The Role of Surveillance Methods and Technologies in Plant Biosecurity

  • Tom Kalaris
  • Daniel Fieselmann
  • Roger Magarey
  • Manuel Colunga-Garcia
  • Amy Roda
  • Darryl Hardie
  • Naomi Cogger
  • Nichole Hammond
  • P. A. Tony Martin
  • Peter Whittle
Chapter

Abstract

Nations have designed biosecurity systems to protect their animal, plant, and environmental resources from invasion by pests. Surveillance serves as a key component of that regulatory continuum. This chapter discusses “surveillance” and touches on many topics associated with it: Sampling, detection thresholds, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and cyberinfrastructure.

Surveillance is an official process which collects and records data on pests (presence or absence) by survey, monitoring or other procedures. Here we outline types of survey operations, survey planning, survey design, GIS, and information management. Surveillance programmes are used to promote early pest detection, support trade by demonstrating pest freedom, delimit pest incursions, and monitor eradication and management programmes. Special emphasis is provided for pest-free areas including scenario tree modelling, statistical power and system approaches. An overview of survey planning is provided for targeted surveillance including the use of habitat, climate and pathway models to identify locations and time periods when exotic pests are most likely to be detected. The survey design section describes the basic principles for developing a sampling plan for detection surveys (including confidence and detection thresholds) and surveys for information (including sampling units, sample size and implementation). GIS and cyberinfrastructure are tools for data integration, project management and for communication to stakeholders. The chapter concludes with a surveillance case study, the USDA Cooperative Agriculture Pest Survey (CAPS), a joint Federal and State pest detection programme for exotic plant pests in the USA. CAPS conducts targeted “high hazard” surveillance including pest and commodity surveys. CAPS committees select national and state survey targets from annually prioritized pest lists.

Keywords

Geographic Information System Infestation Rate General Surveillance Exotic Pest Invasive Organism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baker AC (1939) The basis for treatment of products where fruitflies are involved as a condition for entry into the United States, vol 551, Circular. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker RHA (2002) Predicting the limits to the potential distribution of alien crop pests. In: Hallman GJ, Schwalbe CP (eds) Invasive arthropods in agriculture. Science Publishers, Enfield, pp 208–241Google Scholar
  3. Beckwith J (2004) A survey of tile warehouses in Florida. US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Cooperative Agriculture Pest Survey, RiverdaleGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett S, Whittle P, Mengersen K, Stoklosa R (2010) Biosecurity threats: the design of surveillance systems, based on power and risk. J Environ Ecol Stat 17:503–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biosecurity Australia (2009) Report of the assessment of northern China’s fruit fly pest free areas: Hebei, Shandong and Xinjiang. Online at http://bit.ly/cCYtCe. Biosecurity Australia, Canberra
  6. BRS (2007) Multi-criteria analysis shell, MCASS-S, Version 1.0, User Guide. Australian Government, Bureau of Rural Sciences. Canberra. Http://www.brs.gov.au
  7. Cameron AR, Baldock FC (1998) A new probability formula for surveys to substantiate freedom from disease. Prev Vet Med 34(1):1–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colunga-Garcia M, Magarey RD, Haack RA, Gage SH, Qi J (2010a) Enhancing early detection of exotic pests in agricultural and forest ecosystems using an urban gradient framework. Ecol Appl 20:303–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colunga-Garcia M, Haack RA, Magarey RD, Margosian ML (2010b) Spatial establishment patterns of exotic forest insects in urban areas in relation to urban tree cover and propagule pressure. J Econ Entomol 103:108–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans G, McMaugh T (2005) Surveying for plant pests: ISPM Terminology. Association of South East Asian Nations. http://www.aseanet.org/events/bogor_sept2005/sps/Relevant%20Documents/Surveying%20Plant%20Pests-ISPM%20Guidelines%20(G.%20Evans).doc
  11. Evans JR, Olson DL (1998) Introduction to simulation and risk analysis. Prentice-Hall International, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  12. Froud KJ, Oliver TM, Bingham PC, Flynn AR, Rowswell NJ (2008) Passive surveillance of new exotic pests and diseases in New Zealand. In: Froud KJ, Popay AI, Zydenbos SM (eds) Surveillance for biosecurity: pre-border to pest management. New Zealand Plant Protection Society, PaihiaGoogle Scholar
  13. Gottwald TR, da Graça JV, Bassanezi RB (2007) Citrus Huanglongbing: the pathogen and its impact. Online. Plant Health Prog doi: 10.1094/PHP-2007-0906-01-RV
  14. Hix R, Toscano N, Gispert C (2003) Area-wide management of the glassy-winged sharpshooter in the Temecula and Coachella Valleys. In: Tariq MA, Oswalt S, Blincoe P, Spencer R, Houser L, Ba A, Esser T (eds) Proceedings of CDFA Pierce’s disease research symposium, 8–11 December 2003, Copeland Printing Sacramento, Coronado, pp 292–294Google Scholar
  15. IPPC (1997) ISPM No. 6, Guidelines for surveillance. International Plant Protection Convention. FAO-UN, Rome, p 8Google Scholar
  16. IPPC (1999) ISPM No. 9, Guidelines for pest eradication programmes (1998). International Plant Protection Convention, FAOUN, Rome, 10 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. IPPC (2009a) International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) 1-32. International Plant Protection Convention. FAO-UN, RomeGoogle Scholar
  18. IPPC (2009b) Explanatory document on International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) 31. International Plant Protection Convention. FAO-UN, RomeGoogle Scholar
  19. Isard SA, Russo JM, Ariatti A (2007) The Integrated Aerobiology Modeling System applied to the spread of soybean rust into the Ohio River valley during September 2006. Aerobiologia 23:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Magarey RD, Borchert DM, Engle JS, Colunga-Garcia M, Koch FH, Yemshanov D (2011) Risk maps for targeting exotic plant pest detection programs in the United States. EPPO Bull 41:46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Magarey RD, Dolezal WM, Moore TJ (2010) Worldwide monitoring systems. The need for public and private collaboration. In: Gisi U et al (eds) Recent developments in management of plant diseases, 349 Plant Pathology in the 21st Century 1. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8804-9_24, Springer Science Business Media B.V.
  22. Magarey RD, Colunga-Garcia M, Fieselmann D (2009) Plant biosecurity in the United States: roles, responsibilities and information needs. Bioscience 59:875–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin PAJ, Cameron AR, Greiner M (2007) Demonstrating freedom from disease using multiple complex data sources: 1: a new methodology based on scenario trees. Prev Vet Med 79:71–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saaty TL (1994) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications. Pittsburgh, 527 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Self M, Kay C (2005) Development of methodology for targeted post border surveillance for exotic pest incursions. Paper presented at the workshop on post-border surveillance for exotic pests of plants hosted by the Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry; 7–8 June 2005, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  26. USDA (2002) Alternatives for quarantine security (Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture). http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/jan97/secure.htm. Accessed 26 Sept 2008
  27. USDA-APHIS-PPQ (2004) Smuggling interdiction and trade compliance program (11 November 2007 www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/fs_phsouthwestsitc.html)
  28. Venette RC et al. (2010) Pest risk maps for invasive alien species: a roadmap for improvement. Bioscience 60:349–362Google Scholar
  29. Wheeler AG, Hoebeke ER (2001) A history of adventive insects in North America: their pathways of entry and programs of entry and programs for their detection. In: Detecting and monitoring invasive species, plant health conference. USDA-APHIS, Raleigh, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  30. Whittle P, Barrett S, Jarrad F, Murray J, Mengersen K, Hardie D, Nietrzeba A, Stoklosa R, Parkes J, Majer J (2009) Design of detection surveillance program for non-indigenous species of terrestrial invertebrates, plants and vertebrates on Barrow Island. Report to Chevron Australia Pty Ltd. Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity, BruceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside of the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Kalaris
    • 1
  • Daniel Fieselmann
    • 1
  • Roger Magarey
    • 2
  • Manuel Colunga-Garcia
    • 3
  • Amy Roda
    • 1
  • Darryl Hardie
    • 4
    • 5
  • Naomi Cogger
    • 6
  • Nichole Hammond
    • 4
    • 5
  • P. A. Tony Martin
    • 4
    • 5
  • Peter Whittle
    • 7
  1. 1.U.S. Department of AgricultureAnimal Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and TechnologyRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Center for IPMNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.Center for Global Change and Earth ObservationsMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.Department of Agriculture and Food Western AustraliaBaron-Hay CourtSouth PerthAustralia
  5. 5.Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research CentreBruceAustralia
  6. 6.Massey University, Tenndent DrivePalmerston NorthNew Zealand
  7. 7.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations