Affiliation:
Dep. Statistics
Walter A. Skroch
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27650

Abstract

A method is presented to determine which of a set of sampling techniques is most nearly optimum for sampling weed abundance. To employ the method, one needs first to develop a set of sampling alternatives. A pilot survey is then conducted to determine time costs and sampling and measurement error variances associated with each technique. We used this method to determine which of three plot sizes (0.6 by 0.6 m, 0.6 by 1.5 m, 1.2 by 2.1 m) and two types of orchard scans is most nearly optimum for estimating weed abundance in apple [Malus domestica (Bork)] orchards. The results indicate that, for weed species that are fairly apparent, orchard scans are optimal when less than 8 h of sampling effort is expended, but when a high degree of precision is required, or when the weed species is more difficult to detect, plot samples may be the better choice. A size of plot ca. 0.6 by 1.5 m size was found to be most nearly optimum.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

1. Barr, A. J., Goodnight, J. H., and Sall, J. P. 1979. SAS user's guide. SAS Institute Inc., Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
2. Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. Wiley, New York. 428 pp.Google Scholar
3. Grieg-Smith, P. 1964. Quantitative Plant Ecology. 2nd ed. Butterworths, London. 256 pp.Google Scholar
4. Mueller-Dombois, D. and Ellenberg, H. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 547 pp.Google Scholar
5. Proctor, C. H. 1980. Estimating Smith's b from sample survey data. Proc. Am. Statistical Assoc., Washington, DC pp. 761765.Google Scholar
6. Roberts, D. A. 1978. Fundamentals of Plant-Pest control. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA. 242 pp.Google Scholar
7. Smith, H. F. 1938. An empirical law describing heterogeneity in the yields of agricultural crops. J. Agric. Sci. 28:123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar