See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233498446

Evaluating Single Treatment Data Using Abbott's Formula With Reference to

Insecticides

Article  in  Journal of Economic Entomology · December 1985

DOI: 10.1093/jee/78.6.1179

CITATIONS READS

160 14,257

2 authors, including:

Arthur Retnakaran

130 PUBLICATIONS   3,540 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Insect Molecular Biology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arthur Retnakaran on 16 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

21706 Fleming, R. A. 1985
Evaluating Single Treatment Data ^Jtng ^fcbotfi Formula
With Reference to Insecticides

RICHARD FLEMING AND ARTHUR RETNAKARAN

Forest Pest Management Institute, Canadian Forestry Service,

P.O. Box 490, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 5M7, Canada

FORUM: J. Econ. Entomol. 78: 1179-1181 (1985)

ABSTRACT Abbotts formula is often applied to entomological field data to distinguish
the effects of pesticide treatment from those caused by natural factors. Although one would
normally hope to use inferential statistics in applying Abbott's formula, logistical and eco
nomic constraints sometimes preclude the necessary experimental replication. We show that
the use of Abbott's formula in experiments involving a single treatment and a single check
plot usually produces a biased estimate of the population reduction due to treatment. The
reasons for this bias are presented as guidance in the design of pesticide trials and in the
interpretation of their results.

To adhere rigidly to the strict requirements of
inferential statistics, one must obtain data from
experiments that are adequately replicated. In
many types of experiments, especially those in
volving field trials, such replication is not always
possible. For example, Moffitt and Westigard (1984)
noted in their report on the suppression of the
codling moth population in pear orchards by mat
ing disruption with sex pheromone that "No with-
in-orchard treatment replication was economically
or, in most cases, physically possible/' Hurlbert
(1984) stressed this point in his monograph on the
design of ecological field experiments: "Replica
tion is often impossible or undesirable when large-
scale systems (whole lakes, watersheds, rivers, etc.)
are studied. When gross effects of a treatment are
anticipated, or when only a rough estimate of ef
fect is required, or when the cost of replication is
very great, experiments involving unreplicated
treatments may also be the only option." Examples
of such trials can be readily seen in the literature
(Overhulser et al. 1980, Morris 1984, Bostanian et
al. 1985, Nord et al. 1985, Philogene et al. 1985,
Retnakaran and Grant 1985, Solomon 1985, Yous-
sef and McManus 1985).
In each of these examples, the impact of a par
ticular treatment (e.g., chemical) on a target (e.g.,
pest) population is measured quantitatively in terms
of the change in population density beyond that
which would have occurred in the absence of the
treatment. For instance, if ac is the naturally oc
curring per capita change in population density as
measured in the check plot (and assumed to be the
same as in the treatment plot if treatment did not
occur), then the total (natural plus treatment in
duced) per capita change measured in the treated
plot is
at = ac - acR = ac{\ - R),
where —aeR represents the treatment effects on
per capita change.
Rearranging equation 1 produces Abbott's (1925)
formula for the population reduction due to treat
ment:
R = 1 - ajac where 0 < act 0 < ar (2)
(Here R < 0 implies a population increase, or neg
ative decrease, due to treatment.) This equation
describes a curve by which, for a fixed value of
the total per capita change, a„ R increases mono-
tonically (from R « —oo when ac « 0) at a decel
erating rate as natural per capita change, ac, in
creases. For ac ^> an the population reduction due
to treatment, R, approaches 1 asymptotically from
below and is little affected by ac.
The population reduction, R, is widely used as
a measure of the impact of pesticide application
above and beyond the impact of naturally occur
ring factors (which also influence the dynamics of
treated populations and presumably would have
occurred anyway). Thus, Abbott's formula is used
to distinguish treatment effects from the effects of
naturally occurring factors (Sower et al. 1982).
The per capita rates of change are generally
estimated as:
at = T2/T1,
and (3)
ac = C2/C1,
where Tl and T2 are the pre- and posttreatment
population densities in the treatment plot, and CI
and C2 are the corresponding check plot popula
tion densities. Using equation 3 in equation 2, Ret
nakaran (1980) arrived at a computationally con
venient form of Abbott's formula:
R = 1 - (T2 x C1)/(T1 x C2). (4)
(1)
The same formula can be descriptively expressed
in terms of percentage as:
 /posttreatment pretreatment •
population population
in treatment in check
population = 1 - x 100 (5;
pretreatment posttreatment
reduction
population population
in treatment in check

Implicit in the use of Abbott's formula and in
the selection of the plots is the assumption that the
ecological influences on the check and treatment
populations are identical at the time of treatment.
Hence, since population size generally affects both
natural rates of change (e.g., via competition, pre-
dation, parasitism, disease) and dispersal (cf. Krebs
1972), ideally the treatment and check plots should
have equal pretreatment densities. In practice,
however, it may not always be possible to select
plots with identical population densities. When
several treatments are considered, it is customary
to select many plots in the hope that they can be
matched with treatment plots of similar popula
tion density (e.g., Retnakaran 1981). When several
check plots of varying population densities are
available, a curve of the natural per capita rate of
change for the population densities of concern can
be constructed and the relationship obtained can
be used to isolate treatment effects from ecological
influences (G. Howse, personal communication).
However, economic or logistical constraints or both
often limit the trial to one treatment plot and one
check plot (e.g., Retnakaran and Grant 1985). The
question then arises: should the plot with the great
er pretreatment estimate be selected for the check
or the treatment?
When the pretreatment estimates are not equal,
two alternative situations are possible: the actual
pretreatment population densities may also be dif
ferent, or the actual pretreatment densities may
be equal and only their estimates unequal. For the
first situation, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we can assume the ecological generality
that net per capita change through the combined
effects of natural mortality, reproduction, and dis
persal usually decreases as population density in
creases (e.g., Pielou 1969). Then, calculating the
natural per capita change from the plot with the
larger pretreatment population will usually un
derestimate ac in the other (treatment) plot, and
hence underestimate R in equation 2. Doing the
reverse leads to an overestimate of the population
reduction due to treatment.
The second situation, where the pretreatment
densities are actually equal (i.e., CI = Tl) al
though their estimates are not, leads to the same
conclusion. For instance, let the ratio of the esti
Furthermore, we might assume that the relative
error or bias in estimating posttreatment popula
tion densities is the same on the control plot and
the treatment plot (so T2*/T2 = C2*/C2 where
T2* and C2* are the treatment and check post-
treatment density estimates, respectively). Using
equation 4 to write the difference between the true
or actual population reduction, R, and its estimate,
R*, results in the equation
R-R* = [(C1*/T1*) - (Cl/Tl)] (T2/C2).
Since CI = Tl, substituting for Z with equation 6
results in the error or bias in estimating population
reduction of
R -R* = (Z -1)(T2/C2).
This is the equation of a line of slope (T2/C2) and
intercept zero in the (R - fl*) x (Z — 1) plane.
This equation shows that the magnitude of the
estimation error (or bias), R - R*, for population
reduction depends on the ratio of posttreatment
densities, (T2/C2), and on the magnitude of the
deviation of the ratio of pretreatment estimates
from one, Z — 1. More important, use of the sam
ple plot with the larger pretreatment density es
timate for the check (so Z > 1) underestimates
population reduction (i.e., R* < R); using the oth
er plot for the check (so Z < 1) produces an over
estimate.
This problem is illustrated by the data shown in
Table 1. In trial 1, the prespray density in the
check plot is identical to that in the treatment plot,
which gives an unbiased estimate of population
reduction of 80%. In trials 2 and 3, the change in
the pre- and postspray levels in the check are pro
portional and, therefore, do not alter the result.
Such a situation, however, cannot be predicted at
the time of the spray operation. Trials 4 and 5
represent the more probable situation where the
postspray check densities show a greater decrease
Table 1. Example of data for a field experiment
Population in Population in % popu
Spray treatment check lation
trial Pre Post Pre Post reduc
spray spray spray spray tion

mates of the pretreatment densities be 1 100 10 100 50 80

2 100 10 50 25 80
Z = C1*/T1* (6)
3 100 10 150 75 80
4 100 10 50 50 90
where CI* and Tl* denote the check and treat
5 100 10 150 50 70
ment pretreatment density estimates, respectively.
 Flkminc; and Rktnakara.v Si\c;lk Treatment Data
Drcember 1985
lor higher initial population densities. This results
in overestimation (trial 4) and underestimation
(trial 5) of the percent population reduction.
Hence, for unreplicated treatments made to re
duce population density, regardless of whether the
pretreatment population densities are actually
equal in the check and treatment plots, designat
ing the plot with the larger pretreatment density
estimate for the check tends to produce conser
vative estimates (underestimates) of population re
duction. Using that plot for treatment tends to pro
duce optimistic estimates (overestimates) of
population reduction. For treatments made to in
crease population density, conservative estimates
(overestimates) of R tend to arise by designating
the plot with the smaller pretreatment density es
timate as the check. This conclusion offers guid
ance for both experimental design and the inter
pretation of spray-trial data and other data.
Acknowledgment
We appreciate the constructive criticisms offered by
G. Grant, G. Howse, and B. Payandeh (Canadian For.
Serv.).
References Cited
Abbott, W. S. 1925. A method of computing the ef
fectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 18:
265-267.
Bostanian, N. J., A. Belanger, and I. Rivard. 1985.
Residues of four synthetic pyrethroids and azinphos-
methyl on apple foliage and their toxicity to Ambly-
seius fallacis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Can. Entomol.
117: 143-152.
Hurlbert, S. H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the de
sign of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr.
54: 187-211.
Krebs, C. J. 1972. Ecology: the experimental analysis
of distribution and abundance. Harper and Row, New
York.
Vloffitt, H. R., and P. H. Westigard. 1984. Suppres
sion of the codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
population on pears in southern Oregon through
mating disruption with sex pheromone. J. Econ.
Entomol. 77: 1513-1519.
Morris, O. N. 1984. Field response of the spruce bud-
worm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Lepidoptera:
Tortricidae), to dosage and volume rates of com
View publication stats
1181
mercial Bacillus thuringiensis. Can. Entomol. 116:
983-990.
Nord, J. C, G. L. DeBarr, L. R. Barber, J. C. Weath-
erby, and IN. A. Overgaard. 1985. Low-volume
applications of azinphosmethyl, fenvalerate, and
permethrin for control of coneworms (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae) and seed bugs (Hemiptera: Coreidae and
Pentatomidae) in southern pine seed orchards. J.
Econ. Entomol. 78. 445-450.
Overhulser, D. L., G. E. Daterman, L. L. Sower, C.
Sartwell, and T. W. Koerber. 1980. Mating dis
ruption with synthetic sex attractants controls dam
age by Eucosma sonomana (Lepidoptera: Tortrici
dae, Olethreutinae) in Pinus ponderosa plantations.
II. Aerially applied hollow fiber formulation. Can.
Entomol. 112: 163-165.
Philogene, B. J. R., J. T. Arnason, C. W. Berg, F.
Duval, D. Champagne, R. G. Taylor, L. C. Leitch,
and P. Morand. 1985. Synthesis and evaluation of
the naturally occurring phototoxin, alphaterthienyl,
as a control agent for larvae of Aedes intrudens,
Aedes atropalpus (Diptera: Culicidae) and Simu-
lium verecundum (Diptera: Simuliidae). J. Econ.
Entomol. 78: 121-126.
Pielou, E. C. 1969. An introduction to mathematical
ecology. Wiley, New York.
Retnakaran, A. 1980. Effect of 3 new moult-inhib-
iting insect growth regulators on the spruce bud-
worm. J. Econ. Entomol. 73: 520-524.
1981. Toxicology and efficacy of insect growth reg
ulators aerially applied against the spruce budworm
at Hearst (1978), Wawa (1979), and the French Riv
er area (1980). Can. For. Serv. Inf. Rep. FPM-X-45.
Retnakaran, A., and G. G. Grant. 1985. Control of
the oak-leaf shredder Croesia semipurpurana (Kear-
fott) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), by aerial application
of diflubenzuron. Can. Entomol. 117: 363-369.
Solomon, J. D. 1985. Comparative effectiveness of
gallery-injected insecticides and fumigants to control
carpenterworms (Lepidoptera: Cossidae) and oak
clearwing borers (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae). J. Econ.
Entomol. 78: 485-488.
Sower, L. L., D. L. Overhulser, G. E. Daterman, C.
Sartwell, D. E. Laws, and T. W. Koerber. 1982.
Control of Eucosma sonomana by mating disruption
with svnthetic sex attractants. J. Econ. Entomol. 75:
315-318.
Youssef, N., and W. R. McManus. 1985. Captan: a
promising fungicide for management of chalkbrood
diseases in the alfalfa leafcutting bee. J. Econ. Ento
mol. 78: 428-431.
Received for publication 4 February 1985; accepted
26 August 1985.