A decision‐support scheme for mapping endangered areas in pest risk analysis*

Baker, Richard; Benninga, J.; Bremmer, J.; Brunel, Sarah; Dupin, Maxime; Eyre, Dominic; Ilieva, Zhenya; Jaros̆ı́k, Vojtĕch; Kehlenbeck, Hella; Kriticos, Darren J.; Makowski, David; Pergl, Jan; Reynaud, Philippe; Robinet, Christelle; Soliman, Tarek; Werf, Wopke Van der; Worner, Susan P.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2338.2012.02545.x

Cited by 30 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Baker et al (2012) identified Natura 2000 wetland sites in Spain and Portugal that were climatically suitable for Eichhornia crassipes. Although the use of spatial land use data in environmental analysis have limitations (Perennou et al, 2012), CORINE Land Cover Class maps (Bossard et al, 2000) could also be used to help identify and quantify the areas of wetland at risk in the EU.…”

Section: Spatial Distribution Of the Potential Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the environmental risk assessment of the apple snail for the EU

2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At EFSA's request, the Plant Health Panel (PLH) performed an environmental risk assessment (ERA) of the apple snail for the EU and validated the ERA approach presented in the PLH ERA guidance document. Improvements and suggestions for simplification of the ERA are provided. One service-providing unit-shallow fresh water areas-was identified for this ERA. The effects of resistance, resilience and management on snail population dynamics in the short (5 years) and the long term (30 years) were estimated. In line with the PLH ERA guidance rating system, expert judgement was used to evaluate separately the impacts on (i) ecosystem traits, (ii) ecosystem services and (iii) biodiversity components. Snail biomass values were predicted to be higher in the short term than in the long term. For ecosystem services, moderate risk was estimated for genetic resources, climate regulation, pest and disease regulation and pollination in both the short and long term; for food, risk was assessed as moderate in the short term and major in the long term; for water and erosion regulation, risk was assessed as major both in the short term and in the long term; for fresh water, risk was assessed as massive both in the short term and in the long term; and for nutrient cycling and photosynthesis and primary production of macrophytes, risk was assessed as massive in the short term and as major in the long term. For biodiversity components, risk for genetic diversity and native species diversity was estimated as major in both the short and the long term; risk for native habitats was assessed massive in the short term and major in the long term; and for threatened species and habitats of high conservation value, risk was determined as massive in both the short and the long term. In this scientific opinion, when the Panel refers to the apple snail, it refers specifically to Pomacea maculata and to P. canaliculata. As these species are closely related, their population dynamics pattern and potential impacts are assumed by the Panel to be similar.In this document, the Panel presents the ERA of the apple snail for the EU territory, including an analysis and evaluation of the risk assessment methodology applied to the apple snail. In EFSA PLH Panel (2013), the Panel reviewed the current state of the art of the biology and ecology of the apple snail and used a population dynamics model to assess its establishment in terms of density distribution in Europe. The Panel used these results as a starting point for performing the ERA. Conclusions concerning the methodological approach and its simplificationThe PLH ERA guidance includes a detailed procedure with different consecutive steps to assess the impacts of plant pests on ecosystem traits, ecosystem services and biodiversity components. In the current opinion, when performing the assessment, the complete PLH ERA approach was tested to evaluate the different steps described in the ERA guidance. Some aspects of the guidance were modified to improve it, and suggestions were made to simplify th...

show abstract

Section: Spatial Distribution Of the Potential Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the environmental risk assessment of the apple snail for the EU

2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…org/). Questions and guidance related to mapping the area at highest risk and the endangered area have been included in the EPPO DSS as outlined by Eyre et al (2012) and Baker et al (2012a).…”

Section: The Decision-support Scheme For Climatic Suitability Risk Mamentioning

confidence: 99%

Interface between pest risk science and policy: the EPPO perspective

Brunel¹,

Suffert²,

Petter³

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO) is an intergovernmental organization responsible for cooperation in plant protection in the European and Mediterranean region. It provides global distribution maps of pests, and intends to identify the areas at risk from new and emerging pests, in the framework of Pest Risk Analyses. EPPO has developed a decision-support scheme for Pest Risk Analysis (DSS) and a computer program (CAPRA) to assist pest risk analysts in running the decisionsupport scheme. Dedicated rating guidance and a Climatic Suitability Risk Mapping Decision-Support Scheme have recently been developed to guide assessors in identifying the potential area of establishment of a pest. All these tools have been developed taking into account both pest risk science available and needs of policy makers. The use of these tools and of mapping software are undertaken within the framework of EPPO Pest Risk Analyses, as illustrated through the examples of Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Lepidoptera) and Apriona germari (Coleoptera).

show abstract

“…The PRATIQUE DSS described by Baker et al (2012) focuses on identifying the area of potential establishment and the area at highest risk rather than endangered areas. This is because a map of the endangered area should show only where economically important loss is predicted to occur and this is very difficult given the uncertainty surrounding all pest invasions together with the need to predict pest population densities and relate these to poorly defined economic injury levels (Pedigo et al 1986) while taking into account the effectiveness of pest management practices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the areas at highest risk from economic, environmental or social impacts can be mapped without modelling population densities in relation to economic thresholds it is therefore more practical to follow this approach not only to provide evidence supporting the PRA but also to help target actions following outbreaks and to design effective surveillance programmes and contingency plans. Methods for combining maps of climatic suitability, host distribution, and host value with a simple mapping program (ABARES 2012) are summarised by Baker et al (2012). The DSS has an introduction and four further stages, see Table 2.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As required, stage 4, provides techniques for producing a dynamic picture of the invasion process using a suite of spread models. Baker et al (2012) illustrate the functioning of the DSS with two pests: the maize insect pest, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera, and the aquatic invasive alien plant, Eichhornia crassipes. For both these species, extensive information and maps are available on, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Matching methods to produce maps for pest risk analysis to resources

Baker¹,

Eyre²,

Brunel³

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Baker RHA, Eyre D, Brunel S (2013) Matching methods to produce maps for pest risk analysis to resources. In: Kriticos DJ, Venette RC (Eds) Advancing risk assessment models to address climate change, economics and uncertainty. AbstractDecision support systems (DSSs) for pest risk mapping are invaluable for guiding pest risk analysts seeking to add maps to pest risk analyses (PRAs). Maps can help identify the area of potential establishment, the area at highest risk and the endangered area for alien plant pests. However, the production of detailed pest risk maps may require considerable time and resources and it is important to match the methods employed to the priority, time and detail required. In this paper, we apply PRATIQUE DSSs to Phytophthora austrocedrae, a pathogen of the Cupressaceae, Thaumetopoea pityocampa, the pine processionary moth, Drosophila suzukii, spotted wing Drosophila, and Thaumatotibia leucotreta, the false codling moth. We demonstrate that complex pest risk maps are not always a high priority and suggest that simple methods may be used to determine the geographic variation in relative risks posed by invasive alien species within an area of concern.

show abstract

A decision‐support scheme for mapping endangered areas in pest risk analysis*

Cited by 30 publications

References 16 publications

Scientific Opinion on the environmental risk assessment of the apple snail for the EU

Scientific Opinion on the environmental risk assessment of the apple snail for the EU

Interface between pest risk science and policy: the EPPO perspective

Matching methods to produce maps for pest risk analysis to resources

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About