Instituting a national early detection and rapid response program: needs for building federal risk screening capacity

Abstract

The invasive species issue is inherently a matter of risk; what is the risk that an invasive species will adversely impact valued assets? The early detection of and rapid response to invasive species (EDRR) requires that an assessment of risk is conducted as rapidly as possible. We define risk screening as rapid characterization of the types and degree of risks posed by a population of non-native species in a particular spatio-temporal context. Risk screening is used to evaluate the degree to which various response measures are warranted and justifiable. In this paper, we evaluate the US government's risk screening programs with a view towards advancing national EDRR capacity. Our survey-based findings, consistent with prior analyses, indicate that risk evaluation by federal agencies has largely been a reactive, ad hoc process, and there is a need to improve information sharing, risk evaluation tools, and staff capacity for risk screening. We provide an overview of the US Department of Agriculture's Tiered Weed Risk Evaluation and US Fish and Wildlife Service's Ecological Risk Screening Summaries, two relatively new approaches to invasive species risk screening that hold promise as the basis for future work. We emphasize the need for a clearinghouse of risk evaluation protocols, tools, completed assessments and associated information; development of performance metrics and standardized protocols for risk screening; as well as support for complementary, science-based tools to facilitate and validate risk screening. Keywords Early detection and rapid response (EDRR) Á Invasive species Á Non-native species Á Risk analysis Á Risk assessment Á Risk screening Á Target analysis

Seeds attached to refrigerated shipping containers represent a substantial risk of nonnative plant species introduction and establishment

“…In the face of poorly resourced capacity for inspection and the potential of diminishing fiscal resources and human capital, consequences include acceleration of biodiversity loss, economic and environmental impacts, and on-going biotic homogenization. The interception efforts to prevent the entry of nonnative propagules of all nonnative taxa worldwide will ultimately conserve local endemism, biodiversity, economic output, and ecosystem services that are interrupted or extirpated by biological invasions 1,3 . This research aimed to identify key risks and highlights the need for improved strategies for efficacious prevention and interception of nonnative, particularly plant, propagules prior to establishment, though such prevention approaches can be designed and applied for many taxa.…”

Envisioning a national invasive species information framework

“…A wide range of informatics tools are needed to support a national EDRR program. These include specialized data search tools for distinguishing what is invasive in what context and with what consequences (ideally, distinguishing invasive from simply non-native at the ecosystem level); mapping tools for illustrating species occurrence information, ideally in association with relevant ecological, geographic, and jurisdictional information (Wallace et al 2016); apps for assisting in species identification (Graham et al 2011;Lyal and Miller 2019, this issue;Martinez et al (2019), this issue); and decision support tools for (a) standardized risk analyses (Meyers et al 2019, this issue), (b) horizon scanning and other relevant spatio-temporal modeling (Sutherland and Woodruff 2009;Morisette et al 2019, this issue), and (c) evaluation of the effectiveness, costs, and risks of various response measures in particular contexts (Ridgway et al 1999). To successfully foster these analytical tools, broad partnerships are needed, such as the new Invader Detectives initiative (Frey 2018) being piloted by the Capital Area Partnership for Regional Invasive Species Management (PRISM; https://www.inaturalist.org/guides/ 5799, Accessed 26 November 2018) and the Wild Spotter campaign that promotes invasive species reporting and response in natural areas in the United States (https://wildspotter.org, Accessed 27 November 2018).…”

“…(b) Ability to handle increasingly large data sets (i.e., big data); (c) Inclusion of data (ideally, authoritatively verified) on non-native species occurrence within the US according to species, point locality, and date of observation; (d) Ability to distribute alerts of non-species occurrence (ideally, authoritatively verified) to those responsible for response needs assessment; (e) Ability to notify data users when data corrections are made; (f) Inclusion or link to data on the biological characteristics, documented impacts, and response measures for the non-native species globally; (g) Capacity for data to be readily transferred into high-performance analytical and decision support tools that, at a minimum, enable target analyses (Morisette et al 2019, this issue), risk screening (Meyers et al 2019, this issue), costbenefit analyses of potential response measures and response prioritization (feasibility screening), and response planning; and. (h) Cataloging of information products (ideally, standardized) resulting from data analyses mentioned in points c-f (i.e., an open-access information product clearinghouse), including public-friendly species identification guides and watch lists (Reaser et al 2019b, this issue).…”

Right place. Right time. Right tool: guidance for using target analysis to increase the likelihood of invasive species detection

“…Improvements in collection of and access to nonnative species occurrence data (Reaser et al 2019c), 2. Increasing our knowledge of species biology and ecology (Reaser et al 2019b;Meyers et al 2019), 3. Advances in invasive species detection technologies and data on their efficacy (Martinez et al 2019;Kamenova et al 2017;Lodge et al 2006), 4.…”

“…Advances in invasive species detection technologies and data on their efficacy (Martinez et al 2019;Kamenova et al 2017;Lodge et al 2006), 4. Standardization and expansion of other decision support tools, such as risk screening (Meyers et al 2019), horizon scanning for strategic planning (Roy et al 2015;Sutherland and Woodroof 2009), and dashboards for operational reporting [e.g., from business (Eckerson 2010) or human health contexts (Kunjan et al 2018)] and 5. Increased awareness, communication, and coordination across agencies and with other monitoring programs [e.g., citizen science (Kamenova et al 2017;Tulloch et al 2013;Roy et al 2012)].…”