Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 521–535 | Cite as

Look before you treat: increasing the cost effectiveness of eradication programs with aerial surveillance

  • Daniel Spring
  • Luke Croft
  • Tom Kompas
Original Paper

Abstract

Most successful invasive species eradication programs were applied to invasions confined to a small area. Invasions occupying large areas at a low density can potentially be eradicated if individual infestations can be found at affordable cost. The development of low cost aerial surveillance methods allows for larger areas to be monitored but such methods often have lower sensitivity than conventional surveillance methods, making their cost-effectiveness uncertain. Here, we consider the cost-effectiveness of including a new aerial monitoring method in Australia’s largest eradication program, the campaign to eradicate red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta). The program previously relied on higher sensitivity ground surveillance and broadcast treatment. The high cost of those methods restricted the total area that could be managed with available resources below the level required to prevent ongoing expansion of the invasion. By increasing the area that can be monitored and thereby improving the targeting of treatment and ground surveillance, we estimate that remote sensing could substantially reduce eradication costs despite the method’s low sensitivity. The development of low cost monitoring methods could potentially lead to substantially improved management of invasive species.

Keywords

Automated monitoring Cost-effectiveness Broadcast pesticides Spread model Eradication 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding from the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in conjunction with ABARES, and the Centre of Excellence in Biosecurity Risk Analysis is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks to Jonathon Keith for assistance with spread modelling.

References

  1. Bax N, Hayes K, Marshall A, Parry D, Thresher R (2002) Man-made marinas as sheltered islands for alien marine organisms: establishment and eradication of an alien invasive marine species. Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp 26–39Google Scholar
  2. Baxter PWJ, Possingham HP (2011) Optimizing search strategies for invasive pests: learn before you leap. J Appl Ecol 48:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogich TL, Liebhold AM, Shea K (2008) To sample or eradicate? A cost minimization model for monitoring and managing an invasive species. J Appl Ecol 45:1134–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryson M, Reid A, Hung C, Ramos FT, Sukkarieh S (2014) Cost-effective mapping using unmanned aerial vehicles in ecology monitoring applications. In: Khatib O, Kumar V, Sukhatme G (eds) Experimental robotics: the 12th international symposium on experimental robotics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 509–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chadès I, Martin TG, Nicol S, Burgman MA, Possingham HP (2011) General rules for managing and surveying networks of pests, diseases, and endangered species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(8323):8328Google Scholar
  6. Cook SR, Gelman A, Rubin DB (2006) Validation of software for Bayesian models using posterior quantiles. J Comput Graph Stat 15:675–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Epanchin-Niell RS, Haight RG, Berec L, Kean JM, Liebhold AM (2012) Optimal surveillance and eradication of invasive species in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol Lett 15:803–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Giljohann KM, Hauser C, Williams NS, Moore JL (2011) Optimizing invasive species control across space: willow invasion management in the Australian Alps. J Appl Ecol 48(5):1286–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Göktoǧan AH, Sukkarieh S (2014) Autonomous Remote Sensing of Invasive Species from Robotic Aircraft. In: Valavanis KP, Vachtsevanos GJ (eds) Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 2813–2834Google Scholar
  10. Haight RG, Polasky S (2010) Optimal control of an invasive species with imperfect information about the level of infestation. Resour Energy Econ 32:519–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hauser CE, McCarthy MA (2009) Streamlining ‘search and destroy’: cost-effective surveillance for invasive species management. Ecol Lett 12:683–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hauser CE, Giljohann KM, Rigby M, Herbert K, Curran I, Pascoe C, Williams NS, Cousens RD, Moore JL (2016) Practicable methods for delimiting a plant invasion. Divers Distrib 22:136–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Homans F, Horie T (2011) Optimal detection strategies for an established invasive pest. Ecol Econ 70:1129–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horie T, Haight RG, Homans FR, Venette RC (2013) Optimal strategies for the surveillance and control of forest pathogens: a case study with oak wilt. Ecol Econ 86:78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu W, Bulusu N, Chou CT, Jha S, Taylor A, Tran VN (2009) Design and evaluation of a hybrid sensor network for cane toad monitoring. ACM Trans Sens Netw 5:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hung C, Bryson M, Sukkarieh S (2012) Multi-class predictive template for tree crown detection. ISPRS J Photogram Rem Sens 68:170–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keith JM, Spring D (2013) Agent-based Bayesian approach to monitoring the progress of invasive species eradication programs. PNAS 110:13229–13230. doi: 10.1073/iti3313110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keith JM, Spring D (2015) Has the Brisbane fire ant infestation been delimited? Unpublished report to Biosecurity Queensland Control CentreGoogle Scholar
  19. Leung B, Cacho O, Spring D (2010) Searching for non-indigenous species: rapidly delimiting the invasion boundary. Divers Distrib 16:451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lofgren CS, Banks WA, Glancey BM (1975) Biology and control of imported fire ants. Annu Rev Entomol 20:1–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (QDAF) (undated). “Aerial operations for fire ants”. Document accessed on 05/03/2015 at https://www.daff.qld.gov.au/plants/weeds-pest-animals-ants/invasive-ants/fire-ants/aerial-operations-for-fire-ants
  23. Simberloff D (2009) We can eliminate invasions or live with them. Successful management projects. Biol Invasions 11:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thompson S, Seber G (1996) Adaptive sampling. Series in probability and statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Turner W, Spector S, Gardiner N, Flodeland M, Sterling E, Steininger M (2003) Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 18:306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vogt JT, Wallet BC (2008) Feasibility of using template-based and object-based automated detection methods for quantifying black and hybrid imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta and S. invicta × richteri) mounds in aerial digital imagery. Rangel J 30:291–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of Excellence in Biosecurity Risk AnalysisUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  3. 3.Australian Centre for Biosecurity and Environmental Economics, Crawford School of Public PolicyAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations