NeoBiota 18
Refine
Year of publication
- 2013 (13)
Document Type
- Article (13)
Language
- English (13)
Has Fulltext
- yes (13)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (13)
Keywords
- pest risk mapping (3)
- Biosecurity (2)
- Thaumatotibia leucotreta (2)
- Apriona germari (1)
- CLIMEX (1)
- Dispersal (1)
- Drosophila suzukii (1)
- GPS (1)
- Global trade (1)
- Human-mediated dispersal (1)
- Invasive pest assemblages (1)
- Migration (1)
- Model (1)
- Modelling (1)
- Pest (1)
- Pest Risk Analysis (1)
- Pest risk assessment (1)
- Pest risk mapping (1)
- Phytophthora austrocedrae (1)
- Post-entry spread (1)
- Risk aversion (1)
- Sensitivity (1)
- Sudden oak death (1)
- Thaumetopoea pityocampa (1)
- Uncertainty (1)
- agricultural ecosystems (1)
- alien invasive pathogens (1)
- area at highest risk (1)
- area of potential establishment (1)
- banana pathogen (1)
- decision-making under uncertainty (1)
- early detection (1)
- ecosystem invasibility (1)
- endangered area (1)
- exotic species (1)
- firewood (1)
- firewood movement (1)
- forest ecosystems (1)
- forest pests (1)
- geospatial (1)
- hemlock dwarf mistletoe (1)
- hierarchical clustering (1)
- invasion pressure (1)
- invasive alien species (1)
- invasive species (1)
- k-means (1)
- mapping (1)
- mobile (1)
- modelling (1)
- multicriteria analysis (1)
- network modelling (1)
- pathway invasion model (1)
- pest risk analysis (1)
- plant pathogens (1)
- prioritisation (1)
- propagule pressure (1)
- red band needle blight (1)
- risk (1)
- self-organising maps (1)
- standards (1)
- stochastic dominance (1)
- uncertainty (1)
- yellow Sigatoka (1)
Pest risk maps are important decision support tools when devising strategies to minimize introductions of invasive organisms and mitigate their impacts. When possible management responses to an invader include costly or socially sensitive activities, decision-makers tend to follow a more certain (i.e., risk-averse) course of action. We presented a new mapping technique that assesses pest invasion risk from the perspective of a risk-averse decision maker. We demonstrated the method by evaluating the likelihood that an invasive forest pest will be transported to one of the U.S. states or Canadian provinces in infested firewood by visitors to U.S. federal campgrounds. We tested the impact of the risk aversion assumption using distributions of plausible pest arrival scenarios generated with a geographically explicit model developed from data documenting camper travel across the study area. Next, we prioritized regions of high and low pest arrival risk via application of two stochastic ordering techniques that employed, respectively, first- and second-degree stochastic dominance rules, the latter of which incorporated the notion of risk aversion. We then identified regions in the study area where the pest risk value changed considerably after incorporating risk aversion. While both methods identified similar areas of highest and lowest risk, they differed in how they demarcated moderate-risk areas. In general, the second-order stochastic dominance method assigned lower risk rankings to moderate-risk areas. Overall, this new method offers a better strategy to deal with the uncertainty typically associated with risk assessments and provides a tractable way to incorporate decisionmaking preferences into final risk estimates, and thus helps to better align these estimates with particular decision-making scenarios about a pest organism of concern. Incorporation of risk aversion also helps prioritize the set of locations to target for inspections and outreach activities, which can be costly. Our results are especially important and useful given the huge number of camping trips that occur each year in the United States and Canada.
Quantitative models have several advantages compared to qualitative methods for pest risk assessments (PRA). Quantitative models do not require the definition of categorical ratings and can be used to compute numerical probabilities of entry and establishment, and to quantify spread and impact. These models are powerful tools, but they include several sources of uncertainty that need to be taken into account by risk assessors and communicated to decision makers. Uncertainty analysis (UA) and sensitivity analysis (SA) are useful for analyzing uncertainty in models used in PRA, and are becoming more popular. However, these techniques should be applied with caution because several factors may influence their results. In this paper, a brief overview of methods of UA and SA are given. As well, a series of practical rules are defined that can be followed by risk assessors to improve the reliability of UA and SA results. These rules are illustrated in a case study based on the infection model of Magarey et al. (2005) where the results of UA and SA are shown to be highly dependent on the assumptions made on the probability distribution of the model inputs.
The banana leaf spotting disease yellow Sigatoka is established and actively controlled in Australia through intensive chemical treatments and diseased leaf removal. In the State of Queensland, the State government imposes standards for de-leafing to minimise the risk of the disease spreading in 6 banana pest quarantine areas. Of these, the Northern Banana Pest Quarantine Area is the most significant in terms of banana production. Previous regulations imposed obligations on owners of banana plants within this area to remove leaves from plants with visible spotting on more than 15 per cent of any leaf during the wet season. Recently, this leaf disease threshold has been lowered to 5 per cent. In this paper we examine the likely impact this more-costly regulation will have on the spread of the disease. We estimate that the average net benefit of reducing the diseased leaf threshold is only likely to be $1.4 million per year over the next 30 years, expressed as the annualised present value of tightened regulation. This result varies substantially when the timeframe of the analysis is changed, with shorter time frames indicating poorer net returns from the change in protocols. Overall, the benefit of the regulation change is likely to be minor.