English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Quantitative models have several advantages compared to qualitative methods for pest risk assessments (PRA). Quantitative models do not require the definition of categorical ratings and can be used to compute numerical probabilities of entry and establishment, and to quantify spread and impact. These models are powerful tools, but they include several sources of uncertainty that need to be taken into account by risk assessors and communicated to decision makers. Uncertainty analysis (UA) and sensitivity analysis (SA) are useful for analyzing uncertainty in models used in PRA, and are becoming more popular. However, these techniques should be applied with caution because several factors may influence their results. In this paper, a brief overview of methods of UA and SA are given. As well, a series of practical rules are defined that can be followed by risk assessors to improve the reliability of UA and SA results. These rules are illustrated in a case study based on the infection model of Magarey et al. (2005) where the results of UA and SA are shown to be highly dependent on the assumptions made on the probability distribution of the model inputs

Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in quantitative pest risk assessments; practical rules for risk assessors