Appendices:

Critical Review of the Florida Field Study

 

The appendices, as listed below, are an integral part of the book, "Florida's Citrus Canker Epidemic: Pieces of a Puzzle."

This review is an in depth inspection of the all relevant information on the study. Two articles have been published on the field study (Gottwald et al, 2001 and Gottwald et al, 2002) are provided under basic documents.

Relevant book chapters:

I have provided below the chapters in the book which help understand how the pieces of the puzzle fit together. The following is for personal use only and may only be reproduced with permission of the author.

Chapter 7: Field Study Investigation Summary

Chapter 8: Undisclosed Studies (first 8 pages of the chapter)

Chapter 9, A New History Emerges" begins as:

Finally, The Puzzle Comes Together

Finally, we have arrived. It is time to reassemble the puzzle, to re-state history consistent with what what has been demonstrated to be true or what are the most logical explanations of events. Also, it is time to discard what is likely to be untrue. A false statement can not be made into a true one by repeating it a thousand times.

This chapter presents the best explanation for the events leading to the 1900-ft policy and then later to the widespread dissemination of citrus canker throughout Florida.

This article by Gottwald et al. was published more in April 2002. The 1900-ft policy was initiated on January 1, 2000 and was expected to last one year.

Gottwald, T.R., X. Sun, Riley, T. Graham, J. H.,  Ferrandino, F. and Taylor, E., 2002, Geo-Referenced Spatiotemporal Analysis of the Urban Citrus Canker Epidemic in Florida, Phytopathology, Vol 92, No. 4.

In court cases, the article was considered to provide scientific support to the distance necessary to circumscribe the next generation of canker-infected citrus. A critical review of the article disputes this claim.

 

 

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Basic Information of the Florida Field Study

Appendix B: Distance Necessary to Circumscribe (DNC) Method

Appendix B1: Unusual Field Study Results

Appendix C: - Weather Analysis

Appendix C1: The Gottwald Canker Forecast Model

Appendix D: Inter-Point Distance Analyses

Appendix D1: Supplemental Information

Appendix E: Random Quadrat Procedure and Related Analyses

Appendix F: Spatial Point Pattern Analyses

Appendix F1: Additional Comments on Spatial Point Analysis

Appendix G: Semi-Variance Analyses

Basic Documents:

Gottwald, T. R., Hughes, G., Graham, J. H, Sun, X., Riley, T., 2001, The Scientific Basis of Regulatory Eradication Policy for an Invasive Species, Phytopathology, 91:30-34.

Neri F.M., Cook A.R., Gibson G.J., Gottwald T.R., Gilligan C.A., (2014) Bayesian Analysis for Inference of an Emerging Epidemic: Citrus Canker in Urban Landscapes. PLoS Comput Biol 0(4): e1003587. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003587

Note: The above article is only used for verifying the study site boundaries. It is confirmed for the data was the same as in the 2002 article by comparing the disease progression curves for Site D1 and D2.

Gottwald, T.R. , Sun, X., Riley, T., Graham, J. and Hughes, G., 1999.  Citrus Canker Spread Study in Urban Miami,  internal document submitted to the Broward Court, in Case 00-18394 (08) CACE.   

The quality of the report is unfortunately poor as it was received as a copy of a fax transmission to the Broward Court. The Department downplayed the significance of the document as an interim progress report in a draft format.. This report was considered useful in the investigation of the field study in conjunction with other information on the field study.

It is the only document publically available which provides analysis of the data collected prior to the implementation of the 1900-ft rule. There is no mention of this document in the minutes of the Task Force nor the reports from the Risk Assessment Group. Transmittal letters show the Deputy Commissioner Craig Meyers received a copy shortly after it was sent to FDACS/DPI by Dr. Gottwald. Further, it is unknown if any of the co-authors had a part in the preparation of the report.

Although the format of the document is very similar to articles submitted for publication to the American Phytopathological Society, Dr. Gottwald testified that there was no plan to submit this document for publication.