Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing efficient surveys: spatial arrangement of sample points for detection of invasive species

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

Abstract

Effective surveillance is critical to managing biological invasions via early detection and eradication. The efficiency of surveillance systems may be affected by the spatial arrangement of sample locations. We investigate how the spatial arrangement of sample points, ranging from random to fixed grid arrangements, affects the probability of detecting a target population (survey sensitivity) and the overall cost of detecting and eradicating populations invading over time. For single period surveys, regular sampling patterns outperform the equivalent number of random samples at intermediate sample densities, but only when sample sensitivity is high. Otherwise, sample point arrangement has little effect on survey sensitivity, which can be modelled reasonably accurately using a Poisson approximation. For multiple period surveys, we find little difference in the costs of sample point arrangements for most combinations of parameters tested. However, the costs of different arrangements vary when sampling methods have higher sensitivity and trap densities are low, a situation representative of many real surveillance programs. In particular, our results suggest that dynamic trapping arrangements increase the efficiency of detection when traps are sparse relative to the size of target populations. Also, for the scenarios we considered managers may exercise some freedom in allocating sample point locations. Placing individual traps or samples in perceived higher probability sites at the local scale is unlikely to diminish the probability of detection at the broader scale.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert CH, Yoccoz NG, Edwards TC Jr, Graham CH, Zimmermann NE, Thuiller W (2010) Sampling in ecology and evolution—bridging the gap between theory and practice. Ecography 33:1028–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrew NL, Mapstone BD (1987) Sampling and the description of spatial pattern in marine ecology. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 25:39–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry J, Nicholson M (1993) Measuring the probability of patch detection for four spatial sampling designs. J Appl Stat 20:353–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogich TL, Liebhold AM, Shea K (2008) To sample or eradicate? A cost minimization model for monitoring and managing an invasive species. J Appl Ecol 45:1134–1142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 JO, Spring D, Pheloung P, Hester S (2006) Evaluating the feasibility of eradicating an invasion. Biol Invasions 8:903–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacho OJ, Spring D, Hester S, Mac Nally R (2010) Allocating surveillance effort in the management of invasive species: a spatially-explicit model. Environ Model Softw 25:444–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter PJ, Ding A, Cheng L (2012) Identifying groundwater contamination using resistivity surveys at a landfill near Maoming, China. Nat Educ Knowl 3(7):20

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadès I, McDonald-Madden E, McCarthy MA, Wintle B, Linkie M, Possingham HP (2008) When to stop managing or surveying cryptic threatened species. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:13936–13940

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Epanchin-Niell R, Brockerhoff E, Kean J, Turner J (2014) Designing cost-efficient surveillance for early-detection and control of multiple invading species. Ecol Appl. doi:10.1890/13-1331.1

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser CE, McCarthy MA (2009) Streamlining ‘search and destroy’: cost-effective surveillance for invasive species management. Ecol Lett 12:683–692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hester S, Cacho O (2012) Optimization of search strategies in managing biological invasions: a simulation approach. Hum Ecol Risk Assess: Int J 18:181–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoye BJ, Munster VJ, Nishiura H, Klaassen M, Fouchier RAM (2010) Surveillance of wild birds for avian influenza virus. Emerg Infect Dis 16(12)

  • Jarrad FC, Barrett S, Murray J, Stoklosa R, Whittle P, Mengersen K (2011) Ecological aspects of biosecurity surveillance design for the detection of multiple invasive animal species. Biol Invasions 13:803–818

    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, Tobin PC (2008) Population ecology of insect invasions and their management. Annu Rev Entomol 53:387–408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh DM, Trenham PC (2008) Current trends in plant and animal population monitoring. Conserv Biol 22:647–655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 79:71–97

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta SV, Haight RG, Homans FR, Polasky S, Venette RC (2007) Optimal detection and control strategies for invasive species management. Ecol Econ 61:237–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monke J (2004). Funding plant and animal health emergencies: transfers from the Commodity Credit Corporation. US Congressional Information Service, Library of Congress. CRS Report RL32504. 13 pp. (available at http://research.policyarchive.org/2146.pdf)

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson M, Barry J (1996) Survey design for detecting patches. J Appl Stat 23:361–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson M, Barry J (2005) Target detection from a classical and a Bayesian viewpoint. J Appl Stat 32:475–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry JN, Liebhold AM, Rosenberg MS, Dungan J, Miriti M, Jakomulska A, Citron-Pousty S (2002) Illustrations and guidelines for selecting statistical methods for quantifying spatial pattern in ecological data. Ecography 25:578–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quilici S, Donner P (2012) Analysis of exotic fruit fly trapping networks. EPPO Bull 42:102–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan TJ, Chadès I, Possingham HP (2011) Optimally managing under imperfect detection: a method for plant invasions. J Appl Ecol 48:76–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts EA, Ziegler A (2007) Gypsy moth population monitoring and data collection. In: Tobin PC, Blackburn LM (eds) Slow the spread: a national program to manage the gypsy moth. General Technical Report NRS-6, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, pp 33–46

  • Schwalbe CP (1981) Disparlure-baited traps for survey and detection. In: Doane CC, McManus ML (eds) The gypsy moth: research toward integrated pest management. USDA Technical Bulletin 1584, pp 542–548

  • Stevens DL Jr, Olsen AR (2004) Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. J Am Stat Assoc 99:262–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin PC, Robinet C, Johnson DM, Whitmire SL, Bjørnstad ON, Liebhold AM (2009) The role of Allee effects in gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.), invasions. Popul Ecol 51:373–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin PC, Kean JM, Suckling DM, McCullough DG, Herms DA, Stringer LD (2014) Determinants of successful arthropod eradication programs. Biol Invasions 16:401–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veit RR, Lewis MA (1996) Dispersal, population growth, and the Allee effect: dynamics of the house finch invasion of eastern North America. Am Nat 148:255–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venette RC, Moon RD, Hutchison WD (2002) Strategies and statistics of sampling for rare individuals. Annu Rev Entomol 47:143–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank J. Blackwood, A. Hastings, D. Herms, D. McCullough, M. Suckling, P. Tobin and T. Yamanaka for helpful discussions. This work is the product of a National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) Working Group supported by the U.S. Forest Service Southern Threat Assessment Center and NCEAS, which is funded by the National Science Foundation (Grant DEB-0553768), the University of California–Santa Barbara, and the State of California. LB and JMK are grateful for institutional support RVO:60077344 and New Zealand’s Better Border Biosecurity program (www.b3nz.org), respectively. RGH and AML acknowledge the support of the U.S. Forest Service Northern Research Station.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biosystematics and Ecology, Institute of Entomology, Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Branišovská 31, 37005, České Budějovice, Czech Republic

    Luděk Berec

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

    John M. Kean

  3. Resources for the Future, 1616 P Street NW, Washington, DC, 20036, USA

    Rebecca Epanchin-Niell

  4. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 180 Canfield St., Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA

    Andrew M. Liebhold

  5. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 1992 Folwell Ave, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA

    Robert G. Haight

  6. Better Border Biosecurity (B3, b3nz.org), Auckland, New Zealand

    John M. Kean

Authors
  1. Luděk Berec
    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. Rebecca Epanchin-Niell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew M. Liebhold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert G. Haight
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luděk Berec.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 270 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berec, L., Kean, J.M., Epanchin-Niell, R. et al. Designing efficient surveys: spatial arrangement of sample points for detection of invasive species. Biol Invasions 17, 445–459 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0742-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0742-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation