Home   ·   FAQ   ·   User manual   ·   Publications   ·   Sponsors   ·   Target taxa   ·   Countries   ·   Bibliography   ·   Log in / register

Gerda data sheet

as .doc
this form

This page is designed to be printed and given to an expert to allow her to enter or edit the data for a particular incursion response or eradication programme.

Please email the completed form to gerdab3.net.nz

Target species:
The location within the country (left blank if the infestation is widespread)
The state, province or territory in the USA, Canada or Australia (blank if the infestation is widespread or another country)
The country name, as defined in ISO 3116
Latitude:           °N
The latitude of the epicentre of infestation, as decimal degrees north of the equator (southern hemisphere locations should have a negative value)
Longitude:           °E
The longitude of the epicentre of infestation, as decimal degrees north of the equator (western locations should have a negative value)
Climate: choose as many as applicable   · equatorial (Köppen A)   · arid (Köppen B)   · warm temperate (Köppen C)   · snow (Köppen D)   · polar (Köppen E)
The Koppen climate group(s) of the infested zone
Detection date:
The date on which the incursion was detected
Reporting date:
The date on which the detection was reported to the appropriate authorities
Detected by: choose one only   · biosecurity service provider   · scientific community   · industry   · general public
A classification of the person who made the detection, as in Froud et al. (2008) pp. 97-110 in Surveillance for Biosecurity: Pre-Border to Pest Management ISBN 978-0-473-14188-2
Detection method: choose one only   · specific diagnostic test   · targeted traps or lures   · untargeted (generalist) traps or lures   · remote sensing   · host or risk site searches   · industry/scientific vigilance   · passive surveillance (public vigilance)
The specific surveillance method by which the incursion was first detected
Detection details:

Any further information relevant to detection of this incursion
Investigating agency:
The name of the official agency charged with conducting this investigation
Introduction pathway:

The probable mode of introduction and any evidence for this
Delimitation actions:

Details of how the geographical extent of the infestation was measured
Establishment status: choose one only   · still associated with introduction pathway (e.g. imported host)   · propagules found (e.g. trapped) but no local population seen   · local population established beyond introduction pathway   · widespread and present for many generations   · unclear, as introduction pathway unknown
How well established the invading population was when discovered
Infestation size:           ha
The area occupied by the infestation, in hectares. Enter 0 if no ground population was found
Environments infested: choose as many as applicable   · industrial/commercial   · residential   · amenity (e.g. parks)   · agricultural   · protected (e.g. greenhouse)   · production forestry   · natural ecosystems
The types of environments occupied by the infestation
Hazard assessment: choose one only   · significant impacts reported from elsewhere   · potential impacts unknown, but biologically feasible   · direct impacts negligible, but has trade implications   · negligible direct impacts expected, but easily eradicable
The criterion on which the hazard posed by this taxon was judged
Deciding agency:
The name of the official agency that made the decision on how to respond to this incursion
Management decision: choose one only   · attempt eradication   · attempt containment   · pest management   · no further action
The management decision resulting from the incursion investigation
Reasons for eradication not being attempted: choose as many as applicable   · apparently not established   · already too widespread or abundant   · too cryptic, or lacking effective detection tools   · lacking effective control tools   · open pathway for re-introduction   · spread is too rapid, or inability to contain   · not cost-effective (low benefit:cost ratio)   · affected agencies unable to reach a consensus   · other (noted below)
The reasons why eradication was not attempted, if that was the case
Investigation notes:

Any other relevant information on the incursion investigation
Programme start date:
The operational start date of the eradication response
Programme end date:
The operational end date of the eradication response
Eradication date:
The date at which eradication was officially declared (if successful)
Operational agency:
The name of the official agency charged with conducting the eradication
Quarantine area:           ha
The area (in hectares) of the quarantine zone imposed around the infestation, or 0 if no movement control was imposed
Maximum area treated:           ha
The maximum extent (in hectares) of eradication treatments, excluding quarantine and surveillance
Monitoring details:

Details of how progress towards eradication was monitored
Cost:           million
The currency amount spent on the eradication programme
Cost currency:
The specific currency (ISO 4217) of the amount entered above
Cost year:
The year in which the above cost was calculated (so that the costs of eradication programmes can be compared over historical time)
Cost sharing:

Details of how costs were shared between government and industry
Outcome: choose one only   · unknown   · in progress   · confirmed eradication   · likely eradication   · declared eradicated but likely failure   · failure to eradicate
The outcome at the end of the eradication programme
Evidence for outcome:

Evidence for the outcome stated above
Reasons for failure: choose as many as applicable   · allocated budget ran out   · decline in political or social will   · disruption by climate or disturbance event(s)   · unable to detect or delimit infestations adequately   · unable to access or treat all infestations   · treatments failed to achieve adequate control   · local infestations spread more rapidly than anticipated   · re-infestation from elsewhere   · available biological information was insufficient or inadequate   · program management systems were flawed   · other
Probable reasons for the eradication failing (if it did)
Further details:

Any other relevant information
Eradication tools used:

Enter details of control tools used: · pesticide/antibiotic · biopesticide · bait spray · lure and kill · mass trapping · mating disruption · sterile insect technique · host removal/destruction · removal by hand · quarantine/movement control · natural enemies · tissue culture and replacement · temperature therapy · other

Blank data sheet