ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2025
Objective risk assessment of bark and ambrosia beetles non-indigenous to North America.
Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Objective risk assessment of bark and ambrosia beetles non-indigenous to North America.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pest risk assessment informs regulatory decisions to facilitate safe trade while also protecting a country's agricultural and environmental resources. The first step in pest risk assessment is pest categorization which can help determine whether an in-depth examination is needed. We created a model to predict the potential impact of non-indigenous bark and ambrosia beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae). This model uses biological variables derived from extensive assessment of alien species and produces a five-point scale of impact prediction. We accommodate uncertainty and missing data using random decision tree forests with Monte Carlo simulations. Non-indigenous bark beetles include both invasive species with significant ecological impacts, such as widespread tree death, and others that pose little risk. We assembled a comprehensive list of 60 introduced non-native bark beetle species in the continental United States as the training set. Forty-two potentially predictive variables were chosen from reports on behaviors, pestilence, recorded damage/interpretations in literature, biological traits, and interactions with fungi including plant pathogens. The model builds upon strategies used by USDA-APHIS in existing risk assessments, specifically the Objective Prioritization of Exotic Pests (OPEP) model, with changes in the following: (1) a transparent dataset for building and training the model enabling future updates and use in other systems, (2) uncertainty simulations using values derived from an extensive natural history matrix rather than an assumed equal distribution, and (3) predictions made on the probability of multiple impact levels, allowing users to decide based on acceptable risk. The model is designed for pest risk analysis for Scolytinae in the continental United States but can be adapted to other pests or regions. We tested the model's performance by iteratively removing each species from the training set and retraining the model. The retrained models accurately predicted the removed species. To demonstrate the model's application, we predicted the impact of scolytine beetles not yet present in the continental United States, Xylosandrus morigerus and Hypoborus ficus, plus an additional hypothetical species with no known data. Our model predicts that these species are likely to have moderate impacts and unlikely to have high impacts if they were introduced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.