Globalization necessitates that we address the negative externalities of international trade and transport, including biological invasion. The US government defines invasive species to mean, “with regard to a particular ecosystem, a non-native organism whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental harm, or harm to human, animal, or plant health.” Here we address the role of early detection of and rapid response to invasive species (EDRR) in minimizing the impact of invasive species on US interests. We provide a review of EDRR’s usage as a federal policy and planning term, introduce a new conceptual framework for EDRR, and assess US federal capacities for enacting well-coordinated EDRR. Developing a national EDRR program is a worthwhile goal; our assessment nonetheless indicates that the federal government and its partners need to overcome substantial conceptual, institutional, and operational challenges that include establishing clear and consistent terminology use, strategically identifying and communicating agency functions, improving interagency budgeting, facilitating the application of emerging technologies and other resources to support EDRR, and making information relevant to EDRR preparedness and implementation more readily accessible. This paper is the first in a special issue of Biological Invasions that includes 12 complementary papers intended to inform the development and implementation of a national EDRR program.

/pdf/the-early-detection-of-and-rapid-response-edrr-to-invasive-1pqcif4uhb.pdf

The early detection of and rapid response (EDRR) to invasive species: a conceptual framework and federal capacities assessment

Biological invasions by nonnative species are a by‐product of economic activities, with the vast majority of nonnative species introduced by trade and transport of products and people. Although most introduced species are relatively innocuous, a few species ultimately cause irreversible economic and ecological impacts, such as the chestnut blight that functionally eradicated the American chestnut across eastern North America. Assessments of the economic costs and losses induced by nonnative forest pests are required for policy development and need to adequately account for all of the economic impacts induced by rare, highly damaging pests. To date, countrywide economic evaluations of forest‐invasive species have proceeded by multiplying a unit value (price) by a physical quantity (volume of forest products damaged) to arrive at aggregate estimates of economic impacts. This approach is inadequate for policy development because (1) it ignores the dynamic impacts of biological invasions on the evolution of prices, quantities, and market behavior, and (2) it fails to account for the loss in the economic value of nonmarket ecosystem services, such as landscape aesthetics, outdoor recreation, and the knowledge that healthy forest ecosystems exist. A review of the literature leads one to anticipate that the greatest economic impacts of invasive species in forests are due to the loss of nonmarket values. We proposed that new methods for evaluating aggregate economic damages from forest‐invasive species need to be developed that quantify market and nonmarket impacts at microscales that are then extended using spatially explicit models to provide aggregate estimates of impacts. Finally, policies that shift the burden of economic impacts from taxpayers and forest landowners onto parties responsible for introducing or spreading invasives, whether through the imposition of tariffs on products suspected of imposing unacceptable risks on native forest ecosystems or by requiring standards on the processing of trade products before they cross international boundaries, may be most effective at reducing their impacts.

/pdf/economic-impacts-of-invasive-species-in-forest-past-present-3291nde7jm.pdf

Economic impacts of invasive species in forest past, present, and future

Wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae) of several species cause severe cosmetic and economic injury to daughter tubers. Populations are expanding globally, due largely to the attrition of most organochlorine and organophosphate insecticides used since the 1950s. Where wireworms could once be controlled for several years with organochlorine insecticides, contemporary management strategies for wireworms are taking on more regional, species-specific and multi-tactical approaches. The requisite knowledge and expertise underlying these approaches involves taxonomy (traditional and molecular); biology and ecology (life history, behavior, distribution, habitat and host preferences, chemical ecology, phenology); surveillance (wireworm and adult sampling and risk assessment); and species-specific response(s) to a variety of integrated pest management approaches (e.g. crop rotation, cultivation, tolerant varieties, soil amendments, biological and semiochemical controls and low-risk insecticides). These topics are reviewed in this chapter, along with suggestions as to the more likely and productive avenues of research to address now and in the future.

Wireworms as Pests of Potato

The efficacy of various insecticidal seed treatments in protecting wheat, Triticum aestivum L., from wireworm damage as well as reducing wireworm (Coleoptera: Elateridae) populations was studied over 3 yr. Protection from wireworm damage was measured by postplanting stand counts, and effects on wireworm populations were measured by within-row core samples and by bait traps placed in plots the following spring. The effects of treatments on populations of larger wireworms already present at planting were distinguished from their effects on neonate wireworms produced that growing season. Neonicotinoid seed treatments (imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam) provided excellent wheat stand protection, likely through prolonged wireworm intoxication, but populations of larger and neonate wireworms were not significantly reduced in bait traps the following spring. The pyrethroid tefluthrin, applied to seed with and without a neonicotinoid insecticide (thiamethoxam), provided excellent crop protection, but populations of wireworms also were not significantly reduced. This and additional laboratory data suggest that wheat stand establishment provided by tefluthrin is due to a combination of repulsion and short term morbidity events. The phenyl pyrazole fipronil provided excellent crop protection, and populations of both larger and neonate wireworms could not be detected in plots the following spring. The previously registered organochlorine lindane, although reducing wireworm feeding, was phytotoxic in 2 of 3 yr. Next to fipronil, lindane was the most consistent seed treatment in reducing populations of larger and neonate wireworms. These studies indicate that stand and yield protection provided by contemporary wheat seed treatments cannot automatically be equated with wireworm population mortality. This is an important consideration when choosing a suitable seed treatment to replace lindane, which historically provided both stand protection and wireworm reduction, and did not have to be applied every year.

https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-economic-entomology/volume-102/issue-6/029.102.0616/Wireworm-Management-I--Stand-Protection-Versus-Wireworm-Mortality-with/10.1603/029.102.0616.pdf

Wireworm management I: stand protection versus wireworm mortality with wheat seed treatments.

Wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae) are important soil dwelling pests worldwide causing yield losses in many crops. The progressive restrictions in the matter of efficient synthetic chemicals for health and environmental care brought out the need for alternative management techniques. This paper summarizes the main potential tools that have been studied up to now and that could be applied together in integrated pest management systems and suggests guidelines for future research.

/pdf/wireworms-management-an-overview-of-the-existing-methods-5g7ql80xc2.pdf

Wireworms' Management: An Overview of the Existing Methods, with Particular Regards to Agriotes spp. (Coleoptera: Elateridae).

Shadow Surveys: How Non-Target Identifications and Citizen Outreach Enhance Exotic Pest Detection

Monsoma pulveratum (Retzius) (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae: Allantinae) is an alder-feeding sawfly native to Europe, Asia Minor, and northern Africa. Smith and Goulet (2000) reported the first records of M. pulveratum in North America from Newfoundland, Canada, where it has been present since at least 1991. The species was subsequently detected in Alaska in 2004, and has become a significant defoliator of thin-leaf alder, Alnus incana (L.) Moench ssp. tenuifolia (Nutt.) Breitung in Alaska (Kruse et al. 2010; USDA 2010). Adults of M. pulveratum and the single native congener M. inferentia are described in Smith and Goulet (2000). Kruse et al. (2010) provide larval descriptions and compare them to other introduced alderdefoliating sawflies. Larvae of M. pulveratum are notable for their habit of pupating beneath the bark of decaying wood or in branches, generally without constructing a cocoon (Pieronek 1980). Only females are known in much of its range, and no males were observed by Smith and Goulet (2000) or Kruse et al. (2010).

https://bioone.org/journals/northwest-science/volume-86/issue-4/046.086.0409/The-Distribution-of-a-Potential-New-Forest-Pest-Monsoma-pulveratum/10.3955/046.086.0409.pdf

The Distribution of a Potential New Forest Pest, Monsoma pulveratum (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae), in the Pacific Northwest States

/pdf/first-records-of-the-dogwood-borer-synanthedon-scitula-331s4wsrux.pdf

First Records of the Dogwood Borer, Synanthedon scitula (Harris)(Sesiidae), in the Pacific Northwest: A Potential Threat to Ornamental and Fruit Tree Growers

Momphidae is a primarily Holarctic gelechioid family, comprising 60 described species in six genera (Koster & Sinev 2003; Pohl et al. 2010). About 40 named species are known from the United States and Canada, although there are potentially many species yet to be described (Powell & Opler 2009). The North American fauna is represented predominantly by the genus Mompha, unique among lepidopteran genera for specializing on the family Onagraceae. Adult Mompha are small moths, with forewing lengths varying from ~2.5 to 8 mm. Larvae are typically leaf miners or stem miners, while a few species induce galls in plant stems and tips (Koster & Sinev 2003). Oenothera and Epilobium are the most common host genera in western North America (Powell & Opler 2009). Host damage varies, from little or no obvious damage to significant depredation that can reduce host plant fecundity (Doak 1992; DeWalt 2006). The host specificity displayed by some Mompha species makes them potentially valuable biological control agents for weeds (Bradley et al. 1973; Winder 2002; Culliney et al. 2003). Mompha epilobiella ([Denis & Schiffermüller] 1775) is common throughout Europe, parts of Asia Minor, and low-lying regions of Central Asia (Koster & Sinev 2003). The species is typically associated with marshes and wetlands in Europe, as is its primary host plant, Epilobium hirsutum L. Other infrequent hosts include E. montanum L., E. palustre L., Chamaenerion angustifolium (L.), and Oenothera sp. (Koster & Sinev 2003). Ivinskis (1982) records larvae of M. epilobiella from Lythrum salicaria L. (purple loosestrife) and Eupatorium cannibinum L. in the 1970s but provides no evidence of successful rearing. Early instars mine leaves and bore into flower buds, whereas later-stage larvae feed in clumps of webbed apical leaves (Koster & Sinev 2003). Mature larvae pupate between leaves, and the species overwinters in the adult stage (Koster & Sinev 2003). Epilobium hirsutum is a Eurasian introduction to North America and a widespread weed of natural and man-made wetlands in the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, as well as Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia in the Pacific Northwest. The plant is commonly associated with ballast sites and was sometimes introduced inadvertently via that pathway; in some of the earliest records from the eastern seaboard it was recorded sporadically in “waste sites” (Trelease 1891). Its spread was likely aided by its status as an ornamental plant (Stuckey 1970). At one time the species was sold in nurseries, and some Washington gardeners considered it an attractive replacement for purple loosestrife (L. Baldwin pers. comm.). The plant has been known from Washington State since the 1930s, with the earliest detections made in Klickitat County (WTU 2011). To date, E. hirsutum has been found in eleven counties in Washington. Franklin, Island, Klickitat, and Whatcom have infestations of up to 40 hectares, while the remaining counties all report infestations under four hectares (WSDOE 2010). The plant is categorized as a class B noxious weed in Washington State, and its sale and transport are prohibited (WAC 16-752-505). In Whatcom County in particular, E. hirsutum has become established in several wetlands, often cooccurring with purple loosestrife, another class B noxious weed. When established, E. hirsutum can form large, nearly monotypic stands, often replacing more diverse assemblages of native species. Mompha epilobiella was collected relatively recently in New York and Quebec (Sinev 1996). We report here the first records of M. epilobiella from the western

/pdf/mompha-epilobiella-momphidae-a-european-moth-in-the-pacific-3lorvhnwhy.pdf

Mompha epilobiella (Momphidae), a European moth in the Pacific Northwest, with notes on associated parasitoids.

Pyrrhalta viburni (Paykull, 1799) and Lilioceris lilii (Scopoli, 1763) are two adventive beetle species that have quickly expanded their ranges in North America during the past several decades. Both species are significant garden pests with potentially serious impacts on native flora. This note documents the recent appearance and rapid spread of these beetles in Washington State. Pyrrhalta viburni, the viburnum leaf beetle, feeds and reproduces on species of Viburnum L. (Adoxaceae) (Weston and Desurmont 2002; Weston et al. 2007). It is native to Europe, from the British Isles to the Caucasus Mountains and western Kazakhstan (Majka and LeSage 2007). The earliest known North American collections of P. viburni are from Nova Scotia in 1924, although it is not clear if these were from established populations (Majka and LeSage 2007). The species was clearly established by the 1970s in Ottawa, Ontario, and Hull, Québec (Becker 1979). The first US records are from Maine in 1994, and the species is now found throughout New England and east to Illinois and Wisconsin (Weston et al. 2007; Estes 2014; Liesch 2015). Pyrrhalta viburni was first reported in the Pacific Northwest in British Columbia in 2001, in the Fraser River Valley and on southern Vancouver Island (Gillespie 2001). Damaged plants and P. viburni larvae from Everson, WA (7 km south of the British Columbia border) were brought to a Whatcom County Master Gardener clinic on 30 June 2004 (Murray 2004). Further reports of P. viburni were verified in Mount Vernon, Skagit County, 6 June 2005 and in Monroe, Snohomish County, 15 May 2005. The southernmost collections thus far in Washington are from east of the Seattle area, collected in 2013. The easternmost collection was made in Spokane, Spokane County, on 2 May 2016. Pyrrhalta viburni has probably spread into western Washington naturally from British Columbia, and it is common throughout its distribution west of the Cascade Mountain Range (Fig. 1). The recent detection in eastern Washington State is likely from the movement of infested plant material. Lilioceris lilii, the lily leaf beetle, is a destructive pest of species of Lilium L. (Liliaceae)and Fritillaria Salisb. (Fritillariaceae) (Salisbury 2003) and feeds on species of Cardiocrinum (Endl.) Lindl. (Liliaceae) (Cox 2001). Native to Asia, the beetle spread to continental Europe by the 1600s (OrlovaBienkowskaja 2013) and was established in the United Kingdom in the 1940s (Fox Wilson 1943). Lilioceris lilii was discovered in North America in Montréal, Canada, in 1943 (LeSage 1983), although Say’s (1826) lost specimens of Lema melanocephala Say, subsequently synonymized with L. lilii, likely represent an even earlier North American occurrence (Brown 1946; White 1993; Majka and LeSage 2008). The first US records are from Massachusetts in 1992, and it is now known from nine states and seven provinces (LeSage and Elliott 2003; Majka and LeSage 2008; Majka and Kirby 2011; Maier 2012; Hicks and Sellars 2014; Cappuccino 2015). In 2011, a gardener in Bellevue, WA (King County) discovered L. lilii adults and larvae feeding on Asiatic hybrid lilies. Washington State University Extension released a pest alert (Murray et al. 2012), resulting in detection of three more

https://bioone.org/journals/The-Coleopterists-Bulletin/volume-70/issue-2/0010-065X-70.2.368/Distribution-of-Two-Invasive-Leaf-Beetles-Pyrrhalta-viburni-Paykull-and/10.1649/0010-065X-70.2.368.pdf

Distribution of Two Invasive Leaf Beetles, Pyrrhalta viburni (Paykull) and Lilioceris lilii (Scopoli) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), in Washington State

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Eric LaGasa

Author Tools

Chat about Author