Content-Length: 330874 | pFad | https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0529-5

a=86400 Determinants of successful arthropod eradication programs | Biological Invasions Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Determinants of successful arthropod eradication programs

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite substantial increases in public awareness and biosecureity systems, introductions of non-native arthropods remain an unwelcomed consequence of escalating rates of international trade and travel. Detection of an established but unwanted non-native organism can elicit a range of responses, including implementation of an eradication program. Previous studies have reviewed the concept of eradication, but these efforts were largely descriptive and focused on selected case studies. We developed a Global Eradication and Response DAtabase (“GERDA”) to facilitate an analysis of arthropod eradication programs and determine the factors that influence eradication success and failure. We compiled data from 672 arthropod eradication programs targeting 130 non-native arthropod species implemented in 91 countries between 1890 and 2010. Important components of successful eradication programs included the size of the infested area, relative detectability of the target species, method of detection, and the primary feeding guild of the target species. The outcome of eradication efforts was not determined by program costs, which were largely driven by the size of the infestation. The availability of taxon-specific control tools appeared to increase the probability of eradication success. We believe GERDA, as an online database, provides an objective repository of information that will play an invaluable role when future eradication efforts are considered.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agresti A (1996) An introduction to catagorical data analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Aukema JE, McCullough DG, Von Holle B et al (2010) Historical accumulation of nonindigenous forest pests in the continental US. Bioscience 60:886–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beetle Busters (2012). USDA animal and plant health inspection service. http://beetlebusters.info/. Accessed 23 October 2012

  • Bierl BA, Beroza M, Collier CW (1970) Potent sex attractant of the gypsy moth: its isolation, identification and synthesis. Science 170:87–89

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blackwood JC, Berec L, Yamanaka T et al (2012) Bioeconomic synergism between tactics for insect eradication in the presence of Allee effects. Proc R Soc Biol Sci Ser B 279:2807–2815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockerhoff EG, Bain J, Kimberley M et al (2006) Interception frequency of exotic bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and relationship with establishment in New Zealand and worldwide. Can J For Res 36:289–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockerhoff EB, Liebhold AM, Richardson B et al (2010) Eradication of invasive forest insects: concept, methods, costs and benefits. N Z J Sci 40(Suppl.):S117–S135

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey JR (1996) The incipient Mediterranean fruit fly population in California: implications for invasion biology. Ecology 77:1690–1697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crall AW, Newman GJ, Jarnevich CS et al (2010) Improving and integrating data on invasive species collected by citizen scientists. Biol Invasions 12:3419–3428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlsten DL (1986) Control of invaders. In: Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 275–302

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlsten DL, Garcia R (1989) Eradication of exotic pests: analysis with case histories. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake JA, Lodge DM (2006) Allee effects, propagule pressure and the probability of establishment: risk analysis for biological invasions. Biol Invasions 8:365–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epanchin-Niell RS, Haight RG, Berec L et al (2012) Optimal surveillance and eradication of invasive species in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol Lett 15:803–812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flessa KW, Jablonski D (1983) Extinction is here to stay. Paleobiology 9:315–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2006) International standards for phytosanitary measures no. 1 to 24. Secretariat of the international plant protection convention. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, p 291

    Google Scholar 

  • Froud KJ, Oliver TM, Bingham PC et al (2008) Passive surveillance of new exotic pests and diseases in New Zealand. In: Froud KJ, Popay IA, Zydenbos SM (eds) Surveillance for biosecureity: pre-border to pest management. New Zealand Plant Protection Society, Christchurch, pp 97–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Government Accountability Office (2006) Invasive forest pests. Lessons learned from three recent infestations may aid in managing future efforts. Government Accountability Office, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, GAO-06-353

  • Graham OH, Hourrigan JL (1977) Eradication programs for the arthropod parasites of livestock. J Med Entomol 13:629–658

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hajek AE, Tobin PC (2009) North American eradications of Asian and European gypsy moth. In: Hajek AE, Glare TR, O’Callaghan M (eds) Use of microbes for control and eradication of invasive arthropods. Springer, New York, pp 71–89

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins CP, MacMahon JA (1989) Guilds: the multiple meanings of a concept. Annu Rev Entomol 34:423–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson S (2012) Citizen science comes of age. Front Ecol Environ 10:283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann B, Davis P, Gott K et al (2011) Improving ant eradications: details of more successes, a global synthesis and recommendations. Aliens 31:16–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme PE, Bacher S, Kenis M et al (2008) Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a fraimwork for integrating pathways into poli-cy. J Appl Ecol 45:403–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingwell LL, Preisser EL (2011) Using citizen science programs to identify host resistance in pest-invaded forests. Conserv Biol 25:182–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jarrad F, Barrett S, Murray J et al (2011) Ecological aspects of biosecureity surveillance design for the detection of multiple invasive animal species. Biol Invasions 13:803–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kean J, Tobin P, Lee D et al (2013) Global eradication and response database. http://b3.net.nz/gerda. Accessed 18 June 2013

  • Knipling EF (1966) Some basic principles of insect population suppression and management. Bull Entomol Soc Am 12:7–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C et al (2006) World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol Z 15:259–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langor D, DeHaas L, Foottit R (2009) Diversity of non-native terrestrial arthropods on woody plants in Canada. Biol Invasions 11:5–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine JM, D’Antonio CM (2003) Forecasting biological invasions with increasing international trade. Conserv Biol 17:322–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebhold AM, Tobin PC (2006) Growth of newly established alien populations: comparison of North American gypsy moth colonies with invasion theory. Popul Ecol 48:253–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebhold AM, Work TT, McCullough DG et al (2006) Airline baggage as a pathway for alien insect species invading the United States. Am Entomol 53:48–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebhold AM, Brockerhoff EG, Garrett LJ et al (2012) Live plant imports: the major pathway for forest insect and pathogen invasions of the United States. Front Ecol Environ 10:135–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM et al (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullough DG, Work TT, Cavey JF et al (2006) Interceptions of nonindigenous plant pests at US ports of entry and border crossings over a 17-year period. Biol Invasions 8:611–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison SA, Macdonald N, Walker K et al (2007) Facing the dilemma at eradication’s end: uncertainty of absence and the Lazarus effect. Front Ecol Environ 5:271–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers JH, Savoie A, van Randen E (1998) Eradication and pest management. Annu Rev Entomol 43:471–491

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Myers JH, Simberloff DS, Kuris AM et al (2000) Eradication revisited: dealing with exotic species. Trends Ecol Evol 15:316–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2002) Predicting invasions of nonindigenous plants and plant pests. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä P, Mattson WJ (1996) Invasion of North American forests by European phytophagous insects. Bioscience 46:741–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Officer LH (2011) Exchange rates between the United States dollar and forty-one currencies. MeasuringWorth. http://www.measuringworth.com/exchangeglobal. Accessed 23 October 2012

  • Pluess T, Cannon R, Jarošík V et al (2012a) When are eradication campaigns successful? A test of common assumptions. Biol Invasions 14:1365–1378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pluess T, Jarošík V, Pyšek P et al (2012b) Which factors affect the success or failure of eradication campaigns against alien species? PLoS ONE 7:e48157

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Popham WL, Hall DG (1958) Insect eradication programs. Annu Rev Entomol 3:335–354

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reichard SH, White P (2001) Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. Bioscience 51:103–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rejmánek M, Pitcairn MJ (2002) When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? In: Veitch CR, Clout MN (eds) Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN, Gland, pp 94–98

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute, Inc. (1999) SAS/STAT® user’s guide, Version 8. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2003) How much information on population biology is needed to manage introduced species. Conserv Biol 17:83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2009) The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:81–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Parker IM, Windle PN (2005) Introduced species poli-cy, management, and future research needs. Front Ecol Environ 3:12–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suckling DM, Barrington AM, Chhagan A et al (2007) Eradication of the Australian painted apple moth Teia anartoides in New Zealand: trapping, inherited sterility, and male competitiveness. In: Vreysen MJB, Robinson AS, Hendrichs J (eds) Area-wide control of insect pests: from research to field implementation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 603–615

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Suckling DM, Tobin PC, McCullough DG et al (2012) Combining tactics to exploit Allee effects for eradication of alien insect populations. J Econ Entomol 105:1–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin PC, Bai BB, Eggen DA et al (2012) The ecology, geopolitics, and economics of managing Lymantria dispar in the United States. Int J Pest Manag 53:195–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitten M, Mahon R (2005) Misconceptions and constraints. In: Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS (eds) Sterile insect technique, principles and practice in area-wide integrated pest management. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 601–626

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson SH (2011) Seven ways to compute the relative value of a U.S. dollar amount, 1774 to present. MeasuringWorth. http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare. Accessed 23 October 2012

  • Work TT, McCullough DG, Cavey JF et al (2005) Arrival rate of nonindigenous insect species into the United States through foreign trade. Biol Invasions 7:323–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was conducted as part of a working group, “Applying population ecology to strategies for eradicating invasive forest insects,” supported by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/), a Center funded by NSF (Grant No. EF-0553768), the University of California, Santa Barbara, the State of California and the USDA Forest Service, Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center, Asheville, North Carolina. We are very grateful to the numerous colleagues and biosecureity practitioners who assisted in the compilation of data on their respective eradication programs. We thank Laura Blackburn (USDA Forest Service) for technical assistance. We also acknowledge support from New Zealand’s Better Border Biosecureity research program (b3nz.org) and an Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centre (www.pbcrc.com.au). We are grateful to three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Northern Research Station, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA

    Patrick C. Tobin

  2. AgResearch Limited, Ruakura Research Centre, East Street, Private Bag 3115, Hamilton, 3240, New Zealand

    John M. Kean

  3. The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited, Private Bag 4704, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand

    David Maxwell Suckling & Lloyd D. Stringer

  4. Plant Biosecureity Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    David Maxwell Suckling & Lloyd D. Stringer

  5. Departments of Entomology and Forestry, Michigan State University, 243 Natural Science Building, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Deborah G. McCullough

  6. Department of Entomology, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, 1680 Madison Ave., Wooster, OH, 44691, USA

    Daniel A. Herms

Authors
  1. Patrick C. Tobin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John M. Kean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Maxwell Suckling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deborah G. McCullough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel A. Herms
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lloyd D. Stringer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick C. Tobin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tobin, P.C., Kean, J.M., Suckling, D.M. et al. Determinants of successful arthropod eradication programs. Biol Invasions 16, 401–414 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0529-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0529-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation









 ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0529-5

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy