The value of volunteer surveillance for the early detection of biological invaders.

Abstract

Early detection of invaders requires finding small numbers of individuals across large landscapes. It has been argued that the only feasible way to achieve the sampling effort needed for early detection of an invader is to involve volunteer groups (citizen scientists, passive surveyors, etc.). A key concern is that volunteers may have a considerable false-positive and false-negative rate. The question then becomes whether verification of a report from a volunteer is worth the effort. This question is the topic of this paper. We show that the maximum plausible incidence when the expert samples on its own, [Formula], and the maximum plausible incidence when the expert only verifies cases reported by the volunteer surveyor to be infected, [Formula], are related as O_FD O_INLINEFIG[Formula 1]C_INLINEFIGM_FD(1)C_FD Where {theta}fp and {theta}fn are the false positive and false negative rate of the volunteer surveyor, respectively. We also show that the optimal monitoring programme consists of verifying only the cases reported by the volunteer surveyor if O_FD O_INLINEFIG[Formula 2]C_INLINEFIGM_FD(2)C_FD Where TN is the cost of a sample taken by the expert and TX is the cost of an expert verifying a case reported by a volunteer surveyor.