Biological Invasions

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 737–748 | Cite as

The contribution of passive surveillance to invasive species management

Perspectives and paradigms

Abstract

It has been recognised for some time that the community has an important role to play in invasive-species management. Reports from the community about new incursions can lead to significant cost savings when this early detection results in shorter management programs. Unfortunately there is little to guide invasive-species managers on cost-effective ways to elicit and incorporate information from the public in their pest-management programs. Not all community surveillance is equal: some information from the public about the presence of pests and diseases may arise from chance encounters, other data may be reported by stakeholders from a particular industry or by groups of volunteers organised on the basis of citizen science activities. While the resources, activities and effort required to encourage each type of community surveillance are known to differ, very little is known of the relationships that determine effectiveness, and thus the appropriate level of investment that would be required to encourage a particular level of reporting. In this research we focus on passive surveillance—the most fortuitous type of community surveillance—and review the current knowledge base on measuring its cost and effectiveness. We aim to stimulate the research required to improve our understanding of passive surveillance, and we provide guidance on the type of data that should be collected by agencies to enable this research. This information could then provide us with the ability to design optimal surveillance portfolios that integrate the surveillance opportunities provided by the public to best advantage.

Keywords

Passive surveillance General surveillance Citizen science Community engagement Biosecurity Cost-effectiveness 

References

  1. Aukema JE, Leung B, Kovacs K et al (2011) Economic impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States. PLoS ONE 6:e24587CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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. Beale R, Fairbrother J, Inglis A et al (2008) One biosecurity: a working partnership. Australian government, Canberra, p 298Google Scholar
  4. Bish A, Michie S (2010) Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: a review. Br J Health Psychol 15:797–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogich T, Shea K (2008) A state-dependent model for the optimal management of an invasive metapopulation. Ecol Appl 18:748–761CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bremner A, Park K (2007) Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol Conserv 139:306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks SJ, Galway KE (2008) Processes leading to the detection of tropical weed infestations during an eradication program. In: Van Klinken RD, Osten VA, Panetta FD and Scanlan JC (eds) Proceedings of the 16th Australian Weeds Conference. Queensland Weed Society, Brisbane, Cairns, pp 424–426Google Scholar
  8. Cacho OJ, Hester SM (2011) Deriving efficient frontiers for effort allocation in the management of invasive species. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 55:72–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cacho OJ, Spring D, Pheloung P et al (2006) Evaluating the feasibility of eradicating an invasion. Biol Invasions 8:903–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cacho OJ, Hester SM, Spring D (2007) Applying search theory to determine the feasibility of eradicating an invasive population in natural environments. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 51:425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cacho O, Spring D, Hester SM et al (2010) Allocating surveillance effort in the management of invasive species: a spatially-explicity model. Environ Model Softw 25:444–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cacho OJ, Reeve I, Tramell J et al (2012) Valuing community engagement in biosecurity surveillance. Australian Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, Melbourne, p 35Google Scholar
  13. Davis PR, Wilson PL (1991) Report on European wasps in Western Australia with special reference to the 1990–91 season. Department of Agriculture, Western Australia, p 46Google Scholar
  14. DEFRA (2008) A framework for pro-environmental behaviours. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. del Rocio Amezcua M, Pearl DL, Friendship RM et al (2010) Evaluation of a veterinary-based syndromic surveillance system implemented for swine. Can J Vet Res 74:241–251PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Devictor V, Whittaker RJ, Beltrame C (2010) Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Divers Distrib 16:354–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool, challenges and benefits. Annu Rev Ecol Evolut Syst 41:149–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dodd AJ, Ainsworth N, Burgman MA et al (2015) Plant extirpation at the site scale: implications for eradication programmes. Divers Distrib 21:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eastwood K, Durrheim D, Francis L et al (2009) Knowledge about pandemic influenza and compliance with containment measures among Australians. Bull World Health Organ 87:588–594CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Epanchin-Niell RS, Brockerhoff EG, Kean JM et al (2014) Designing cost-efficient surveillance for early detection and control of multiple biological invaders. Ecol Appl 24:1258–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Froud KJ, Oliver TM, Bingham PC, et al. (2008) Passive surveillance of new exotic pests and diseases. In: Froud KJ, Popay AI, Zydenbos SM (eds) Proceedings of a Symposium on Surveillance for Biosecurity Symposium: pre-border to pest management. The NZ Plant Protection Society (Incorporated), pp 97–110Google Scholar
  22. Gray L, Macdonald C, Mackie B et al (2012) Community responses to communication campaigns for influenza A (H1N1): a focus group study. BMC Public Health 12:205CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (1999) Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80:1142–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hammond NE (2010) Evaluation of emergency plant pathogen surveillance and surveillance methods for demonstrating pest freedom in Western Australia. School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth, p 512Google Scholar
  25. Harris AC (1988) A first record of the painted apple moth Teia anartoides (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) intercepted in New Zealand. N Z Entomol 11:68–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hauser CE, Moore JL, Giljohann KM, et al. (2012) Designing a detection experiment: tricks and trade-offs. In: Eldershaw V (ed) 18th Australasian Weeds Conference. Weed Society of Victoria Inc., Melbourne, pp 267–271Google Scholar
  27. Hawley NB (2007) Custom trucks, radio snake jingles, and temporary tattoos: an overview of a successful public awareness campaign related to brown treesnakes in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In: Witmer GW, Pitt WC, Fagerstone KA (eds) Managing vertebrate invasive species. National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, pp 53–56Google Scholar
  28. Hernández-Jover M, Cogger N, Martin PAJ et al (2011) Evaluation of post-farm-gate passive surveillance in swine for the detection of foot and mouth disease in Australia. Prev Vet Med 100:171–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hester SM, Cacho OJ, Dane Panetta F et al (2013) Economic aspects of post-border weed risk management. Divers Distrib 19:580–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hosking G (2003) White-spotted tussock moth response—how good was it? N Z J For 48:31–32Google Scholar
  31. Huq A, Tyler T, Schuhofer S (2011) Why does the public cooperate with law enforcement? The influence of the purposes and targets of policing. Psychol Public Policy Law 17:419–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jennings C (2004) A brief history of the red imported fire ant eradication program. Aust J Emerg Manag 19:97–100Google Scholar
  33. Keith JM, Spring D (2013) Agent-based Bayesian approach to monitoring the progress of invasive species eradication programs. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:13428–13433CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Kompas T, Chu L, Nguyen HTM (2016) A practical optimal surveillance policy for invasive weeds: an application to Hawkweed in Australia. Ecol Econ 130:156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kruger H, Stenekes N, Clarke R, Carr A (2012) Biosecurity engagement guidelines: principles and practical advice for involving communities. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra Google Scholar
  36. Leary JJK, Gooding J, Chapman J et al (2013) Calibration of an herbicide ballistic technology (HBT) helicopter platform targeting miconia calvescens in Hawaii. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 6:292–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MAFBNZ (2008) Review of the current state of the biosecurity surveillance system. MAF Biosecurity, Wellington, p 40Google Scholar
  38. Marchante E, Marchante H, Morais M, et al. (2010) Combining methodologies to increase public awareness about invasive alien plants in Portugal In: Brunel S, Uludag A, Fernandez-Galiano E, G B (eds) International workshop on Invasive alien plants in Mediterranean type regions of the world European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation, Trabzon, Turkey., pp 227–239Google Scholar
  39. Martin C (2007) Promoting awareness, knowledge and good intentions. In: Witmer G, Pitt W, Fagerstone K (eds) Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species: proceedings of an international symposium, USDA, APHIS, WS. National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado., National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO., pp 57–62Google Scholar
  40. McCluggage A (2004) Watch for these weeds: public help in weed led programs in Northland, New Zealand. In: BM S and SB J (eds) 14th Australian Weeds Conference: Balancing people, planet, profit, Weed Society of NSW, pp 644–647Google Scholar
  41. Moore JL, Hauser CE, Bear JL et al (2011) Estimating detection—effort curves for plants using search experiments. Ecol Appl 21:601–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Paton D, McClure J, Burgelt P (2006) Natural hazard resilience: the role of individual and household preparedness. In: Paton D, Johnston D (eds) Disaster resilience: An integrated approach. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, pp 105–124Google Scholar
  43. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rautureau S, Dufour B, Durand B (2012) Structuring the passive surveillance network improves epizootic detection and control efficacy: a simulation study on foot-and-mouth disease in France. Transbound Emerg Dis 59:311–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Reed JJ, Puckett RT, Gold RE (2015) Induced effects on red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) forager size ratios by Pseudacteon spp. (Diptera: Phoridae): implications on bait size selection. Environ Entomol 44:1407–1416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Reis CS, Marchante H, Freitas H et al (2011) Public perception of invasive plant species: assessing the impact of workshop activities to promote young students’ awareness. Int J Sci Educ 35:690–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmidt D, Spring D, Mac Nally R, Thomson JR, Brook BW, Cacho O, McKenzie M (2010) Finding needles (or ants) in haystacks: predicting locations of invasive organisms to inform eradication and containment. Ecol Appl 20(5):1217–1227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Silvertown J (2009) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol 24:467–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sinden J, Jones R, Hester S, Odom D, Kalisch C, James R, Cacho O (2004) The economic impact of weeds in Australia. CRC for Australian Weed Management, Technical Series no. 8. Glen Osmond, p 55Google Scholar
  50. Spring D, Cacho O (2015) Estimating eradication probabilities and trade-offs for decision analysis in invasive species eradication programs. Biol Invasions 17:191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spring D, Kompas T (2015) Managing risk and increasing the robustness of invasive species eradication programs. Asia Pac Policy Stud 2:485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Witmer G, Keirn G, Hawley N, et al. (2007) Human Dimensions of Invasive Vertebrate Species Management. In: Witmer G, Pitt W and Fagerstone K (eds) Wildlife Damage Management Conference—Proceedings. paper 141. National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  53. Yemshanov D, Koch FH, Lu B et al (2014) There is no silver bullet: the value of diversification in planning invasive species surveillance. Ecol Econ 104:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNE Business SchoolUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  2. 2.Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, School of BotanyUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations