Project: 2004-02. Report - Nectria regional survey 2004 – where did we go wrong and improvements for the future
|
Date: 2006 Author: L S Bulman Publication: Report Project reference: 2004-02 Full report is available from: |
Executive summary:
Objective
A disease incidence and severity survey for Nectria fuckeliana was carried out in Otago and Southland from January to April 2004. A field audit of selected plots showed that at the plot level there were significant errors and the original data were not suitable for detailed analysis.
The FHRC commissioned an evaluation of survey methods in order to identify errors and recognise deficiencies so that these are not repeated in future surveys. This report recommends procedures to ensure best practice for forest disease surveys.
Key Results
- Good survey procedure involves detailed planning and practice. Four steps for good survey practice involve quality management, quality assurance, quality control and quality evaluation.
- It is vital to determine clear objectives
- Assessment methods must be developed in the field and tested on a wide range of host types
- Reference material, in particular photographic standards, should be used in conjunction with clear and precise written documentation
- Training is critical step and needs to be carried out in a structured manner
- One experienced assessor needs to visit and calibrate other assessors and audit data recording and method
- A pilot assessment under field operational conditions, and using staff who will be involved in delivering the full survey, is valuable in identifying any inherent weaknesses before committing to the full survey.
Application of Results
Recommendations will be applicable for any forest disease survey.
Further Work
The disease survey for Nectria fuckeliana will be repeated following the recommendations presented here. A checklist based on recommendations in this report could be developed for use in other surveys.
Full report is available from:
Ensis
Private Bag 3020
Rotorua
