Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 14, Issue 12, pp 2461–2469 | Cite as

Developing cost-effective early detection networks for regional invasions

  • Alycia W. Crall
  • Mark Renz
  • Brendon J. Panke
  • Gregory J. Newman
  • Carmen Chapin
  • Jim Graham
  • Chuck Bargeron
Perpectives and paradigms

Abstract

Early detection and rapid response (EDRR) seek to control or eradicate new invasions to prevent their spread, but effective EDRR remains elusive due to financial and managerial constraints. As part of the Great Lakes Early Detection Network, we asked stakeholders to indicate their needs for an effective EDRR communication tool. Our results led to the development of a website with five primary features: (1) the ability for casual observers to report a sighting; (2) a network of professionals to verify new sightings; (3) email alerts of new sightings, including data from all data providers across the region; (4) maps of species distributions across data providers; and (5) easy communication channels among stakeholders. Using results from our stakeholder discussions, we provide a cost-effective framework for online EDRR networks that integrate data and develop social capital through a virtual community. This framework seeks to provide real-time data on current species distributions and improve across jurisdictional collaboration with limited oversight.

Keywords

Early detection Rapid response Data synergy Virtual community Social capital 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The 2008 workshop held in Madison, WI was funded by the North Central Integrated Pest Management Center. The Great Lakes Early Detection Network is funded by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative through the National Park Service. The authors would like to thank all the individuals that participated in these discussions to make this publication possible. Tom Stohlgren and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments to earlier drafts of this manuscript.

References

  1. Chang HH, Chuang S (2011) Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: participant involvement as a moderator. Inf Manag 48:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chiu CM, Hsu MH, Wang ETG (2006) Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decis Support Syst 42:1872–1888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooperative Islands Initiative (2011) Pacific invasives initiative. Retrieved from http://www.issg.org/cii/pii/what_we_do.html on May 14 2012
  4. Crall AW, Meyerson LA, Stohlgren TJ, Jarnevich CS, Newman GJ, Graham J (2006) Show me the numbers: what data currently exist for non-native species in the USA? Front Ecol Environ 4:414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crall AW, Newman GJ, Jarnevich C, Stohlgren TJ, Waller DM, Graham J (2010) Improving and integrating data on invasive species collected by citizen scientists. Biol Invasions 12:3419–3428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cramton CD (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ Sci 12:346–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crosier CS, Stohlgren TJ (2004) Improving biodiversity knowledge with data set synergy: a case study of nonnative plants in Colorado. Weed Technol 18:1441–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudik M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton JM, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberon J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ficetola GF, Thuiller W, Miaud C (2007) Prediction and validation of the potential global distribution of a problematic alien invasive species—the American bullfrog. Divers Distrib 13:476–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FICMNEW (2003) A national early detection and rapid response system for invasive plants in the United States. FICMNEW, Washington, DC, p 24Google Scholar
  11. Flemons P, Guralnick R, Krieger J, Ranipeta A, Neufeld D (2007) A web-based GIS tool for exploring the world’s biodiversity: the global biodiversity information facility mapping and analysis portal application (GBIF-MAPA). Ecol Inf 2:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fornwall M, Loope L (2004) Toward a comprehensive information system to assist invasive species management in Hawaii and Pacific Islands. Weed Sci 52:854–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham J, Simpson A, Crall A, Jarnevich C, Newman G, Stohlgren TJ (2008) Vision of a cyberinfrastructure for nonnative, invasive species management. Bioscience 58:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halpin PN, Read AJ, Best BD, Hyrenbach KD, Fujioka E, Coyne MS, Crosder LB, Freeman SA, Spoerri C (2006) OBIS-SEAMAP: developing a biogeographic research data commons for the ecological studies of marine mammals, seabirds, and sea turtles. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 316:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoffmann R (2008) A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters. Nat Genet 40:1047–1051PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hulme PE (2006) Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. J Appl Ecol 43:835–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krueger RA, Casey MA (2000) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee H, Reusser DA, Olden JD, Smith SS, Graham J, Burkett V, Dukes JS, Piorkowski RJ, McPhedran J (2008) Integrated monitoring and information systems for managing aquatic invasive species in a changing climate. Conserv Biol 22:575–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lodge DM, Williams S, MacIsaac HJ, Hayes KR, Leung B, Reichard S, Mack RN, Moyle PB, Smith M, Andow DA, Carlton JT, McMichael A (2006) Biological invasions: recommendations for US policy and management. Ecol Appl 16:2035–2054PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meadows R (2011) Got weeds? There’s an app for that! Frontiers Ecol Environ 9:201Google Scholar
  21. Miller JH, Chambliss E, Loewenstein N (2010) A field guide for the identification of invasive plants in southern forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  22. Moncrieff A (2006) Invasive plant early detection and rapid response in British Columbia. Invasive Plant Council of British Columbia, p 24Google Scholar
  23. Muchoney DM, Williams M (2010) Building a 2010 biodiversity conservation data baseline: contributions of the Group on Earth Observations. Ecol Res 25:937–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Myers JH, Simberloff D, Kuris AM, Carey JR (2000) Eradication revisited: dealing with exotic species. Trends Ecol Evol 15:316–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. NISC (2003) General guidelines for the establishment and evaluation of invasive species early detection and rapid response systems. National Invasive Species Council, Washington, DC, p 16Google Scholar
  26. Ricciardi A, Steiner WWM, Mack RN, Simberloff D (2000) Toward a global information system for invasive species. Bioscience 50:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simberloff D (2003) Eradication-preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Sci 51:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simpson A, Jarnevich C, Madson J, Westbrooks RG, 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 10:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stohlgren TJ, Schnase JL (2006) Risk analysis for biological hazards: what we need to know about invasive species. Risk Anal 26:163–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thuiller W, Richardson DM, Pysek P, Midgley GF, Hughes GO, Rouget M (2005) Nick-based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale. Glob Change Biol 11:2234–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. US General Accounting Office (2001) Invasive species: obstacles hinder federal rapid response to growing threat. USGAO, Washington, DC, p 48Google Scholar
  32. Waldrop M (2008) Big data: Wikiomics. Nature 455:22–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wasko MM, Faraj S (2005) Why should i share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Q 29:35–57Google Scholar
  34. Westbrooks RG (2004) New approaches for early detection and rapid response to invasive plants in the United States. Weed Technol 18:1468–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wittenberg R, Cock MJW (2001) Invasive alien species: a toolkit for best prevention and management practices. CAB International, Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alycia W. Crall
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark Renz
    • 1
  • Brendon J. Panke
    • 1
  • Gregory J. Newman
    • 2
  • Carmen Chapin
    • 3
  • Jim Graham
    • 2
  • Chuck Bargeron
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of AgronomyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Natural Resource Ecology LaboratoryColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Great Lakes Network, National Park ServiceAshlandUSA
  4. 4.Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, University of GeorgiaTiftonUSA

Personalised recommendations