Literature DB >> 29160647

Designing cost-efficient surveillance for early detection and control of multiple biological invaders.

Rebecca S Epanchin-Niell, Eckehard G Brockerhoff, John M Kean, James A Turner.   

Abstract

Wood borers and bark beetles are among the most serious forest pests worldwide. Many such species have become successful invaders, often causing substantial, costly damages to forests. Here we design and evaluate the cost-efficiency of a trap-based surveillance program for early detection of wood borers and bark beetles at risk of establishing in New Zealand. Although costly, a surveillance program could lead to earlier detection of newly established forest pests, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful eradication and reducing control costs and damages from future invasions. We develop a mechanistic bioeconomic model that relates surveillance intensity (i.e., trap density) and invasion size to probabilities of detection and control. It captures the dynamics of invasive species establishment, spread, and damages to urban and plantation forests. We employ the model to design surveillance programs that provide the greatest net present benefits. Our findings suggest that implementing a surveillance trapping program for invasive wood borers and bark beetles would provide positive net benefits under all scenarios considered. The economically optimal trapping strategy calls for a very high investment in surveillance: about 10 000 traps in each year of the 30-year surveillance program, at a present value cost of US$54 million. This strategy provides a 39% reduction in costs compared with no surveillance, corresponding to an expected net present benefit of approximately US$300 million. Although surveillance may provide the greatest net benefits when implemented at relatively high levels, our findings also show that even low levels of surveillance are worthwhile: the economic benefits from surveillance more than offset the rising costs associated with increasing trapping density. Our results also show that the cost-efficiency of surveillance varies across target regions because of differences in pest introduction and damage accumulation rates across locales, with greater surveillance warranted in areas closer to at-risk, high-value resources and in areas that receive more imported goods that serve as an invasion pathway.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 29160647     DOI: 10.1890/13-1331.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  11 in total

1.  Optimal surveillance against bioinvasions: a sample average approximation method applied to an agent-based spread model.

Authors:  Hoa-Thi-Minh Nguyen; Pham Van Ha; Tom Kompas
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2021-10-24       Impact factor: 6.105

2.  Do an invasive organism's dispersal characteristics affect how we should search for it?

Authors:  Maggie D Triska; Michael Renton
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 3.653

3.  Effect of Lure Combination on Fruit Fly Surveillance Sensitivity.

Authors:  Lloyd D Stringer; Rajendra Soopaya; Ruth C Butler; Roger I Vargas; Steven K Souder; Andrew J Jessup; Bill Woods; Peter J Cook; David Maxwell Suckling
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  Managing biological invasions in urban environments with the acceptance sampling approach.

Authors:  Denys Yemshanov; Robert G Haight; Cuicui Chen; Ning Liu; Christian J K MacQuarrie; Frank H Koch; Robert Venette; Krista Ryall
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-23       Impact factor: 3.752

Review 5.  Approaches for estimating benefits and costs of interventions in plant biosecurity across invasion phases.

Authors:  Melissa J Welsh; James A Turner; Rebecca S Epanchin-Niell; Juan J Monge; Tarek Soliman; Andrew P Robinson; John M Kean; Craig Phillips; Lloyd D Stringer; Jessica Vereijssen; Andrew M Liebhold; Tom Kompas; Michael Ormsby; Eckehard G Brockerhoff
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 6.105

6.  A safety rule approach to surveillance and eradication of biological invasions.

Authors:  Denys Yemshanov; Robert G Haight; Frank H Koch; Robert Venette; Kala Studens; Ronald E Fournier; Tom Swystun; Jean J Turgeon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 3.752

7.  A modeling framework for the establishment and spread of invasive species in heterogeneous environments.

Authors:  Audrey Lustig; Susan P Worner; Joel P W Pitt; Crile Doscher; Daniel B Stouffer; Senait D Senay
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 3.167

8.  The effects of invasive pests and pathogens on strategies for forest diversification.

Authors:  Morag F Macpherson; Adam Kleczkowski; John R Healey; Christopher P Quine; Nick Hanley
Journal:  Ecol Modell       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 3.512

9.  Natal origin of the invasive biosecurity pest, brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys: Penatomidae), determined by dual-element stable isotope-ratio mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Peter W Holder; Robert J Van Hale; Russell Frew; Sherly George; Karen F Armstrong
Journal:  Pest Manag Sci       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 4.462

10.  Optimal invasive species surveillance in the real world: practical advances from research.

Authors:  Frank H Koch; Denys Yemshanov; Robert G Haight; Chris J K MacQuarrie; Ning Liu; Robert Venette; Krista Ryall
Journal:  Emerg Top Life Sci       Date:  2020-12-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.