Journal of Pest Science

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 13–27 | Cite as

Common pathways by which non-native forest insects move internationally and domestically

  • Nicolas MeurisseEmail author
  • Davide Rassati
  • Brett P. Hurley
  • Eckehard G. Brockerhoff
  • Robert A. Haack


International trade and movement of people are largely responsible for increasing numbers of non-native insect introductions to new environments. For forest insects, trade in live plants and transport of wood packaging material (WPM) are considered the most important pathways facilitating long-distance invasions. These two pathways as well as trade in firewood, logs, and processed wood are commonly associated with insect infestations, while “hitchhiking” insects can be moved on cargo, in the conveyances used for transport (e.g., containers, ships), or associated with international movement of passengers and mail. Once established in a new country, insects can spread domestically through all of the above pathways. Considerable national and international efforts have been made in recent years to reduce the risk of international movement of plant pests. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) No. 15 (WPM), 36 (plants for planting), and 39 (wood) are examples of phytosanitary standards that have been adopted by the International Plant Protection Convention to reduce risks of invasions of forest pests. The implementation of ISPMs by exporting countries is expected to reduce the arrival rate and establishments of new forest pests. However, many challenges remain to reduce pest transportation through international trade, given the ever-increasing volume of traded goods, variations in quarantine procedures between countries, and rapid changes in distribution networks. It is therefore likely that many more human-assisted invasions of forest insects will take place. New geographic expansions by natural modes are also made possible due to changes in host distribution and/or climate.


Biological invasions Global change Globalization Invasion pathways ISPM Phytosanitary policy 



This review is a component of the Special issue on “Invasive insect pests of forests and urban trees: pathways, early detection and management.” We thank Lindsay Bulman (Scion), Mike Ormsby (New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, NZMPI) and Therese Poland (USDA Forest Service) for comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and Catherine Duthie (NZMPI) for personal communications.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

NM, DR, BPH, EGB, and RAH declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10340_2018_990_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 37 kb)


  1. Allen EA, Humble LM (2002) Non-indigenous species introductions: a threat to Canada’s forests and forest economy. Can J Plant Pathol 24:103–110Google Scholar
  2. Allen E, Noseworthy M, Ormsby M (2017) Phytosanitary measures to reduce the movement of forest pests with the international trade of wood products. Biol Invasions 19:3365–3376Google Scholar
  3. Anderson LG, Rocliffe S, Haddaway NR, Dunn AM (2015) The role of tourism and recreation in the spread of non-native species: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10:e0140833Google Scholar
  4. Areal FJ, Touza J, MacLeod A et al (2008) Integrating drivers influencing the detection of plant pests carried in the international cut flower trade. J Environ Manage 89:300–307Google Scholar
  5. Ashcroft TT, Nendick D, O’Connor SM et al (2008) Managing the risk of invasive exotic ants establishing in New Zealand. In: Froud KJ, Popay AI, Zydenbos SM (eds) Surveillance for biosecurity: pre-border to pest management. The New Zealand Plant Protection Society, Hastings, pp 151–160Google Scholar
  6. Auger-Rozenberg MA, Boivin T (2016) Invasive fruit, cone and seed insects in the Mediterranean basin. In: Payne TD, Lieutier F (eds) Insects and diseases of Mediterranean forest systems. Springer, Cham, pp 239–259Google Scholar
  7. Aukema JE, McCullough DG, Holle BV et al (2010) Historical accumulation of nonindigenous forest pests in the continental United States. Bioscience 60:886–897Google Scholar
  8. Bain J (1977) Overseas wood-and bark-boring insects intercepted at New Zealand ports. New Zealand Forest Service, Technical Paper 63. RotoruaGoogle Scholar
  9. Battisti A, Stastny M, Buffo E, Larsson S (2006) A rapid altitudinal range expansion in the pine processionary moth produced by the 2003 climatic anomaly. Glob Change Biol 12:662–671Google Scholar
  10. Beéche-Cisternas MA (2000) Riesgos cuarentenarios de insectos asociados a embalajes de madera y maderas de estiba de cargas de internacion en Chile. In: Proceedings: International conference on quarantine pests for the forestry sector and their effects on foreign trade, 27–28 June, ConcepcionGoogle Scholar
  11. Bisschop L (2012) Out of the woods: the illegal trade in tropical timber and a European trade hub. Glob Crime 13:191–212Google Scholar
  12. Boyd IL, Freer-Smith PH, Gilligan CA, Godfray HCJ (2013) The consequence of tree pests and diseases for ecosystem services. Science 342:1235773Google Scholar
  13. Brasier CM (2008) The biosecurity threat to the UK and global environment from international trade in plants. Plant Path 57:792–808Google Scholar
  14. Brockerhoff EG, Bulman L (2014) Biosecurity risks to New Zealand’s plantation forests and the rationale for pathway risk management. NZ J For 59:3–8Google Scholar
  15. Brockerhoff EG, Liebhold AM (2017) Ecology of forest insect invasions. Biol Invasions 19:3141–3159Google Scholar
  16. Brockerhoff EG, Bain J, Kimberley MO, Knížek M (2006) Interception frequency of exotic bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and relationship with establishment in New Zealand and worldwide. Can J For Res 36:263–268Google Scholar
  17. Brockerhoff EG, Bulman LS, Liebhold AM, Monge JP (2016) Role of sea containers in unintentional movement of invasive contaminating pests (so-called “hitchhikers”), and opportunities for mitigation measures, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Accessed 11 Feb 2018
  18. Buck JH, Marshall JM (2009) Hitchhiking as a secondary dispersal pathway for adult emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis. Gt Lakes Entomol 41:197–199Google Scholar
  19. Cameron RS, Bates C, Johnson J (2008) Distribution and spread of laurel wilt disease in Georgia: 2006–08: survey and field observations. Georgia Forestry Commission. Accessed 10 Feb 2018
  20. Cappaert D, McCullough DG, Poland TM, Siegert NW (2005) Emerald ash borer in North America: a research and regulatory challenge. Am Entomol 51:152–165Google Scholar
  21. Carroll AL, Taylor SW, Régnière J (2003) Effect of climate change on range expansion by the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia. Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions, 30–31 Oct, Kelowna, pp 223–232Google Scholar
  22. Caton BP, Dobbs TT, Brodel CF (2006) Arrivals of hitchhiking insect pests on International Cargo Aircraft at Miami International Airport. Biol Invasions 8:765–785Google Scholar
  23. Ciesla WM (1992) Introduction of bark beetles and wood borers into China in coniferous logs from North America. FAO Plant Prot Bull 40:154–158Google Scholar
  24. Clarke JW, White MS, Araman PA (2001) Performance of pallet parts recovered from used wood pallets. For Prod J 51:1–8Google Scholar
  25. Close RC, Moar NT, Tomlinson AI, Lowe AD (1978) Aerial dispersal of biological material from Australia to New Zealand. Int J Biometeorol 22:1–19Google Scholar
  26. Cocquempot C (2007) Alien longhorned beetles (Coleoptera; Cerambycidae): original interceptions and introductions in Europe, mainly in France, and notes about recently imported species. Redia 89:35–50Google Scholar
  27. Cocquempot C, Lindelöw Å (2010) Longhorn beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). BioRisk 4:193–218Google Scholar
  28. Colunga-Garcia M, Haack RA, Magarey RD, Borchert DM (2013) Understanding trade pathways to target biosecurity surveillance. NeoBiota 18:103–118Google Scholar
  29. Csóka G, Stone GN, Melika G (2017) Non-native gall-inducing insects on forest trees: a global review. Biol Invasions 19:3161–3181Google Scholar
  30. Dodds KJ, Gilmore DW, Seybold SJ (2010) Assessing the threat posed by indigenous exotics: a case study of two North American bark beetle species. Ann Entomol Soc Am 103:39–49Google Scholar
  31. Donovan BJ (1980) Interactions between native and introduced bees in New Zealand. NZ J Ecol 3:104–116Google Scholar
  32. Eatough Jones M, Paine TD (2015) Effect of chipping and solarization on emergence and boring activity of a recently introduced ambrosia beetle (Euwallacea sp., Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in southern California. J Econ Entomol 108:1852–1859Google Scholar
  33. Eschen R, Grégoire JC, Hengeveld G et al (2015a) Trade patterns of the tree nursery trade in Europe and changes therein following findings of citrus longhorn beetle, Anoplophora chinensis Forster. Neobiota 26:1–20Google Scholar
  34. Eschen R, Britton K, Brockerhoff E et al (2015b) International variation in phytosanitary legislation and regulations governing importation of plants for planting. Environ Sci Pol 51:228–237Google Scholar
  35. Eschen R, Roques A, Santini A (2015c) Taxonomic dissimilarity in patterns of interception and establishment of alien arthropods, nematodes and pathogens affecting woody plants in Europe. Divers Distrib 21:36–45Google Scholar
  36. Eschen R, Douma JC, Grégoire JC et al (2017) A risk categorisation and analysis of the geographic and temporal dynamics of the European import of plants for planting. Biol Invasions 19:3243–3257Google Scholar
  37. Evans HF (2007) ISPM 15 treatments and residual bark: how much bark matters in relation to founder populations of bark and wood boring beetles. In: Evans H, Oszako T (eds) Alien invasive species and international trade. Forest Research Institute, Sêkocin Stary, pp 149–155Google Scholar
  38. Eyre D, Haack RA (2017) Invasive Cerambycid pests and biosecurity measures. In: Wang Q (ed) Cerambycidae of the world—biology and pest management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 563–607Google Scholar
  39. Eyre D, Macarthur R, Haack RA, Lu Y, Krehan H (2018) Variation in inspection efficacy by member states of wood packaging material entering the European Union. J Econ Entomol 11:707–715Google Scholar
  40. FAO (2011) Guide to implementation of phytosanitary standards in forestry. FAO Forestry Paper 164, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  41. Flø D, Krokene P, Økland B (2014) Importing deciduous wood chips from North America to northern Europe–the risk of introducing bark-and wood-boring insects. Scand J For Res 29:77–89Google Scholar
  42. Forestry Commission (2015) Importing woodchip requirements for landing regulated material into Great Britain. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  43. Fox KJ (1978) The transoceanic migration of Lepidoptera to New Zealand—a history and a hypothesis on colonisation. NZ Entomol 6:368–380Google Scholar
  44. Gadgil PD, Flint TN (1983) Assessment of the risk of introduction of exotic forest insects and diseases with imported tents. NZ J For 28:58–67Google Scholar
  45. Gadgil PD, Bulman LS, Watson RN et al (2000) Significance to New Zealand forestry of contaminants on the external surfaces of shipping containers. NZ J For Sci 30:341–358Google Scholar
  46. Garbelotto M, Gonthier P (2013) Biology, epidemiology, and control of Heterobasidion species worldwide. Annu Rev Phytopathol 51:39–59Google Scholar
  47. GISTF (2017) Pathways of introduction. Georgia Invasive Species Task Force, Georgia Department of Agriculture Plant Protection Division, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Accessed 2 Feb 2018
  48. Gray DR (2017) Risk analysis of the invasion pathway of the Asian gypsy moth: a known forest invader. Biol Invasions 19:3259–3272Google Scholar
  49. Gu J, Braasch H, Burgermeister W, Zhang J (2006) Records of Bursaphelenchus spp. intercepted in imported packaging wood at Ningbo, China. For Pathol 36:323–333Google Scholar
  50. Haack RA (2001) Intercepted Scolytidae (Coleoptera) at US ports of entry: 1985–2000. Integr Pest Manag Rev 6:253–282Google Scholar
  51. Haack RA (2006) Exotic bark- and wood-boring Coleoptera in the United States: recent establishments and interceptions. Can J For Res 36:269–288Google Scholar
  52. Haack RA (2017) Feeding biology of cerambycids. In: Wang Q (ed) Cerambycidae of the world—biology and pest management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 105–124Google Scholar
  53. Haack RA, Petrice TR (2009) Bark- and wood-borer colonization of logs and lumber after heat treatment to ISPM 15 specifications: the role of residual bark. J Econ Entomol 102:1075–1084Google Scholar
  54. Haack RA, Slansky F (1987) Nutritional ecology of wood-feeding Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, and Hymenoptera. In: Slansky F, Rodriguez JG (eds) Nutritional ecology of insects, mites, spiders, and related invertebrates. Wiley, New York, pp 449–486Google Scholar
  55. Haack RA, Hérard F, Sun JH, Turgeon JJ (2010a) Managing invasive populations of Asian longhorned beetle and citrus longhorned beetle: a worldwide perspective. Annu Rev Entomol 55:521–546Google Scholar
  56. Haack RA, Petrice TR, Wiedenhoft AC (2010b) Incidence of bark- and wood-boring insects in firewood: a survey at Michigan’s Mackinac Bridge. J Econ Entomol 103:1682–1692Google Scholar
  57. Haack RA, Britton KO, Brockerhoff EG et al (2014) Effectiveness of the international phytosanitary standard ISPM No. 15 on reducing wood borer infestation rates in wood packaging material entering the United States. PLoS ONE 9:e96611Google Scholar
  58. Haack RA, Baranchikov Y, Bauer LS, Poland TM (2015) Emerald ash borer biology and invasion history. In: Van Driesche R, Duan J, Abell K, Bauer L, Gould J (eds) Biology and control of emerald ash borer. FHTET-2014-09, USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  59. Haack RA, Keena MA, Eyre D (2017) Life history and population dynamics of cerambycids. In: Wang Q (ed) Cerambycidae of the world—biology and pest management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 71–103Google Scholar
  60. Harris AC (1988) A first record of the painted apple moth Teia anartoides (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) intercepted in New Zealand. NZ Entomol 11:68–70Google Scholar
  61. Hoare RJB (2001) Adventive species of Lepidoptera recorded for the first time in New Zealand since 1988. NZ Entomol 24:23–47Google Scholar
  62. Hoebeke ER, Carter ME (2003) Halyomorpha halys (Stǻl)(Heteroptera: Pentatomidae): a polyphagous plant pest from Asia newly detected in North America. Proc Entomol Soc Wash 105:225–237Google Scholar
  63. Hoebeke ER, Haugen DA, Haack RA (2005) Sirex noctilio: discovery of a Palearctic siricid woodwasp in New York. Newsl Mich Entomol Soc 50:24–25Google Scholar
  64. Holzapfel EP, Harrell JC (1968) Transoceanic dispersal studies of insects. Pac Insects 10:115–153Google Scholar
  65. Hopf-Biziks A, Schröder T, Schütz S (2017) Long-term survival and non-vector spread of the pinewood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, via wood chips. For Pathol 47:e12340Google Scholar
  66. Hulme PE (2009) Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J Appl Ecol 46:10–18Google Scholar
  67. Hulme PE, Bacher S, Kenis M et al (2008) Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. J Appl Ecol 45:403–414Google Scholar
  68. Humble LM, Allen EA (1999) Implications of nonindigenous introductions in forest ecosystems. Proceedings: Integrated management and dynamics of forest defoliating insects, 15–19 August, Newtown Square, pp 45–55Google Scholar
  69. Hurley BP, Garnas J, Wingfield MJ et al (2016) Increasing numbers and intercontinental spread of invasive insects on eucalypts. Biol Invasions 18:921–933Google Scholar
  70. IATA (2017) IATA Annual Review 2016. International Air Transport Association, Montreal. Accessed 16 Jan 2018
  71. ICAO (2016) Annual report of the ICAO Council: 2015—Appendices and Supplement. International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal. Accessed 15 Jan 2018
  72. IMO (2012) International shipping facts and figures information resources on trade, safety, security, environment. International Maritime Organization, London. Accessed 07 Jan 2018
  73. IPPC (2017a) Adopted Standards (ISPMs). Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  74. IPPC (2017b) Draft ISPM international movement of cut flowers and foliage (first consultation), International Plant Protection Convention Secretariat, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Accessed 11 Feb 2018
  75. ITF (2017) ITF transport outlook 2017. International Transport Forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. Accessed 10 Jan 2018
  76. Jacobi WR, Goodrich BA, Cleaver CM (2011) Firewood transport by national and state park campers: a risk for native and exotic tree pest movement. Arboric Urban For 37:126–138Google Scholar
  77. Jacobi WR, Hardin JG, Goodrich BA, Cleaver CM (2012) Retail firewood can transport live tree pests. J Econ Entomol 105:1645–1658Google Scholar
  78. Jiang W, Searle S, Siddiqui S (2017) Analysis of the global wood-chip trade’s response to renewable energy policies using a spatial price equilibrium model. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 11:505–520Google Scholar
  79. Kenis M, Hurley BP, Hajek AE, Cock MJW (2017) Classical biological control of insect pests of trees: facts and figures. Biol Invasions 19:3401–3417Google Scholar
  80. Kiesz A (2003) New exotic wood-boring pests found in U.S. Accessed 28 Jan 2018
  81. Kirkendall LR, Faccoli M (2010) Bark beetles and pinhole borers (Curculionidae, Scolytinae, Platypodinae) alien to Europe. ZooKeys 56:227–251Google Scholar
  82. Kliejunas JT, Burdsall HH Jr, DeNitto GA (2006) Pest risk assessment of the importation into the United States of unprocessed Pinus logs and chips from Australia. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-137, USDA, Forest Service, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  83. Kopinga J, Moraal LG, Verwer CC, Clerkx APPM (2010) Phytosanitary risks of wood chips. Alterra report 2059, Alterra, Wageningen, pp 88Google Scholar
  84. Kovacs KF, Mercader RJ, Haight RG et al (2011) The influence of satellite populations of emerald ash borer on projected economic costs in US communities, 2010–2020. J Environ Manage 92:2170–2181Google Scholar
  85. Kumschick S, Devenish A, Kenis M et al (2016) Intentionally introduced terrestrial invertebrates: patterns, risks, and options for management. Biol Invasions 18:1077–1088Google Scholar
  86. Lee W, Hwang JH, Lee JH, Hong KJ (2017) Interception of weevils on cut flowers from South Africa by Korea plant quarantine. J Asia Pac Biodivers 10:527–531Google Scholar
  87. Leung B, Springborn MR, Turner JA, Brockerhoff EG (2014) Pathway-level risk analysis: the net present value of an invasive species policy in the US. Front Ecol Environ 12:273–279Google Scholar
  88. Levine JM, D’Antonio CM (2003) Forecasting biological invasions with increasing international trade. Conserv Biol 17:322–326Google Scholar
  89. Liebhold AM, Work TT, McCullough DG, Cavey JF (2006) Airline baggage as a pathway for alien insect species entering the United States. Am Entomol 52:48–54Google Scholar
  90. Liebhold AM, Brockerhoff EG, Garrett LJ, Parke JL, Britton KO (2012) Live plant imports: the major pathway for forest insect and pathogen invasions of the US. Front Ecol Environ 10:135–143Google Scholar
  91. Liebhold AM, Yamanaka T, Roques A et al (2016) Global compositional variation among native and non-native regional insect assemblages emphasizes the importance of pathways. Biol Invasions 18:893–905Google Scholar
  92. Liebhold AM, Brockerhoff EG, Kalisz S et al (2017) Biological invasions in forest ecosystems. Biol Invasions 19:3437–3458Google Scholar
  93. MacLeod A, Pautasso M, Jeger MJ, Haines-Young R (2010) Evolution of the international regulation of plant pests and challenges for future plant health. Food Secur 2:49–70Google Scholar
  94. MAF (2003) Sea container review New Zealand. MAF Discussion Paper No: 35. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  95. MAF (2006) Monitoring research and pathways review: Sea containers. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  96. MAF (2009) Cost benefit analysis: Application of sea container hygiene systems in Papua New Guinea. Samoa and the Solomon Islands, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  97. Maier CT (2017) Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) accidentally introduced into Connecticut from China or from other areas in the United States. Proc Entomol Soc Wash 119:423–429Google Scholar
  98. Mayer F, Piel F, Cassel-Lundhagen A et al (2015) Comparative multilocus phylogeography of two Palaearctic spruce bark beetles: influence of contrasting ecological strategies on genetic variations. Mol Ecol 24:1292–1310Google Scholar
  99. McClure MS (1990) Role of wind, birds, deer, and humans in the dispersal of hemlock woolly adelgid (Homoptera: Adelgidae). Environ Entomol 19:36–43Google Scholar
  100. McCullough DG, Work TT, Cavey JF et al (2006) Interceptions of nonindigenous plant pests at US ports of entry and border crossings over a 17-year period. Biol Invasions 8:611–630Google Scholar
  101. McCullough DG, Poland TM, Cappaert D et al (2007) Effects of chipping, grinding, and heat on survival of emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), in chips. J Econ Entomol 100:1304–1315Google Scholar
  102. Meissner H, Lemay A, Bertone C (2009) Evaluation of pathways for exotic plant pest movement into and within the greater Caribbean Region. Caribbean Invasive Species Working Group and USDA APHIS Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Raleigh. Accessed 11 Feb 2018
  103. Migliorini D, Ghelardini L, Tondini E, Luchi N, Santini A (2015) The potential of symptomless potted plants for carrying invasive soilborne plant pathogens. Divers Distrib 21:1218–1229Google Scholar
  104. Morgan FD (1967) Ips grandicollis in South Australia. Aust For 31:137–155Google Scholar
  105. Morrison A, Sweeney J, Hughes C, Johns RC (2017) Hitching a ride: firewood as a potential pathway for range expansion of an exotic beech leaf-mining weevil, Orchestes fagi (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Can Entomol 149:129–137Google Scholar
  106. MPI (2013) Passenger Compliance Monitoring Report 2013. Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington. Accessed 12 Jan 2018
  107. MPI (2017) Ministry for Primary Industries Standard 155.02.06 Importation of Nursery Stock. Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington. Accessed 9 Feb 2018
  108. Newfield MJ (2008) Pest risk analysis for six moth species: lessons for the biosecurity system on managing hitchhiker organisms. New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  109. Nielsen J, Rees D, Styles S, Hickey L (2013) An update on Australia’s use of remote sensing to predict risk maritime pathways for gypsy moths (Lymantria spp., Lepidoptera: Erebidae)—operational results for 2011–2013. International Forest Quarantine Research Group Conference, 28 Oct–1 Nov, Qingdao, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  110. Niinemets U, Peñuelas J (2008) Gardening and urban landscaping: significant players in global change. Trends Plant Sci 13:60–65Google Scholar
  111. Ormsby M, Brenton-Rule E (2017) A review of global instruments to combat invasive alien species in forestry. Biol Invasions 19:3355–3364Google Scholar
  112. Rassati D, Lieutier F, Faccoli M (2016) Alien wood-boring beetles in Mediterranean regions. In: Payne TD, Lieutier F (eds) Insects and diseases of Mediterranean forest systems. Springer, Cham, pp 293–327Google Scholar
  113. Rassati D, Haack RA, Knížek M, Faccoli M (2018) National trade can drive range expansion of bark- and wood-boring beetles. J Econ Entomol 111:260–268Google Scholar
  114. Ridley GS, Bain J, Bulman LS, Dick MA, Kay MK (2000) Threats to New Zealand’s indigenous forests from exotic pathogens and pests. Sci Conserv 142:1–67Google Scholar
  115. Rieske LK (2007) Success of an exotic gallmaker, Dryocosmus kuriphilus, on chestnut in the USA: a historical account. EPPO Bull 37:172–174Google Scholar
  116. Roques A (2010) Alien forest insects in a warmer world and a globalised economy: impacts of changes in trade, tourism and climate on forest biosecurity. NZ J For Sci 40(Suppl):S77–S94Google Scholar
  117. Roques A, Auger-Rozenberg MA (2006) Tentative analysis of the interceptions of non-indigenous organisms in Europe during 1995–2004. EPPO Bull 36:490–496Google Scholar
  118. Saccaggi DL, Pieterse W (2013) Intercepting aliens: insects and mites on budwood imported to South Africa. J Econ Entomol 106:1179–1189Google Scholar
  119. Saccaggi DL, Karsten M, Robertson MP et al (2016) Methods and approaches for the management of arthropod border incursions. Biol Invasions 18:1057–1075Google Scholar
  120. Schaefer PW, Strothkamp KG (2014) Mass flights of Lymantria dispar japonica and Lymantria mathura (Erebidae: Lymantriinae) to commercial lighting, with notes on female viability and fecundity. J Lepid Soc 68:124–129Google Scholar
  121. Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE et al (2017) No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat Commun 8:14435Google Scholar
  122. Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE et al (2018) Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source pools. PNAS. Google Scholar
  123. Siitonen J (1990) Potential forest pest beetles conveyed to Finland on timber imported from the Soviet Union. Silva Fenn 24:315–321Google Scholar
  124. Smith RM, Baker RH, Malumphy CP et al (2007) Recent non-native invertebrate plant pest establishments in Great Britain: origins, pathways, and trends. Agric For Entomol 9:307–326Google Scholar
  125. Stanaway MA, Zalucki MP, Gillespie PS, Rodriguez CM, Maynard GV (2001) Pest risk assessment of insects in sea cargo containers. Aust J Entomol 40:180–192Google Scholar
  126. Tkacz BM (2002) Pest risks associated with importing wood to the United States. Can J Plant Pathol 24:111–116Google Scholar
  127. Todd JJ, Horwitz PHJ (1990) Spreading insects through firewood collection in Tasmania. Aust For 53:154–159Google Scholar
  128. Toy SJ, Newfield MJ (2010) The accidental introduction of invasive animals as hitchhikers through inanimate pathways: a New Zealand perspective. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics) 29:123–133Google Scholar
  129. UNCTAD (2017) Review of Maritime Transport 2016. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, New York. Accessed 16 Jan 2018
  130. USDA APHIS (2010) Risk assessment of the movement of firewood within the United States. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Raleigh. Accessed 11 Feb 2018
  131. van der Gaag DJ, Leeuwen GCM, Loomans AJM, Potting RPJ, Verhoeven JTJ (2017) Prioritizing risks for plant health in the Netherlands: a method to rank pests according to their probability of introduction. EPPO Bull 47:69–78Google Scholar
  132. Venette RC, Davis EE, DaCosta M, Heisler H, Larson M (2003) Mini-risk assessment: light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). USDA APHIS. Accessed 03 Feb 2018
  133. Westphal MI, Browne M, MacKinnon K, Noble I (2008) The link between international trade and the global distribution of invasive alien species. Biol Invasions 10:391–398Google Scholar
  134. Wingfield MJ, Brockerhoff EG, Wingfield BD, Slippers B (2015) Planted forest health: the need for a global strategy. Science 349:832–836Google Scholar
  135. Withers TM (2001) Colonization of eucalypts in New Zealand by Australian insects. Austral Ecol 26:467–476Google Scholar
  136. Wu Y, Trepanowski NF, Molongoski JJ, Reagel PF et al (2017) Identification of wood-boring beetles (Cerambycidae and Buprestidae) intercepted in trade-associated solid wood packaging material using DNA barcoding and morphology. Sci Rep 7:40316Google Scholar
  137. Yan Z, Sun J, Owen D, Zhang Z (2005) The red turpentine beetle, Dendroctonus valens LeConte (Scolytidae): an exotic invasive pest of pine in China. Biodivers Conserv 14:1735–1760Google Scholar
  138. Zlotina MA, Mastro VC, Elkinton JS, Leonard DE (1999) Dispersal tendencies of neonate larvae of Lymantria mathura and the Asian form of Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). Environ Entomol 28:240–245Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute)RotoruaNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE)University of PaduaLegnaroItaly
  3. 3.Department of Zoology and Entomology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI)University of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  4. 4.Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute)ChristchurchNew Zealand
  5. 5.EmeritusUS Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research StationLansingUSA

Personalised recommendations