Journal of Pest Science https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-1004-y REVIEW Improved biosecurity surveillance of non‑native forest insects: a review of current methods Therese M. Poland1 · Davide Rassati2 Received: 15 February 2018 / Revised: 31 May 2018 / Accepted: 2 June 2018 © pringer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 Abstract Biosecurity surveillance has been highlighted as a key activity to discover non-native species at the initial stage of invasion. It provides an opportunity for rapidly initiating eradication measures and implementing responses to prevent spread and permanent establishment, reducing costs and damage. In importing countries, three types of biosecurity activities can be carried out: border surveillance targets the arrival stage of a non-native species at points-of-entry for commodities; post- border surveillance and containment target the establishment stage, but post-border surveillance is carried out on a large spatial scale, whereas containment is carried out around infested areas. In recent years, several surveillance approaches, such as baited traps, sentinel trees, biosurveillance with snifer dogs or predatory wasps, electronic noses, acoustic detec- tion, laser vibrometry, citizen science, genetic identifcation tools, and remote sensing, have been developed to complement routine visual inspections and aid in biosecurity capacity. Here, we review the existing literature on these tools, highlight their strengths and weaknesses, and identify the biosecurity surveillance categories and sites where each tool can be used more efciently. Finally, we show how these tools can be integrated in a comprehensive biosecurity program and discuss steps to improve biosecurity. Keywords Acoustic detection · Baited traps · Biosurveillance · Citizen science · Remote sensing · Sentinel trees Key messages and containment). Optimal implementation of these tools in time and space is fundamental to enhance efcacy. • Biosecurity programs may be enhanced by combining • Biosecurity surveillance is a key activity to discover non- multiple surveillance tools and strategies into a compre- native species at the initial stage of invasion. hensive program that encompasses various location and • Several surveillance tools have been developed to com- spatiotemporal scales. plement routine visual inspections and aid in biosecurity capacity both at the arrival stage (border surveillance) and at the establishment stage (post-border surveillance Introduction Communicated by J.D. Sweeney. Management of non-native forest insect pests is one of the most demanding challenges faced by forest health practi- Special Issue on Invasive Pests of Forests and Urban Trees. tioners (Brockerhof and Liebhold 2017). The rate of global movement of these insects is continuously increasing * Therese M. Poland [email protected] (Aukema et al. 2010; Roques 2010; Brockerhof and Lieb- hold 2017), and adopted preventive measures can reduce * Davide Rassati [email protected] (Allen et al. 2017) but not stop invasions (Haack et al. 2014). In this context, biosecurity surveillance plays a key role 1 USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 3101, (Hulme 2014). Non-native species management becomes Technology Blvd, Ste. F., Lansing, MI 48910, USA increasingly difcult and expensive as populations of non- 2 Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals native pests establish and expand into new areas (Liebhold and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale and Tobin 2008). Thus, discovering a non-native species dell’ Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 Journal of Pest Science at the initial stage of its invasion provides an opportunity associated insects to be imported without any inspection for rapidly initiating mitigation measures and implementing (Bisschop 2012; Haack et al. 2014). Thus, in recent years, responses to prevent its permanent establishment and spread, considerable research has been conducted to develop efec- reducing costs and damage (Epanchin-Niell and Liebhold tive and efcient surveillance tools, methods, and strategies 2015). to integrate with visual inspections and aid in biosecurity Biosecurity surveillance eforts can be classifed depend- capacity (reviewed by Augustin et al. 2012). ing on the targeted invasion stage (Hulme 2014). Pre-bor- Here, we review the existing literature on biosecurity der biosecurity includes development of policies that allow tools and strategies that are currently available for border commodities to be imported safely (Hulme 2014). Border surveillance, post-border surveillance and containment, in surveillance targets the very initial stage of the invasion pro- order to identify: (a) strengths and weaknesses; (b) bios- cess (arrival stage) to prevent establishment of a non-native ecurity surveillance categories and environments in which species either directly (e.g., rejecting cargo or destroying each may be most useful; (c) an approach to integrating dif- infested materials) or indirectly (e.g., culling host mate- ferent tools in a comprehensive biosecurity program; and rial). Such activities are generally carried out at the main (d) steps to improve biosecurity. We broadly reviewed the points-of-entry for imported commodities, such as seaports, scientifc literature, proceedings, and technical reports on airports, post-entry plant quarantine facilities, cargo depots, biosecurity surveillance and detection of non-native species or mail centers. Post-border surveillance and containment and highlighted examples of diferent tools, strategies, and target the frst establishment stage and attempt to discover applications. We did not use specifc criteria to select articles a non-native species when its population level is still low included in this review. and when eradication and management strategies are most likely to succeed (Liebhold and Tobin 2008). Post-border Baited traps surveillance is carried out on a large spatial scale, whereas containment is carried out around infested areas. Traps baited with attractants are commonly used for active Biosecurity surveillance eforts can also be classifed surveillance of non-native species because traps and lures depending on the targeted species or group of species. Spe- are efcient, commercially available at low costs, and have cifc surveillance targets a single species or a very narrow wide application across several purposes (Augustin et al. and well-defned group of species or guild. Generic surveil- 2012; Suckling 2015). Traps can be used in the context of lance instead may target a broad range of species, belonging border surveillance at points-of-entry for imported com- to several genera or families. Finally, biosecurity eforts can modities to capture insects before they become established be categorized as active surveillance, generally undertaken in nearby trees or forested areas (Brockerhof et al. 2006b; by pest specialists (e.g., phytosanitary personnel), and pas- Bashford 2008; Wylie et al. 2008; Rassati et al. 2015a; Fan sive surveillance, generally relying on members of the pub- et al. 2018), but also in the context of post-border surveil- lic and community to report suspect insects to biosecurity lance and containment around new infestations to detect the institutions (Hulme 2014). possible presence of non-native species in a given area or to Visual inspections routinely carried out by inspectors at assess their population level (Tobin et al. 2007; Faccoli et al. points-of-entry represent the frst line of defense against non- 2016). Furthermore, baited traps can be used for specifc native species (Saccaggi et al. 2016). These standard proce- surveillance to capture a certain target species (e.g., a quar- dures resulted in the detection of hundreds of thousands of antine species) as well as for generic surveillance to capture insects (Haack 2001; Brockerhof et al. 2006a; McCullough multiple species (Table 1). For instance, hundreds of thou- et al. 2006; Roques and Auger-Rozenberg 2006; Lee et al. sands of gypsy moth traps are deployed in grids along the 2016), rejection of infested cargo shipments and passen- leading edge of the infestation and in uninfested areas of the gers, and compilation of several databases that further our USA to detect and eradicate new isolated infestations (Tobin understanding of introduction pathways and detection pro- and Blackburn 2007). The USDA Early Detection and Rapid grams (Kenis et al. 2007; Meurisse et al. 2018). Neverthe- Response (EDRR) program deploys hundreds of traps target- less, visual inspections are not adequate to stop all insect ing bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: invasions (Bacon et al. 2012; Caley et al. 2015). Increased Scolytinae) at high-risk sites in the USA (Rabaglia et al. global trade in recent decades has not been matched by a 2008; CAPS 2018) and has led to discovery of several new corresponding increase in the capacity of inspection agen- species at the national or state level. cies to inspect shipments in many countries (Saccaggi et al. Planning trapping programs requires selection of the opti- 2016). For example, only a very small percentage (2%/year) mal trapping protocols based on program objectives and the of incoming shipments is actually inspected in the USA target species. Several variables, such as trap type (Augustin (McCullough et al. 2006). Furthermore, illegal trade and et al. 2012), trap color (Elkinton et al. 2010; Rassati et al. fraudulent certifcation of shipments cause commodities and 2018a),