BACKGROUNDRapid genetic on‐site identification methods at points of entry, such as seaports and airports, have the potential to become important tools to prevent the introduction and spread of economically harmful pest species that are unintentionally transported by the global trade of plant commodities. This paper reports the development and evaluation of a loop‐mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)‐based identification system to prevent introduction of the three most frequently encountered regulated quarantine insect species groups at Swiss borders, Bemisia tabaci, Thrips palmi and several regulated fruit flies of the genera Bactrocera and Zeugodacus.RESULTSThe LAMP primers were designed to target a fragment of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene and were generated based on publicly available DNA sequences. Laboratory evaluations analysing 282 insect specimens suspected to be quarantine organisms revealed an overall test efficiency of 99%. Additional on‐site evaluation at a point of entry using 37 specimens performed by plant health inspectors with minimal laboratory training resulted in an overall test efficiency of 95%. During both evaluation rounds, there were no false‐positives and the observed false‐negatives were attributable to human‐induced manipulation errors. To overcome the possibility of accidental introduction of pests as a result of rare false‐negative results, samples yielding negative results in the LAMP method were also subjected to DNA barcoding.CONCLUSIONOur LAMP assays reliably differentiated between the tested regulated and non‐regulated insect species within <1 h. Hence, LAMP assays represent suitable tools for rapid on‐site identification of harmful pests, which might facilitate an accelerated import control process for plant commodities. © 2018 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Implementing cost‐effective monitoring programs for wild bees remains challenging due to the high costs of sampling and specimen identification. To reduce costs, next‐generation sequencing (NGS)‐based methods have lately been suggested as alternatives to morphology‐based identifications. To provide a comprehensive presentation of the advantages and weaknesses of different NGS‐based identification methods, we assessed three of the most promising ones, namely metabarcoding, mitogenomics and NGS barcoding. Using a regular monitoring data set (723 specimens identified using morphology), we found that NGS barcoding performed best for both species presence/absence and abundance data, producing only few false positives (3.4%) and no false negatives. In contrast, the proportion of false positives and false negatives was higher using metabarcoding and mitogenomics. Although strong correlations were found between biomass and read numbers, abundance estimates significantly skewed the communities' composition in these two techniques. NGS barcoding recovered the same ecological patterns as morphology. Ecological conclusions based on metabarcoding and mitogenomics were similar to those based on morphology when using presence/absence data, but different when using abundance data. In terms of workload and cost, we show that metabarcoding and NGS barcoding can compete with morphology, but not mitogenomics which was consistently more expensive. Based on these results, we advocate that NGS barcoding is currently the seemliest NGS method for monitoring of wild bees. Furthermore, this method has the advantage of potentially linking DNA sequences with preserved voucher specimens, which enable morphological re‐examination and will thus produce verifiable records which can be fed into faunistic databases.