Use of covariates in Taylor’s power law for sequential sampling in pest management



In pest management, the pest density within a group of plants needs to be estimated for taking timely actions, such as spraying pesticides or releasing natural enemies. Taylor’s power law is widely used for identifying the aggregation patterns of the pests and designing a sequential sampling plan to estimate the pest mean density. The conventional estimates given by Taylor’s power law do not consider potential density differences due to various covariates, but focus only on the relationship between the sample means and the variances.

In this article, we develop a new sequential sampling stop line based on Taylor’s power law by using quasi-likelihood with covariate effects. The simulation results show that the proposed estimators are better than the conventional estimators in terms of mean squared error. For validation and evaluation of the sampling stop line given by the proposed estimator, we use RVSP software in which actual observations are randomly and iteratively sampled until the total number of a pest reaches the stop line. We demonstrate both types of sequential sampling stop lines, those based on the conventional method and those based on the new method, for the population density of spider mites on glasshouse roses.

Key Words

Generalized linear models Over-dispersed Poisson regression Pseudolikelihood Quasi-likelihood 


  1. Aitken, M. (1987), “Modelling Variance Heterogeneity in Normal Regression Using GLIM,” Applied Statistics, 36, 332–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breslow, N. (1990a), “Further Studies in the Variability of Pock Counts,” Statistics in Medicine, 9, 615–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. — (1990b), “Tests of Hypotheses in Overdispersed Poisson Regression and Other Quasi-Likelihood Models,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 565–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carroll, R. J., and Ruppert, D. (1988), Transformation and Weighting in Regression, London: Chapman & Hall.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll, R. J., Ruppert, D., and Stefanski, L. A. (1995), Measurement Error in Nonlinear Models, London: Chapman & Hall, p. 270.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Cressie, N. A. C. (1993), Statistics for Spatial Data, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Davidian, M., and Carroll, R. J. (1987), “Variance Function Estimation,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 1079–1091.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, P. M., and Pedigo, L. P. (1989), “Analysis of Spatial Patterns and Sequential Count Plans for Stalk Borer (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae),” Environmental Entomology, 18, 504–509.Google Scholar
  9. Diblasi, A., and Bowman, A. W. (2001), “On the Use of the Variogram in Checking for Independence in Spatial Data,” Biometrics, 57, 211–218.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Green, R. H. (1970), “On Fixed Precision Level Sequential Sampling,” Researches on Population Ecology, 12, 249–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hutchison, W. D., Hogg, D. B., Poswal, M. A., Berberet, R. C., and Cuperus, G. W. (1988) “Implications of the Stochastic Nature of Kuno’s and Green’s Fixed-precision Stop Lines: Sampling Plans for the Pea Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) in Alfalfa as an Example,” Journal of Economic Entomology, 81, 749–758.Google Scholar
  12. McCullagh, P., and Nelder, J. A. (1989), Generalized Linear Models, London: Chapman & Hall.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Moran, P. A. P. (1948), “The Interpretation of Statistical Maps,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. B, 10, 243–251.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Naranjo, S. E., and Hutchison, W. D. (1997), “Validation of Arthropod Sampling Plans Using a Resampling Approach: Software and Analysis,” American Entomologist, 43, 48–57.Google Scholar
  15. Nelder, J. A., and Lee, Y. (1992), “Likelihood, Quasi-likelihood, and Pseudolikelihood: Some Comparisons,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 54, 273–284.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Perry, J. N. (1981), “Taylor’s Power Law for Dependence of Variance on Mean in Animal Population,” Applied Statistics, 30, 254–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. SAS Institute, (1997), SAS User’s Guide, 6.14., Cary, NC: SAS.Google Scholar
  18. SAS Institute (1993), SAS/STAT Software: The GENMOD Procedure, Technical Report P-243, 81–85.Google Scholar
  19. Southwood, T. R. E. (1978), Ecological Methods (2nd ed.), London: Chapman and Hall, p. 391.Google Scholar
  20. Taylor, L. R. (1961), “Aggregation, Variance and the Mean,” Nature (Lond.), 189, 732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. — (1974), “Monitoring Change in the Distribution and Abundance of Insects,” Annual Report of Rothamsted Experimental Station, 1973(2), 202–239.Google Scholar
  22. Taylor, R. A., Lindquist, R. K., and Shipp, J. L. (1998), “Variation and Consistency in Spatial Distribution as Measured by Taylor’s Power Law,” Environmental Entomology, 27, 191–201.Google Scholar
  23. Wedderburn, R. W. M. (1974), “Quasi-likelihood Functions, Generalized Linear Models and the Gauss-Newton Method,” Biometrika, 61, 439–447.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Biometric Society 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of StatisticsHankuk University of Foreign StudiesYonginSouth Korea
  2. 2.Division of Environmental Science and Ecological EngineeringKorea UniversitySouth Korea

Personalised recommendations