Advertisement

Journal of Pest Science

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 71–82 | Cite as

Biosurveillance of forest insects: part II—adoption of genomic tools by end user communities and barriers to integration

  • Pierre BilodeauEmail author
  • Amanda D. Roe
  • Guillaume Bilodeau
  • Gwylim S. Blackburn
  • Mingming Cui
  • Michel Cusson
  • Daniel Doucet
  • Verena C. Griess
  • Valentine M. A. Lafond
  • Chelsea Nilausen
  • Gregory Paradis
  • Ilga Porth
  • Julien Prunier
  • Vivek Srivastava
  • Don Stewart
  • Alex S. Torson
  • Emilie Tremblay
  • Adnan Uzunovic
  • Denys Yemshanov
  • Richard C. Hamelin
Review

Abstract

Early intervention, effective management, and regulations are essential to mitigate the potential negative impacts of invasive forest insects. Biosurveillance provides the necessary knowledge to inform management, and regulatory practices. Genomic approaches can contribute valuable information to this process. Unfortunately, adoption and incorporation of genomic tools into biosurveillance frameworks is not straightforward. To realize the full potential of genomic knowledge, researchers must work together with end users to ensure full  adoption, standardization, validation, and interpretation of genomic results.

Keywords

Biological invasion Invasive HTS Regulation Policy Surveillance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Brent Sinclair, two anonymous reviewers, and the subject editor for thoughtful, supportive feedback we received on earlier versions of this manuscript. We also wish to thank the guest editors and journal editors for the opportunity to contribute to this special issue on invasive insect pests of forests. Finally, we wish to acknowledge funding support from Genome Canada, Genome British Columbia, and Genome Quebec for support for the Biosurveillance of Alien Forest Enemies (bioSAFE) as part of the Large-Scale Applied Research Project in Natural Resources and the Environment. Additional funding was also provided by the Genomics Research and Development Initiative (Natural Resources Canada).

Funding

This study was funded by Genome Canada, Genome British Columbia, Genome Quebec, and the Genomics Research and Development Initiative (Natural Resources Canada).

Compliance with ethical standards

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Andersen MC, Adams H, Hope B, Powell M (2004) Risk analysis for invasive species: general framework and research needs. Risk Anal 24:893–900Google Scholar
  2. Boykin LM, Armstrong K, Kubatko L, De Barro P (2012) Species delimitation and global biosecurity. Evol Bioinform 8:1–37Google Scholar
  3. Carew ME, Pettigrove VJ, Metzeling L, Hoffman AA (2013) Environmental monitoring using next generation sequencing: rapid identification of macroinvertebrate bioindicator species. Front Zool 10:45.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-10-45 Google Scholar
  4. Chariton AA, Court LN, Hartley DM, Colloff MJ, Hardy CM (2010) Ecological assessment of estuarine sediments by pyrosequencing eukaryotic ribosomal DNA. Front Ecol Environ 8:233–238Google Scholar
  5. Cook DC (2008) Benefit cost analysis of an import access request. Food Policy 33:277–285Google Scholar
  6. Costanza R, D’Arge R, De Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260Google Scholar
  7. Costello C, Springborn M, McAusland C, Solow A (2007) Unintended biological invasions: does risk vary by trading partner? J Environ Econ Manag 54:262–276Google Scholar
  8. Crann S, Fairley C, Badulescu D, Mohn WW, O’Doherty KC (2015) Soils, microbes, and forest health: a qualitative analysis of social and institutional factors affecting genomic technology adoption. Technol Soc 43:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHSOC.2015.06.001 Google Scholar
  9. Cullingham CI, Cooke JEK, Dang S, Davis CS, Cooke BJ, Coltman DW (2011) Mountain pine beetle host-range expansion threatens the boreal forest. Mol Ecol 20:2157–2171Google Scholar
  10. Darling JA, Blum MJ (2007) DNA-based methods for monitoring invasive species: a review and prospectus. Biol Invasions 9:751–765.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-006-9079-4 Google Scholar
  11. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart 13:319–340.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 Google Scholar
  12. Davis AJ, Jenkinson LS, Lawton JH, Shorrocks B, Wood S (1998) Making mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming. Nature 391:783–786.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35842 Google Scholar
  13. De Meyer M, Robertson MP, Mansell MW, Ekesi S, Tsuruta K, Mwaiko W, Peterson AT (2010) Ecological niche and potential geographic distribution of the invasive fruit fly Bactrocera invadens (Diptera, Tephritidae). Bull Entomol Res 100:35–48.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485309006713 Google Scholar
  14. Des Roches S, Post DM, Turley NE, Bailey JK, Hendry AP, Kinnison MT, Schweitzer JA, Palkovacs EP (2018) The ecological importance of intraspecific variation. Nat Ecol Evol 2:57–64Google Scholar
  15. Djoumad A, Nisole A, Zahiri R et al (2017) Comparative analysis of mitochondrial genomes of geographic variants of the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar, reveals a previously undescribed genotypic entity. Sci Rep 7:14245Google Scholar
  16. Early R, Bradley BA, Dukes JS et al (2016) Global threats from invasive alien species in the twenty-first century and national response capacities. Nat Commun 7:12485.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12485 Google Scholar
  17. Engler R, Guisan A (2009) MigClim: predicting plant distribution and dispersal in a changing climate. Divers Distrib 15:590–601.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00566.x Google Scholar
  18. EPPO (2016) PM 7/129 (1) DNA barcoding as an identification tool for a number of regulated pests. EPPO Bull 46:501–537Google Scholar
  19. Ficetola GF, Miaud C, Pompanon F, Taberlet P (2008) Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples. Biol Lett 4:423–425Google Scholar
  20. Firn J, Maggini R, Chadés I, Nicol S, Walters B et al (2015) Priority threat management of invasive animals to protect biodiversity under climate change. Glob Change Biol 21:3917–3930Google Scholar
  21. Fuentealba A, Alfaro R, Bauce E (2013) Theoretical framework for assessment of risks posed to Canadian forests by invasive insect species. For Ecol Manag 302:97–106Google Scholar
  22. Gardy JL, Loman NJ (2017) Towards a genomics-informed, real-time, global pathogen surveillance system. Nat Rev Genet 19:9–20Google Scholar
  23. Hallman WK, Hebden WC, Cuite CL, Aquino HL, Lang JT (2004) Americans and GM food: knowledge, opinion and interest in 2004. Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJGoogle Scholar
  24. Hebert PD, Cywinska A, Ball SL (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc R Soc Lond [Biol] 270:313–321Google Scholar
  25. Hulme PE (2009) Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J Appl Ecol 46:10–18Google Scholar
  26. Ikegami M, Jenkins T (2018) Estimate global risks of a forest disease under current and future climates using species distribution model and simple thermal model—pine wilt disease as a model case. For Ecol Manag 409:343–352Google Scholar
  27. IPPC (2016) International Standards for Phytosanitary Management (ISPM) 5: Glossary of phytosanitary terms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2016/05/ISPM_05_2016_En_2016-05-20.pdf. Accessed 31 Dec 2017
  28. Islam MS, Barr NB, Braswell WE, Martinez M, Ledezma LA, Molongoski J, Mastro V, Schuenzel EL (2015) A multiplex real-time PCR assay for screening gypsy moths (Lepidoptera: erbidae) in the United States for evidence of an Asian genotype. J Econ Entomol 108:2450–2457Google Scholar
  29. ISPM 2 (2007) Framework for pest risk analysis, Rome, IPPC, FAO. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/592/. Accessed 31 Dec 2017
  30. ISPM 11 (2013) Pest risk analysis for quarantine pest. Rome, IPPC, FAO. https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/standards-setting/ispms/. Accessed 31 Dec 2017
  31. ISPM 27 (2016) Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests. Rome, IPPC, FAO. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/593/. Accessed 31 Dec 2017
  32. James PMA, Coltman DW, Murray BW, Hamelin RC, Sperling FAH (2011) Spatial genetic structure of a symbiotic beetle-fungal system: toward multi-taxa integrated landscape genetics. PLoS ONE 6:e25259Google Scholar
  33. Janes JK, Li Y, Keeling CI, Yuen MMS et al (2014) How the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) breached the Canadian rocky mountains. Mol Biol Evol 31:1803–1815Google Scholar
  34. Jiménez-Valverde A, Peterson AT, Soberón J, Overton JM, Aragón P, Lobo JM (2011) Use of niche models in invasive species risk assessments. Biol Invasions 13:2785–2797Google Scholar
  35. Jorgensen JT (2015) Companion diagnostics: the key to personalized medicine. Foreword. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 15:153–156Google Scholar
  36. Kaplan S, Garrick BJ (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 1:11–27Google Scholar
  37. Keena MA, Côté M-J, Grinberg PS, Wallner WE (2008) World distribution of female flight and genetic variation in Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: lymantriidae). Environ Entomol 37:636–649Google Scholar
  38. Koch FH, Yemshanov D, McKenney DW, Smith WD (2009) Evaluating critical uncertainty thresholds in a spatial model of forest pest invasion risk. Risk Anal 29:1227–1241Google Scholar
  39. Kovacs KF, Haight RG, Mercader RJ, McCullough DG (2014) A bioeconomic analysis of an emerald ash borer invasion of an urban forest with multiple jurisdictions. Resour Energy Econ 36:270–298Google Scholar
  40. Kumar S, Yee WL, Neven LG (2016) Mapping global potential risk of establishment of Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: tephritidae) using MaxEnt and CLIMEX niche models. J Econ Entomol 109:2043–2053.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow166 Google Scholar
  41. Landis WG (2003) Ecological risk assessment conceptual model formulation for nonindigenous species. Risk Anal 24:847–858Google Scholar
  42. Landis WG, Wiegers JA (1997) Design considerations and a suggested approach for regional and comparative ecological risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 3:287–297Google Scholar
  43. Lodge D, Simonin PW, Burgiel SW et al (2016) Risk analysis and bioeconomics of invasive species to inform policy and management. Annu Rev Environ Resour 41:453–488Google Scholar
  44. Magarey RD, Borchert DM, Fowler GL, Sutton TG, Colunga-Garcia M, Simpson JA (2007) NAPPFAST, an internet system for the weather-based mapping of plant pathogens. Plant Dis 91:336–345Google Scholar
  45. Mazza G, Tricarico E, Genovesi P, Gherardi F (2013) Biological invaders are threats to human health: an overview. Ethol Ecol Evol 26:112–129Google Scholar
  46. Millar CI, Stephenson NL (2015) Temperate forest health in an era of emerging mega disturbance. Science 349:823–826Google Scholar
  47. Moeller GH, Shafer EL (1981) Important factors in the forestry innovation process. J For 79:30–32Google Scholar
  48. Murray KA, Retallick RWR, Puschendorf R, Skerratt LF, Rosauer D, McCallum HI, VanDerWal J (2011) Issues with modelling the current and future distribution of invasive pathogens. J Appl Ecol 48:177–180Google Scholar
  49. Nealis VG, Cooke BJ (2014) Risk assessment of the threat of mountain pine beetle to Canada’s boreal and eastern pine forests. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers Report. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/ccfm/Fo79-14-2014-eng.pdf
  50. Nilausen C, Gélinas N, Bull G (2016) Perceived acceptability of implementing marker-assisted selection in the forests of British Columbia. Forests 7:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f7110286 Google Scholar
  51. Pardo R, Midden C, Miller JD (2002) Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. J Biotech 98:9–24 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12126802
  52. Parwada C, Gadzirayi C, Karavina C, Munyati VT (2012) A review of agroforestry technologies adoption among small-holder farms in Zimbabwe. J Sustain Dev Stud 1:68–92Google Scholar
  53. Perry DA, Orem R, Hart SC (2008) Forest ecosystems, 2nd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  54. Peterson AT, Williams R, Chen G (2007) Modeled global invasive potential of Asian gypsy moths, Lymantria dispar. Entomol Exp Appl 125:39–44.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2007.00603.x Google Scholar
  55. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65Google Scholar
  56. Porth I, Bull G, Ahmed S, El-Kassaby YA, Boyland M (2015) Forest genomics research and development in Canada: priorities for developing an economic framework. For Chron 91:60–70.  https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2015-011 Google Scholar
  57. Robinet C, Imbert C-E, Rousselet J, Sauvard D, Garcia J, Goussard F, Rouques A (2012) Human-mediated long-distance jumps of the pine processionary moth in Europe. Biol Invasions 14:1557–1569Google Scholar
  58. Robinet C, Rousselet J, Roques A (2014) Potential spread of the pine processionary moth in France: preliminary results from a simulation model and future challenges. Ann For Sci 71:149–160Google Scholar
  59. Roe AD, Torson A, Bilodeau G et al (2018) Biosurveillance of forest insects. Part I: integration and application of genomic tools to the surveillance of invasive forest insects. J Pest Sci 1:1Google Scholar
  60. Rogers EM (1962) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press of Glencoe, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Roy BA, Alexander HM, Davidson J, Campbell FT, Burdon JJ, Sniezko R, Brasier C (2014) Increasing forest loss worldwide from invasive pests requires new trade regulations. Front Ecol Environ 12:457–465.  https://doi.org/10.1890/130240 Google Scholar
  62. Safranyik L, Carroll AL, Régnière Langor DW, Riel WG, Shore TL, Peter B, Cooke BJ, Nealis VG, Taylor SW (2010) Potential for range expansion of mountain pine beetle into the boreal forests of North America. Can Entomol 142:415–442Google Scholar
  63. Shafiee H, Wang S, Inci F, Toy M, Henrich TJ, Kuritzkes DR, Demirci U (2015) Emerging technologies for point-of-care management of HIV infection. Ann Rev Med 66:387–405Google Scholar
  64. Simberloff D, Martin JL, Genovesi P et al (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66Google Scholar
  65. Soliman T, Mourits MCM, Oude Lansink AGJM, van der Werf W (2010) Economic impact assessment in pest risk analysis. Crop Prot 29:517–524Google Scholar
  66. Stewart D, Zahiri R, Djoumad A et al (2016) A multi-species TaqMan PCR assay for the identification of Asian gypsy moths (Lymantria spp.) and other invasive lymantriines of biosecurity concern to North America. PLoS ONE 11:e0160878Google Scholar
  67. Straub ET (2009) Understanding technology adoption: theory and future directions for informal learning. Rev Educ Res 79:625–649Google Scholar
  68. Surkov IV, Oude Lansink AGJM, van der Werf W (2009) The optimal amount and allocation of sampling effort for plant health inspection. Eur Rev Agric Econ 36:295–320Google Scholar
  69. Taberlet P, Prud’Homme SM, Campione E et al (2012) Soil sampling and isolation of extracellular DNA from large amount of starting material suitable for metabarcoding studies. Mol Ecol 21:1816–1820Google Scholar
  70. Taylor SL, Dobson A, Barker K (2013) Conclusions: biosecurity and the future—the impact of climate. In: Dobson A, Taylor SL, Barker K (eds) Biosecurity: the socio-politics of invasive species and infectious diseases. Routledge, New York, pp 215–230Google Scholar
  71. Thomas VG, Hanner RH, Borisenko AV (2016) DNA-based identification of invasive alien species in relation to Canadian federal policy and law, and the basis of rapid response management. Genome 59:1023–1031Google Scholar
  72. Thomas AC, Howard J, Nguyen PL, Seimon TA, Goldberg CS (2018) ANDe™: a fully integrated environmental DNA sampling system. Methods Ecol Evol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12994 Google Scholar
  73. Thomsen PF, Elias S, Gilbert MTP, Haile J, Munch K, Kuzmina S, Froese DG, Sher A, Holdaway RN, Willerslev E (2009) Non-destructive sampling of ancient insect DNA. PLoS ONE 4:e5048Google Scholar
  74. Thuiller W, Richardson DM, Py Ek P, Midgley GF, Hughes GO, Rouget M (2005) Niche-based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale. Glob Change Biol 11:2234–2250Google Scholar
  75. Venette RC (2015) The challenge of modelling and mapping the future distribution and impact of invasive alien species. In: Venette RC (ed) Pest risk modelling and mapping for invasive alien species. CAB International, Boston, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  76. Venette RC, Kriticos DJ, Magarey R et al (2010) Pest risk maps for invasive alien species: a roadmap for improvement. Bioscience 60:349–362Google Scholar
  77. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis F (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart 27:425–478Google Scholar
  78. Whitney KD, Gabler CA (2008) Rapid evolution in introduced species, ‘invasive traits’ and recipient communities: challenges for predicting invasive potential. Divers Distrib 14:569–580Google Scholar
  79. Wittwer G, McKirdy S, Wilson R (2005) Regional economic impacts of a plant disease incursion using a general equilibrium approach. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 49:75–89Google Scholar
  80. World Resources Institute (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment, ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Bilodeau
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amanda D. Roe
    • 2
  • Guillaume Bilodeau
    • 1
  • Gwylim S. Blackburn
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Mingming Cui
    • 6
  • Michel Cusson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Daniel Doucet
    • 2
  • Verena C. Griess
    • 5
  • Valentine M. A. Lafond
    • 5
  • Chelsea Nilausen
    • 2
    • 7
  • Gregory Paradis
    • 5
  • Ilga Porth
    • 6
  • Julien Prunier
    • 4
  • Vivek Srivastava
    • 5
  • Don Stewart
    • 2
    • 3
  • Alex S. Torson
    • 8
  • Emilie Tremblay
    • 1
  • Adnan Uzunovic
    • 9
  • Denys Yemshanov
    • 2
  • Richard C. Hamelin
    • 4
    • 6
    • 10
  1. 1.Canadian Food Inspection AgencyOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Natural Resources Canada - Canadian Forest ServiceSault Ste. MarieCanada
  3. 3.Natural Resources Canada - Canadian Forest ServiceQuébec CityCanada
  4. 4.Université Laval - L’Institut de biologie intégrative et des systèmesQuébec CityCanada
  5. 5.University of British Columbia - Department of Forest Resources ManagementVancouverCanada
  6. 6.Université Laval - Département des sciences du bois et de la forêtQuébecCanada
  7. 7.Natural Resources Canada - Canadian Forest ServiceVancouverCanada
  8. 8.Western University, Department of BiologyLondonCanada
  9. 9.FPInnovationsVancouverCanada
  10. 10.University of British Columbia - Department of Forest and Conservation ScienceVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations