The emerald ash borer (EAB) was first detected in European Russia in 2003, in Moscow. By 2020, EAB was recorded in 16 provinces [=‘oblast’] of European Russia, especially to the West of Moscow towards the borders with Belarus and Ukraine.
Russian scientists have documented that the emerald ash borer is spreading faster in the southwest of the country and in neighboring Ukraine than in the northwest (near St. Petersburg and the Baltic countries).
Despite an abundance of ash [both green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) – native to North America – and European ash F. excelsior], EAB population density in the northwest remains low and damage is in scattered clusters.
However, in September 2020 officials detected an isolated outbreak in a St. Petersburg suburb, 520 km away from the apparent edge of the principal Russian population. The authors believe this outbreak has been present since 2015. They think it is the result of transport of EAB either by “insect-hitchhiking” on vehicles or by movement of plants for planting or other commodities.
The Petersburg population is only 130 km from Estonia and Finland – the border with the European Union.
A thousand kilometers to the south, in southwest Russian eastern Ukraine, an outbreak was reported in June 2019. By the next summer, EAB were detected more than 100 km to the West. While this outbreak is still 800 km from Ukraine’s border with eastern Europe (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania), the authors note that rapid spread is likely since F. excelsior and F. pennsylvanica have been extensively planted along roads, railways, field shelter belts, and urban greenings.
The slower spread in the North is attributed to colder temperatures, the local abundance of food, and possibly pressure by the native parasitoid Spathius polonicus Niezabitowski (note that USDA APHIS has approved two Spathius species as biocontrol agents in the U.S.). On the other hand, the climate is milder in Saint Petersburg (along the coast) than it is inland; and ash woodlands are common along the Baltic coast.
Noting that ash dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus) has devastated more than 95% of European ash populations, the authors express concern about the future of ash.
SOURCE
Musolin, D.L.; Selikhovkin, A.V.; Peregudova, E.Y.; Popovichev, B.G.; Mandelshtam, M.Y.; Baranchikov, Y.N.; Vasaitis, R. North-Westward Expansion of the Invasive Range of Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) towards the EU: From Moscow to Saint Petersburg. Forests 2021, 12, 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040502
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.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
Posted by Scott J. Cameron, former Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy Management and Budget , US Department of the Interior
locations in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park where ohia trees were infected by rapid ohia death pathogen in 2017
In 2019 Congress passed the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. Among other things, it directed the Department of the Interior to “develop a strategic plan that will achieve, to the maximum extent practicable, a substantive annual net reduction of invasive species population or infested acreage on land or water managed by the Secretary.” This provision triggered a year-long process of public involvement and inter-bureau coordination. The result was a plan published in January 2021. It represents the first attempt by Interior at a Department-wide multi-taxa, multi-year approach to invasive species. It has the potential to spur integration of invasive species work across the Department’s many bureaus and to focus each bureau’s efforts on a set of common goals, strategies, and performance metrics.
While Congress’ language is open-ended, any planning exercise is constrained by the most recent President’s budget and existing law. It is up to those of us who are not, or at least no longer, executive branch employees to advocate for plans unbound by those constraints.
In that spirit, I offer eight recommendations to improve invasive species management. Four are within existing authorities; four more are outside the current budgetary and statutory framework. Many more ideas are without a doubt worth pursuing.
Opuntia (prickly pear) cactus – common plant in western National parks and on Bureau of Land Management lands; under threat by cactus moth
First, within existing funding and legal authorities, the Department has unfinished business that it can act on now.
Secure approval of the package of categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — now awaiting approval by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Over many years agencies have documented how invasive species control improves, rather than harms, the environment. Absent an applicable NEPA categorical exclusion approved by CEQ, though, each such action needs to run the time- and money-consuming gauntlet of NEPA compliance. In the meantime, the invasive plants germinate, the invasive animals reproduce, and what might have been a localized and inexpensive problem has expanded geographically and in terms of cost and complexity. In the Fall of 2020 Interior submitted hundreds of pages of documentation on numerous practices proven to control invasive species without harming the environment. Due to time and staffing constraints at CEQ, these categorical exclusions still await action. Interior and CEQ should take prompt steps to finish them.
Allocate to the US Geological Survey at least $10 million of the roughly $90 million remaining available to the Secretary in CARES Act appropriations for research on invasive zoonotic diseases. These are diseases like COVID-19 and West Nile virus that can move from one species to another. Many zoonotic diseases fit the definition of invasive species, since they are not native to the United States and endanger human health. In the case of COVID-19 funding is available to the Secretary of the Interior, without need for further Congressional action, from funds appropriated by the CARES Act. The availability of these funds will expire at the end of September 2021, so Interior should provide this research funding to USGS as soon as possible.
Join the existing Memorandum of Understanding between the Western Governors Association (WGA) and the US Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. These groups have established “a framework to allow the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and WGA to work collaboratively to accomplish mutual goals, further common interests, and effectively respond to the increasing suite of challenges facing western landscapes.” This provides a forum to improve coordination between the States and the federal government on the management of invasive species, and Interior needs to be part of that team.
Interior should work with USDA to accelerate and intensify efforts to systematically improve coordination between the interagency Wildland Fire Leadership Council and the interagency National Invasive Species Council. Both Councils have member agencies that practice vegetation management using similar tools and techniques, although for different purposes. The two Councils should identify a select number of initiatives in FY21 where their efforts would benefit both wildland fire management and invasive plant management .
swamp bay trees in Everglades National Park killed by laurel wilt; photo by Tony Pernas
Four steps to implement the strategic plan outside the scope of current law and the President’s Fiscal Year 2021 budget. I offer the following:
Improve implementation of the Lacey Act program to list injurious species. There are both legislative and administrative elements to this proposal.
In a federal District Court decision on May 19, 2015, on a lawsuit filed by the Association of Reptile Keepers, the Court undid the longstanding Fish and Wildlife Service policy that the Lacey Act allowed FWS to ban interstate transport of injurious species. On April 7, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s view. These rulings mean that FWS authority only applies to international commerce. Unfortunately, the court’s interpretation of the law and legislative history are reasonable, so Congress needs to amend the law to make it clear that FWS is explicitly authorized to regulate interstate commerce in injurious species. The Department of the Interior should work with the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and Budget to develop the necessary bill language and submit it to Congress.
At the same time, the FWS injurious species listing process is notoriously slow, even causing Congress to occasionally list species legislatively. The fact that these legislative initiatives have sometimes been promoted by Members of Congress who normally are opposed to more federal regulation signals just how awkward the current FWS process is. Thus there might well be strong bipartisan support to amend the Lacey Act on the interstate commerce matter. Acting on its own authority, FWS should procure an independent third party review of the injurious species listing process and ask the contractor to make suggestions for “business process reengineering” to improve and streamline current practices, along with evaluating whether higher funding or new technology is needed.
The Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget should develop legislative language to submit to Congress for the 2022 Water Resources Development Act, that explicitly authorizes an aquatic nuisance species program in the Bureau of Reclamation. It could parallel the relatively new authority enjoyed by the Army Corps of Engineers and mandate increased coordination between the two water agencies.
Any climate change legislation pursued by Congress and the Administration should include provisions for addressing invasive species. Climate change will make some North American habitats more suitable for foreign organisms, as cold-intolerant species might be able to survive in more northern latitudes in the U.S. than previously was the case. Second, the disruptive effect of climate change on North American ecosystem structure and trophic relationships at any latitude will make those ecosystems more vulnerable to invasion. Finally, the spread of invasive species may in and of itself exacerbate climate change, such as through the increased carbon dioxide emissions from rangeland wildfires aggravated by the dominance of invasive cheatgrass.
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Natural Resources Committee should each hold oversight hearings on how best to help state and local governments detect and respond to new invasive species that are not within the statutory purview of USDA/APHIS. This is a complex topic, important for both ecological and financial reasons. Over the years several attempts to address it have failed. A thoughtful review by Congress and the Administration, which perhaps would lead to passage of new statutory authority and funding, is worth exploring.
The Author:
Scott Cameron recently left the federal government, where he had served as Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget at the U.S. Department of the Interior. In that capacity he oversaw Department-wide budget, invasive species, natural resource damage assessment and restoration, environmental compliance and numerous administrative functions of this $14 billion agency with 65,000 employees. Previously, Scott held other civil service job (e.g., at the White House Office of Management and Budget) & political appointments in the federal government, on the staff of the Governor of California, and on Congressional staffs. While not in government, Scott led formation of the Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition.
CISP welcomes 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.
Further information on the plant pests mentioned in the photo captions can be obtained at www.dontmovefirewood.org; click the “invasive species” button.
Japanese stiltgrass in Shenandoah National Park; photo by Jake Hughes, NPS
The recent appearance of a study by National Park Service (NPS) scientists quantifying the threat posed by invasive plants prompted me to seek updates on this issue. In May 2018, I blogged about NPS’ Invasive Plant Program Strategic Plan, which was issued in 2016. At the time, I got the impression that the program was struggling to gain support from NPS leadership in Washington, as well as leaders of individual parks. Has the situation improved since then?
The recent study, by Kathryn Miller and colleagues, focuses on National parks in the East, from Virginia to Maine. (I provide a full reference at the end of this blog.) I look forward to a planned follow-up article that will try to clarify drivers of invasion.
The Miller study appears to have been undertaken to partially fulfill one of the goals of the NPS’ 2016 Invasive Plant Program Strategic Plan. One of the actions under Goal 1 in the Plan was to quantify the invasive plant threat, the effort needed to manage it, and then to communicate the gap between needs and available resources. Miller et al. have quantified the threat to National parks in one region (not the entire country). However, they have communicated the gap between effort and need in only the most general way.
Protecting the forests in eastern National parks is valuable from many perspectives. The forests in these parks are older and have higher stand-level tree diversity than surrounding unprotected forests. Protecting their long-term condition also corresponds to the National Park Service’s (NPS) stated mission, as established in its Organic Act.
The study relied on National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring Program data from 1,479 permanent forest plots covering 39 eastern NP units located from Virginia to Maine. The data were collected over 12 years, in three survey cycles (2007–2010, 2011–2014, and 2015–2018).
The authors note that in forest ecosystems, invasive plants can reduce native diversity, alter forest structure, suppress tree regeneration, alter nutrient cycling, and modify disturbance regimes. Some – the shrubs and vines – also threaten human health by promoting increases in tick populations and associated Lyme disease risks.
Unsurprisingly, the data showed invasive plants to be widespread, and increasing. In 80% of the park units, there was a significant increase in at least one trend measuring abundance. Any decrease in plant invaders tended to be in herbaceous or graminoid species; that decrease was often counterbalanced by an approximately equivalent increase in invasive shrubs or vines. In 35 of the park units, more than half of the plots had at least one invasive plant species when the 2015-2018 survey began. In 10 parks (a quarter of those surveyed), every plot had at least one.
The most widespread species is Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum). It is present in more than 75% of all park units and 30% of all 1,400 plots. This dominance is true despite the fact that stiltgrass does not extend north of Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Site in New York state (41o N latitude). Stiltgrass is also the most aggressive invader.
The second most widespread invaders are a group of shrubs and vines, including most notably Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and wineberry (Rubus phoenicolasius). I note – although the articles does not – that several of these have been deliberately planted – either to “enhance” ecosystems (multiflora rose) or as ornamentals (barberry). [Lehan et al. 2013 (full reference at end of blog) found that 95% of 125 shrub species introduced to the U.S. were introduced deliberately.] I know of no examples of deliberate planting of Japanese stiltgrass.
The most frequently detected non-grass herbaceous species is garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), which was detected in 20% of plots. Garlic mustard is found throughout the study area (Virginia to Maine). Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) is the most common invasive tree. It is found in only 9% of plots and does not grow north of Roosevelt-Vanderbilt NHS. Again, both were intentionally introduced – and not noted as such in the article.
Because they could not identify the source populations for each plot, the study could not directly measure rates of establishment and expansion. The data did allow tracking rough trends in each park.
Parks with the highest abundance tended to be near densely populated areas. However, this pattern was not universal. For example, Prince William Forest Park in the outer Virginia suburbs of the District of Columbia metro area was one of two of the least invaded park units.
Prince William Forest Park
(note the prevalence of beech – I fear for the arrival of beech leaf disease!)
Total invasives increased significantly in 21 of the 39 parks for at least one metric. In 10 parks (a quarter of all parks), total invasives increased significantly in two of the three metrics. Antietam National Battlefield experienced the steepest increases.
The authors note that invasive plants continue to establish and expand, even in already heavily invaded forests. Thus they found little evidence of saturation. This finding conflicts with invasion theory. They also found antagonistic interactions between invasive species to be common.
The authors said managers should prioritize efforts to control Japanese stiltgrass and the shrubs and vinesdue to their widespread occurrence, rapid expansion, ability to suppress tree regeneration and understory diversity, and – in the case of the shrubs and vines, link to ticks.
The authors noted the need to better understand the drivers and impacts of invasive plants in eastern forests. They mentioned the overabundance of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), latitude, climate change, fragmentation and urbanization. I have urged them to include analysis of deliberate planting of various species on lands within the park units or nearby. They have said that they will do so in the planned follow-up article.
The authors propose that deferred management of natural resources receive attention and sustained commitment on par with the attention to deferred maintenance of the park units’ infrastructure. The maintenance backlog has been addressed through recent legislation: the Great America Outdoors Act which provided $6.5 billion over five years to address deferred maintenance projects in all 419 national park units. I believe that these projects will not address invasive species, which are managed under the “Natural Resources” budget account, not “Maintenance”. Some “Maintenance” projects probably will include control of invasive plants. A former Interior Department official has suggested that resource management activities might be funded under another section of the legislation, which provides $900 million under the Land and Water Conservation program. I hope this is true.
National Park Service’ Overall Invasive Plant Program Now
In response to the mandate in the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (Public Law 116-9), the Department of Interior has issued a department-wide invasive species strategy. Will issuance of the new strategy provide impetus to the NPS to seek funding to implement its 2016 invasive plant strategic plan? Will Congress provide funds for this purpose?
Finding out the current status of National Park Service took a little effort. The NPS’ website has “popular” information about the efforts of individual regional Invasive Plant Management Teams (see links at the end of this blog). These posts provide only the briefest overview of program achievements and do not compare those accomplishments to the goals in the 2016 plan.
However, Terri Hogan, Invasive Plant Program Manager in the Biological Resources Division, provided following information:
NPS leadership now supports the agency’s invasive plant effort. The national Invasive Plant Program (IPP) contributes to the annual Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Directorate (NRSS)’ Biological Resource Division (BRD) work plan. All is guided by the “Four Pillars to Guide Natural Resource Activities and Investments”, adopted in 2016.
It is not clear that invasive species have the highest priority under this regime. The four “pillars” are
Holding the line – includes conserving biodiversity by removing invasive plants
Managing amid Continuous Change – includes conducting risk assessment and taking other actions to contain future exotic species
Leveraging for Conservation at Scale
Enhancing Stewardship and Science Access and Engagement
Cooperation with owners of neighboring private lands has been enhanced by engagement of the Western Governors Association and state and local political leaders. Many parks participate in Partnerships for Invasive Species Management (PRISMs), CISMS, and Cooperative Weed Management areas (CWMAs). This collaboration has been strengthened by adoption of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Act (see above).
In practice, the focus appears to still be on the Invasive Plant Management Teams (IPMTs). There are now 17 teams. Fifteen are funded through the national office. One is funded by an individual park; one funded through a regional office. Annual reports have been published for FYs 2017 and 2018. The FY19 report has been held up but should be posted soon.
The reports provide brief description of the overall program and vignettes of particular activities. There are more detailed – but still anecdotal – reports for each of the teams. It is difficult to determine whether there has been overall progress. For example, the reported total infested acreage increased from 133,658 acres in FY17 to 301,195 acres in FY18. This presumably reflects more intense monitoring as well as a probable increase in real infections. (The infested acreage figures do not address intensity of invasion on these acres.) The teams cumulatively treated 8,937 acres in FY 2017; 8,331 acres in FY 2018. They carried out inventory and monitoring projects on 169,057 acres in FY17, 210,000 acres in FY18.
Since the Miller article concerns the region from Virginia to Maine, I checked the FY17 and FY 18 reports from the Invasive Plant Management Teams from the Mid-Atlantic, National Capital Area, and Northeastern regions. The Mid-Atlantic team emphasized work on wavyleaf basketgrass and meadows in parks established to protect cultural or historic sites. The National Capital Area team emphasized partnerships and success eradicating Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) on private land neighboring Rock Creek Park. The Northeastern Team serves 25 parks; the report emphasized leveraging resources and testing efficacy of pre-emergent herbicide for control of Japanese stiltgrass. With this exception, the teams do not appear to be prioritizing the species recommended for action by the Miller study.
Brief, “popular” articles about the NPS’ invasive plant effort are available here
Lehan, N.E., J.R. Murphy, L.P. Thornburn, and B.A. Bradley. 2013. Accidental Introductions are an Important Source of Invasive Plants in the Continental United States. American Journal of Botany 100(7): 1287–1293. 2013.
Miller, K. M., B. J. McGill, A. S. Weed, C. E. Seirup, J. A. Comiskey, E. R. Matthews, S. Perles, & J. Paul Schmit. 2020. Long-term trends indicate that invasive plants are pervasive and increasing in eastern national parks. Ecology. 00(00):e02239. 10.1002/eap.2239
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.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
We have a great opportunity to shape future efforts to counter non-native forest pests and diseases. Administration officials are most open to new ideas when they first take office. The same is true of new Congressional leadership.
So now is the time to suggest needed changes!
The USDA Secretary-designate is Tom Vilsack. Of course, he was USDA Secretary during the Obama Administration … so he is not entirely “new” to the issues. However, perspectives and priorities have changed, so now is a good time to urge him to consider new approaches. Furthermore, the Senate Agriculture Committee will hold confirmation hearings for him; we can ask the Senators to advocate for our views during this proceeding.
The House Agriculture Committee has a new Chair, David Scott – from the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia. Again, this provides an opportunity to suggest new approaches and topics for hearings.
I assume you all are knowledgeable about the numbers and impacts of non-native forest insects and pathogens in the United States, and of the pathways by which they are introduced and spread. If you are not, peruse my blogs about wood packaging or plants as vectors (click on the appropriate “categories” listed at the bottom of the archive of blogs). Or read Fading Forests III (see the link at the end of this blog) and the article I coauthored early this year on improving forest pest management programs.
On the basis of my long experience, I suggest that you encourage USDA Secretary-designate Vilsack, Senators on the Agriculture Committee, and House Agriculture Committee Chair David Scott to consider the following recommendations:
Actions Congress could take
Congress could amend the Plant Protection Act [7 U.S.C. §7701, et seq. (2000)] to prioritize the protection of natural and agricultural resources over the facilitation of trade. This might be done by amending the “findings” section of the statute to give higher priority to pest prevention.
The Agriculture Committees of both the House and Senate could hold hearings on the importation of forest pests. They could determine if the USDA is doing an adequate job protecting the country from insect pests and diseases, and how our defenses could be strengthened. One component of the hearings could focus on whether current funding levels and mechanisms are adequate to support vigorous responses to new pest incursions.
Congress could commission a study of the feasibility, costs and benefits of establishing a “Center for Forest Pest Control and Prevention” to coordinate research and policy on this issue.
Congress could increase funding for the appropriate USDA APHIS and Forest Service programs and activities to enable vigorous containment and eradication responses targeting introduced forest pests and diseases.
Congress could increase funding for USDA research on detection of insects and pathogens in shipping; insect and disease monitoring/surveillance; biological control; alternatives to packaging made from wooden boards; management of established pests; and resistance breeding to enable restoration of impacted tree species.
Actions Secretary-designate Vilsack could initiate without legislative action (once he is confirmed)
Introductions of pests in the wooden crates, pallets, etc., goods come in
APHIS could take emergency action to prohibit use of wood packaging by importers of goods from countries with a record of poor compliance with ISPM#15. This action is allowed under authority of the Plant Protection Act [7 U.S.C. §7701, et seq. (2000)] and Article 5.7 of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
APHIS could strengthen enforcement of current regulations by aggressively prosecuting repeat offenders. For instance, APHIS could begin imposing administrative financial penalties on importers each time their wood packaging is non-compliant with ISPM#15.
APHIS could work with Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to improve information available to U.S. importers about which foreign suppliers of SWPM and shippers have good vs. bad records of compliance with ISPM#15.
DHS CBP could release information on country of origin and treatment facility for ISPM#15-stamped SWPM that is found to be infested with pests.
USDA APHIS could begin a phased transition from solid wood packaging to alternative materials that cannot carry wood-boring pests. APHIS could initiate a pest risk assessment to justify making such an action permanent. Imports could be packaged in alternative materials, e.g., manufactured wood products (e.g. plywood), metal, or plastic.
Nursery Plant (“Plants for Planting”) Pathway
APHIS could apply authorities under NAPPRA and other existing authorities to curtail imports of plants that pose a high risk of introducing insects and pathogens that would threaten tree species that are important in natural and urban forests in the U.S. At a minimum, APHIS should restrict imports of live plants that are in the same genus as native woody plants of the U.S.
APHIS could work with the Agriculture Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture to determine which taxa of woody vegetation native to the U.S. are vulnerable to pathogens present in natural systems of trade partners. Particularly important would be the many Phytophthora species found by Jung and colleagues in Vietnam, Taiwan, Chile, and other countries. Once the studies are sufficiently complete, APHIS could utilize authority under NAPPRA to prohibit importation of plants from those source countries until effective phytosanitary measures can be identified and adopted.
Other Actions
APHIS could develop procedures to ensure the periodic evaluation of pest approach rates associated with wood packaging and imports of “plants for planting” and highlight areas of program strengths and weaknesses. A good place to start would be to update the study by Haack et al. (2014), which estimated the approach rate in wood packaging a decade ago.
The USDA could expand early detection systems for forest pests, such as the APHIS CAPS program and the Forest Service EDRR program. These programs should be better coordinated with each other and should make better use of citizen observations collected through smartphone apps, professional tree workers such as arborists and utility crews, and university expertise in pest identification and public outreach. An effective program would survey for a broad range of pests as well as for suspicious tree damage, and would be focused on high-risk areas such as forests around seaports, airports, plant nurseries, and facilities such as warehouses that engage in international trade.
The USDA could initiate a “Sentinel Plantings“ network of US tree species planted in gardens abroad and monitored for potential pests and diseases.
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.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
As we know, the SOD pathogen Phytophthora ramorum infects more than 100 plant species [APHIS host list posted here]. Some are killed, some not. Some support production of spores (=sporulation), and thus promote spread of the disease – either in nurseries and plantings, or in the wild. Conditions under which P. ramorum infects specific plant species also varies.
In both the ornamental plant industry and natural environments, transmission is driven mostly by foliar hosts.
Matteo Garbelotto and colleagues have carried out studies aimed at improving our understanding of the differences in host-pathogen interactions, and their meaning vis a vis persistence and spread of the disease – especially in wildland situations. The experiments were carried out five or more years ago, funded by the Farm bill Section 7721 funding. See the full reference at the end of this blog.
The team ranked 25 ornamental plant species representing ten families for susceptibility to P. ramorum and infectivity (spore production). They also tested potential differences among three of the genetic lineages of the pathogen—NA1 (prevalent in U.S. forests), NA2 (found in some nurseries in Pacific coast states), and EU1 (found in nurseries and – since 2015 – in some wildland forests in Oregon). The team also studied the effect of temperature on infectibility. Their goal was to help focus regulations so they will be more effective.
The studies clearly show that the relationship between P. ramorum and various hosts is complex – both susceptibility and infectibility vary depending on the host species, pathogen genetic lineage, and environmental conditions, especially temperature. Results of testing of leaves for the presence of the pathogen were affected by such experimental choices as the concentration of zoospores, temperature, plant host, pathogen genotype, and by the interaction between host and pathogen genotype. Stem results were mostly affected by host and host-pathogen genotype interaction.
Hosts bearing the most severe infections do not always support the highest levels of sporulation, so they are not necessarily the most likely to spread the disease.
Regulators also cannot always generalize re: the pathogen’s impact on plant hosts based on the hosts’ taxonomic relationship. Results were fairly similar for congeneric species within the genera Rosa, Prunus, and Syringa, but quite different for species within the genera Ilex, Gaultheria, and Osmanthus.
It is clear that basing regulatory or best management practices on any one pathogen-host-environment relationship is likely to lead to failure, leaving our forests inadequately protected
The findings that pertain most directly to early detection of infections and those that otherwise promote spread of the pathogen are my focus here.
Hosts that Support Sporulation / Spread of Disease
At least five host species are much more infectious than Rhododendron catawbiense. Hosts that support the highest levels of sporulation were Syringa vulgaris, Hamamelis intermedia, and Syringa meyeri. Hosts that support medium-high levels of sporulation were Rosa gymnocarpa and Syringa pubescens subsp. patula.
Two of the Syringa species support high levels of sporulation, but rank low on overall susceptibility. Rosa gymnocarpa ranked fourth for levels of sporulation, but only fifteenth for overall susceptibility. At least six other species join this group of taxa that are highly infectious without displaying noticeable symptoms. Note than none of these top disease drivers is included in the so-called “filthy five” genera which are the focus of federal and state detection efforts. These genera are Rhododendron spp., Camellia spp., Viburnum spp., Pieris spp., and Kalmia spp.
One of the “filthy five” is Rhododendron catawbiense. It is often used as a standard against which to compare other species’ vulnerability. R. catawbiense supports a somewhat lower level of sporulation than do the species listed in the preceding paragraph. Again, disease severity is not a reliable cue to the likelihood of supporting sporulation and disease spread. Thus, the Hamamelis intermedia was the only species that scored high for both sporulation and susceptibility.
Temperatures Affect Infection Rates
A temperature of 20°C [68o F] was found to be ideal for maximum sporulation by all three genotypes. However, the NA1 genotype was a relatively good sporulator at 12oC [53oF]. The NA2 genotype sporulates prolifically at 25°C [77oF], but produces fewer sporangia than the other two genotypes at 12oC. These findings suggest which genotype might pose a greater risk in warmer or cooler regions than those supporting the current wildland infestations in California and Oregon. Thus, if NA2 spreads via the nursery trade to warmer regions, such as the area of the Southeast identified by various risk maps developed in the past [See maps on pages 14 – 16 in chapter 5 of Fading forests III, available here], it might pose a higher risk. This discovery intensifies concern arising from the fact that many of the P. ramorum-infected plants shipped to Indiana – and presumably other eastern states – in 2019 were of the NA2 lineage. States that received infected plants in 2019 included Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Considering individual host species, Gaultheria shallon, R. catawbiense, Osmathus delayayi and Hamamelis intermedia supported good sporulation at the higher temperatures whereas Laurus nobilis, Syringa vulgaris, and Magnolia stellata supported better sporulation in cooler climates. Note that H. intermedia and S. vulgaris support prolific sporulation; the latter is a “symptomless superspreader”.
Garbelotto et al. note that Magnolia stellata is both highly susceptible and highly infectious at 12°C and thus able to spread the infection in colder areas. This advice to limit use of this species in cooler areas runs counter to horticultural experts’ guidance to plant this shrub in USDA Hardiness Zones 4–9 – which include virtually all the lower 48 except the most northern parts of Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota. Clearly, star magnolia is a popular plant in colder regions. At the other end of the spectrum, Gaultheria shallon, Hamamelis intermedia, and Mahonia aquifolia were both highly susceptible and infectious at 25 °C, thus their use should be limited in warmer areas. All three include warm regions in their native ranges.
Early Detection
There are two ways to carry out early detection surveys.
(1) The first is detection of infection in plants themselves. Garbelotto et al. determined that 14 plant species are highly or moderately susceptible to infection even with relatively limited inoculum sources. Intense monitoring of these species would be likely to detect new infestations. Three of the highly susceptiblespecies, namely Syringa meyeri, Syringa pubescens subsp. patula and Hamamelis intermedia, are potentially more susceptible than R. catawbiense.
Hamamelis x intermedia ‘Angelly’ 01.JPG Wikimedia Commons
Based on the relative ease of pathogen re-isolation from the following host species after they had been inoculated at low levels, Syringa meyeri, Syringa pubescens subsp. patula, Hamamelis intermedia, Syringa vulgaris, Osmanthus delavayi, and Magnolia grandiflora indicated that a larger number of plants in the production facility had become infected.
(2) A second approach to early detection monitoring would be to focus on those host taxa able to support the most robust sporulation when infected by low levels of inoculum. This approach emphasizes curtailing spread.
As I noted above, Garbelotto et al. conclude that five species could spur significantly faster disease spread due to higher transmission rates coupled with higher susceptibility rates. These five species are Syringa vulgaris, S. meyeri, and S. pubescens subsp. patula; Hamamelis intermedia; and Rosa gymnocarpa. Note than none of these disease drivers is included in the so-called “filthy five” genera on which regulators focus now detection efforts.
Several species appeared less diseased, but supported more vigorous sporulation (e.g., Syringa vulgaris,S. pubescens subsp. patula and Rosa gymnocarpa). Others were more diseased but supported less sporulation (e.g., Prunus laurocerasus and Prunus lusitanica). Therefore, nursery managers and regulators should not rely on visual assessment of disease intensity to judge spread risk.
Other Information
Comparing the three genotypes, EU1 was most aggressive in terms of disease incidence at both low and high inoculum loads. At low levels of inoculum, NA1 lineage was comparable in terms of disease severity.
However, at higher inoculum loads NA1 was clearly the most infectious based on the number of sporangia produced on infected hosts. Garbelotto et al. conclude that the co-mingling of the EU1 and NA1 lineages in Oregon forests might result in a highly destructive forest disease, as both virulence and transmission potential would be maximized. There is the further risk that the presence of the two genetic lineages, which have different mating types, might enable sexual reproduction/ genetic exchange between the two lineages.
Sources
Matteo Garbelotto, M., D. Schmidt, T. Popenuck. 2020. Pathogenicity and infectivity of Phytophthora ramorum vary depending on host species, infected plant part, inoculum potential, pathogen genotype, and temperature. Plant Pathology 2020;00.1
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.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
dead tanoak killed by P. ramorum in Oregon; photo courtesy of Oregon Department of Forestry
Stunning 2019 Nursery Outbreak – Continuing Story
I have blogged often about the sudden oak death pathogen Phytophthora ramorum. The most recent blogs have focused on last year’s episode in which infected plants were sent to retail nurseries in many states. Indeed, the 2019 outbreak led to the largest trace-forward investigation for the USDA APHIS’ Phytophthora ramorum program in a single year for more than a decade. A year later, much is still unclear. For example, based on reports last year, I told you that 18 states had received positive plants. APHIS now says it was 14.
In response to states’ requests, APHIS issued a “Hotwash Report” (described in the June 2020 newsletter of the California Oak Mortality Task Force (COMTF); see source list at the end of the blog for the url). The “Hotwash Report” says APHIS traced the infected plants back to two nurseries, but I have obtained information about efforts at only one – in Washington state – and even that information is not as explicit as I think should be. In the April COMTF newsletter, the Washington State Department of Agriculture reports only that compliance surveys at one wholesale shipping nursery would be more intense than usual. I believe the second nursery implicated in the event is in British Columbia, but the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has said it saw no evidence that a Canadian nursery had shipped infected plants to the U.S.
Indiana officials reported (Press et al.) that the infected plants received in that state were of the NA2 clonal lineage. This is the first report of the NA2 lineage outside British Columbia, Washington, and California and is thus especially significant. The outbreak caused Indiana authorities to ordered destruction of more than 6,100 rhododendron plants at retail outlets in Indiana. (April COMTF newsletter)
According to the June 2020 COMTF newsletter, APHIS revised its Phytophthora ramorum Domestic Regulatory Program Manual (available here). APHIS also reviewed the protocol governing responses to detection of P. ramorum in retail nurseries (available here). The agency also plans to carry out a full program review but no timeline has been announced.
It is not clear to me whether these actions satisfy the states or – most importantly – address the reasons why such a large breakout of nursery infestations escaped current regulatory safeguards.
APHIS Slow Walks a Revised Host List
Meanwhile, carrying out a promise made in May 2019 when APHIS revised the SOD regulations, APHIS has posted a revised list of officially recognized P. ramorum hosts (available here). Finally! The new list replaces one from 2013.
The new list recognizes only one new species (Gaultheria procumbens, eastern teaberry) as a proven host, based on completion of Koch’s postulates. (The scientific paper was published five years ago!) So far, APHIS would only recognize a host after Koch’s postulates were completed. But the agency has been unwilling to pay for the experimental work required.
That situation might be changing: APHIS says it is reviewing scientific publications and ongoing research. The agency also invites scientists to contact the national program manager regarding plant taxa that they believe should be added to the regulated plant taxa list.
Meanwhile, we know that scientists have completed Koch’s postulates on several new hosts: Brisbane box, Lophostemon confertus, taken from samples of street trees dying in central Sausalito, Marin Co., California (COMTF June newsletter); and seven species of Arctostaphylos (manzanita) (COMTF April newsletter). So far, there’s no word from APHIS as to if or when it might act on these.
Nursery Situation in Individual States
California
Inspections under various federal and state regulatory requirements have detected infected plants in five nurseries (COMTF June newsletter). Two are in counties with widespread infestations that ship only within the state. Infected plants were Camellia and Loropetalum (COMTF April newsletter). Three other nurseries, also that ship within the state, tested positive only in previous years. Trace investigations completed at four of these nurseries by June had detected no additional positive plants. (COMTF June newsletter)
Oregon
Western Oregon has a climate that favors P. ramorum. One result is intensification and spread of the forest infestation (see below); another is a perpetual problem with infected nurseries.
In fall 2019, Oregon Department of Agriculture detected positive plants and soil at an interstate shipper. The plants were destroyed. Trace-back detected no further positive detections. The areas with infested soil were taped off until authorities can carry out steaming to decontaminate (COMTF April newsletter).
Meanwhile, trace-back from a previously identified retail location led to a second commercial interstate shipper. Camellia, Pieris, and Rhododendron plants tested positive, along with three soil samples and one groundwater sample. This was the first detection for this wholesale location (COMTF April newsletter).
Then, a routine inspection detected P. ramorum at a third interstate shipper in early March 2020. As of April, seven Rhododendron plants tested positive. This was also the first detection at this particular nursery (COMTF April newsletter).
Meanwhile, the spring compliance surveys at 10 Oregon nurseries that ship interstate found no P. ramorum (COMTF October newsletter).
In August, Oregon Department of Agriculture conducted soil steaming at three nurseries that previously tested positive. The action was successful at two but not at the third due to irrigation issues. APHIS and ODA are working with the nursery to create an enhanced mitigation plan focusing on irrigation at the nursery (COMTF October newsletter).
However, trouble continues. In July, a North Carolina nursery reported positive Rhododendron plants that had been purchased from an Oregon nursery. Traceback detected infected Rhododendron plants at the site. Further tracebacks have been triggered at the locations where this material was purchased – apparently yet another nursery. The nursery is undergoing the final assessment to sign a federal compliance agreement and will be added to the list of nurseries sampled by ODA in fall (COMTF October newsletter).
Washington
Washington officials continue to detect P. ramorum in water bodies that have proved difficult to trace back to a plant source. Positive water samples were collected again from the pond at the botanic garden in Kitsap County – as has been true for most years since 2015. Despite the continuing presence of the pathogen in the pond, authorities have not been able to find infected plants in recent years, including in 2020.
Authorities also detected a water-positive at a nursery participating in the P. ramorum compliance program. They have scheduled additional vegetation and water sampling (COMTF April newsletter). It is not stated whether this is the nursery apparently responsible for the 2019 spread event.
A third positive water sample was collected on a creek in Snohomish County. The state Department of Agriculture plans to follow up with two nurseries in the drainage. One had previously tested positive (COMTF April newsletter).
In June, the state conducted a trace-forward investigation on plants from a positive out-of-state nursery. Most plants had been sold at the retail level and were untraceable. However, 37 Rhododendron planted in several residential locations were sampled; six plants at four sites were positive. The Confirmed Residential Protocol has been enacted at all four locations (COMTF August 2020). Authorities also treated the soil at two of the planting sites (COMTF October newsletter).
The Risk of New Phytophthora Introductions Is Dire
The COMTF June newsletter summarizes the findings of studies by European forest pathologists. As I reported in an earlier blog, European researcher have identified more than100 previously unknown Phytophthora species through intensive surveys conducted during 2013 – 2019 in natural ecosystems of Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Curacao, Egypt and eight European countries. Overall, 13,242 isolates were obtained, which could be assigned to 65 known and 101 previously unknown species. Two of the most damaging – P. cinnamomi and P. ramorum – are most likely native to Southeast Asia. The scientists recommend extensive host-range testing of forest tree and horticultural crop species to assess the potential threat posed by the import of living plants from Southeast Asia. Several presentations and factsheets with further information may be found here. https://www.ponteproject.eu/
Early in the year, I attempted to persuade APHIS to begin studies of possible hosts’ vulnerability, but I was told that APHIS does not do research. I also approached the Agriculture Research Service and USDA Forest Service. Perhaps academic scientist could obtain funding to carry out such studies through grants funded by the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Programs (under Section 7721 of the Plant Protection Act) or National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Wildland Infestations – Threat to native plants; interactions with fire
The COMTF April 2020 newsletter reports the growing threat to manzanitas from P. ramorum. The genus Arctostaphylos includes more than 100 species of evergreen shrubs and small trees. Nearly half are classified as rare, threatened, or endangered. The center of diversity is in the San Francisco area – which overlaps with the area intensely infested by P. ramorum. At least 18 manzanita species support the pathogen. Koch’s postulates have been completed on seven of the most recently detected hosts, and are under way for two others. I am grateful to the California Department of Food and Agriculture for carrying out these studies; without them, APHIS would not recognize the plants’ host status. (Despite requiring completion of Koch’s postulates, APHIS does not fund these studies.)
A study of the interaction between P. ramorum and fire in California (October COMTF newsletter and Simler-Williamson et al.) found that frequently-burned forests were less likely to be invaded by the pathogen, had lower incidence of host infection, and lower occurrence and density of epidemiologically-significant hosts. The authors think that the fire-caused loss of tall, mature California bay laurel trees might temporarily dampen pathogen transmission and “release” susceptible species from significant inoculum pressure.
The June COMTF newsletter reports that the forest infestation in Oregon continues to spread. During spring 2020, Oregon detected 15 new P. ramorum infestations at or beyond the Oregon Generally Infested Area (GIA). The October newsletter reports that 38 stream drainages both inside and outside the SOD quarantine area were baited, and one at the northern boundary of the quarantine area was positive for P. ramorum. The Oregon Department of Forestry installed additional stream baits in the drainage to pinpoint the infestation, and plans a stream survey for the area. Planned eradication efforts have been impeded by funding cuts caused by Covid-19-related falls in tax receipts.
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.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
Press, C.; Fieland, V.; Creswell, T.; Bonkowski, J.; Miles, L. and Grünwald, N.J. 2020 (First Look). First report of the NA2 clonal lineage of Phytophthora ramorum in Indiana. Plant Disease. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-12-19-2543-PDN.
Simler-Williamson, A.B.; Metz, M.R.; Frangioso, K.M. and Rizzo, D.M. 2020. Wildfire alters the disturbance impacts of an emerging forest disease via changes to host occurrence and demographic structure. Journal of Ecology. Early View. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13495
Port of Mobile, Alabama Photo by Port of Mobile Authority
In August and September I blogged about the rapid increase in volumes of imports from Asia, especially China, in 2020. At the time, the information available to me focused on the Pacific coast ports, especially Long Beach and Los Angeles.
In the earlier blogs, I mentioned three concerns:
1. Had the collapse in trade and travel during spring 2020 so reduced user fees that Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had to furlough Agriculture Quarantine Inspectors? AQI inspections provide important incentives for importers to follow U.S. and international rules to reduce the risk that pests will be present in imports, for example, in wood packaging.
2. The list of imports from China in the first half of 2020 includes $1 billion worth of nursery stock. This is down about 7% from 2019. However, from the perspective of preventing plant diseases and pests, these imports continue to be high risk and are still not adequately addressed by U.S. policy.
3. Other Asian regions are gaining in import share. Thus we can expect to see more pests arriving from countries other than China, like Vietnam.
Cutbacks in Numbers of Inspectors?
CBP staff have told me that they are shifting AQI inspectors from covering incoming passengers – which are still far fewer than before the Pandemic – to inspecting cargo. By doing so, CBP has avoided cutting back on the total number of inspections of imported goods and associated wood packaging.
This is fortunate since Congress has not passed a new Covid-19 financing bill that might have included an increase in the appropriation for DHS CBP. The Continuing Resolution currently in effect funds the government only until December 11. So we have another chance to ask for an increase in appropriated funds for CBP (and APHIS!) for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2021 (which ends on October 1, 2021).
Volumes of Imports from Asia – Especially China
As I reported in the earlier blog, while U.S. imports from China declined significantly in 2019 and early 2020 compared to earlier years, by the summer imports had rebounded — more than doubled (by value) between March and July.
Shifts in U.S. Ports
According to the Journal of Commerce, there is a gradual shift away from the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in the proportion of imported goods entering the country. LA-LB handled 37.7% of the loaded twenty-foot equivalent containers (TEUs) entering the United States in 2018. This fell to 33.5% in July 2020. The initial reason was a decrease in imports from East Asia (including China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan) compared to Southeast Asia, Europe, then South America and, finally, South Asia (primarily India).
Other source regions – e.g., the Caribbean, Middle East, Pacific, Africa, and Atlantic – were all below 2% of total numbers of TEU in all three years, and changed minimally over this period.
Another reason for the shift in ports utilized by importers is congestion and delays at North American Pacific coast ports, especially Los Angeles-Long Beach. U.S. imports from Asia moving through LA-LB increased 22% in both September and August from the same months last year – 828,880 TEU in September after 832,210 TEU in August.
Congestion is also a problem at the Canadian ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert – which have actually seen small decreases in numbers of incoming containers.
One result is a small but significant shift to Gulf Coast ports, which have become more accessible through the widening of the Panama Canal in 2016. Before the Canal was widened, these ports handled less than 3% of total US imports from Asia. In the first nine months of 2020, US Gulf ports handled 608,387 TEU from Asia – or 5.2% of total US imports from Asia. This was a 5% increase from the same period last year.
These ports, stretching from Houston to Tampa, benefit from easy and relatively cheap rail transport to inland U.S. and even Canadian cities. Another factor is the heavy presence of Walmart – which has major distribution centers in Mobile and Houston.
The Gulf coast ports are expected to expand their importance as gateways for Asian imports as ocean carriers add more capacity between the two regions and ports upgrade and expand. New Orleans and Houston plan major expansions. Port Tampa Bay notes its proximity to markets around the Southeast. Already, import volumes into Tampa during the first nine months of 2020 were nearly double the prior year’s level. Tampa hopes to double its capacity over the next five years.
U.S. imports from Asia in October were 22.6% higher than a year ago. Imports through the East and Gulf coast ports jumped 14.6% and 48.4% from September 2020. Houston and Baltimore saw the greatest increases since September. There were also shifts in Pacific ports. Still, the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex handled 49% of total US imports from Asia in October 2020.
Pest Risks to the Gulf Coast from Southeast Asia
Rising volumes of imports into the Gulf Coast present new opportunities for non-native insects and pathogens. The warm, wet climate of the region might be far more suitable to some insects and pathogens from tropical and subtropical Asia than the dry climate of southern California (except for areas that are irrigated artificially, such as golf courses, parks, and plant nurseries!).
redbay grove killed by laurel wilt; Photo by Scott Cameron
Already, the redbay ambrosia beetle and its associated pathogenic fungus has decimated native redbay and swamp bay trees and now threatens sassafras (see write-up under the “invasive species” tab here.)
Another Southeast Asian ambrosia beetle – the polyphagous shot hole borer with its associated pathogenic fungus – might also find the Gulf Coast states more inviting than southern California. In California, it is causing the greatest damage to trees that are artificially irrigated. Numerous tree species native to or grown in the Gulf states are known hosts, e.g., box elder, sweetgum, and southern magnolia. (PSHB is described under the “invasive species” tab here.) Both ambrosia beetles apparently were introduced via wood packaging material.
Southeast Asia is also the place of origin of other pathogens which – in this case – would more probably be introduced on imported plants rather than wood. These include the numerous species of Phytophthora recently detected in Vietnam.
As this region receives more goods from Asia, and as those goods arrive more rapidly so more likely to arrive alive, it is imperative that all stakeholders increase their vigilance to detect new invaders. And that they join others pressing for improved policies aimed at preventing introductions.
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.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report here.
In 2017 I blogged about a study by Hanno Seebens and 44 coauthors that showed that the rate of new introductions of alien species has risen rapidly since about 1800 – and showed no sign of slowing down (a reference to the full article is at the end of this blog). Here’s a brief recap, followed by a 2020 update by Seebens and colleagues.
In 2017, Seebens et al. analyzed a database covering 45,813 first records of 16,926 alien species established in 282 distinct geographic regions. The year with the highest number of reported new detections was 1996 – 585, or an average of more than 1.5 sightings per day.
The authors found that the adoption of national and international biosecurity measures during the 20th Century had slowed introductions – but not sufficiently. Numbers of reported new introductions of fish and mammals had decreased since the early 1950s. However, first recorded introductions of vascular plant species remained high, and introductions of birds and reptiles also continued to rise, largely as pets in countries with strengthening economies.
For taxa introduced primarily accidentally on transport vectors or as contaminants of commodities (e.g., algae, insects, crustaceans, molluscs and other invertebrates), they found a strong correlation between their spread and the market value of goods imported into the region of interest – existing biosecurity regimes had not slowed down the accumulation of these alien taxa.
As a consequence, the authors expected that the numbers of new alien species would continue to increase.
As you are aware, since 2015 I have posted 15 blogs about the continued detections of tree pests in wood packaging, which remains one of the major pathways despite the international regulation ISPM#15. I have found it harder to track insect and pathogen introductions on imported plants, but it surely continues apace.
2020 Study Projects Continuing Rise in Introductions, Especially Arthropods
Hanno Seebens and a smaller set of coauthors (see full reference at the end of this blog) have now produced an estimate of probable introduction rates in the future. They looked at taxon–continent combinations for seven major taxonomic groups and eight continents (excluding Antarctica).
They found an overall increase in established alien species between 2005 and 2050 of 36%.
The study predicted that by the mid-21st Century, there will be distinct increases in alien species numbers, particularly for Europe, but also for Temperate Asia and North America, and for invertebrates in all regions. Europe ranked highest in absolute numbers of new alien species (~2,543; a 64% increase). Temperate Asia was projected to receive about 1,597 species (a 50% increase); North America about 1,484 (a 23% increase); South America about 1,391 (a 49% increase); and the Pacific Islands about 132. Only Australasia could expect a slower rise in introductions. The predicted trajectories of alien species numbers were surprisingly similar for mainland and island regions across taxonomic groups.
Invertebrates showed the highest relative increases. Rates of new detections of alien species were projected to accelerate for arthropods other than crustaceans worldwide, especially for North America (!). The study also projected higher relative increases for aquatic vascular plants and terrestrial insects
All drivers of introduction and invasion are predicted to intensify in the future. This is despite adoption of increasing numbers of countermeasures in recent decades. Most countries’ capacity to proactively counter the rising tide of invasive species is still poor. Furthermore, the principal drivers – intensification of trade and transport, land-use change, and access to new source pools – is expected to continue operating as now – “business as usual”.
spotted lanternfly Holly Ragusa, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Current Status of “New” Detections
Seebens et al. (2020) relied on the Alien Species First Records Database for first detection records up to 2005. More than half (54%) of the first-detection records in the database are vascular plants. Arthropods other than crustaceans made up 28% of the total, birds 6%, fishes 4%, mammals 3%, molluscs 2%, and crustaceans 2%. The 2020 study confirmed the earlier finding that the observed first-record rates of mammals changed at around 1950 from an increasing to a decreasing trend. Finally, the total numbers of non-native species in the Database is much lower in aquatic habitats. (The authors do not discuss whether this reflects actual introductions or gaps in reporting.)
In the database, Europe recorded 38% of all first records, North America 16%, Australasia 15%, South America 9%, Temperate Asia 9%, Africa 6%, Pacific Islands 5% and Tropical Asia 2%.
A comparison to the immediate past (1960-2005) showed that the rates of emerging non-native species were projected to accelerate during 2005-2050, especially for arthropods. As I noted above, North America is predicted to have high increases in absolute numbers. Increases are also predicted for birds. Declines are predicted for mammals and fishes.
Asian giant hornet; photo from University of Florida Department of Entomology
Projected increases for Australasia were consistently lower than in the past.
Caveats:
1) The authors assumed that past patterns of alien species accumulation will continue in the future. They did not attempt to predict efforts to strengthen biosecurity regulations and mitigation strategies.
2) Projections were calculated in the absence of data on many underlying drivers for the historic periods and some taxonomic groups. However, observed trends of newly-detected alien species numbers during the 20th century were surprisingly stable despite distinct political and socio-economic changes.
Seebens and colleagues conclude that implementation of targeted biosecurity efforts can reduce the numbers of new alien species becoming established. However, a significant decrease in rates of alien species numbers on a large scale can only be achieved by a coordinated effort that crosses political borders.
Seebens, H., S. Bacher, T.M. Blackburn, C. Capinha, W. Dawson, S. Dullinger, P. Genovesi, P.E. Hulme, M. van Kleunen, I. Kühn, J.M. Jeschke, B. Lenzner, A.M. Liebhold, Z. Pattison, J. Perg, P. Pyšek, M. Winter, F. Essl. 2020. Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Global Change Biology. 2020;00:1 -13 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15333
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.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
dead ash along Accotink Creek, Fairfax County, Virginia photo by F.T. Campbell
As we all know, the emerald ash borer (EAB) has killed millions of ash trees in its invaded range across eastern North America. However, field studies have detected robust regeneration of ash seedlings and saplings in various invaded areas. Ward et al. 2021 (full citation at end of blog) set out to determine whether this regeneration will result in recovery of mature ashes that can perform their ecological role. They conclude that it will not. Instead, they say, the EAB invasion will probably alter successional patterns and composition of large areas of naturally regenerating forests, causing a cascade of ecological impacts in ash-containing ecosystems
Ward and colleagues used USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA data) to quantify ash recruitment and regeneration across the entire eastern United States. Theirs is the first study to evaluate trends across the region, rather than specific locations or stands. They related the FIA recruitment data to EAB spread, as measured by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’ (APHIS) record of the first EAB detection in each county.
FIA inventories in 2002-2007 and 2013-2018 show large numbers of ash seedlings and saplings in counties invaded in the first wave of invasion, 2002–2006. These areas had higher densities of both seedlings and saplings than plots in other counties. The earliest-invaded counties were in areas that had extraordinarily high densities of ash before the EAB invasion, so the numbers of seedlings and saplings probably reflected that abundant seed source.
However, by the 2013-2018 inventory ash trees in the smallest overstory class (12.7 cm dbh) were dying at faster rates than they were recruited from seedlings or saplings in all 362 counties recorded by APHIS as EAB-infested before 2013. Ward and colleagues found these negative population trajectories on plots that have been invaded for more than about 10 years. This trend suggests that ash will continue to decline in abundance and may become functionally extinct across the invaded range.
Some U.S. Forest Service biologists are more optimistic about ash recovery in response to biocontrol of the EAB. See their podcast here.
In the risk of functional extinction, ash trees are unfortunately not unique. The authors note similar impacts from the invasion of the hemlock woolly adelgid and beech bark disease.
Data Reveal History of Invasion (spread)
Ward and colleagues focused on the risk of mortality for young ashes as they developed from seedlings to saplings, and, eventually, to overstory trees. The youngest “overstory” trees are 12.7 to 17 cm dbh. FIA data show that even the largest trees in this class are 3 cm smaller than trees that produce seeds.
Mortality was initially uniformly low – less than 2.1% — as measured by the first FIA inventory (2002–2007). This is not surprising because EAB was detected only in 2002, and then in only few counties. (EAB had probably been present for a decade before it was detected.)
By the 2013-2018 FIA inventory, mortality had quadrupled to 8–11% in counties invaded during the 2002–2006 period. In the counties invaded during the 2007–2012 period, morality also rose to 3-5%. Both measurements included all diameter classes. Annual mortality rates in the FIA 2013-2018 inventory were still highest for the counties invaded during 2002–2006 except for the largest trees (those greater than 40 cm dbh). By the time of the 2013-2018 FIA survey, overstory ash densities near the epicenter had since declined substantially. They had been nearly eliminated in some counties in southeastern Michigan. There were still sufficient numbers of smaller trees in the region to exhibit an elevated mortality rate – more than 10% per year in several counties in Michigan, Indian, and Ohio. By contrast, in the most recently invaded areas – those counties recorded by APHIS as infested after 2013 – there was very little change in ash densities compared to the 2002-2007 period. This is hardly surprising since it takes years for mortality to reach levels observable by the FIA process.
dead ash on edge of Pohick Bay, Fairfax County, Virginia photo by F.T. Campbell
Considering trees just entering the overstory category (those with diameters of 12.7 cm dbh), annual mortality increased substantially across the region. Between the first FIA inventory (conducted in 2002-2007) and the second inventory (conducted in 2013-2018), their average annual mortality rose more than four-fold, from 0.08 trees per ha to 0.37 trees per ha. By 2013-2018, recruitment in the 2002–2006 invasion cohort was about 50% less than tree mortality levels; recruitment and mortality were about equivalent for the counties invaded in the 2007–2012 period. Recruitment was [still] significantly higher than mortality for the counties recorded as invaded in 2013–2018. However, Ward and colleagues expect mortality rates of this cohort to accelerate over the next five to 10 years – even in areas with lower ash densities.
Ward and colleagues note that many of the young ash trees were dying before they could reach reproductive age – which they estimated to be about 20 years with a dbh of about 20 cm.
As the invasion progresses and hosts are depleted, mortality rates could slow, but, for ash to persist, it is critical that sufficient numbers of trees reach reproductive age before succumbing to residual EAB populations.
Other factors that might influence ash include competition with trees in other genera. The biocontrol agents now becoming established in young ash forests might increase the likelihood of ash persistence. Still, seed production and seedling survival will need to be frequent and widespread if they are to offset expected mortality. Resilience might also vary depending on individual species’ vulnerability to changes in the climate and to EAB (green and black ash are more vulnerable than white ash).
SOURCE
Ward, S.F., A.M. Liebhold, R.S. Morin, S. Fei. 2021. Population dynamics of ash across the eastern USA following invasion by emerald ash borer. Forest Ecology and Management 479 (2021) 118574
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.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
Asian giant hornet; photo from University of Florida Department of Entomology
Asian giant hornet (AGH) (Vespa mandarinia) is the world’s largest hornet, reaching sizes of 1.5 – 2 inches long. Its native range includes much of Asia. While media attention has focused on the hornet’s frightening size, the real threat is to honey bees (Apis spp.) and – especially – to the many important crops that bees pollinate.
Over the past year or so, several detections of the Asian giant hornet have been found in the Pacific Northwest – in British Columbia and Washington State. Four of the sites are within a few miles of each other. Two others are separated by miles of open water from the mainland sites. As of mid-October, 18 hornets had been detected in Washington State.
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has partnered with the Washington Department of Agriculture to try to eradicate the hornet – which will not be easy! However, the Canadian Food Inspection Service (CFIA) has decided not to designate the hornet as a quarantine pest. This decision seems to threaten divergent approaches to the bioinvader. Fortunately, the Province of British Columbia is trying to eradicate its populations – so perhaps the diverging federal approaches will not result in facilitating the hornet’s establishment and spread.
Where the Hornet Is Known to Be
The first detected outbreak of the Asian giant hornet was in Nanaimo, British Columbia – on Vancouver Island. A single hornet was detected in August 2019. [A Canadian commenter said in March 2021 that this turned out to be a different species, V. soror.] A nest was detected in September and destroyed by local beekeepers and BC government officials. However, another hornet was found on the mainland – in White Rock, B.C. – in November 2019 [CFIA Decision Document]. In 2020, there have been several unconfirmed sightings in the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island (van Westendorp, pers. comm.).
Meanwhile, beekeepers discovered two AGH outbreaks in Whatcom County, WA, on the U.S. side of the border. These discoveries were in December 2019 and May 2020. There were other, unconfirmed reports in both Washington and British Columbia. [USDA APHIS Environmental Assessment (EA)] Indeed, later in 2020, Washington reported a few more sightings — in the Birch Bay area, just south of Blaine and at a site about eight miles east of Blaine (van Westendorp, pers. comm.)
Three of the hornets found in spring 2020 were mated queens (Zhu et al. 2020), which means at least one colony successfully reproduced last year. One of the mated queens was the second detection in Whatcom County – in Custer, Washington. One article said that the locations of this spring’s queens meant either that the new queens travelled up to 35 kilometres (about 22 miles) before founding their nests or that they came from more than one colony. Either way, it probably means that giant hornets could spread faster than initially thought.
White Rock, BC and Blaine, Washington are a few miles apart on the Canada-U.S. border. Langley is 12 miles to the northeast of White Rock – in the Fraser Valley. Custer is 7 miles southeast of Blaine. Birch Bay is 5 miles south of Blaine. The most recent detection is 8 miles east of Blaine. So all these detections are in close proximity and might represent spread from a single introduction site – or maybe not!
Nanaimo and the Cowichan Valley are on Vancouver Island, which is separated from the other locations by a significant distance and open water. The two island sites are about 30 miles apart. They surely represent one or more separate introductions.
One study found that a single hornet collected from Blaine, Washington differed genetically from a single hornet collected at Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. This suggests separate introductions. However, too little is known about the hornet’s genetic variability across Asia to allow conclusions about possibly separate origins (van Westendorp, pers. comm.; Wilson et al. 2020).
Areas at Risk
The area at risk is potentially much broader than the Pacific Northwest. APHIS’ initial analyses, based on plant hardiness zones, indicated that the hornet could thrive in virtually all the lower 48 states. APHIS’s Environmental Assessment did not address vulnerable areas in Canada or – apparently – in Hawai`i.
Zhu et al. (2020) carried out an assessment of areas most at risk and the hornet’s potential rate of spread. They found that areas with warm to cool annual mean temperature, high precipitation, and high human activity were most likely to be suitable for the hornet. Areas meeting these criteria are found across western and eastern North America, Europe, northwestern and southeastern South America, central Africa, eastern Australia, and New Zealand. Most of central North America and California are less suitable.
Spread could be rapid in the Pacific Northwest: they predicted that the hornet could reach Oregon in 10 years, eastern Washington and British Columbia within 20 years. This prediction is based in part by experience with the invasive congener V. velutina in Europe; it has expanded by 78 km/year in France, 18 km/year in Italy.
Oregon is relying on beekeepers to detect the hornet, which they expect will arrive even earlier than 10 years from now. The Oregon Department of Agriculture has suffered severe budget cuts because of the Covid-19 crash in state tax collections, so the program is trying to save money. As of the beginning of October, none of the hundreds of citizen reports has been a Vespa of any species (J. Vlach, Oregon Department of Agriculture, pers. comm).
Pathways of Introduction
It is not known how the hornet reached North America. Reports from other countries indicate that they can hitchhike in shipments of empty plant containers, or in the straw in which the containers are packed. In addition, some Asian cultures regard the hornets as delicacies, so deliberate importation is possible. Both APHIS and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) have intercepted such shipments (CFIA Decision document; USDA APHIS PPQ New Pest Response).
The Threat
The AGH typically feeds on a variety of terrestrial invertebrates including beetles, mantids, caterpillars, and spiders (EA). During the spring and summer, hornets attack their prey singly. However, in the Aautumn, hornet workers carry out mass attacks against other social Hymenoptera – including other species of Vespa, yellowjackets (Vespula spp.), various paper wasps (Polistes spp.), and honey bees (Apis spp.). Commercial honeybee colonies are typically lost when attacked en masse. They are especially vulnerable because they are more concentrated than wild bee colonies. [EA]
Commercial honeybee colonies pollinate a wide variety of crops, including tree fruits, cane fruits (berries), tree nuts, tomatoes, and even potatoes. Supplies of beef and milk might also be at risk because alfalfa hay is pollinated by bees. Of course, honey production would also be threatened. As USDA APHIS has stated, if the Asian giant hornet spreads it would become a new stress on top of the multiple existing causes of honeybee decline.
Also, there is a direct threat to people. The AGH has a painful sting that can result in anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, and other complications in susceptible people. Officials emphasize that most people will not be at risk of stings. However, beekeepers are – their usual Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is not adequate to ward off the hornet’s sting [APHIS EA & New Pest .
APHIS’ programmatic Environmental Assessment notes that the hornet might also pose a threat to vertebrates that nest in ground burrows and decayed trunks and roots near the ground. Burrows chosen by female hornets for nest construction can be surprisingly large, up to 60 cm (24 inches) in diameter. The EA notes that, in Washington State, badgers, marmots, ground squirrels, and other small mammals use dens or burrows. Among these, four pocket gophers and the American wolverine are federally listed under the Endangered Species Act in Washington State. [For a list, see the environmental assessment.] The EA does not discuss whether cavity-nesting birds might also be affected – although the hornets do prefer hollows near or at ground level. The authors of the EA expect vertebrates to abandon any burrows used by the hornet, so they would be displaced rather than harmed by pesticides applied by the program described below.
APHIS program
APHIS and the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) have begun an eradication program. I think eradication will be challenging because it will be very difficult both to find nests and to destroy them.
Hornets nest typically in forested areas or urban green spaces. There are lots of suitable places in the Pacific Northwest! These wooded areas are interspersed with farms, orchards, and settlements that will provide vulnerable insects as food sources.
Nest destruction involves excavating a hole two meters by two meters. This digging must be in woodlands, often right next to trees.
The key to successful eradication is finding and destroying the nests before they produce reproductive females and males – in autumn. Nest detection will be carried out as follows [EA]:
Starting in April, the agencies bottle traps in trees near the 2019 detection points. The traps are baited with a solution of rice cooking wine and orange juice to attract the worker bees. (The rice wine is added to discourage honeybees from visiting the trap.) Traps catches help define areas where nests are located.
WSDA successfully tracked radio-tagged workers to a nest in mid-October. That nest was in a tree hollow, not underground.
WSDA scientists think there were approximately 200 queens in that single nest. Two were vacuumed out during the initial extraction. Inside the nest they found 76 emergent queens and 108 capped cells with pupae that they believe were also queens. Three more queens were trapped in a bucket of water. This nest had approximately 776 cells; large nests can have up to 4,000. WSDA believes there are other nests in the area; they continue to search.
APHIS’ original plan to use pesticides to kill hornets in the nest has been dropped. Washington plans now to use vacuum extraction followed by introduction of CO2 and excavation of the nest. Washington has also not decided whether to deploy traps with the pesticide fipronil (S. Spichiger, pers. comm.)
WSDA has also asked members of the public to set out homemade hornet traps, and to report any suspicious sightings.
Canada Takes Opposite Tack
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) announced in February 2020 (CFIA Decision Document) that it will not attempt to regulate the Asian giant hornet as a quarantine pest for Canada. Therefore, CFIA will place no restrictions on the import or movement of any commodities that may harbor the Asian giant hornet. CFIA will, however, require permits for deliberate importation of the hornets.
CFIA’s reasoning appears to focus on two factors:
The hornet is an indirect threat to plant health (since AGH attacks pollinators. CFIA has traditionally regulated quarantine pests based primarily on significant direct threats to plant health.
Under the international phytosanitary system, countries that designate an organism to be a quarantine pest must put in place the necessary measures to prevent its entry into the country, as well as officially control the pest when present. CFIA states that “High uncertainties about the pathways of entry puts into question the ability to manage this risk, and ultimately the ability and feasibility of regulating V. mandarinia as a quarantine pest.”
Neither APHIS nor CFIA has authority to regulate threats to human health.
Detection and Eradication Efforts in British Columbia (information from van Westendorp, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture)
In 2020, British Columbia has focused on detection surveillance. Target areas include vicinity of Nanaimo on Vancouver Island; Fraser Valley from White Rock in the West to Langley/Aldergrove in the East (along the US border); and after several credible (but non-verified) sightings, the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island. Because of resource limits, the surveillance effort has sought to engage local governments, border agencies, First Nations, forestry & mining companies, farmers, and beekeepers. The ministry also placed numerous bottle traps and encouraged 170 beekeepers in the Fraser Valley to install and monitor traps in their apiaries.
So far, only one AGH specimen has been sighted or collected in the three British Columbia survey areas during 2020 – the single specimen at Langley detected in May. However, the several detections along the U.S. side of the border (see above on recent detections) has spurred BC officials to intensify survey efforts in the Fraser Valley (van Westendorp). A specimen was collected adjacent to the US border in mid-October just north of the multiple detections in the US, and South of the Langley detection last spring (S. Spicher, pers. comm.).
British Columbia will continue to monitor well into the fall season and resume our surveillance in 2021 and 2022 (van Westendorp).
Hornets are clearly able to be transported and introduced. Vespa ducalis was detected in Vancouver, BC in 2019 and in Texas in 2020. Vespa velutina has become established in Europe (J. Vlach, Oregon Department of Agriculture, pers. comm).
USDA APHIS Asian Giant Hornet Control Program in Washington State Final Environmental Assessment—July 2020
USDA AHIS PPQ New Pest Response
van Westendorp, Paul. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, pers. comm.
Wilson, T.M., J. Takahashi, S-Erik Spichiger, I. Kim, and P. van Westendorp. 2020. First Reports of Vespa mandarinia (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) in North America Represent Two Separate Maternal Lineages in WA State, US, and BC, Canada. Annals of the Entomological Society of America · October 2020
Zhu, G., J. Gutierrez Illan, C. Looney, and D.W. Crowder. 2020. Assessing the ecological niche and invasion potential of the Asian giant hornet. PNAS Latest Articles ECOLOGY
