invasive species – Page 8 – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

Update on Several Pests in Southern California

The native hardwood trees of southern California are under threat from several non-native insects and insect/pathogen complexes. I provided some recent information on one of these, the Kuroshio shot hole borer, in April; and a description of Californians’ efforts to counter the threat in August of last year. I think it is time to provide a more comprehensive update on the species.

Invasive Shot Hole Borers

I have blogged several times about the damage being caused to riparian trees in southern California by the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers – collectively referred to as the “invasive shot hole borers” or ISHB.

One of the most interesting sources of information about the shot hole borers are the series of visual surveys carried out by Orange County Parks under the leadership of Cathy Nowak (who has now retired). The most recent surveys were conducted in spring 2018 while deciduous trees were still dormant, so those estimates are based on the number of beetle gallery holes detected. An estimated 52,000 trees in the County’s parks are infested by either PSHB or KSHB. Eight regional parks and one historic house were surveyed. Only one large park remains uninfested. Comparing the results in 2018 to those of earlier surveys showed that percentages of host trees (in which the beetle can reproduce) that are infested rose over 2 years or less in seven of the parks – from a 9% increase in one park to a five-fold increase at another park with very low numbers of trees and low overall infestation rate earlier. The second highest increase is 89%.

The most heavily hit hosts are species long recognized as hosts See writeup on the borers here. Those with infestation rates exceeding 70% in one or more parks were

Acacia sp

Alnus rhobifolia (white alder)

Baccharis salicifolia (mule fat)

Erythrina caffra (coral tree)

Koelreuteria bipinnata (Chinese Flame tree*)

Koelreuteria paniculata (golden raintree)

Liquidambar styrachiflua (sweetgum)

Parkinsonia aculeate (palo verde)

Platanus occidentalis (American Sycamore)

Platanus racemose (California sycamore)

Platanus x hispanica (London plane)

Populus fremontii (Fremont cottonwood)

Populus trichocarpa (black cottonwood)

Quercus robur (English oak)

Salix spp. (willow)

* Chinese flame trees support ISHB only within cankered wood – other parts of the tree excrete thick gumming sap that protects.

Current information supports the vulnerability of California sycamore, and guidance that those seeking to learn whether the beetles have established should focus their surveys on sycamores.

As I have noted numerous times, several reproductive hosts are widespread in other parts of the country and could presumably support infestations there. These include box elder (not included in the Orange County surveys), sweetgum, and two magnolias – southern magnolia (M. grandiflora) and sweet bay (M. virginiana). Thirty-eight percent of the Magnolia grandiflora in one park were infested, although none was in three other parks. Koelreuteria spp. are a widely planted exotic across the country – although their role in spreading the disease appears to be limited by fact that they support ISHB development only in cankered wood. Birches have not been determined to be reproductive hosts, although one birch tree in one park had insect exit holes. Casuarina cunnninghamiana is also not known to be a reproductive host; trees in this genus are widespread invaders in Florida.

The good news is that none of a total of 12 southern live oaks (Quercus virginiana) growing in three parks had been attacked.

goldspotted oak borer

Goldspotted oak borer

The goldspotted oak borer attacks California black oak, coast live oak, and canyon live oak. It is now widespread and continuing to spread in San Diego County. Officials report that is now established in more than 10 parks in the County.

There is a heavy GSOB infestation in Idyllwild, on the eastern edge of Riverside County. This outbreak is clearly linked to importation of infested firewood. Due to the heavy 2017 fire season, planned removal of “amplifying” trees (heavily infested trees that support large numbers of reproducing beetles) did not occur – and the outbreak is growing. Trees in the San Bernardino National Forest are at risk; 13 were removed in 2017.

In Los Angeles County, so far only one site has been infested – Green Valley (which includes both private land and nearby portions of the Angeles National Forest). An estimated 50,000 oaks are in the area. Officials are removing the “amplifier” trees; they expect they might have to remove close to 3,000 trees at a cost of $6 million. Officials are also treating some trees.

A newly detected heavy infestation has been detected at campgrounds in the Trabuco Ranger District in the Cleveland National Forest. Forest Service officials are debating management options, with an eye to protecting as many coast live oaks as possible. They have had success in the past by treating some trees with chemicals.

Meanwhile, scientists will be trying to evaluate the effect of fire since the 2017 fires burned several infested areas, e.g., Weir Canyon in Orange County.

The principal management strategy is to identify and remove heavily infested “amplifier” trees. The wood and bark must be disposed of properly and quickly – if the wood is left on the ground over night, people take it – thereby spreading the insects. High-value trees that are not heavily infested can be protected by application of the topical contact insecticide Carbaryl on the lower trunk. Officials are also experimenting with oak restoration using either planting of acorns or promoting root sprouting of trees that have had to be cut down.

Thousand Cankers Disease

Thousand cankers disease of walnuts is very widespread throughout California, but it is not causing widespread rapid tree deaths. Juglans californica has multiple stems. If one is killed, the others usually survive. The impact on J. hindsii is greater because it has a single stem and is grown as a street tree. California officials last conducted a survey of walnuts in the state in 2015, at the height of the drought. They appear to be confident that the age of this survey has not affected their assessment of the risk.

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.

In Absence of Federal Action, States take Initiative

As the federal government continues to dawdle in responding to invasive species challenges, some states are ramping up their efforts in significant ways.

California: New Legislation Creates a Program – but Only for One Year

The California state legislature has created a new invasive species program that focuses on those bioinvaders that threaten native ecosystems and the urban environment. It thus addresses some of the criticisms that I have previously levelled at the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) [see my earlier blogs here and here]

The new program has been established for one year; it will have to be renewed by the legislature next year.

The program results from adoption of legislation that combines what were initially two bills:

Assemblyman Timothy Grayson introduced AB 2470. This bill provided a legal foundation for the California Invasive Species Council and its Invasive Species Advisory Committee. It also provided funding for early detection and control projects targetting high-priority species, including weed management areas; and for supportive research and diagnostics work by the University of California.
Assemblywomen Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher introduced AB 2054 focused specifically on the invasive shot hole borers [see descriptions of the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borer here https://www.dontmovefirewood.org/ ]. The “Protect California Trees with Shot Hole Borer Beetle Prevention” (1) established a framework for a coordinated statewide effort; (2) instructed the Invasive Species Council of California and the California Invasive Species Advisory Committee to coordinate with state and local agencies and stakeholder groups to develop a plan to suppress the disease spread by this beetle.

The final legislation provided the full $5 million for addressing the shot hole borer but cut funding for the other components of the combined programs to just $2 million (so, a total of $7 million).

State officials have begun developing a shot hole borer management plan; they are expected to get input from a subcommittee by the Invasive Species Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee held a meeting in mid-July to begin carrying out its coordinating functions.

Congratulations and thanks go to John Kabashima, who retired from his position as extension horticultural advisor with the University of California’s Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. John has devoted two years to building the alliances needed to make this happen.

Minnesota: New Funding for Research

In 2014, the Minnesota legislature created the Minnesota Invasive Terrestrial Plants and Pests Center at the University of Minnesota. The Center applies science-based solutions to protect the state’s terrestrial ecosystems and agricultural resources. It utilizes an allocation from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund to support a competitive research grant program. The current funding level is $3.5 million. Recently funded projects include evaluating the role of fungi in protecting ash trees from emerald ash borer and disease, genetic control of invasive insects, and use of goats in invasive plant control

The Center’s draft list of priority insects, plant pathogens, and invasive plants includes numerous forest pests. Among the 40 insect species listed, 19 are forest pests. Those in the top ten include mountain pine beetle, emerald ash borer, European and Asian gypsy moths, two elm beetles, and Asian longhorned beetle. Nineteen of 39 plant pathogens are tree-killers. Among the top ten are Dutch elm disease, oak wilt, Japanese oak wilt, Annosum root rot, sudden oak death, thousand cankers disease, and white pine blister rust.

In both cases, the lists include species that are already present and those not yet in the state (or even on the continent).

Western Governors’ Association: Initiative on Biosecurity

Incoming chairman, Hawaiian Gov. David Ige, has announced a Biosecurity and Invasive Species Initiative. The Initiative will focus on the impacts that invasive species have on ecosystems, forests, rangelands, watersheds, and infrastructure in the West, and examine the role that biosecurity plays in addressing these risks. Governor Ige hosted a webinar on 12 July [not yet posted on the WGA website] on which he was joined by such experts as Chuck Bargeron, Center for Invasive Species & Ecosystem Health, University of Georgia; Pam Fuller, Program Leader, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, USGS; Stinger Guala, Director of Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation (BISON), USGS; Jamie Reaser, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council; and Lori Scott, Interim President & CEO, and Chief Information Officer, NatureServe. The Association is sponsoring regional workshops on various components of the invasive species response on the following dates

Lake Tahoe, NV Sept 17-18 – prevention, control, management of established species
Cheyenne, WY Oct 11 -12 – restoration
Helena, MT Nov 14 – early detection and rapid response
Hawai`i Dec 9 & 10 – biosecurity and agriculture

Posted by Faith Campbell

Appropriations Update – Give A Big Round of Applause to the House Appropriations Committee

In mid-May, the House Committee on Appropriations adopted two bills crucial to funding efforts to counter tree-killing non-native insects and diseases. Please let them know you are grateful.

APHIS funding

The Agriculture appropriations bill funds APHIS (and other USDA agencies) for Fiscal Year 2019 (which begins on October 1). The new bill provides a total of $998,353,000 to APHIS, an increase of $16.4 million above the FY18 level and $259 million above the Administration’s request. ( I blogged about the Administration’s alarming request here.) You can find the bill here; the more informative report is posted here. Use search words to find specific APHIS programs.

The pest-related funding is apportioned among several areas:

Tree and Wood Pest Program. Unlike in previous years, the House bill does not cut funds for this program – which funds efforts to eradicate or contain the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, and European gypsy moth. Instead, it maintains funding at the FY18 level of $54 million. Under the circumstances, this is good news. Thank you for your efforts to educate members of the House subcommittee on agricultural appropriations about this crucial program! (In past years, we relied on the Senate to restore funding for the Tree and Wood Pest Program.)

Specialty Crop Pests Program. The House increased funding by $10.8 million here, and specified that $15 million target the spotted lanternfly. This recently detected Asian leafhopper is spreading in southeastern Pennsylvania and was recently confirmed in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley. It is a pest of native hardwood trees as well as of orchard and other crops.

Also, the Committee used its report to stress several concerns:

Access to emergency funding. In the report, the House Appropriations Committee reiterates its longstanding instruction that the USDA Secretary continue to use his authority to transfer funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation. They support using these funds – above and beyond appropriated funds – for the arrest and eradication of animal and plant pests and diseases that threaten American agriculture.

Brown Apple Moth vs. Emerald Ash Borer. Interestingly, the House Appropriations Committee encourages APHIS to engage state and international regulatory bodies as it moves to deregulate the light brown apple moth. The Committee expresses concern that if APHIS simply withdraws federal regulation without the necessary work with other officials, it will shift, not reduce, the regulatory burden. Then growers would carry the burden of preventing spread of the pest. I wish the Committee had made the same statement vis a vis the emerald ash borer! APHIS also plans to stop regulating this insect which continues to threaten still-uninvaded portions of the United States and Mexico.

Micornesia and Hawai’i. The Committee also instructs the Secretary of Agriculture to report to both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations its progress implementing the Regional Biosecurity Plan for Micronesia and Hawai`i. This plan combines efforts by the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, and the island governments to prevent transport of invasive species as a consequence of relocating military personnel from a base in Okinawa, Japan. More information is available here.

Forest Service funding

The Interior appropriations bill funds the US Forest Service (as well as Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency).

Forest Health Management Program. The bill provides an increase of $19.5 million above FY18 levels for the forest health management program ($30 million above the Administration’s request). The Committee instructs the Forest Service to “work in concert with Federal agencies, States, and other entities to prioritize the allocation of these funds to address the greatest threats.” The emerald ash borer, “bark beetle” (which ones?) and cogon grass are expressly mentioned. The report is posted here. (It is unclear what actions the Forest Service is expected to take on the EAB, since regulations intended to curtail people from moving infested wood will soon be dropped by APHIS. The Forest Service could support breeding of ash trees resistant to the beetle.)

Forest Service Research. The Interior appropriations bill also maintained funding for Forest Service research at the FY18 level of $297 million – rather than cutting it to $259 million as advocated by the Administration. The Committee has called for the USFS to act within one year to “strengthen” its research program. The Committee expressly avoids endorsing several priorities advocated by Members of Congress while waiting for the Forest Service to implement this instruction.

If your representative is a member of the House Appropriations Committee (members listed here), please thank them for supporting APHIS’ and USFS’ programs. These funding increases shift several years of decline and are a true win for protecting our forests from non-native insects and pathogens!

Posted by Faith Campbell

Update on Beech Leaf Disease – a Threat Lacking Adequate Funding and Official Action

last year’s leaves showing symptomatic striping (F.T. Campbell)

Back in December I blogged about beech leaf disease, a disease affecting American beech in northeastern Ohio and neighboring parts of Pennsylvania and New York, as well as across Lake Erie in Ontario.

[For more information and photos of symptoms, visit

http://forestry.ohiodnr.gov/portals/forestry/pdfs/BLDAlert.pdf or

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/12/beech_leaf_disease_discovered.html]

Scientists do not know what is causing the disease. So far it’s only clear that it appears to have been introduced to a single site and is spreading. At the beginning of May I participated in a workshop providing the most recent information on beech leaf disease.

workshop participants (budbreak was later than usual, so we could not observe deformed leaves) (F.T. Campbell)

Over the past three or four years, scientists have tried hard to understand the disease, its causes, and its likely prognosis. For example, scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State of Ohio have looked for insects, fungal pathogens, bacteria, viruses, nematodes, phytoplasmas – all without finding a causative agent. Attention is currently focused on a previously undescribed nematode in the Litylenchus genus. The only other species in this genus is a foliar feeder found in New Zealand. Studies continue, with most scientists tackling the problem without special funding.

Beech is a very important component of the forests of northeastern Ohio. Beech ranks third in number of stems per acre; second for “shrubs”. Consequently, scientists working for Lake Metroparks and Cleveland Metroparks continue to monitor spread of the disease and its impacts. Symptoms – deformed leaves – were first detected in 2012. In 2017, the results of a long-term vegetation monitoring project revealed that of 307 plots with beech present, 154 had symptomatic trees. Of the symptomatic plots, 49% of beech stems were affected. While initially only small trees had been killed, more recently some larger ones have died and others bear only very few leaves. Leaves with light, medium, or heavy symptoms of infection – as well as asymptomatic leaves – can occur on the same branch of an individual tree.

The disease seems to spread faster between stems along the interlocking roots of beech clone clusters.

Weather does not appear to be a factor, as the disease has spread every year despite great variations in heat and cold as well as levels of moisture.

Preliminary versions of a mathematical model of the disease’ spread indicates that approximately 90% of monitoring plots deployed across the full 24,000 acres of Cleveland Metropark system will be infected within 10 years.

Cleveland Metroparks has initiated intensive monitoring of a subset of 13 plots in order to clarify the disease’s impact. Monitoring revealed a 4% mortality rate from 2015 to 2017. More than half of these plots now have dead beech that had previously been symptomatic. Most are small trees less than 4.9 cm dbh. Efforts to obtain funding from the USFS Forest Health program have so far failed.

The disease – whatever its cause! – appears to be moved by trade in nursery plants. An Ontario retailer received – and rejected – a shipment of diseased beech from an Ohio nursery. Lake County, Ohio, has many nurseries that grow and ship European beech (which can also be infected by beech leaf disease). These nurseries are reported to be cooperating with Ohio authorities. No official entity has imposed regulatory restrictions – not any of the states or provinces with the disease present or threatened by it; nor USDA APHIS or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

Another threat to beech also not under regulation

CFIA has also not imposed a federal quarantine on another non-native pest killing beech, the European leaf-mining weevil, Orchestes fagi. First discovered in Halifax in 2012 – probably 5 years after its introduction – it has since spread throughout Nova Scotia. The weevil kills beech over 3 – 5 years.

New information added in June: according to Meurisse et al. (2018), the weevil overwinters under the bark of beech and trees that are not hosts, so it can be transported by movement of firewood and other forms of unprocessed logs and branches. [Meurisse, N. D. Rassaati, B.P. Hurley, E.G. Brockerhoff, R.A. Haack. 2018. Common Pathways by which NIS forest insects move internationally and domestically. Journal of Pest Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-0990-0]

The Importance of American Beech – and Protecting It

Beech is an extremely important tree in northern parts of the United States and Canada east of the Great Plains. It is co-dominant (with sugar maple) in the Northern Hardwood Forest [see two maps]. A summary of the species’ ecological importance can be found in Lovett et al. 2006. Forest Ecosystem Responses to Exotic Pests and Pathogens in Eastern North America. BioScience Vol. 56 No. 5.

native range of American beech; USFS map

Consequently, I am most distressed by the lack of attention to these new threats to the species. It is true that regulating an unknown disease agent (as would be the case with beech leaf disease) stretches traditional policy practice and possibly legal authorities. Furthermore, it has not yet been demonstrated that the disease can kill mature beech. However, neither of these caveats applies to the weevil, which is an identified species that has been documented to kill mature trees.

U.S. phytosanitary officials (the National Plant Board) will meet in Cleveland (!!) in August. Will the several state officials and their APHIS colleagues discuss how to address this new threat? Will any funds be made available to expand efforts to understand the disease, its spread, and possible measures to curtail it?

healthy beech, northern Virgina (F.T. Campbell)

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

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

You Might Be Surprised By Who is Authorized to Manage Wildlife on Federal Lands

mountain goats – introduced onto USFS-managed lands in the Columbia River Gorge at state initiative; in Utah, the state introduced mountain goats on lands adjacent to a USFS Research Natural Area

The journal Environmental Law has just published a 135-page article that debunks a common myth of wildlife management – a piece that the U.S. Forest Service tried to quash. The authors’ analysis could affect the introduction of potentially invasive non-native species – and the reintroduction of native ones – on federal lands.

Nie, M., C. Barns, J. Haber, J. Joly, K. Pitt & S. Zellmer. 2017. Fish and Wildlife Management on Federal Lands; debunking state supremacy. Environmental Law, Vol. 47, no. 4 (2017).

The article reviews the legal authority of federal and state governments to manage wildlife on federal lands. The authors examined wildlife-related provisions within the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Forest System, Bureau of Land Management, the special case of Alaska, the National Wilderness Preservation System, and the Endangered Species Act. They also reviewed cases where federal and state agencies came into conflict over wildlife management on federal lands.

Citing the U.S. Constitution, federal land laws, and relevant case law, the authors assert that federal agencies have an obligation, not just the discretion, to manage and conserve fish and wildlife on lands and waters under their management. They say that the often-cited statement that “the states manage wildlife and federal land agencies only manage wildlife habitat” is wrong from a legal standpoint. This is the myth that the article debunks.

Furthermore, the authors find that federal agencies frequently apply their powers in an inconsistent and sometimes even unlawful fashion. Due to political pressures, they may back down when confronted by states wanting to manage wildlife to achieve their own goals – even when the state’s goals conflict with the legally-mandated purposes of the federal land under question. Such goals might include ensuring maximum populations of “game” animals or introduction of species to new habitats – regardless of the potential impact on native plants and animals.

The authors note that federal land and wildlife laws provide ample opportunities for constructive intergovernmental cooperation in wildlife management. They call for truly mutual collaboration by federal, state, and tribal authorities in managing wildlife. However, such cooperation is blocked in part by states choosing to challenge the constitutional powers, federal land laws, and U.S. government supremacy. In addition, the authors contend, most states have not put together programs that address their own conservation obligations. These obligations are inherent in the widely recognized doctrine of wildlife being a public trust to be managed for the present and future benefit of the people, not the government or private individuals.

According to the website of the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, posting of a draft of this article on the University of Montana website (where lead author Martin Nie teaches) led the U.S. Forest Service to pressure the university to withdraw the article. The university refused, and the Forest Service ended its contract with Nie and his research center.

The paper can be downloaded here. 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.

Posted by Faith Campbell