Journal of Pest Science

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 37–49 | Cite as

Improved biosecurity surveillance of non-native forest insects: a review of current methods

  • Therese M. PolandEmail author
  • Davide RassatiEmail author


Biosecurity surveillance has been highlighted as a key activity to discover non-native species at the initial stage of invasion. It provides an opportunity for rapidly initiating eradication measures and implementing responses to prevent spread and permanent establishment, reducing costs and damage. In importing countries, three types of biosecurity activities can be carried out: border surveillance targets the arrival stage of a non-native species at points-of-entry for commodities; post-border surveillance and containment target the establishment stage, but post-border surveillance is carried out on a large spatial scale, whereas containment is carried out around infested areas. In recent years, several surveillance approaches, such as baited traps, sentinel trees, biosurveillance with sniffer dogs or predatory wasps, electronic noses, acoustic detection, laser vibrometry, citizen science, genetic identification tools, and remote sensing, have been developed to complement routine visual inspections and aid in biosecurity capacity. Here, we review the existing literature on these tools, highlight their strengths and weaknesses, and identify the biosecurity surveillance categories and sites where each tool can be used more efficiently. Finally, we show how these tools can be integrated in a comprehensive biosecurity program and discuss steps to improve biosecurity.


Acoustic detection Baited traps Biosurveillance Citizen science Remote sensing Sentinel trees 



We thank Daniel Miller, Robert Haack, Michael McManus, Melody Keena, Andrew Liebhold, Nicolas Meurisse, and two anonymous reviewers for editing and commenting on an earlier draft of the manuscript. We also thank the University of Padova and the USDA Forest Service for providing access to the databases Scopus and Web of Science that were used for literature search.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

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

Informed consent

Informed consent by participants was not required since no human participants were involved.


  1. Allen E, Noseworthy M, Ormsby M (2017) Phytosanitary measures to reduce the movement of forest pests with the international trade of wood products. Biol Invasions 19:3365–3376Google Scholar
  2. Allison JD, Redak RA (2017) The impact of trap type and design features on survey and detection of bark and woodboring beetles and their associates: a review and meta-analysis. Annu Rev Entomol 62:127–146Google Scholar
  3. Allison JD, Graham EE, Poland TM, Strom BL (2016) Dilution of fluon before trap surface treatment has no effect on longhorned beetle (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) captures. J Econ Entomol 109:1215–1219Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong KF, Ball SL (2005) DNA barcodes for biosecurity: invasive species identification. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:1813–1823Google Scholar
  5. Asner GP, Jones MO, Martin RE, Knapp DE, Hughes RF (2008) Remote sensing of native and invasive species in Hawaiian forests. Remote Sens Environ 112:1912–1926Google Scholar
  6. Augustin S, Boonham N, Kogel WJ, Donner P, Faccoli M, Lees DC, Marini L, Mori N, Petrucco Toffolo E, Quilici S, Yart A, Battisti A (2012) A review of pest surveillance techniques for detecting quarantine pests in Europe. EPPO Bull 42:515–551Google Scholar
  7. Aukema JE, McCullough DG, Von Holle B, Liebhold AM, Britton K, Frankel SJ (2010) Historical accumulation of non-indigenous forest pests in the continental US. Bioscience 60:886–897Google Scholar
  8. Bacon SJ, Bacher S, Aebi A (2012) Gaps in border controls are related to quarantine alien insect invasions in Europe. PLoS One 7:e47689Google Scholar
  9. Barham E (2016) The unique role of sentinel trees, botanic gardens and arboreta in safeguarding global plant health. Plant Biosyst 150:377–380Google Scholar
  10. Barham E, Sharrock S, Lane C, Baker R (2016) The international plant sentinel network: a tool for regional and national plant protection organizations. EPPO Bull 46:156–162Google Scholar
  11. Bashford R (2008) The development of a port surrounds trapping system for the detection of exotic forest insect pests in Australia. In: Oteng-Amoako AA (ed) New advances and contribution to forestry research. InTech, Rijeka, pp 85–100Google Scholar
  12. Bisschop L (2012) Out of the woods: the illegal trade in tropical timber and a European trade hub. Glob Crime 13:191–212Google Scholar
  13. Blaser S, Diem H, von Felten A, Gueuning M, Andreou M, Boonham N, Tomlinson J, Müller P, Utzinger J, Frey JE, Bühlmann A (2018) From laboratory to point-of-entry: development and implementation of a LAMP-based genetic identification system to prevent introduction of quarantine insect species. Pest Manag Sci 74:1504–1512Google Scholar
  14. Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg KV, Shirk J (2009) Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience 59:977–984Google Scholar
  15. Boonham N (2014) On-site testing: moving decision making from the lab to the field. In: Gullino M, Bonants P (eds) Detection and diagnostics of plant pathogens, vol 5. Plant pathology in the 21st century (contributions to the 9th international congress). Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. Boykin LM, Armstrong K, Kubatko L, De Barro P (2012) DNA barcoding invasive insects: database roadblocks. Invertebr Syst 26:506–514Google Scholar
  17. Britton KO, White P, Kramer A, Hudler G (2010) A new approach to stopping the spread of invasive insects and pathogens: early detection and rapid response via a global network of sentinel plantings. N Z J For Sci 40(Suppl):109–114Google Scholar
  18. Brockerhoff EG, Liebhold AM (2017) Ecology of forest insect invasions. Biol Invasions 19:3141–3159Google Scholar
  19. Brockerhoff EG, Bain J, Kimberley MO, Knizek M (2006a) Interception frequency of exotic bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and relationship with establishment in New Zealand and worldwide. Can J For Res 36:289–298Google Scholar
  20. Brockerhoff EG, Jones DC, Kimberley MO, Suckling DM, Donaldson T (2006b) Nationwide survey for invasive wood-boring and bark beetles (Coleoptera) using traps with pheromones and kairomones. For Ecol Manag 228:234–240Google Scholar
  21. Brockerhoff EG, Suckling DM, Roques A, Jactel H, Branco M, Twidle AM, Mastro VC, Kimberley MO (2013) Improving the efficiency of lepidopteran pest detection and surveillance: constraints and opportunities for multiple-species trapping. J Chem Ecol 39:50–58Google Scholar
  22. Brooks SE, Oi FM, Koehler PG (2003) Ability of canine termite detectors to locate live termites and discriminate them from non-termite material. J Econ Entomol 96:1259–1266Google Scholar
  23. Bullas-Appleton E, Kimoto T, Turgeon JJ (2014) Discovery of Trichoferus campestris (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Ontario, Canada and first host record in North America. Can Entomol 146:111–116Google Scholar
  24. Caley P, Ingram R, De Barro P (2015) Entry of exotic insects into Australia: does border interception count match incursion risk? Biol Invasions 17:1087–1094Google Scholar
  25. CAPS (Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey) (2018) Exotic wood borer bark beetle survey reference-2018 Accessed 23 Jan 2018
  26. Careless P, Marshall SA, Gill BD (2014) The use of Cerceris fumipennis (Hymenoptera: Crabronidae) for surveying and monitoring emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) infestations in eastern North America. Can Entomol 146:90–105Google Scholar
  27. Cellini A, Blasioli S, Biondi E, Bertaccini A, Braschi I, Spinelli F (2017) Potential applications and limitations of electronic nose devices for plant disease diagnosis. Sensors 17:2596Google Scholar
  28. Chesmore D, Schofield J (2010) Acoustic detection of regulated pests in hardwood materials. EPPO Bull 40:46–51Google Scholar
  29. Chinellato F, Simonato M, Battisti A, Faccoli M, Hardwick S, Suckling DM (2013) Smart-traps combined with molecular on-site detection to monitor Monochamus spp. and associated pine wood nematode. In: Schröder T (ed) Pine wilt disease conference 2013. Julius Kühn-Institut, Braunschweig, pp 23–25Google Scholar
  30. Colunga-Garcia M, Magarey RA, Haack RA, Gage SH, Qi J (2010) Enhancing early detection of exotic pests in agricultural and forest ecosystems using an urban-gradient framework. Ecol Appl 20:303–310Google Scholar
  31. Conrad CC, Hilchey KG (2011) A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ Monit Assess 176:273–291Google Scholar
  32. Darling JA, Blum MJ (2007) DNA-based methods for monitoring invasive species: a review and prospectus. Biol Invasions 9:751–765Google Scholar
  33. Dodds KJ, Ross DW (2002) Sampling range and range of attraction of Dendroctonus pseudotsugae pheromone-baited traps. Can Entomol 134:343–355Google Scholar
  34. Dube M, Chandler D (2017) Biology, prey, and levels of prey paralyzation by Cerceris fumipennis say (Hymenoptera: Crabronidae) in New Hampshire. Entomol News 126:343–351Google Scholar
  35. Dunn E, Hough-Goldstein J, Hanks LM, Millar JG, D’Amico V (2016) Range of attraction of pheromone lures and dispersal behavior of cerambycid beetles. Ann Entomol Soc Am 109(6):872–880Google Scholar
  36. EAB Info (2017) Emerald ash borer information network: reporting EAB. Accessed 28 Dec 2017
  37. EDDMapS (2017) Early detection and distribution mapping system. Accessed 28 Dec 2017
  38. Elkinton JS, Boettner GH, Sremac M et al (2010) Survey for winter moth (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) in northeastern North America with pheromone-baited traps and hybridization with the native Bruce spanworm (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 103:135–145Google Scholar
  39. Epanchin-Niell RS, Liebhold AM (2015) Benefits of invasion prevention: effect of time lags, spread rates, and damage persistence. Ecol Econ 116:146–153Google Scholar
  40. Epanchin-Niell RS, Haight RG, Berec L, Kean JM, Liebhold AM (2012) Optimal surveillance and eradication of invasive species in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol Lett 15:803–812Google Scholar
  41. Epanchin-Niell RS, Brockerhoff EG, Kean JM, Turner JA (2014) Designing cost-efficient surveillance for early detection and control of multiple biological invaders. Ecol Appl 24:1258–1274Google Scholar
  42. Eschen R, Grégoire JC, Hengeveld GM, Bram M, Rigaux L, Potting RP (2015a) Trade patterns of the tree nursery industry in Europe and changes following findings of citrus longhorn beetle, Anoplophora chinensis Forster. NeoBiota 26:1–20Google Scholar
  43. Eschen R, Britton K, Brockerhoff E, Burgess T, Dalley V, Epanchin-Niell RS, Kimani E (2015b) International variation in phytosanitary legislation and regulations governing importation of plants for planting. Environ Sci Policy 51:228–237Google Scholar
  44. Eurostat (2018) Trade flows in goods between EU and non-EU countries. Accessed 21 May 2018
  45. Eyre D, Macarthur R, Haack RA, Lu Y, Krehan H (2018) Variation in inspection efficacy by member states of wood packaging material entering the European Union. J Econ Entomol. Google Scholar
  46. Faccoli M, Simonato M, Rassati D (2016) Life history and geographical distribution of the walnut twig beetle, Pityophthorus juglandis (Coleoptera: Scolytinae), in southern Europe. J Appl Entomol 140:697–705Google Scholar
  47. Fan J, Denux O, Courtin C, Bernard A, Javal M, Millar JG, Hanks LM, Roques A (2018) Multi-component blends for trapping native and exotic longhorn beetles at potential points-of-entry and in forests. J Pest Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  48. Fang Y, Zeng R, Lu S, Dai L, Wan X (2018) The synergistic attractiveness effect of plant volatiles to sex pheromones in a moth. J Asia Pac Entomol. Google Scholar
  49. Flaherty L, Gutowski JM, Mayo P, Mokrzycki T, Pohl G, Silk P, Sweeney J (2018) Pheromone-enhanced lure blends and multiple trap heights improve detection of bark and wood-boring beetles potentially moved in solid wood-packaging. J Pest Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  50. Froud KJ, Oliver TM, Bingham PC, Flynn AR, Rowswell NJ (2008) Passive surveillance of new exotic pests and diseases in New Zealand. In: Froud K, Popay AI, Zydenbos SM (eds) Surveillance for biosecurity: pre-border to pest management. New Zealand Plant Protection Society, Paihia, pp 102–103Google Scholar
  51. Gardiner MM, Allee LL, Brown PM, Losey JE, Roy HE, Smyth RR (2012) Lessons from lady beetles: accuracy of monitoring data from US and UK citizen-science programs. Front Ecol Environ 10:471–476Google Scholar
  52. Goczał J, Rossa R, Sweeney J, Tofilski A (2017) Citizen monitoring of invasive species: wing morphometry as a tool for detection of alien Tetropium species. J Appl Entomol 141:496–506Google Scholar
  53. Graham EE, Poland TM (2012) Efficacy of fluon conditioning for capturing cerambycid beetles in different trap designs and persistence on panel traps over time. J Econ Entomol 105:395–401Google Scholar
  54. Graham EA, Henderson S, Schloss A (2011) Using mobile phones to engage citizen scientists in research. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 92:313–315Google Scholar
  55. Haack RA (2001) Intercepted Scolytidae (Coleoptera) at U.S. ports of entry: 1985–2000. Integr Pest Manag Rev 6:253–282Google Scholar
  56. Haack RA (2017) Cerambycid pests in forests and urban trees. In: Wang Q (ed) Cerambycidae of the world: biology and pest management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 351–408Google Scholar
  57. Haack RA, Hérard F, Sun J, Turgeon JJ (2010) Managing invasive populations of Asian longhorned beetle and citrus longhorned beetle: a worldwide perspective. Annu Rev Entomol 55:521–546Google Scholar
  58. Haack RA, Britton KO, Brockerhoff EG et al (2014) Effectiveness of the international phytosanitary standard ISPM no. 15 on reducing wood borer infestation rates in wood packaging material entering the United States. PLoS One 9:e96611Google Scholar
  59. Hanks LM, Millar JG (2016) Sex and aggregation-sex pheromones of cerambycid beetles: basic science and practical applications. J Chem Ecol 42:631–654Google Scholar
  60. Hanks LM, Millar JG, Mongold-Diers JA, Wong JC, Meier LR, Reagel PF, Mitchell RF (2012) Using blends of cerambycid beetle pheromones and host plant volatiles to simultaneously attract a diversity of cerambycid species. Can J For Res 42:1050–1059Google Scholar
  61. Hanula JL, Mayfield AE, Reid LS, Horn S (2016) Influence of trap distance from a source population and multiple traps on captures and attack densities of the redbay ambrosia beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). J Econ Entomol 109:1196–1204Google Scholar
  62. Harper WJ (2001) The strengths and weaknesses of the electronic nose. Adv Exp Med Biol 488:59–72Google Scholar
  63. Henderson WG, Khalilian A, Han YJ, Greene JK, Degenhardt DC (2010) Detecting stink bugs/damage in cotton utilizing a portable electronic nose. Comput Electron Agric 70:157–162Google Scholar
  64. Hérard F, Maspero M, Ramualde N, Jucker C, Colombo M, Ciampitti M, Cavagna B (2009) Anoplophora glabripennis infestation (Col.: Cerambycidae) in Italy. EPPO Bull 39:146–152Google Scholar
  65. Hetzroni A, Soroker V, Cohen Y (2016) Toward practical acoustic red palm weevil detection. Comput Electron Agric 124:100–106Google Scholar
  66. Hodgetts J, Ostojá-Starzewski JC, Prior T, Lawson R, Hall J, Boonham N (2016) DNA barcoding for biosecurity: case studies from the UK plant protection program. Genome 59:1033–1048Google Scholar
  67. Hoyer-Tomiczek U, Sauseng G, Hoch G (2016) Scent detection dogs for the Asian longhorn beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis. EPPO Bull 46:148–155Google Scholar
  68. Hughes GP, Sadof CS, Ginzel MD (2015) A borer-specific assessment scheme for identifying sentinel trees to delimit invasive borers in urban forests. Arbor Urban For 41:125–135Google Scholar
  69. Hulme PE (2014) An introduction to plant biosecurity: past, present and future. In: Gordh G, McKirdy S (eds) The handbook of plant biosecurity. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 309–337Google Scholar
  70. Ide T, Kanzaki N, Ohmura W, Okabe K (2016a) Molecular identification of the western drywood termite (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) by loop-mediated isothermal amplification of DNA from fecal pellets. J Econ Entomol 109:2234–2237Google Scholar
  71. Ide T, Kanzaki N, Ohmura W, Okabe K (2016b) Molecular identification of an invasive wood-boring insect Lyctus brunneus (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae: Lyctinae) using frass by loop-mediated isothermal amplification and nested PCR assays. J Econ Entomol 109:1410–1414Google Scholar
  72. Jansen RMC, Wildt J, Kappers IF, Bouwmeester HJ, Hofstee JW, Van Henten EJ (2011) Detection of diseased plants by analysis of volatile organic compound emission. Annu Rev Phytopathol 49:157–174Google Scholar
  73. Juanes F (2018) Visual and acoustic sensors for early detection of biological invasions: current uses and future potential. J Nat Conserv 42:7–11Google Scholar
  74. Kenis M, Rabitsch W, Auger-Rozenberg MA, Roques A (2007) How can alien species inventories and interception data help us prevent insect invasions? Bull Entomol Res 97:489–502Google Scholar
  75. Kovacs KF, Mercader RJ, Haight RG, Siegert NW, McCullough DG, Liebhold AM (2011) The influence of satellite populations of emerald ash borer on projected economic costs in U.S. communities, 2010–2020. J Environ Manag 92:2170–2181Google Scholar
  76. Lan YB, Zheng XZ, Westbrook JK, Lopez J, Lacey R, Hoffmann WC (2008) Identification of stink bugs using an electronic nose. J Bion Eng 5:172–180Google Scholar
  77. Lee W, Lee Y, Kim S, Lee JH, Lee H, Lee S, Hong KJ (2016) Current status of exotic insect pests in Korea: comparing border interception and incursion during 1996–2014. J Asia Pac Entomol 19:1095–1101Google Scholar
  78. Liebhold AM, Tobin PC (2008) Population ecology of insect invasions and their management. Annu Rev Entomol 53:387–408Google Scholar
  79. Liebhold AM, Brockerhoff EG, Garrett JL, Parke JL, Britton KO (2012) Live plant imports: the major pathway for forest insect and pathogen invasions of the US. Front Ecol Environ 10:135–143Google Scholar
  80. Lin HM, Chi WL, Lin CC, Tseng YC, Chen WT, Kung YL, Lien YY, Chen YY (2011) Fire ant-detecting canines: a complementary method in detecting red imported fire ants. J Econ Entomol 104:225–231Google Scholar
  81. Liu H, Lee SH, Chahl JV (2017) A review of recent sensing technologies to detect invertebrates on crops. Precis Agric 18:635–666Google Scholar
  82. Malacrinò A, Rassati D, Schena L, Mehzabin R, Battisti A, Palmeri V (2017) Fungal communities associated with bark and ambrosia beetles trapped at international harbours. Fungal Ecol 28:44–52Google Scholar
  83. Mankin RW (2012) Applications of acoustics in insect pest management. CAB Rev 7:001Google Scholar
  84. Mankin RW, Hagstrum DW, Smith MT, Roda AL, Kairo MTK (2011) Perspective and promise: a century of insect acoustic detection and monitoring. Am Entomol 57:30–44Google Scholar
  85. Marzano M, Allen W, Haight RG, Holmes TP, Keskitalo ECH, Lisa Langer EL, Shadbolt M, Urquhart J, Dandy N (2017) The role of the social sciences and economics in understanding and informing tree biosecurity policy and planning: a global summary and synthesis. Biol Invasions 19:3317–3332Google Scholar
  86. McCullough DG, Work TT, Cavey JF, Liebhold AM, Marshall D (2006) Interceptions of nonindigenous plant pests at US ports of entry and border crossings over a 17-year period. Biol Invasions 8:611–630Google Scholar
  87. McCullough DG, Poland TM, Cappaert D (2009) Attraction of the emerald ash borer to ash trees stressed by girdling, herbicide treatment, or wounding. Can J For Res 39:1331–1345Google Scholar
  88. Meurisse N, Rassati D, Hurley BP, Brockerhoff EG, Haack RA (2018) Common pathways by which non-native forest insects move internationally and domestically. J Pest Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  89. Millar JG, Richards AB, Halloran S, Zou Y, Boyd EA, Quigley KN, Hanks LM (2018) Pheromone identification by proxy: identification of aggregation-sex pheromones of North American cerambycid beetles as a strategy to identify pheromones of invasive Asian congeners. J Pest Sci. Google Scholar
  90. Mumford RA, Macarthur R, Boonham N (2016) The role and challenges of new diagnostic technology in plant biosecurity. Food Sec 8:103–109Google Scholar
  91. Nalepa CA, Swink WG, Merten P, Moan JE (2013) Conservative estimates of hunting distance in Cerceris fumipennis say (Hymenoptera: Crabronidae). J Entomol Sci 48:299–305Google Scholar
  92. Nalepa CA, Swink WG, Basham JP, Merten P (2015) Comparison of Buprestidae collected by Cerceris fumipennis (Hymenoptera: Crabronidae) with those collected by purple prism traps. Agric For Entomol 17:445–450Google Scholar
  93. Negri RM, Bernik DL (2008) Tracking the sex pheromone of codling moth against a background of host volatiles with an electronic nose. Crop Prot 27:1295–1302Google Scholar
  94. Okabe K, Masuya H, Kanzaki N (2017) Unintentional introductions of microscopic organisms associated with forest insects. Biol Invasions 19:3229–3242Google Scholar
  95. Olsson PO, Jönsson AM, Eklundh L (2012) A new invasive insect in Sweden-Physokermes inopinatus: tracing forest damage with satellite based remote sensing. For Ecol Manag 285:29–37Google Scholar
  96. Olsson PO, Lindström J, Eklundh L (2016) Near real-time monitoring of insect induced defoliation in subalpine birch forests with MODIS derived NDVI. Remote Sens Environ 181:42–53Google Scholar
  97. Ormsby M, Brenton-Rule E (2017) A review of global instruments to combat invasive alien species in forestry. Biol Invasions 19:3355–3364Google Scholar
  98. Paap T, Burgess TI, Wingfield MJ (2017) Urban trees: bridge-heads for forest pest invasions and sentinels for early detection. Biol Invasions 19:3515–3526Google Scholar
  99. Paap T, de Beer ZW, Migliorini D, Nel WJ, Wingfield MJ (2018) The polyphagous shot hole borer (PSHB) and its fungal symbiont Fusarium euwallaceae: a new invasion in South Africa. Australas Plant Path 47:231–237Google Scholar
  100. Phoon KE (2015) The use of dogs to detect carpet beetles (Anthrenocerus australis). Dissertation, Massey UniversityGoogle Scholar
  101. Pimm SL, Alibhai S, Bergl R et al (2015) Emerging technologies to conserve biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 30:685–696Google Scholar
  102. Potamitis I, Eliopoulos P, Rigakis I (2017) Automated remote insect surveillance at a global scale and the internet of things. Robotics 6:19Google Scholar
  103. Rabaglia RJ, Duerr D, Acciavatti RE, Ragenovich I (2008) Early detection and rapid response for non-native bark and ambrosia beetles. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  104. Rassati D, Petrucco Toffolo E, Roques A, Battisti A, Faccoli M (2014) Trapping wood boring beetles in Italian ports: a pilot study. J Pest Sci 87:61–69Google Scholar
  105. Rassati D, Faccoli M, Petrucco Toffolo E, Battisti A, Marini L (2015a) Improving the early detection of alien wood-boring beetles in ports and surrounding forests. J Appl Ecol 52:50–58Google Scholar
  106. Rassati D, Faccoli M, Marini L, Haack RA, Battisti A, Petrucco Toffolo E (2015b) Exploring the role of wood waste landfills in early detection of non-native wood-boring beetles. J Pest Sci 88:563–572Google Scholar
  107. Rassati D, Faccoli M, Chinellato F, Hardwick S, Suckling DM, Battisti A (2016a) Web-based automatic traps for early detection of alien wood-boring beetles. Entomol Exp Appl 160:91–95Google Scholar
  108. Rassati D, Lieutier F, Faccoli M (2016b) Alien wood-boring beetles in Mediterranean regions. In: Paine TD, Lieutier F (eds) Insects and diseases of Mediterranean forest systems. Springer, Cham, pp 293–327Google Scholar
  109. Rassati D, Marini L, Marchioro M, Rapuzzi P, Magnani G, Poloni R, Di Giovanni F, Mayo P, Sweeney J (2018a) Developing trapping protocols for wood-boring beetles associated with broadleaf trees. J Pest Sci. Google Scholar
  110. Rassati D, Haack RA, Knížek M, Faccoli M (2018b) National trade can drive range expansion of bark- and wood-boring beetles. J Econ Entomol 111:260–268Google Scholar
  111. Rizzolo A, Bianchi G, Lucido P, Cangelosi B, Pozzi L, Villa G, Clematis F, Pasini C, Curir P (2015) Electronic nose for the early detection of red palm weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineous Olivier) infestation in palms: preliminary results. Acta Hortic 1099:347–355Google Scholar
  112. Robideau GP, Foottit RG, Humble LM, Noseworthy MK, Wu T, Bilodeau GJ (2016) Real-time PCR identification of the ambrosia beetles, Trypodendron domesticum (L.) and Trypodendron lineatum (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J Appl Entomol 140:299–307Google Scholar
  113. Rocchini D, Andreo V, Förster M, Garzon-Lopez CX, Gutierrez AP, Gillespie TW, Marcantonio M (2015) Potential of remote sensing to predict species invasions: a modelling perspective. Prog Phys Geogr 39:283–309Google Scholar
  114. Röck F, Barsan N, Weimar U (2008) Electronic nose: current status and future trends. Chem Rev 108:705–725Google Scholar
  115. Roques A (2010) Alien forest insects in a warmer world and a globalised economy: impacts of changes in trade, tourism and climate on forest biosecurity. N Z J For Sci 40(Suppl):S77–S94Google Scholar
  116. Roques A, Auger-Rozenberg MA (2006) Tentative analysis of the interceptions of non-indigenous organisms in Europe during 1995–2004. EPPO Bull 36:490–496Google Scholar
  117. Roques A, Fan JT, Courtial B, Zhang YZ, Yart A, Auger-Rozenberg MA, Denux O, Kenis M, Baker R, Sun JH (2015) Planting sentinel European trees in eastern Asia as a novel method to identify potential insect pest invaders. PLoS One 10:e0120864Google Scholar
  118. Rutledge CE, Hellman W, Teerling C, Fierke MK (2011) Two novel prey families for the buprestid-hunting wasp Cerceris fumipennis say (Hymenoptera: Crabronidae). Coleopt Bull 65:194–196Google Scholar
  119. Rutledge C, Fierke M, Careless P, Worthley T (2013) First detection of Agrilus planipennis in Connecticut made by monitoring Cerceris fumipennis. J Hymenopt Res 32:75–81Google Scholar
  120. Ryall KL, Fidgen JG, Turgeon JJ (2011) Detectability of the emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in asymptomatic urban trees by using branch samples. Environ Entomol 40:679–688Google Scholar
  121. Saccaggi DL, Karsten M, Robertson MP, Kumschick S, Somers MJ, Wilson JR, Terblanche JS (2016) Methods and approaches for the management of arthropod border incursions. Biol Invasions 18:1057–1075Google Scholar
  122. Schlyter F (1992) Sampling range, attraction range, and effective attraction radius: estimates of trap efficiency and communication distance in coleopteran pheromone and host attractant systems. J Appl Entomol 114:439–454Google Scholar
  123. Schwalbe CP, Mastro VC (1988) Multispecific trapping techniques for exotic-pest detection. Agric Ecosys Environ 21:43–51Google Scholar
  124. Senf C, Seidl R, Hostert P (2017) Remote sensing of forest insect disturbances: current state and future directions. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinfo 60:49–60Google Scholar
  125. Simisky T (2017) Emerald ash borer. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  126. Simpson A, Jarnevich C, Madsen J, Westbrooks R, Fournier C, Mehrhoff L, Browne M, Graham J, Sellers E (2009) Invasive species information networks: collaboration at multiple scales for prevention, early detection, and rapid response to invasive alien species. Biodiversity 10:5–13Google Scholar
  127. Skarpaas O, Økland B (2009) Timber import and the risk of forest pest introductions. J Appl Ecol 46:55–63Google Scholar
  128. Steininger MS, Hulcr J, Šigut M, Lucky A (2015) Simple and efficient trap for bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) to facilitate invasive species monitoring and citizen involvement. J Econ Entomol 108:1115–1123Google Scholar
  129. Suckling DM (2015) Can we replace toxicants, achieve biosecurity, and generate market position with semiochemicals? Front Ecol Evol 3:17Google Scholar
  130. Suma P, La Pergola A, Longo S, Soroker V (2014) The use of sniffing dogs for the detection of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. Phytoparasitica 42:269–274Google Scholar
  131. Tatem AJ (2009) The worldwide airline network and the dispersal of exotic species: 2007–2010. Ecography 32:94–102Google Scholar
  132. Thomas ML, Gunawardene N, Horton K, Williams A, O’Connor S, McKirdy S, van der Merwe J (2017) Many eyes on the ground: citizen science is an effective early detection tool for biosecurity. Biol Invasions 19:2751–2765Google Scholar
  133. Tobin PC, Blackburn LM (2007) Slow the spread: a national program to manage the gypsy moth. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NRS-6, Newtown Square, PAGoogle Scholar
  134. Tobin PC, Liebhold AM, Anderson Roberts E (2007) Comparison of methods for estimating the spread of a non-indigenous species. J Biogeogr 34:305–312Google Scholar
  135. Tomlinson J, Boonham N (2008) Potential of LAMP for detection of plant pathogens. CAB Rev Pers Agric Vet Sci Nutr Nat Resour 3:1–7Google Scholar
  136. Ulyshen MD, Sheehan TN (2017) Trap height considerations for detecting two economically important forest beetle guilds in southeastern US forests. J Pest Sci. Google Scholar
  137. Whitelaw G, Vaughan H, Craig B, Atkinson D (2003) Establishing the Canadian community monitoring network. Environ Monit Assess 88:409–418Google Scholar
  138. Wilson AD (2013) Diverse applications of electronic-nose technologies in agriculture and forestry. Sensors 13:2295–2348Google Scholar
  139. Wu Y, Trepanowski NF, Molongoski JJ, Reagel PF, Lingafelter SW, Nadel H, Myers SW, Ray AM (2017) Identification of wood-boring beetles (Cerambycidae and Buprestidae) intercepted in trade-associated solid wood packaging material using DNA barcoding and morphology. Sci Rep 7:40316Google Scholar
  140. Wyatt TD (2017) Pheromones. Curr Biol 27:R739–R743Google Scholar
  141. Wylie FR, Griffiths M, King J (2008) Development of hazard site surveillance programs for forest invasive species: a case study from Brisbane, Australia. Aust For 71:229–235Google Scholar
  142. Zahid I, Grgurinovic C, Zaman T, De Keyzer R, Cayzer L (2012) Assessment of technologies and dogs for detecting insect pests in timber and forest products. Scand J For Res 27:492–502Google Scholar
  143. Zhang K, Hu B, Robinson J (2014) Early detection of emerald ash borer infestation using multisourced data: a case study in the town of Oakville, Ontario. Can J Appl Remote Sens 8:083602Google Scholar
  144. Zorović M, Čokl A (2015) Laser vibrometry as a diagnostic tool for detecting wood-boring beetle larvae. J Pest Sci 88:107–112Google Scholar

Copyright information

© pringer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USDA Forest ServiceNorthern Research StationLansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE)University of PadovaLegnaroItaly

Personalised recommendations