4.4 Article

Dispersion Models and Sampling of Cacao Mirid Bug Sahlbergella singularis (Hemiptera: Miridae) on Theobroma Cacao in Southern Cameroon

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 111-119

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/EN09101

关键词

distribution; negative binomial distribution; population ecology; Sahlbergella singulars; spatial dispersion model

资金

  1. University of Goettingen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The spatio-temporal distribution of Sahlbergella singularis Hag lung, a major pest of cacao trees (Theobroma cacao) (Malvaceae), was studied for 2 yr in traditional cacao forest gardens in the humid forest area of southern Cameroon. The first objective was to analyze the dispersion of this insect on cacao trees. The second objective was to develop sampling plans based on fixed levels of precision for estimating S. singularis populations. The following models were used to analyze the data: Taylor's power law, Iwao's patchiness regression, the Nachman model, and the negative binomial distribution. Our results document that Taylor's power law was a better fit for the data than the Iwao and Nachman models. Taylor's b and Iwao's beta were both significantly >1, indicating that S. singularis aggregated on specific trees. This result was further supported by the calculated common k of 1.75444. Iwao's alpha was significantly <0, indicating that the basic distribution component of S. singularis was the individual insect. Comparison of negative binomial (NBD) and Nachman models indicated that the NBD model was appropriate for studying S. singularis distribution. Optimal sample sizes for fixed precision levels of 0.10, 0.15, and 0.25 were estimated with Taylor's regression coefficients. Required sample sizes increased dramatically with increasing levels of precision. This is the first study on S. singularis dispersion in cacao plantations. Sampling plans, presented here, should be a tool for research on population dynamics and pest management decisions of mind bugs on cacao.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据