phytodoer@aol.com

National Park Service Experts Urge Improvements to Invasive Species Efforts

cats – reported to be the most widespread invasive animal in National parks

In two recent evaluations and resulting reports, National Park Service experts admit the agency has fallen short on managing the invasive species threat and suggest ways to improve. One report – that on invasive animals (see below) identifies the principal problem to be lack of support for invasive species programs from NPS leadership.

They’re not alone: I have previously criticized the NPS here and here

Invasive Animals

The bolder of the two reports addresses invasive animals – “Invasive Animals in U.S. National Parks – By a Science Panel” https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/594922 commissioned by the NPS Chief of Biological Resources Division. The report was released in December 2017.

The report is blunt – which I welcome.

Key Message

The NPS’ mission of preserving America’s natural and cultural resources unimpaired for future generations is “under a deep and immediate threat as a consequence of invasive animal species, yet the National Park Service does not have a comprehensive understanding of the costs and impacts of invasive animals or a coordinated strategy for their management.” The result: “The consequence is a general record of failure to control invasive species across the system.”

The report says there are opportunities for the NPS to take a lead in addressing the threat – including to help counter invasive species denialism. It suggests ways to provide the needed capacity and to change the agency culture that hampers efforts to realize this ambition.

Current Picture

More than half of all National Park units reporting to the report’s authors (245 out of 326 parks) reported the presence of invasive animals – ranging from freshwater mussels to feral cats. In the process of compiling the report, the authors received reports of 1,409 invasive animal populations – comprising 331 species — probably an underestimate. Only a small percentage can be considered under some form of management. The most widely reported species:

Domestic cat 69 parks

Common starling 66 parks

Common pigeon 47 parks

House sparrow 40 parks

Red imported fire ant 40 parks

Feral hog 39 parks

Rainbow trout 36 parks (often introduced deliberately)

The report mentions several tree-killing insects or pathogens among the damaging animal invaders in National parks: emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, and rapid ohia death (a pathogen). (Background on all three is here.)

This new report acknowledges management efforts. They reviewed 80 NPS projects in the pipeline from 2000 through 2023. Most projects target a limited number of species: feral hogs, cats, and horses/burros; fire ants; hemlock woolly adelgid; and emerald ash borer.

EAB-killed ash tree in Shenandoah NP (F.T. Campbell)

Eradication has reportedly been attempted for 21 invasive animal populations; 17 of those populations remained under some control efforts (e.g., monitoring to detect any re-invasion) in 2016. Nine of the eradicated populations were in the Pacific West region – especially Channel Islands National Park. Another eight were in the Southeast. Three other regions — Intermountain, Northeast, and National Capital regions — each reported one invasive animal population eradicated and under control. Another 150 invasive animal populations were reportedly “controlled”.

What’s the Problem?

The report’s authors note numerous (and well-known) difficulties in managing invasive animals. These include difficulty detecting invaders at early stages of invasion; paucity of effective management tools; and social constraints such as perceived benefits associated with some (e.g., trout and other sport fishes) and ethical and humane objections to killing vertebrates.

However, the report identifies the principal problem to be lack of support for invasive species programs from NPS leadership. Constraints that hamper park managers’ efforts within the agency include Service-wide coordination, lack of capacity, park culture, “social license” (i.e., public approval), and cross-boundary coordination.

The authors suggest that to correct these deficiencies, the Service should formally acknowledge that invasive animals represent a crisis on par with each of the three major crises that drove Service-wide change in the past:

1) over-abundance of ungulates due to predator control (leading to the “Leopold Report” in the 1960s);

2) Yellowstone fire crisis (which led to new wildfire awareness in the country); and

3) recognition of the importance of climate change (which resulted in the report “Leopold Revisited: Resource Stewardship in the National Parks”).

To achieve true success in such a major undertaking, all levels of NPS management must be engaged. Further NPS’ current culture and capacity must be changed. The report suggests providing incentives for (1) efforts to address long-term threats (not just “urgent” ones) and (2) putting time and effort into coordinating with potential partners, including other park units, agencies at all levels of government, non-governmental organizations, private landowners, and economic entities.

An additional step to realizing a comprehensive invasive animal program would be to integrate invasive animal threats and management into long-range planning goals for natural and cultural landscapes and day-to-day operations of parks and relevant technical programs (e.g., Biological Resources Division, Water Resources Division, and Inventory and Monitoring Division).

The report notes the need for increased funding. Such funding would need a flexible timeline (unlike existing Service-wide funding for more general purposes), allowing parks to be responsive to time-sensitive management issues. It would also have to be available consistently over the long term – since eradication can take a long time. Several approaches are proposed, including incorporating some invasive species control programs (e.g., weeds, wood borers) into infrastructure maintenance budgets; adopting invasive species as fundraising challenges for “Friends of Park” and the National Park Foundation; and adopting invasive species as a priority threat.

The authors would like NPS to become a leader on the invasive species issue – specifically by testing emerging best management practices and by better educating visitors on the ecological values of parks and the serious threat that invasive species pose to the their biodiversity. The authors suggest that the NPS also take the lead in countering invasive species denialism.

While officially-approved deliberate introductions of non-native species are probably unlikely to continue, the report expects that the numbers of invasive animals and species in national parks will increase due to continuing spread of invaders from neighboring areas. Therefore, NPS’ current piecemeal approach needs to be replaced with a much stronger, strategic approach in which parks engage in collaboration with conservation partners on adjacent lands or waters and across the greater landscape.

Invasive Plants

The NPS launched a coordinated effort targetting invasive plants years ago — in 2000. The most obvious component of which was the Exotic Plant Management Teams (EPMTs). The broader program was officially named the Invasive Plant Program (IPP) only in 2014. The IPP provides leadership to individual parks, regions, and the park system on invasive plant management, restoration, and landscape level protection. The IPP released its strategic plan in December 2016. (Ok! More than a year ago. I am tardy.)

Despite the large size of the program – 15 EMPTs across the country – and the clear and recognized threat that invasive plants pose to NPS values, I got the impression that the program struggles to gain support from the Service. In that way, the situation is similar to the challenges to efforts on animal invasives described above.

removing Miconia to protect Haleakala National Park

The Strategic Plan identifies goals and actions to optimize the program’s effectiveness, while increasing program and park capacity and leveraging human and fiscal resources with state, federal, and private entities.

The plan articulates a mission, a vision, five broad goals, and actions for the next 10 years. It’s intended to guide annual planning and major projects, as well as to identify and help prioritize funding needs and initiatives.

The overall vision is for the Invasive Plant Program to guide park service efforts to enhance landscape level stewardship of resources by applying “technically sound, holistic, collaborative, adaptive, and innovative approaches.” The hope is that other NPS units will increasingly rely on the IPP’s expertise in implementing their programs and building partnerships.

The strategic plan lays out five broad goals, each supplemented by a list of detailed activities. Priority actions have been identified for the first 5 years (2017-2021) with the expectation that actions will be re-prioritized during annual reviews. These five goals are:

Develop program standards

Clarify and standardize administrative and operational roles and tasks. Improve data management and train colleagues in those standards. Incorporate science-informed procedures to support park management of invasive plants.

Interestingly, the Plan calls for IPP staff to quantify the invasive plant threat and effort needed to manage it and then to communicate the gap between effort needed and resources available to decision makers.

2. Promote the Invasive Plant Program by highlighting the services it provides and the significance of the invasive plant issue both internally and with stakeholders. Assure that IPP efforts parallel those in the Department of Interior Action Plan for invasive species.

Build capacity of individual parks and the Service to prevent the arrival of invasive plants and manage infestations that are already present

Enhance resource and information sharing and field-based training. Find ways to encourage parks to continue managing the invaders after the EMPT completes the initial eradication. Also find ways to increase the EPMT Program’s efficiency. Possibly develop an NPS pesticide applicators’ certification course (the Bureau of Land Management and Department of Defense already have one).

Increase partnerships to deal with actions that are outside parks’ control. Specifically, participate in regional and state invasive plant councils, and collaborate with a full range of external partners to identify successful techniques, conduct control and restoration campaigns, improve and implement efficient plant management across park boundaries, and recruit and manage youth and volunteers.

Promote holistic and integrated invasive plant management

Work with other NPS programs and parks (across all divisions) to establish resource stewardship and landscape preservation / restoration goals. Integrate integrated pest management strategies in management actions. Continue close collaboration with Climate Change Response Program (if it still exists!). Identify research needs and get the research done.

Collaborate on invasive plant management

Foster and encourage internal and external collaboration and coordination to leverage available resources, expertise, and knowledge.

Identify parks, NPS programs, partner agencies, organizations, and related initiatives with similar objectives to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Coordinate with NPS monitoring programs (although the invasive animal study authors thought the monitoring program is not structured to serve invasive species needs). Partner with BLM and US Fish and Wildlife Service and non-federal partners to cooperatively manage invasive plants on the landscape. Coordinate compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act.

Each IPP unit is expected to develop an annual work plan that aligns with an annual financial plan. Priorities will be reviewed annually. Each IPP unit will also submit an annual accomplishment report. IPP might develop a tracking system to be applied to each assigned action.

Plus the IPP strategic plan will be reviewed annually and actions will be re-prioritized as needed. The annual status reports will be made available to stakeholders and partners on the Web.

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

Restoring Devastated Tree Species: Let’s Get Behind H.R. 5519

Port-Orford cedar resistance trials

USFS Dorena Genetic Resource Center

In January I wrote about possible changes to the 2018 Farm Bill aimed at restoring tree species devastated by non-native insects and diseases. (Earlier, in July 2017, I had blogged about these and other proposed amendments to the Farm Bill. Here’s an update.

The House Committee on Agriculture has completed action on its version of the Farm Bill; it now awaits action by the full House. The House bill (H.R. 2) does not contain any of the proposals put forward by the Center for Invasive Species Prevention to improve both “rapid response” to introduced forest pests or long-term efforts to restore species devastated by such pests. It does contain very controversial provisions weakening the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Protection Act, and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. The bill also makes major changes to the food stamp program. Most political analysists do not think the bill will become law in its current form.

We do not yet know what provisions will be in the Senate’s version of the Farm Bill. I am still hopeful that our proposals might be included in some form.

Rep. Peter Welch

Meanwhile, Representative Peter Welch from Vermont has introduced a separate House bill: H.R. 5519. It would amend the Plant Protection Act in order to increase funding for both APHIS-led programs to eradicate or contain invasive species and for competitive grants to research specific questions related to the recovery of pest-decimated native tree species.

Specifically, Mr. Welch’s Invasive Species Prevention and Forest Restoration Act would:

Strengthen the USDA Secretary’s authority to access Commodity Credit Corporation funds to supplement appropriations to counter non-native insects and pathogens and noxious weeds that threaten agricultural production (including forest resources).
Create a competitive grant program to address the critical threat to numerous tree species posed by non-native plant pests and noxious weeds. The grants would provide up to $100,000 per year, over two to five years, to support research that promotes the restoration of affected tree species, including research on—

(A) biological control of plant pests or noxious weeds;

(B) exploration of genetic manipulation of plant pests or noxious weeds;

(D) development of other strategies for restoring tree species.

These studies must be part of comprehensive forest restoration research.

The research institutions are to disseminate to the public tools and information based on the research conducted under this program.

Institutions eligible for funding under this program include:

(1) An agency of the Federal Government.

(2) A State cooperative institution.

(3) A college or university offering a baccalaureate or higher degree in the study of food, forestry, and agricultural sciences.

(4) A nonprofit entity described in § 501(c)(3) of IRS Code.

A committee of government experts would advise the Secretary of Agriculture on applying the funding criteria for the grant program. This committee would be composed of representatives of the USDA Forest Service, APHIS, and Agriculture Research Service; and State forestry agencies. This committee of experts would receive advice from a separate advisory committee composed of representatives of land-grant colleges and universities, affiliated State agriculture experiment stations, the forest products industry, recreationists, and conservation organizations.

Funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation (not subject to annual appropriations) are made available, beginning at $3 million in Fiscal Year 2019 and rising to $10 million in FY 2022.

Please ask your Representative to co-sponsor this bill. Also, ask your Senators to consider sponsoring a similar bill in the Senate (assuming that no such provisions are included in the Senate Farm Bill).

If these proposals are not included in the version of the Farm Bill that is adopted this year, there might be new opportunities to advance resistance breeding and similar programs in the future. As I noted in the March blog, a growing number of scientists and concerned stakeholders have developed proposals to expand resistance breeding programs. I hope that the several groups can coordinate their efforts and recruit supporters for a lobbying effort that will create a coordinated program to restore native trees devastated by non-native insects and diseases.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Mixed News on Pest Dangers

‘ōhi‘a tree in flower

Worsening Threats to Hawaii’s Rich – and Rare — Native Forests

As I have written in previous blogs (October 2015; October 2016), the beautiful ‘ōhi‘a lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha) tree is ecologically and culturally the most important tree n the Hawaiian Islands. ‘Ōhi‘a trees dominate approximately 80% of Hawai`i’s remaining native forest. Loss of the species could result in significant changes to the structure, composition, and, potentially, the function, of forests on a landscape level. ‘Ōhi‘a forests are home to the Islands’ one native terrestrial mammal (Hawaiian hoary bat) as well as about 100 plant species listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Also 30 species of forest birds – in particular, the unique endemic honeycreeper subfamily — depend on ‘ōhi‘a. Eighteen of 19 extant Hawaiian honeycreepers in the main Hawaiian islands, including 12 of 13 bird species listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, depend on ‘ōhi‘a for critical habitat.

Unfortunately, the threat to ‘ōhi‘a trees from three fungi appears to be rising.

“Rapid ‘ōhi‘a death” is caused by two fungi, Ceratocystis lukuohia and C. huliohia (formerly considered to be strains of Ceratocystis fimbriata). Rapid ‘ōhi‘a death has spread since 2010 to most districts of one island: Hawai`i or the “Big” Island. The total area affected is 135,000 acres. Still, most ʻōhiʻa forest on Hawai`i is still healthy, and the disease has not yet been found on any of the other islands. Scientists have begun exploring trees’ varying susceptibility and the possibility of breeding more resistant trees to be used for restoration. For more information, read the recently updated description here.

Ōhi‘a trees are also under attack by a third introduced fungus, called ‘ōhi‘a rust, guava rust, or myrtle rust. This is caused by Austropuccinia psidii (formerly named Puccinia psidii). Ōhi‘a rust has been established on all the Hawaiian islands since 2005. Until recently, it had caused little damage to ‘ōhi‘a – although it attacks several additional native plant species and has devastated the endangered endemic plant Eugenia koolauensis. This shrub can reproduce now only in nurseries where it can be treated for the fungus. In late 2017, an outbreak of the disease caused widespread defoliation and mortality of ‘ōhi‘a across hundreds of acres in at least four locations on windward portions of two islands, O‘ahu and Moloka‘i. It is not yet known whether this new damage resulted from introduction of a new, more virulent strain or from a period of unusually wet weather creating more favorable conditions for the fungus. For more information, read the recently updated description here. (Myrtle rust threatens plants in the Myrtaceae family across the Pacific; more than 450 species have been identified as hosts. Some species in Australia have been severely affected.)

laurel-wilt killed swamp bay in the Everglades

Severe Attacks on Redbay and other Laurels in the Southeast.

Since the turn of the century, redbay trees (Persea borbonia) in coastal regions of the Southeast have been dying because of laurel wilt disease. This is caused by the fungus Raffaelea lauricola, which in turn is vectored by the redbay ambrosia beetle (Xyleborus glabratus). Both the beetle and disease have spread rapidly since there were detected in 2002 near Savannah, Georgia. The disease now is found in eight states, reaching from eastern North Carolina south along most of the Florida peninsula; across the Gulf states with several locations in Alabama and Mississippi; and to isolated outbreaks in Louisiana and Texas. Already an estimated 320 million trees – nearly one-third of all redbays – have been killed. Mortality is highest where the disease first became established: Georgia (two-thirds of redbays killed), South Carolina (42% of redbays killed), and Florida (36% of redbays killed). In contrast, redbay mortality appears to be quite low in Alabama and Mississippi although mortality caused by disease might have been masked by application of fire or other silvicultural practices.

Other forest trees and shrubs in the Lauraceae family are also at risk. These include swamp bay (Persea palustris), which contribute greatly to the biological diversity of the “tree islands” scattered through the Everglades; sassafras (Sassafras albidum), which occupies a large range reaching into Michigan and southern New England; and two rare species – pondspice (Litsea aestivalis) and the federally listed pondberry (Lindera melissifolia). Northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), another shrub in the Lauraceae family, does not attract the beetle so it is unlikely to sustain disease. In the West, California bay laurel has been determined by laboratory studies to be vulnerable.

Redbay is important to wildlife and has some use in horticulture. However, most attention has focused on the threat to avocados (Persea americana); the disease was detected in commercial orchards in 2012.

Concerned about loss of this ecologically important tree, scientists have begun efforts to breed redbays that are resistant to, or tolerant of, the disease. In addition to efforts by university scientists, the newly formed consortium Forest.Health (https://forest.health/) has listed redbay as a high priority for resistance breeding. For more information, read the updated description here.

initial damage caused by Kuroshio shot hole borer in Tijuana River Valley; I lack access to photos of recovery. Photo by John Boland

Hope in southern California – possible ecological limits to shot hole borer / fungal disease

John Boland, an ecologist who has studied southern California riparian wetlands for decades, reports that willows in the Tijuana River are recovering from attack by the Kuroshio shot hole borer and the fungi it vectors. After two years, the beetle-vectored disease had infested 88% of the willows in the valley (a total of 355,510 trees). An estimated 24% of the willows had been killed (95,791 trees). Nearly all of the infested and killed trees grew in the wettest parts of the riparian forests. (Photo above illustrates damage at this stage of the invasion.)

However, 71,280 of the willow trees have resprouted. By late 2017, these resprouts had created a new forest canopy that was about 5 meters tall. (Previously, the canopy had been about 20 meters tall). The median rate of infestation of these resprouting willows was 6% in 2017, down from 97% in 2015-2016. Some insect boring holes have healed.

In contrast, willows growing in drier parts of the valley were rarely attacked initially, but are now increasingly infested. In 2017, the median infestation rate was 78%, up from 9% in 2015-16. However, few trees have been killed.

Dr. Boland believes that the severity of the initial attack reflected the vulnerability of “soft trees”. Trees growing in the wetter parts of the Tijuana River Valley are inundated by sewage from the Mexican city. As a result of this artificial fertilization, they grow quickly and their wood is less dense.

For more information about the Kuroshio and phytophagous shot hole borers and their associated fungi, read the description here.. Dr. Boland’s study has been made available to participants in the southern California emerging forest pest groups but I cannot find a publicly available source on the Web.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Spring! the good & the ugly

Virginia bluebells

It’s spring in the Mid-Atlantic!

Spring prompts many memories for me. I first committed to environmental causes 48 (!) years ago when I discovered the glories of spring in the woods owned by the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, NJ. I would rise at 5 AM or earlier to greet the sunrise in the woods. There were wonderful birds, deer, even weasels … and carpets of spring ephemerals. The floodplain was covered by spring beauties, violets of every hue, trout lilies, occasional toothwarts … for reasons no one has never been able to explain, very few bluebells (other floodplains I have visited in the Mid-Atlantic — e.g., Brandywine & Bull Run — have lots of bluebells). Within weeks, there were mayapples and some trilliums and even some pink ladyslippers.

trout lilies & spring beauty

(My studies at Princeton had nothing to do with nature or conservation … )

Yesterday I visited a floodplain near my home in Northern Virginia (Accotink Creek downstream from the dam; Fairfax County). I found those same wildflowers – but they are struggling to find space under a tsunami of invasive herbaceous plants – especially European buttercup and Leucojum. (Garlic mustard is much less common – I think volunteers might be pulling it.)

European buttercups

Leucojum

The shrub layer is dominated by multiflora rose, honeysuckles (shrub & vine), and privet .

Makes me sad … makes me mad! Let’s redouble our efforts.

What is invading your favorite bottomland hardwood forest? Send me your comments!

Faith

APHIS Nursery Stock Regulations (Q-37) – Modernization Finally Completed!

citrus longhorned beetle – entered country several times in imported bonzai plants

After about 20 years, APHIS has finalized important changes to the regulations which govern imports of living plants (what they call “plants for planting”; the regulation is sometimes called “the Quarantine 37” rule). The new regulation takes effect on April, 18, 2018.

I congratulate APHIS on this important achievement!

[Twenty years is a long time – so changes happen. When APHIS released its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in December 2004 and its proposed rule in April 2013, I was employed by The Nature Conservancy and submitted comments for that organization. I will refer to those earlier comments in this blog. However, I now represent the Center for Invasive Species Prevention, so my comments here on the final regulations reflect the position of CISP, not the Conservancy.]

APHIS’ 2004 ANPR came after years of preparation. Then, more than eight years passed until the formal proposal was published on April 25, 2013. Comments were accepted from the public until January 30, 2014. During this nine-month period, 17 entities commented, including producers’ organizations, state departments of agriculture, a foreign phytosanitary agency (The Netherlands), private citizens, and The Nature Conservancy. [You can view the ANPR and proposal, comments on these documents, and APHIS’ response here — although you need to click on “Restructuring of Regulations on the Importation of Plants for Planting” and then “Open Docket Folder” to pursue the older documents.]

In the beginning, APHIS had a few goals it hoped to achieve: to allow the agency to respond more quickly to new pest threats, to apply practices that are more effective at detecting pests than visual inspection at points of import, and to shift much of the burden of preventing pest introductions from the importer and APHIS to the exporter.

Progress has been made toward some of these goals outside this rule-making. APHIS instituted a process to temporarily prohibit importation of plants deemed to pose an identifiable risk until a pest risk assessment has been completed (the NAPPRA process). APHIS has further enhanced its ability to act quickly when a pest risk is perceived by relying increasingly on “Federal Orders”.

At the same time, APHIS participated actively in efforts by international phytosanitary professionals to adopt new “standards.” These define a new approach to ensure that plants in international trade are (nearly) pest-free. Both the North American Plant Protection Organization’s regional standard (RSPM#24) and the International Plant Protection Organization’s global standard (ISPM#36) envision a system under which countries would no longer rely primarily on inspections at ports-of-entry. Instead, they would negotiate with the supplier or exporting country to develop programs to certify that growers’ pest management programs are effective. Both standards detailed: 1) how the place of production might manage pest risk and ensure traceability of plants; 2) how the importing and exporting countries might collaborate to administer the program; 3) how audits (including site visits) would ensure the program’s efficacy; and 4) what actions various parties might take in cases of noncompliance.

It was hoped that these international standards would lead to widespread adoption of “integrated pest management programs” composed of similar requirements – similar to the impact of ISPM#15 for wood packaging. However, living plants are more complex pest vectors than the wooden boards of crates and pallets, so each country was expected to negotiate its own specific programs – something not encouraged for wood packaging.

APHIS’ decades-long effort to amend its regulations is warranted because of the high risk of non-native insects and – especially – pathogens being introduced via international trade in living plants. U.S. examples include white pine blister rust, chestnut blight, dogwood anthracnose, and sudden oak death (all described briefly here )

dogwood anthracnose

According to Liebhold et al. 2012 (full reference at end of blog), 12% of incoming plant shipments in 2009 were infested by a quarantine pest. This is an approach rate that is 100 times greater than the 0.1% rate documented for wood packaging (Haack et al. 2014). I have discussed the living plant introductory pathway and efforts up to 2014 to get it under control in my report, Fading Forests III.

Shortcomings of the Final Q 37 Rule

So – how well does this final rule meet APHIS’ objectives?

First, will it shift much of the burden of preventing new pest introductions from the importer and APHIS to the exporter, while ensuring the system’s efficacy? In my view, on behalf of CISP, it falls short.

The new rule sets up a process under which APHIS might require that some types of imported plants be produced and shipped under specified conditions intended to reduce pest risk. However, non-American entities have little incentive to protect America’s natural and agricultural resources and from invasive species. So any new process needs severe penalties for violators.

We have seen how widespread and persistent compliance failures are for wood packaging under ISPM#15. http://nivemnic.us/wood-packaging-again-11-years-after-ispm15-problems-persist/ For this reason, I (on behalf of the Conservancy) had suggested that APHIS formally adopt a specific goal of “no new introductions”. I recognized that this goal was unachievable per se, but suggested that it should stand as a challenge and be the basis for adopting stringent restrictions on plant imports. I suggested limiting plant imports to those either a) produced under integrated pest management measures systems (verified by third-party certification) or b) plants brought into facilities operating under post-entry quarantine conditions — and following other best management practices that had been developed and supervised by independent, scientifically-based bodies.

In my current view, APHIS’ regulation falls far short of either this goal of shifting burdens or setting a truly stringent requirement. In fact, APHIS has explicitly backed away from its own original goals and procedures.

The new regulation does authorize APHIS to choose to set up import programs under which the exporting country agrees to produce plants for the U.S. market under a system of integrated pest risk management measures (IPRMM) approved by APHIS. In accordance with the international standards, the programs established under this new power will address how the place of production will manage pest risk and ensure traceability of plants; how APHIS and the exporting country will administer the program; how plant brokers will ensure plants remain pest-free while in their custody; how audits will be performed to ensure program efficacy; and what actions various parties will take in cases of noncompliance.

How efficacious this new approach will be in preventing new introductions will depend on how aggressive APHIS is in both choosing the plant taxa and places of-origin to be managed under such IPRMM programs and in negotiating the specific terms of the program with the exporting country.

It is discouraging that APHIS has ratcheted down how frequently it expects to rely on the IPRMM approach. In the explanatory material accompanying the final regulation, APHIS clarifies that did not intend that IPRMM would be used for all imports of living plants. The IPRMM framework is described as only one of several means to achieve the goal of preventing introduction of quarantine pests. APHIS will choose the “least restrictive measures” needed to prevent introduction of quarantine pests. To clarify its position, APHIS changed the introductory text to indicate that IPRMM will be applied when such measures are necessary to mitigate risk – that is, “when the pest risk associated with the importation of a type of plants for planting can only be addressed through use of integrated measures.” [Emphases added]

The final rule is also discouraging in some of its specifics.

Whereas the draft regulation specified steps that places of production must take to ensure traceability of the plants they produce, in the final regulation the traceability elements specified in each IPRMM agreement will depend on the nature of the quarantine pests to be managed. Again, APHIS seeks to ensure that its requirements are not unnecessarily restrictive.
Although the international standard had specified severe penalties when a grower or broker violated the terms of the IPRMM agreement, APHIS proposed to base the regulatory responses to program failures on existing bilateral agreements with the exporting country. Despite the Conservancy’s plea that APHIS follow ISPM#36 in adopting more specific and severe penalties, APHIS has not done so. The one bright spot is that APHIS may verify the efficacy of any remedial measures imposed by the phytosanitary agency of the exporting country to correct problems at the non-compliant place of production. [Emphasis added]
APHIS is relaxing the detailed requirements for state post-entry quarantine agreements – despite the Conservancy’s concern that such agreements’ provisions could be influenced by political pressure and other nonscientific factors.

Two Improvements

I am pleased that APHIS has retained requirements applied to plant brokers, despite one commenter’s objections. Brokers handling international shipments of plants grown under an IPRMM program must both handle the plants themselves in ways that prevent infestation during shipment and maintain the integrity of documentation certifying the origin of the plants. A weakness, in my current view, is that APHIS will allow brokers to mix consignments of plants from more than one producer operating under the IPRMM program. APHIS does warn that if non-compliant (infested) plants are detected at import, all the producers whose plants were in the shipment would be subject to destruction, treatment, or re-export.

A major improvement under the new regulation is that APHIS will now operate under streamlined procedures when it wishes to amend the requirements for importing particular plants (whether a taxon, a “type”, or a country of origin). Until now, APHIS has been able to make such changes only through the cumbersome rulemaking process, Instead, APHIS will now issue a public notice, accept public comments, and then specify the new requirements through amendment of the “Plants for Planting Manual” [ https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/Manuals/ports/downloads/plants_for_planting.pdf ] APHIS estimates that such changes can be finalized four months faster under the new procedure.

A Final Caveat

Finally, APHIS needs to be able to measure what effect the new procedures have on preventing pest introductions. Such measurement depends on a statistically sound monitoring scheme. APHIS has stated in some documents that the current Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) system doesn’t serve this purpose. APHIS needs to develop a valid monitoring program.

References

Haack RA, Britton KO, Brockerhoff EG, Cavey JF, Garrett LJ, 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(5): e96611. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096611

Liebhold, A.M., E.G. Brockerhoff, L.J. Garrett, J.L. Parke, and K.O. Britton. 2012. Live Plant Imports: the Major Pathway for Forest Insect and Pathogen Invasions of the US. www.frontiersinecology.org

Posted by Faith Campbell

Action on the Threat from Phytophthoras in Restoration Plantings

In July 2016 I blogged about the risk that native plant nurseries in California might spread various Phytophthoras to natural areas through use of infected plants used in restoration plantings.

In response to this threat, the California Oak Mortality Task Force has formed a Phytophthoras in Native Habitats Work Group to protect wildlands and assist the restoration industry in adopting practices to ensure they are producing “clean” plants.

The California Native Plant society (CNPS) adopted a policy to promote propagation practices that help prevent plant diseases. CNPS also established its own Ad Hoc Committee on Phytophthoras to address the same threat.

Numerous resources, including guidelines for nursery management, restoration plantings, summaries of committee meetings, photographs, etc., are posted at this website.

As I described in the July 2016 blog, Phytophthora pathogens have been detected in nurseries in other states, including Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, and Tennessee. Doubtless nurseries in additional states also harbor damaging pathogens.

I’m not aware of action by regulatory officials, nursery owners, or conservation practitioners in these other states to evaluate and address this threat? Are you?

Posted by Faith Campbell

EU1 Genetic Lineage of Sudden Oak Death Persists in Oregon, Threatens Douglas-fir

In 2015 I blogged about Oregon’s first-ever detection of the EU1 strain of the sudden oak death pathogen – Phytophthora ramorum – in the forest. We know that P. ramorum has four genetic strains. Until this discovery, all P. ramorum infections in North American forests belonged to the NA1 strain.

In response to the 2015 detection, the Oregon Department of Forestry immediately began efforts to eradicate the EU1 infestation. This program was funded in part by the USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection program and APHIS.

Unfortunately, the EU1 strain persists – and has spread. In 2017, six of ten streams in the state found to harbor P. ramorum contained the EU1 lineage. A total of 119 trees infected by the EU1 strain grow in five separate sites. Infections on 43 additional trees are still being tested to determine their lineages. Under the Oregon eradication protocols, 371 acres of private and state-owned properties will be affected by management targetting the EU1 lineage.

This news is alarming for two reasons.

First, the EU1 lineage is more aggressive than the more common NA1 strain. For example, the EU1 lineage in Europe kills several types of conifers, including western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). In Oregon, the EU1 strain has been found to infect both Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and grand fir (Abies grandis) (LeBoldus et al. 2017). Douglas-fir is, of course, the foundation of the wood products industry in the West.

Second, the EU1 lineage is of the opposite mating type as NA1, creating the potential for sexual reproduction and increased variability in the pathogen population. (Sexual reproduction in P. ramorum can occur only when opposite mating types meet; in the absence if opposite mating types, all reproduction is clonal.)

The Oregon Department of Forestry continues eradication efforts. The program has been completed at one site; efforts at the other four known sites are a priority this year. Funding and resource constraints mean that sites infected by the more widespread NA1 strain are not likely to be treated this year. (ODF has approximately $1,375,000 available for eradication efforts in FY 2017-18.) No mention has been made of whether the USDA Forest Service or APHIS will provide assistance.

COMTF Newsletter March 2018

The EU1 pathogen probably spread to the original infected tree from a small private nursery nearby. That nursery had been reported to be infected with the EU1 lineage of P. ramorum in 2012. As I noted in my earlier blog, this infection confirms fears that contaminated nurseries can spread the pathogen into the forest.

SOURCES

California Oak Mortality Task Force newsletter [http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/news-and-events/newsletter-archive/ ] April 2015 and March 2018.

LeBoldus, J.M.; Sondreli, K.L.; Sutton, W.; Reeser, P.; Navarro, S.; Kanaskie, A.; and Grünwald, N.J. 2018. First Report of P ram Lineage EU1 Infecting Douglas-Fir and Grand Fir in OR. Plant Disease. 102(2): 455. [summarized in the California Oak Mortality Task Force Newsletter, March 2018, available here. [link]

Posted by Faith Campbell

Help Fund Priority Tree-Protection Programs

Your help is needed to prevent cuts to vitally important programs that protect America’s forests from non-native insects and pathogens.

USDA APHIS

The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for preventing introductions of new pest that threaten plants – including forest trees — and for carrying out programs to eradicate or contain those that slip through their safeguards. I have blogged often about the unacceptable level of risk that the agency accepts, which enables new pests to be introduced. For examples, search “international trade” or “invasive species policy” on this site.

To see the President’s budget proposal, download the USDA budget justification here; search for “animal and plant”]

APHIS’ most important programs to counter tree-killing pests are funded through the “tree and wood pest” and “specialty crops” accounts. The former account pays for efforts to eradicate the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB), and to slow the spread of the emerald ash borer (EAB). As part of the latter program, it also funds APHIS’ engagement in regulating movement of firewood from quarantined areas.

For several years, the “tree and wood pest” account has been funded at $54 million. This is not sufficient, but we now face worse. The Administration has proposed cutting funding for the “tree and wood pest” account by more than half (from $54 million to $25 million). This level of funding would not even maintain the ALB eradication effort!

USDA smokejumpers search for ALB

The specialty crop account funds APHIS program to prevent sudden oak death from being spread via the nursery trade. It is slated for a cut of 18.7% (from $172 million to $139 million).

The Administration has proposed cuts to other programs that also would undermine protection for forest trees:

24% cut (from $21 million to $16 million) to methods development. This is the program under which APHIS develops new techniques for detecting, monitoring, and controlling pests.
5% cut (from $27 million to $22 million) to funding for pest detection. It is counterproductive to reduce programs to detect pests, since early discovery is crucial to successful eradication.

APHIS funds work on the spotted lanternfly (in Pennsylvania) and the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers (in California) through Section 10007 of the Farm Bill. The Farm Bill sets a funding limit for each year that is not subject to annual appropriations so these programs are not at immediate risk of being defunded. Also, APHIS can request emergency funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation. In February 2018, APHIS obtained $17.5 million in such emergency funding to support enhanced eradication efforts targetting spotted lanternfly in Pennsylvania. APHIS will continue to rely on Section 10007 funds to address this pest in other states to which it has apparently spread (Virginia, possibly Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey).

Please ask your Congressional Representative and Senators to oppose these proposed cuts!

APHIS receives its annual appropriation through the Agriculture Appropriations bill. This legislation is written by the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittees. Members of these subcommittees are listed below. These legislators are especially influential in determining funding for APHIS programs.

House:

Robert Aderholt, Alabama, Chairman
Kevin Yoder, Kansas
Tom Rooney, Florida
David Valadao, California
Andy Harris, Maryland
David Young, Iowa
Steven Palazzo, Mississippi
Sanford Bishop, Georgia, Ranking Member
Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut
Chellie Pingree, Maine
Mark Pocan, Wisconsin

Senate:

John Hoeven, North Dakota
Thad Cochran, Mississippi
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
Susan Collins, Maine
Roy Blunt, Missouri
Jerry Moran, Kansas,
Marco Rubio, Florida
Jeff Merkley, Oregon
Diane Feinstein, California
Jon Tester, Montana
Tom Udall, New Mexico
Patrick Leahy, Vermont
Tammy Baldwin, Illinois

USDA Forest Service

The Administration has proposed damaging decreases in both research and management programs that target non-native insects and pathogens.

Research & Development

The research budget proposal contains numerous figures which don’t appear to add up. I have contacted USFS budget officials to learn how to understand these apparent discrepancies. To read the overall USFS budget, go here.

The budget proposes cutting overall research by 14.8% — from $306,216,000 to $260,800,000. According to the table on p. 30 of the budget justification, invasive species research is allocated $28,558,000. The text says this is 17% of the total Research budget – but my calculation is that it is 10.9%. The discrepancy apparently resulted from a failure to adjust to last-minute changes in funding amounts. The invasive species allocation is described as being a decrease of $3,217,000 from the FY18 figure. Despite these cuts, invasive species are described as one of six “strategic program areas”.

The Forest Service provides a table breaking out funding for work by the research stations on more than a dozen individual pest species or groups of species. The table listing this spending (on pp. 45-46) shows a total of $7,591,000 for FY18 and $6,271,000 for FY 19. The $22 million remaining in the “invasive species” program is apparently spent by staff at headquarters or possibly regional offices. I am trying to find out what this larger category of expenditures includes.

Furthermore, the $6.2 million total includes programs targetting several native species (western bark beetles, southern pine beetle), as well as subterranean termites and invasive plants. If one subtracts expenditures for those species, only $3,091,000 is allocated to non-native tree-killing insects and pathogens in FY18 and $3,252,000 for FY19. This is 1.2% of the overall research budget. Cuts for the individual species range from 19% to 21%.

Since 2010, total funding for research on the ten specified non-native insects and pathogens has fallen by more than 60% — from about $8 million to $3 million. The table listing expenditures on individual species cannot be complete; for example, it does not include efforts to breed pest-resistant elm and beech. Nor does it include recently detected pests, such as spotted lanternfly and polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers – which I hope the Forest Service is studying.

The budget foresees a 42% cut in staff-years from FY18 to FY19 – from 1,469 to 855. USFS Research staffs have been falling for several years (illustrative graph is available in Chapter 6 of Fading Forests III here.) Supportive funds to cover costs of travel, fieldwork, student assistants, and grants to universities have also fallen precipitously, further impeding research efforts.

State & Private/ Forest Health Management

The Administration’s proposed budget for the USFS proposes a cut of 8.5% in the program that actually combats damaging pests. The cut to funding for pest-management projects on federal lands is 6.5% ($55,123,000 to $51,495,000). The cut to funding for work on state and private lands (the “cooperative lands” account) is 11% ($38,735,000 to $34,376,000). The budget assumes corresponding cuts to staff by 11% (341 staff-years).

The justification notes that, with this budget, the Service will be able to treat fewer acres, so the agency will “focus on the most pressing needs for forest restoration and reducing communities’ risk to wildfire”.

I consider the ostensible focus to be highly misguided. Even the budget justification concedes that pests and pathogens cause billions of dollars of damage each year and that pest-management methods are more effective when treatments are applied regardless of land ownership. Indeed, history shows that pests enter and first establish in urban and suburban areas that receive the imports that transport pests, like wood packaging or nursery stock. If the USFS fails to help counter pests at these introduction sites, it dooms itself to dealing with well-established invaders – at best an enormous and expensive effort, at worst, failure.

As noted earlier, the table on pp. 45-46 lists spending on individual pest species. The total given is $21,356,000 in FY18; the proposal cuts spending to $19,407,000 in FY19. As above, I subtract expenditures for native species (western bark beetles, southern pine beetle), subterranean termites, and invasive plants. The resulting subtotals are $12,874,000 for FY18 and $11,681,000 for FY19. As usual, the gypsy moth receives the bulk of the expenditures — 62% for both years. To meet the lower total mandated for FY19, spending is cut 8 – 9% for each non-native species listed.

In FY10, spending on the 11 named non-native insects and pathogens was $24 million. By FY18, it had fallen by nearly 50% — to $12.8 million. Pest species suffering the largest cuts are the Asian longhorned beetle (zeroed out), hemlock woolly adelgid (52% decrease), oak wilt (27% decrease), sudden oak death (18% decrease), and the combination of goldspotted oak borer, thousand cankers disease, and laurel wilt (15% decrease). The budget justification document does not provide sufficient information to allow me to judge the wisdom of the individual cuts.

It is troubling that the table makes no mention of other invaders – e.g., polyphagous & Kuroshio shot hole borers, spotted lanternfly, velvet longhorned beetle, winter moth (this last is mentioned in the narrative). The first four are relatively new pests with costs that could impose catastrophic damage if they are not countered by adequate programs.

Urban Forestry and International Programs

The budget proposes to eliminate funding for both urban forestry and international programs. I consider both programs important to invasive species management. The former strengthens forestry programs and public support for them in the very places where new pests are most likely to be introduced! The international program supports cooperation with foresters in foreign countries – the sources for potentially invasive insects and pathogens, as well as locales that can provide possible agents for biological control.

Please ask your Congressional Representative and Senators to oppose these proposed cuts!

The Forest Service receives its annual appropriation through the Interior Appropriations bill. This legislation is written by the House and Senate Interior Appropriations subcommittees. Members of these subcommittees are listed below. Again, please let them know of your concerns.

House:

Ken Calvert, California, Chairman
Mike Simpson, Idaho
Tom Cole, Oklahoma
David Joyce, Ohio
Chris Stewart, Utah, Vice Chair
Mark Amodei, Nevada
Evan Jenkins, West Virginia
Betty McCollum, Minnesota, Ranking Member
Chellie Pingree, Maine
Derek Kilmer, Washington
Marcy Kaptur, Ohio

Senate:

Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
Thad Cochran, Mississippi
Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
Roy Blunt, Missouri
John Hoeven, North Dakota
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
Steve Daines, Montana
Shelly Moore Capito, West Virginia
Diane Feinstein, California
Patrick Leahy, Vermont
Jack Reed, Rhode Island
John Tester, Montana
Jeff Merkley, Oregon
Chris Van Hollen, Maryland

Posted by Faith Campbell

New study evaluates “candidate pool” from which invasive species might come

Campanula latifolia – one of the species detected as an “emerging” invasive species in the database relied upon by the authors of the study

The authors of a new study note that officials managing invasive species programs rely largely on knowledge of a species’ previous invasion history to predict its level of threat in the geographic area under their responsibility. This approach does not work with the many introduced species that have no history of a previous detected invasion. Hanno Seebens and 49 coauthors – including tree-pest experts Eckehard G. Brockerhoff, Marc Kenis, Andrew M. Liebhold, and Alain Roques — have sought to figure out how great a handicap that lack of data is. See “Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source.” The study is available for $10 here. Figures, tables, and references are available without charge.

The study used a database of 45,984 first records of establishment of 16,019 species belonging to the following major taxonomic groups: vascular plants, mammals, birds, fishes, insects, crustaceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates.

Last year, many of the same scientists, relying on the same database, found that the rate of new introductions of alien species has risen rapidly since about 1800 – and shows no sign of slowing down. The adoption of national and international biosecurity measures during the 20th century have slowed introductions – but they are not sufficiently effective, especially regarding those plants and animals that are introduced primarily accidentally as stowaways on transport vectors or contaminants of commodities (e.g., algae, insects, crustaceans, mollusks and other invertebrates). The 2017 study found a strong correlation between these “accidental” alien species’ spread and the market value of goods imported into the region of interest. For that study, go here. I blogged about the findings on 1 March 2017 – here.

In the new 2018 article, the scientists found that even after many centuries of invasions the rate of emerging alien species is still high. Across all taxonomic groups, one out of four detections during 2000 – 2005 was of a species that had not been previously recorded anywhere as alien. Detections of “new” or “emerging” aliens is occurring at an even higher rate for some taxonomic groups. But new detections of insects fit the average – every fourth detection during 2000 – 2005 was of a species not previously recorded outside its native range.

The authors conclude that the continuing high proportion of “emerging” alien species is best explained by the interplay of 1) the incorporation into the pool of potential alien species of species native to regions formerly not accessible to traders; 2) increases in introduction rates due to higher import volumes; and 3) probably rising establishment rates as a consequence of land degradation that facilitates establishment in recipient regions. This process compensates for the decrease of new invaders from historically important source regions – from which potentially invasive species have presumably already taken advantage of pathways and been recorded as introduced somewhere.

emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis – one of the species in the database of “emerging” invasive species

The number of insect species in the database candidate species pool is 20,611 species – an admittedly small fraction of all insects (for example, there are more than 350,000 beetle species worldwide). Twenty-four percent of these insect species have already been established somewhere outside their native ranges. However, the authors note that data gaps – which are larger for some taxonomic groups and geographic regions – mean that the number of actual “first” introductions is probably larger than records indicate, and consequently the estimated size of the candidate species pools may also be higher. Indeed, the paper does not attempt to estimate the actual size of the invasive species “pool” for insects.

The authors analyzed the importance of eight factors – temperature, relative humidity, import values, three land-use categories, number of botanical gardens, and human population size – in explaining the continued high number of “emerging” invaders detected in recent years. While these factors were explanatory for some taxonomic groups, they had a very low predictive value for insects.

For vascular plants, every third record of an introduction in 2000 – 2005 was of an “emerging” alien species. Interestingly, the number of botanical gardens in a country was a significant predictor for emerging alien vascular plants. However, as the authors of the article point out, reliance on this factor ignores the probable importance of other contributors such as the number of species planted in the receiving country; similarities between source and receiving environments; and introductions by acclimatization societies, European explorers or settlers, and plant hunters.

Acer ginnala –one of the species detected as an “emerging” invasive species in the database; photo by J. Weisenhorn, University of Minnesota extension

In any case, lots of previously undetected alien species are detected each year. In this database, 58% of the species had a single record; 86% of all species have no more than two first records in countries on the same continent. The large number of species with only one or two records led the authors to conclude that most species will not spread widely. I question that conclusion because species often require some time to spread to new locations – either local or distant. The authors do admit that they are unable to determine which species have a high potential for spread.

ash trees at the St. Louis arch – before arrival of emerald ash borer

The continued high rate of introduction of new species leads the authors to estimate that between 1% and 16% of all species on Earth – depending on the taxonomic group – qualify as potential invasive alien species. The authors did not attempt to estimate the true candidate pool or percentage of invasive species for insects. For vascular plants, the authors estimated the candidate pool at 47,000 species (out of a total of 368,000 species on Earth), or 13%.

Like its predecessor, this study’s importance arises from its broad perspective – covering the entire globe and a wide range of taxonomic groups. Its major conclusion that invasions will continue on a large scale serves as a warning to all stakeholders. These include officials charged with protecting agriculture and the broader economy, or the natural environment; conservationists; and those engaged in the economic activities that promote invasion.

However, the authors found that the data did not support more specific advice. First, as noted above, they were unable to determine which of the “emerging” invasive species in all taxonomic groups have a high potential to spread.

For those of us focused on invasive species that threaten native plants, data gaps limit the predictive value of the study the most. The database is too scant even to estimate the invasive species “pool” of potential insect pests. Plant pathogens are not included in the analysis.

Posted by Faith Campbell and Phyllis Windle

Act Now: Forest Protection in the 2018 Farm Bill

NOW is the time to advocate inclusion of important proposals in the 2018 Farm Bill. It is currently under consideration by the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. If we miss this round of Farm Bill legislation, there won’t be another opportunity until 2023. Urge your Senators and Representative to support creation of the two grant-based funds described below.

What’s the issue?

We know that about 500 species of non-native insects and pathogens that attack native trees and shrubs are established in the United States. The number in Canada is 180 – there is considerable overlap.

Protecting the trees and their ecosystem services requires development and deployment of a set of tools aimed at either reducing the pests’ virulence or strengthening the tree hosts’ resistance or tolerance. Such strategies include biological control targetting the insect or pathogen and breeding trees resistant to the pest. Developing and employing these tools require sustained effort over years.

Unfortunately, the programs now charged with responding to introduced forest pests are only a ragged patchwork of university, state, and federal efforts. They provide neither the appropriate range of expertise nor continuity. (For a more thorough discussion of the resources needed to restore tree species badly depleted by non-native pests, read Chapter 6 of Fading Forests III, posted here.)

CISP-backed Amendments

In order to begin filling the gaps, the Center for Invasive Species has proposed forest-related legislation for the Farm Bill currently being considered by Congress.

We propose creation of two new funds, each to provide grants to support tree-protection and restoration projects. We find that the expertise and facilities needed to plant and maintain young trees in the forest differ enough from those needed to research and test biological approaches to pest management and tree improvement that each deserves its own support.

Our first proposal would create a grant program managed by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to provide long-term funding for research to restore tree species severely damaged by alien pests. The focus of the research would be on:

Biocontrol of pests threatening native tree species;
Exploration of genetic manipulation of the pests;
Enhancement of host- resistance mechanisms for individual tree species;
Development of other strategies for restoration; and
Development and dissemination of tools and information based on the research.

Entities eligible for funding under our proposal would include:

Agencies of the U.S. government;
State cooperative institutions;
A university or college with a college of agriculture or wildlife and fisheries; and
Non-profit entities recognized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Our second proposal would provide long-term funding to support research into and deployment of strategies for restoring pest-decimated tree species in the forest. The source of funds would be the McIntire-Stennis program. The eligible institutions would be similar: schools of forestry; land grant universities; state agricultural and forestry experimental stations; and non-profit non-governmental organizations. Projects would integrate the following components into a forest restoration strategy:

Collection and conservation of native tree genetic material;
Production of propagules of native trees in numbers large enough for landscape scale restoration;
Site preparation of former of native tree habitat;
Planting of native tree seedlings; and
Post-planting maintenance of native trees.

In addition, competitive grants issued by this second fund would be awarded based on the degree to which the grant application addresses the following criteria:

Risk posed to the forests of that state by non-native pests, as measured by such factors as the number of such pests present in the state;
The proportion of the state’s forest composed of species vulnerable to non-native pests present in the United States; and
The pests’ rate of spread via natural or human-assisted means.

(To request the texts of the proposed amendments, use the “contact us” button.)

A Growing Chorus Sees the Same Need

A growing chorus of scientists is calling for long-term funding for forest restoration programs based partly on recent scientific breakthroughs. So this year’s Farm Bill provides a key opportunity for initiating such programs.

The NIFA Letter

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture asks scientists each year to suggest their highest priorities for the agency’s research, extension, or education efforts. In December, twenty-eight scientists replied by calling for setting up a special “division” within NIFA to fund breeding of pest-resistant tree species and associated extension.

The lead authors are Pierluigi (Enrico) Bonello, Ohio State University, and Caterina Villari, University of Georgia. The 26 co-signers are scientists from 12 important research universities, along with the U.S. Forest Service (the Universities of Georgia, California (Berkeley), Florida, Kentucky, Minnesota, and West Virginia; Auburn University; Michigan Technological University; North Carolina State University; Oregon State University; Purdue University; the State University of New York).

The scientists note that recent scientific advances have created a new ability to exploit genetic resistance found in the tree species’ natural populations. They assert that developing and deploying host resistance promises to improve the efficacy of various control strategies – including biocontrol – and provides a foundation for restoring forest health in the face of ever-more non-native forest pests.

The scientists’ proposal differs from CISP’s in calling for establishment of research laboratories and field study sites at several locations in the country. These would be permanently funded to conduct screening and progeny trials, and adequately staffed with permanent cadres of forest tree geneticists and breeders who would collaborate closely with staff and university pathologists and entomologists. The apparent model is the USDA Forest Service’ Dorena Genetic Resource Center in Oregon. Dorena has had notable success with breeding Port-Orford cedar and several white pine species that are tolerant of the pathogens that threaten them.

POC trials at Dorena

In contrast, the CISP proposal relies largely on the chestnut model, which relies more on non-governmental organizations and wide-ranging collaboration. Our overall goal is similar, though: to provide stable funding for the decades-long programs needed to restore forest tree species.

American Chestnut Foundation chestnut growing in Northern Virginia

Why do we advocate grant programs instead of establishment of permanent facilities? We thought that Congress would be more likely to accept a smaller and cheaper set of grant programs in the beginning. Once the value of the long-term strategies is demonstrated more widely, supporters would have greater success in lobbying for creation of the permanent facilities.

Among the new technologies that would seem to justify the scientists’ assertion that success in breeding now appears to be more likely is the use of FT-IR and Raman spectroscopy and associated analysis of tree chemicals to identify individual trees within natural populations that have an apparent ability to tolerate disease-causing organisms. The leading scientist on the NIFA letter, Enrico Bonello, has used the technique to identify coast live oaks resistant to Phytopthora ramorum (the causal agent of sudden oak death. He is now testing whether the technique can identify Port-Orford cedar trees tolerant of the root-rot fungus Phytophthora lateralis and whitebark pines resistant to white pine blister rust.

I blogged about Enrico’s work on ash resistance to EAB here.) You can learn more about Enrico’s interesting work here.

The NAS Study

Meanwhile, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has launched a study on The Potential for Biotechnology to Address Forest Health. By the end of 2018, a committee of experts will report on the potential use of biotechnology to mitigate threats to forest tree health; identify the ecological, ethical, and social implications of deploying biotechnology in forests, and develop a research agenda to address knowledge gaps about its application. Funding for the study has been provided by The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities; several agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Forest Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Committee meetings are webcast, and there are other webinars on pertinent topics. You can view the schedule and sign up to receive alerts here.

Several people actively engaged in finding answers to invasive pest challenges have presented their views to the Committee, including Gary Lovett, Deb McCullough, Richard Sniezko, and me (!). You can find our presentations (Powerpoints and oral) at the above website. My talk focused on the crisis posed by non-native insects and pathogens and the need to evaluate the full range of possible response strategies for each host-pest situation. Application of genetic engineering technologies – in the absence of adequate resources for research and deployment of resistant hosts – cannot result in restoration of the host trees.

Background Information

Examples of tree-killing pests include such famous examples as chestnut blight and Dutch elm disease as well as less-well-known pests as soapberry borer. This map

indicates how many of the most damaging pests are established in each county of the 49 conterminous states. Descriptions of some of these insects and pathogens are provided here.

Additional tree-killing pests not included in the sources for the data supporting the map for various reasons would add to the numbers of pests in some states. Some non-native organisms have been introduced too recently, others attack palms or trees in Hawai`i; still others are native to Mexico and parts of the United States so were not included.

Posted by Faith Campbell