Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The contribution of passive surveillance to invasive species management

  • Perspectives and paradigms
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Source redrawn from simulation data reported in Cacho et al. (2012) and Cacho and Hester (2011)

Fig. 4

Source Cacho et al. (2012)

Fig. 5

Source Cacho et al. (2012)

Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We acknowledge the importance of community reporting that is not in response to any pest-specific community engagement activity—often these reports are responsible for the first known incursions of a pest. The level of biosecurity awareness that drives those completely passive detections is not explored in this paper.

  2. It may also be the case that active surveillance activities in an area—visibility of traps and pest-management officers—could in turn increase the probability of passive detection, although this remains to be tested.

References

  • Aukema JE, Leung B, Kovacs K et al (2011) Economic impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States. PLoS ONE 6:e24587

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter PWJ, Possingham HP (2011) Optimizing search strategies for invasive pests: learn before you leap. J Appl Ecol 48:86–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beale R, Fairbrother J, Inglis A et al (2008) One biosecurity: a working partnership. Australian government, Canberra, p 298

    Google Scholar 

  • Bish A, Michie S (2010) Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: a review. Br J Health Psychol 15:797–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bogich T, Shea K (2008) A state-dependent model for the optimal management of an invasive metapopulation. Ecol Appl 18:748–761

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bremner A, Park K (2007) Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol Conserv 139:306–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 424–426

  • Cacho OJ, Hester SM (2011) Deriving efficient frontiers for effort allocation in the management of invasive species. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 55:72–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacho OJ, Spring D, Pheloung P et al (2006) Evaluating the feasibility of eradicating an invasion. Biol Invasions 8:903–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 51:425–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 25:444–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 35

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 46

    Google Scholar 

  • DEFRA (2008) A framework for pro-environmental behaviours. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 74:241–251

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Devictor V, Whittaker RJ, Beltrame C (2010) Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Divers Distrib 16:354–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool, challenges and benefits. Annu Rev Ecol Evolut Syst 41:149–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd AJ, Ainsworth N, Burgman MA et al (2015) Plant extirpation at the site scale: implications for eradication programmes. Divers Distrib 21:151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood K, Durrheim D, Francis L et al (2009) Knowledge about pandemic influenza and compliance with containment measures among Australians. Bull World Health Organ 87:588–594

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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 24:1258–1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 97–110

  • 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 12:205

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (1999) Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80:1142–1149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 512

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris AC (1988) A first record of the painted apple moth Teia anartoides (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) intercepted in New Zealand. N Z Entomol 11:68–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 267–271

  • 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 53–56

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 100:171–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hester SM, Cacho OJ, Dane Panetta F et al (2013) Economic aspects of post-border weed risk management. Divers Distrib 19:580–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosking G (2003) White-spotted tussock moth response—how good was it? N Z J For 48:31–32

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 17:419–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings C (2004) A brief history of the red imported fire ant eradication program. Aust J Emerg Manag 19:97–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith JM, Spring D (2013) Agent-based Bayesian approach to monitoring the progress of invasive species eradication programs. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:13428–13433

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kompas T, Chu L, Nguyen HTM (2016) A practical optimal surveillance policy for invasive weeds: an application to Hawkweed in Australia. Ecol Econ 130:156–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 6:292–303

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • MAFBNZ (2008) Review of the current state of the biosecurity surveillance system. MAF Biosecurity, Wellington, p 40

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 227–239

  • 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 57–62

  • 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 644–647

  • Moore JL, Hauser CE, Bear JL et al (2011) Estimating detection—effort curves for plants using search experiments. Ecol Appl 21:601–607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 105–124

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 52:273–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 59:311–322

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 44:1407–1416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 35:690–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1217–1227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Silvertown J (2009) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol 24:467–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 55

    Google Scholar 

  • Spring D, Cacho O (2015) Estimating eradication probabilities and trade-offs for decision analysis in invasive species eradication programs. Biol Invasions 17:191–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spring D, Kompas T (2015) Managing risk and increasing the robustness of invasive species eradication programs. Asia Pac Policy Stud 2:485–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Colorado

  • 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 104:61–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by the Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis (CEBRA) through Project 1004 2b. CEBRA is based at the University of Melbourne. Contributions from Ian Reeve and Jamie Tramell to the project are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia

    Susan M. Hester & Oscar J. Cacho

  2. Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Susan M. Hester

Authors
  1. Susan M. Hester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oscar J. Cacho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan M. Hester.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hester, S.M., Cacho, O.J. The contribution of passive surveillance to invasive species management. Biol Invasions 19, 737–748 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1362-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1362-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation