Category: invasive species policy

“Ecological memory” determines a forest’s resilience — implications of bioinvasion to New Zealand’s unique flora

kauri dieback

Scientists in New Zealand are saying explicitly that a forest’s unique mixture of species matters when considering the future. This mixture is the result of the forest’s evolutionary history. Losing members of the biological community reduces the forest’s ability to respond to current and future stresses – its resilience.

New Zealand’s forests are part of the broader legacy of the ancient supercontinent of Gondwanaland – the island nation’s plants have close relatives in South America, the Pacific Ocean islands, and Australia. Still, these forests are unique: 80% of New Zealand’s plant species are endemic. The forests are also species-rich. The warm temperate evergreen rain forests of the North Island are home to at least 66 woody plant species that can reach that reach heights above six meters (Simpkins et al. 2024).

These forests have been severely changed by human activity. In just ~ 750 years people have cut down approximately 80% of the original forest cover! (Simpkins et al. 2024) Of the eight million hectares of surviving native forest, a little over five million hectares is managed for the conservation of biodiversity, heritage, and recreation.  Another 2 million hectares are plantations of non-native species.

sites in New Zealand where pine plantations are “wilding”

All these forests are challenged by introduced mammals – from European deer to Australian possums. Climate change is expected to cause further disturbance, both directly (through e.g., drought, extreme weather) and indirectly (e.g., by facilitating weed invasion and shifting fire regimes) (Simpkins et al. 2024).

Pathogen threats are also common threats to the native trees of the Pacific’s biologically unique island systems. For example, Ceratocystis lukuohia and C. huliohia (rapid ‘ōhi‘a death, or ROD). The latter is killing ‘ōhi‘a (Metrosideros polymorpha) on the Hawaiian Islands. More than 40% of native plant species in Western Australia are susceptible to Phytophthora cinnamomi. Here I focus on two pathogens, kauri dieback and myrtle rust, now ravaging New Zealand’s native flora. No landscape-level treatment is available for either pathogen.

When considering this suite of challenges, Simpkins et al. focus on these two pathogens’ probable impact on forest carbon sequestration. They worry in particular about erosion of the forests’ resilience due to loss of “ecological memory” – the life-history traits of the species (e.g., soil seed banks) and the structures left behind after individual disturbances.

one of the largest remaining kauri trees, “Tane Mahuta”, in Waipoua Kauri Forest; photo by F.T. Campbell

Kauri Dieback

The causal agent of Kauri dieback, Phytophthora agathidicida, is a soil-borne pathogen that spreads slowly in the absence of animal or human vectors. The disease affects a single species, Agathis australis (kauri, Araucariaceae). However, kauri is a long-lived, large tree that is a significant carbon sink. It probably modifies local soil conditions, nutrient and water cycles, and associated vegetation. Also, kauri has immense cultural significance.

Simpkins et al. note that kauri dieback threatens stand-level loss of A. australis – that is, local extinctions. In the absence of disturbance Kauri trees can grow to awe-inspiring size. In the 19th Century, before widespread logging, some were measured at 20 meters or more in circumference. Consequently, kauri dieback might cause a decline in aboveground live carbon storage of up to 55%. This loss would occur over a period of hundreds of years, not immediately.

Huge kauri are not likely to be replaced by other long-lived emergent conifers (based on an analysis of one species, Dacrydium cupressinum). Instead, kauri are probably going to be replaced by late-successional angiosperms. The authors discuss the ecological implications for levels of carbon storage and proportions of trees composed of Myrtaceae – exacerbating damage caused by myrtle rust (see below).

The expectation of Simpkins et al. that kauri will suffer at least local extinctions is based on an assumption that no kauri trees are resistant to the pathogen. Fortunately, this might not be true: different Agathis populations show various levels of tolerance to Agathis dieback. Identification and promotion of some levels of resistance could enable A. australis to retain a diminished presence in the landscape.

However, Lantham, et al. make clear that containing kauri dieback remains “challenging,” despite its discovery nearly 20 years ago (in 2006). Scientists and land managers have little information on the distribution of symptomatic trees, much less of the pathogen itself. This means they don’t know where infection foci are or how fast the disease is spreading.

As is often true, the pathogen is probably present in a stand for years, possibly a decade or more, before symptoms are noticed. This means that the current reliance on public reports of diseased trees, or targetting surveillance on easy-to-access sites (e.g., park entrances and along existing track networks), or at highly impacted areas readily identified through aerial methods, fails to detect early stages of infection. Indeed, it seems probable that P. agathidicida had been present in New Zealand’s ecosystems for decades before its formal identification.

The Waipoua forest is one of the largest areas of forest with old kauri stands in the country. A new analysis of aerial surveys done between 1950 and 2019, shows how the forest is changing. The number of dead trees increased more than four-fold and the number of unhealthy-looking trees increased 16-fold over these 70 years. Kauri dieback is now widespread in this forest, especially in areas near human activities like clearing for pasture or planting commercial pine plantations).

Lantham et al. have developed a model which they believe will help identify areas of higher risk so as to prioritize surveillance and inform responses. These could delimit the disease front and help implement quarantines or other measures aimed at limiting the spread of P. agathidicida to uninfected neighboring sites.

I hope New Zealand devotes sufficient resources to expand surveillance and management to levels commensurate with the threat to this ecologically and culturally important tree species.

Leptospermum scoparia; photo by Brian Gatwicke via Flickr

Myrtle Rust

Myrtle rust is a wind-borne disease that affecting numerous species in the Myrtaceae, including some of the dominant early successional species (e.g., Leptospermum spp.). Simpkins et al. expect that myrtle rust might hasten the decline of two such tree species (L. scoparium and Kunzea ericoides). However, these trees’ small size and rapid replacement by other species during succession minimizes the effect of their demise on carbon storage.

Because I am concerned about the irreplaceable loss to biodiversity, I note that Simpkins et al. also feared immediate threats to some trees in the host Myrtaceae family, specifically highly susceptible species such as Leptospermum bullata.

As I reported in a recent blog, a second group of scientists (McCarthy et al.) explored the threat from myrtle rust more broadly. Austropuccinia psidii has spread through Myrtaceae-dominated forests of the Pacific islands for about 20 years.

Trees in the vulnerable plant family, Myrtaceae, are second in importance (based on density and cover) in New Zealand’s forests. Successional shrub communities dominated by the two species named above, Kunzea ericoides and Leptospermum scoparium, are widespread in the northern and central regions of the North Island and in northeastern and interior parts of the South Island. These regions’ vulnerability is exacerbated by the area’s climate, which is highly suitable for A. psidii infection (Simpkins et al. 2024).

McCarthy et al. concluded that if Leptospermum scoparium and Kunzea ericoides prove to be vulnerable to myrtle rust, their loss would cause considerable change in stand-level functional composition across these large areas. They probably would be replaced by non-native shrubs, which are already common on the islands. Any resulting forest will differ from that formed via Leptospermeae succession.

These authors also worry that the risk to native ecosystems would increase if more virulent strains of the myrtle rust pathogen were introduced or evolved. They note that A. psidii is known to have many strains and that these strains attack different host species.

SOURCES

Latham, M.C., A. Lustig, N.M. Williams, A. McDonald, T. Patuawa, J. Chetham, S. Johnson, A. Carrington, W. Wood, and D.P. Anderson. 2025.  Design of risk-based surveillance to demonstrate absence of Phytophthora agathidicida in New Zealand kauri forests. Biol. Invasions (2025) 27, no. 26

McCarthy, J.K., S.J. Richardson, I. Jo, S.K. Wiser, T.A. Easdale, J.D. Shepherd, P.J. Bellingham. 2024. A Functional Assessment of Community Vulnerability to the Loss of Myrtaceae from Myrtle Rust. Diversity and Distributions, https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13928

Simpkins, C.E., P.J. Bellingham, K. Reihana, J.M.R. Brock, G.L.W. Perry. 2024. Evaluating the effects of two newly emerging plant pathogens on North Aotearoa-New Zealand forests using an individual-based model.  Ecological Modelling, www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel

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  https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/

or

www.fadingforests.org

EAB biocontrol – evidence of impact

riparian ash killed by EAB; in this case, Mattawoman Creek in Maryland. Photo by Leslie A. Brice

Good news at the recent 33rd USDA Research Forum on Invasive Species. Scientists presented the first study that demonstrates significantly lower ash tree mortality in sites with high parasitism rates of two larval parasitoids, Tetrastichus planipennisi and Spathius galinae.

Their study area is the ash-dominated riparian area along the Connecticut River that flows north to south across the middle of Massachusetts. Knowing in advance that the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis; EAB) would invade the area, scientists established monitoring plot that consisted of marked individual ash trees. EAB was first detected in the southern reach of the riparian area in 2015. It gradually moved north. By 2020 isolated mortality was observed at all sites. Meantime, they released three biocontrol agents – T. planipennis, S. galinae, and Oobius agrilii – early in the invasion at three of the six monitoring sites. These released occurred in 2018 – 2020 and again in 2022. 

In 2021 and 2025, the scientists counted the numbers of biocontrol agents in the marked trees or sentinel logs. Thus the first evaluation occurred six years after EAB arrived, three years after the first releases of biocontrol agents.

They found that at southern Massachusetts sites, where EAB density was higher at the time of the biocontrol agents’ initial release, remaining ash grew more slowly than in the North. They believe the trees’ growth rate was suppressed by the trees having fewer resources.  They also observed dieback. Smaller trees grew faster, perhaps responding to opening of the canopy as mature ash succumbed to EAB invasion.

The most important finding was that ash mortality at all sites was ~50% or less … not the 90% expected based on experience in the upper Midwest where the EAB invasion occurred before biocontrol agents were developed.

SOURCE

Ash survival and growth response to emerald ash borer invasion in Massachusetts riparian forests: impacts of biological control. Mitchell A. Reed, Jian Duan, Ryan S. Crandall, Roy G. van Driesche, Jeremy C. Anderson, Joseph S. Elkington. Presentation to the 33rd USDA Interagency Research Forum on Invasive Species, Annapolis, Maryland February 25-28, 2025  (The proceedings should be posted online before the end of the year.)

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  https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/

or

www.fadingforests.org

Wood packaging: serious data gaps … but clear opportunities to act

discarded pallets next to developed area in Glacier National Park (!); photo by F.T. Campbell

Since July 2015 I have posted nearly 50 blogs about non-native insects introduced via movement of solid wood packaging material (SWPM). Why? Because SWPM is one of two most important pathways by numbers introduced & by impact of the species introduced. (The other pathway is P4P.) To read those earlier blogs, scroll below “archives” to “categories”, choose “wood packaging”.

Examples of insects introduced via the wood packaging pathway include Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, redbay ambrosia beetle, Mediterranean oak borer, and possibly, three species of invasive shot hole borers.

dead redbay trees in Everglades National Park; killed by laurel wilt vectored by redbay ambrosia beetle

As I have reported in the earlier blogs and in my “Fading Forests” reports (links at the end of this blog), in 2002, the parties to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) adopted an international “standard” to guide countries’ programs intended to reduce the presence of damaging insects in the wood packaging: International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) #15). The U.S. and Canada adopted the standard through a phase-in process culminating in 2006. [For a discussion of the phase-in periods and process, read either of the studies by Haack et al. cited at the end of this blog.] In other words, the U.S. and Canada have implemented ISPM#15 for almost 20 years. China specifically has been subject to requirements that it treat its SWPM even longer – since December, 1998, i.e., more than 25 years.

Unfortunately, ISPM#15 is not intended to prevent pest introductions.  As stated in Greenwood et al 2023, “Prior to 2009, the goal of compliance with ISPM 15 was to render the risk of wood-borne pests “practically eliminated,” in 2009 the standard was amended to “significantly reduced”.  

Despite almost universal adoption of the standard by countries engaged in international trade, insects have continued to be present in wood packaging. A very high proportion of these infested shipments — 87% – 95% — of the SWPM found by U.S. officials bears the ISPM#15 stamp – that is, is apparently compliant. (See my blogs by clicking on the “Category” “wood packaging” listed below the “Archives”.) The same proportion was found in a narrower study in Europe (Eyre et al. 2018). All the post-2006 examples of infested wood analyzed by Haack et al. (2022) (see below) carry the stamp. I conclude that the ISPM#15 mark has failed in its purpose: to reliably indicate that SWPM accompanying imports has been treated so as to minimize the likelihood that an insect pest will be present.  

Dr. Robert Haack, retired USFS entomologist, has twice tried to estimate the “approach rate” of insects in SWPM entering the United States (both studies are cited at the end of this blog). A study published in 2014 that relied on data from 2009 found that U.S. implementation of ISPM#15 was associated with a reduction in the SWPM infestation rate reported of 36–52%. The authors estimated the infestation rate to be 0.1% (1/10th of 1%, or 1 consignment out of a thousand). (See Haack et al. 2014; citation at the end of this blog.)

In their second study, published in 2022, Haack and colleagues found a 61% decrease in rates of borer detection in wood packaging when comparing numbers of wood borer detections in 2003 – before the U.S. implemented ISPM#15 – to those in 2020. Specifically, detections dropped from 0.34% in 2003 to 0.21% in 2020. This decrease occurred despite the volume of U.S. imports rising 68% between 2003 and 2020. (My blogs document a further increase in import volumes over the years since 2020.) In addition, the number of countries from which the SWPM originated more than doubled from 2003–2004 to 2010–2020. This expansion exposes North America to a wider range of insect species that might be introduced, as well as a wider range of individual countries’ effectiveness in enforcing the standard’s requirements (Haack et al. 2022).

These decreases are encouraging. However, Haack et al. (2022) note some caveats:

  • The reduction in pest presence was greatest during the initial implementation of the program the first phase, 2005-2006 (61%); in subsequent periods pest approach rate inched back up. In the 2010-2020 period, the pest detection rate was only 36% below the pre-ISPM#15 level. Detection rates have been relatively constant since 2005. Does this stasis mean that exporters learned that they could ignore or circumvent the requirements without suffering significant penalties? Or is some of this rise related to increased trade volumes, increasing variety of country of origin for trade, or other global trade patterns unrecognized in the data? (However, see the next bullet point.)
  • Certain types of commercial goods and exporting countries have consistently fallen short. Specifically, the rate of wood packaging from China that is infested remained relatively steady over the 17 years since 2003. The proportion of consignments with infested wood packaging coming from China was more than five times the proportion of all inspected shipments for this period. In other words, China has had a consistent record of poor compliance with phytosanitary regulations since they were imposed in December 1998. Why is USDA not taking action to correct this problem? (As I note below, DHS CBP has ramped up enforcement efforts.) Some other countries, e.g., Italy and Mexico, have reduced the rate at which wood packaging accompanying their consignments is infested. In fact, Mexico’s improved performance largely explains the overall infestation rate estimate of 0.22% during the period 2010-2010. Mexico’s successes affect the overall statistics in a way that makes other countries’ failure to reduce the presence of pests in wood packaging they ship to the United States far less obvious.

Haack et al. (2022) discuss ten possible explanations for their finding that pest approach rates – as determined by their study — have not decreased more. See the article or my blog about the study.

Although USDA APHIS has not taken steps to strengthen its enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection [an agency in the Department of Homeland Security] has done so twice — see here and here.  CBP staff have expressed disappointment that these actions reduced the numbers of shipments in violation of ISPM#15 by only 33% between Fiscal Year 2017 and FY2022. True, more than 60% of these violations consisted of a missing or fraudulent ISPM#15 stamp. However, 194 consignments still harbored live pests prohibited under the standard.

APHIS did agree in 2021 to enable the study by Robert Haack and colleagues, via an interoffice data sharing agreement between USDA APHIS and the Forest Service- this resulted in Haack et al. 2022.

APHIS and CBP also collaborated with an industry initiative to train inspectors that insure other aspects of foreign purchases. The ideas was that CBP or APHIS and their Canadian counterparts would inform importers about which foreign treatment facilities have a record of poor compliance or suspected fraud. The importers could then avoid purchasing SWPM from them. I have heard nothing about this initiative for three years, so I fear it has collapsed.

We lack data on which to base a rigorous analysis

While the two studies by Robert Haack and colleagues are the best available, and they relied on the best data available, the fact is that those available data do not provide a full picture of the risk of pest introduction associated with wood packaging. As pointed out by Leigh Greenwood of The Nature Conservancy in her presentation to 2025 USDA Invasive Species Research Forum, available data have been collected for different purposes than to answer this question. Leigh’s powerpoint is posted here.

Leigh has identified the following data gaps:

  1. In their studies, Haack and colleagues rely on data from the Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) system. This dataset is based on random sampling of very distinct segments of incoming trade. It is therefore a better measure of insect approach rates than reports of interceptions by either APHIS or CBP.

However, AQIM includes data from only those very distinct segments of trade: perishable goods, SWPM associated with maritime containerized imports, Italian tiles, and “other” goods, AQIM does not contain a segment of trade that includes wood packaging associated with maritime breakbulk or roll-on, roll-off (RORO) cargo. These exclusions have prevented scientists and enforcement officials from determining, inter alia, how great a risk of pest introduction is associated with various types of wood packaging, especially dunnage, as the randomized sample does not include entire pathways for the entrance of dunnage.

Greenwood states that she has not found another country that operates a similar analysis of randomly collected data at ports of entry.

2) USDA does not collect data on consignment size, piece-specific infestation density, nor consignment-wide infestation density. As Haack et al. (2022) point out, reporting detections by consignment doesn’t reveal the number of insects present. If implementation of ISPM#15 resulted in fewer live insects being present in an “infested” consignment, this would reduce the establishment risk because there is lower propagule pressure. However, we cannot know whether this is true.

3) Neither USDA nor CBP reports the inspection effort. Nor do they conduct a “leakage survey” to see how often target pests are missed. This means, inter alia, that we cannot estimate inspectors’ efficiency in detecting infested wood packaging. If their proficiency has improved as a result of improvements in training, inspection techniques, or technology, the apparent impact of ISPM#15 would be under-reported in recent years.

4) USDA does not require port inspectors to report the type of SWPM in which the pest was detected. Leigh participated in an effort that included industry representatives, DHS CBP and USDA APHIS to define the types of wood packaging in legal terminology so that they could be incorporated in the drop-down menu on inspectors’ reporting system. This was first successfully included in the legal glossary within USDA APHIS system of record, ACIR Glossary. Last fall the team was working to integrate the requirement for using these definitions into the inspection data collection system used by DHS CBP, which would then make this data available in Agricultural Risk Management, ARM (see Abstract here for adequate primer on ARM). However, it is unclear now whether the new administration will do so. One potential barrier is that asking the port of entry inspection staff to record these data will add to the time and training required for reporting inspection results.

In summary, Leigh reports that current data systems do not support

  • estimating probabilities of pest infestation of via volume or type of SWPM (e.g. pallet vs dunnage)
  • measuring the risk of arrival associated with a specific hazard (in this case, a hazard being a live pest or pathogen associated with SWPM)
  • extrapolating or supporting findings for some types of wood packaging to other types of wood packaging

Scientists from Canada, Mexico, and the United States have formed a working group under the auspices of the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO). The group is trying to determine whether various types of wood packaging are more likely to harbor pests. This study is currently hampered by the many data gaps, including those Leigh outlined above. The best data available, cited by Haack et al. (2022), found that in maritime containerized shipping, crates were more likely to harbor pests than pallets- however, other forms of SWPM (dunnage, bracing, etc.) had such low sample size that no analysis of those is possible. One of the main objectives of the NAPPO study is to evaluate if dunnage poses the same or higher risk, so this is a major impediment.

Two issues need to be resolved.

One is scientific: why are insects continuing to be detected in wood packaging marked as having been treated? What is the relative importance of insects surviving the treatment versus treatment facilities applying the treatments incorrectly or inadequately?

The second issue is legal and political: what proportion of the detections is due to treatment facilities committing outright fraud – claiming to treat the wood, stamping it with an IPPC stamp, while not actually performing any treatments at all?

Knowing which measures will most effectively solve these quandaries / reduce pest presence in wood packaging depends on knowing what the relative importance of these factors are in causing the problem.  The lack of basic data on which to base any analysis certainly hampers efforts to improve protection.

Leigh calls for researchers to recognize these data needs and work to fill them.

•Understand, account for, and communicate data realities

•Work collectively to increase useable data quality

•Use additional research to validate, or to demonstrate disparities

Why Wait for the Science?

In the meantime, however, I assert that more vigorous enforcement efforts by responsible agencies should help reduce the occurrence of fraud. I have suggested the following actions:

  • U.S. and Canada refuse to accept wood packaging from foreign suppliers that have a record of repeated violations – whatever the apparent cause of the non-compliance. Institute severe penalties to deter foreign suppliers from taking devious steps to escape being associated with their violation record.
  • APHIS and CBP and their Canadian counterparts follow through on the industry-initiated program described above and here aimed at helping importers avoid using wood packaging from unreliable suppliers in the exporting country.
  • Encourage a rapid switch to materials that won’t transport wood-borers. Plastic is one such material. While no one wants to encourage production of more plastic, the Earth is drowning under discarded plastic. Some firms are recycling plastic waste into pallets.

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  https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/

or

www.fadingforests.org

Pest Alerts – is USDA (able to) pay attention?

redbay (Persea borbonia killed by laurel wilt

The pest alert system “PestLens” provides information about new reports of plant pests around the world. Notices are published weekly. These provide North American stakeholders advance notice of pests to be on the lookout for. While I have followed these postings for several years, I have been alarmed by recent notices report documenting the presence of insects or pathogens that feed on species in the same genera as tree species native to North American forests. The alerts cover pests of all types of crops, not just trees.

I note that several of these not-yet-introduced pests attack the genus Persea, which contains several native tree and shrub species that are already severely affected by laurel wilt disease.

The report for 19 December, 2024, provided information about two pathogens.

flowering dogwood Cornus florida; photo by F.T. Campbell
  1. The bacterium Pectobacterium aroidearum (Gammaproteobacteria: Enterobacteriales) was detected in China. The bacterium infests several crops and Persea americana (avocado). Although the detection in China is new, the bacterium is apparently already widespread, since it has been earlier been reported from parts of Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Brazil, and Jamaica.
  2. The dagger nematodes Xiphinema simile and X. zagrosense (Longidoridae) were reported in Syria.  X. simile is associated with economically important plants, including Cornus spp. (dogwood; North American species already decimated by the introduced pathogen dogwood anthracnose), Malus spp.(apple), Prunus spp. (stone fruit), Quercus spp. (oaks – already under attack by many non-native organisms), and Vitis vinifera (grape). X. zagrosense is also associated with Poaceae. X. simile has earlier been reported from parts of Europe, Kenya, Iran, and Russia. X. zagrosense has also been reported from Iran.

The report for 9 January, 2025, conveyed information about 1 pathogen and 1 insect.

  1. It noted the presence in Thailand of the fungus Pseudoplagiostoma perseae (Sordariomycetes: Diaporthales) on Persea americana.
  2. The South American palm borer, Paysandisia archon (Lepidoptera: Castniidae), is infesting several palms at multiple locations in Switzerland. It attacks several economically important palm species and the native genus Washingtonia spp. (fan palm).
native California fan palm, Washingtonia filifera; photo by F.T. Campbell

The report for 13 February, 2025, gave information about 1 pathogen and 1 insect.

  1. An anthracnose fungus Colletotrichum aenigma (Sordariomycetes: Glomerellales) infecting Carya illinoinensis (pecan) and Ilex cornuta (Chinese holly) in China. Colletotrichum aenigma infects other economically important plants. These include the following genera with native species in North America: Vaccinium (blueberry), Malus (apple), Persea americana (avocado), and Vitis vinifera (grape). Colletotrichum aenigma is also widespread; it has been reported from parts of Europe, the Middle East, Asia, New Zealand, and South America.
  2. South African citrus thrips, Scirtothrips aurantii (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in a greenhouse in the Netherlands. The thrips infests several woody plants, including Ilex crenata (Japanese holly), Rosa spp., Malus (apple), Persea americana (avocado), Prunus spp. (stone fruit), and Vitis vinifera (grape). S. aurantii  it is under eradication in Portugal and Spain. It has also been reported from parts of Africa, Yemen, and Australia.
Scirtothrips aurantii; photo by Pablo Alvarado Aldea, Spain

A few weeks ago I wanted to conclude this blog by stating my hope that APHIS is using this information to alert port and on-the-ground staff and perhaps initiating more in-depth risk assessments. Now – as we learn about mindless firings of USDA staff, I fear I must limit my hopes to a future for APHIS’ programs and skilled staff in more general terms.

Do we face shut-down of pest prevention/response efforts across the board?

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 or here.

Coming to an Ecosystem Near You??

Xylotrechus chinensis; EPPO photograph

Europe has been invaded by two insect species that North Americans should be watching out for. First, a Cerambycid, the wasp-mimicking tiger longicorn beetle, Xylotrechus chinensis. And second,the Buprestid cypress jewel beetle, Lamprodila festiva. We should also ensure that none of the other 500+ beetles introduced to Europe poses a threat to our trees. These are summarized in a 2024 paper by Bunescu et al.

Tiger Longicorn Beetle

This beetle is native to eastern Asia. It feeds on and kills mulberry trees (Moraceae: Morus spp.). It might also attack apple and pear trees and grapevines – Asian sources report these as hosts. The status of grapevines has been questioned by a Spanish experiment, in which artificial inoculations failed. I have seen no further information about the vulnerability of apple (Malus spp.) and pear (Pyrus spp.) (Saarto i Monteyu, Costa Ribeu, and Savin 2021)

In Europe, the pest threatens mulberry trees which are commonly planted for shade and ornamentation, especially in southern France, Spain and Greece (Saarto i Monteyu, Costa Ribeu, and Savin 2021). For example, there are more than 20,000 mulberry trees in Athens (EFSA 2021). The trees’ abundance contributes to spread of any associated pests, the level of damage caused by falling branches, and the expense of tree removal. Economic damages are those typically associated with wood-borer invasions of urban areas. That is, the cost of tree removals, loss of shade and amenity values, and increased risk of injury from falling branches.

We Americans should be concerned, too. Wild red mulberry (Morus rubra) occupies much of the eastern United States, from southern New England west to southeastern Minnesota, then south along the eastern edge of the Great Plains to central Texas, and east to southern Florida. It is also found in Bermuda. It grows primarily in flood plains and low moist hillsides. . Presumably it would also be attacked by Xylotrechus chinensis, although I don’t know whether anyone has tested this. As a native tree, red mulberry plays a role in natural ecosystems, including wildlife food supplies. Thus, America would see even more significant losses if Xylotrechus chinensis were to establish.

Morus rubra in Fairfax County, Virginia; photo by Fmartin via Wikipedia

Red mulberry is already declining in parts of its central range, possibly due to a bacterial disease. The effects and extent of this disease have not been investigated thoroughly.

Apples and pears are important crops across North America; the farm-gate value is estimated at $3.2 billon.

Introductions of the beetle to Spain, France, and Greece might have resulted from inadequately-treated wood packaging or other wood products. Detections of the species in wood imports were reported in Germany in 2007 and 2017 (Saarto i Monteyu, Costa Ribeu, and Savin 2021). The U.S. has also intercepted X. chinensis at least once, at the port of Philadelphia, in 2011 (EFSA 2021).

These detections have raised questions to which no-one yet has answers. First, can X. chinensis develop in cut logs? The European Food Safety Agency concluded that it can (EFSA 2021). Second, one detection involved a shipment of wooden items made from birch (Betula spp.) and willow (Salix spp). It is not yet clear whether these taxa are also hosts (EFSA 2021). (The wood species were not specified in the case of the other interceptions.) I have blogged often about how “leaky” the wood packaging pathway has been; to see these blogs, scroll below the “archives” section of the webpage, then click on the category “wood packaging”.

European scientists believe X. chinensis might also be transported in shipments of plants for planting. However, the beetle prefers to oviposit on large trees. This pathway is less viable for the United States since USDA APHIS allows imports of mulberries (Morus) and pears (Pyrus) only from Canada. Apple trees (Malus spp.), however, may be imported from France – which hosts an introduced population of X. chinensis – and other European countries.  

Detection of any invasion by X. chinensis will pose the usual difficulties associated with woodborers. In some European cities, hundreds or even a thousand trees were infested before the outbreak was detected (EFSA 2021).

I am concerned that the Europeans appear to have been slow to respond to the threat from Xylotrechus chinensis. After several outbreaks were discovered in Greece, France, and Spain in 2017 and 2018, the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) added X. chinensis to its Alert List. This action requires member states (which are not limited to European Union members) to report new outbreaks and inform about efforts to either stop or eradicate them (Saarto i Monteyu, Costa Ribeu, and Savin 2021).

Shortly afterwards the European Union Commission requested the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) to conduct a risk assessment. This analysis was completed in 2021. (It contains lots of photos of the insect and its damage.) The analysis concluded that Xylotrechus chinensis could probably infest most areas in the Union and cause significant damage. The species meets the criteria for designation as a quarantine pest in the Union. However, as of December 2024, this action had not been taken. As a result, control measures for this species are not mandatory.

Introductions continue; an outbreak in Lombardy, Italy, was found in June 2023 (Sarto i Monteys, Savin, Torras i Tutusaus & Bedós i Balsach 2024).  European regulations – following IPPC standards – also are linked to named pests and known outbreak locations. Such restrictions almost guarantee that the pest will continue to spread from not-yet-detected outbreaks. (Decades ago, after the emerald ash borer invasion, Michigan’s State Plant Regulatory Official, Ken Rasher, noted that, to be effective, “slow the spread” efforts must apply to areas beyond the known limits of the pest’s range.) The EFSA risk assessment did suggest delimitation of buffer zones around known European outbreaks. I don’t know whether such zones have been set up.

The risk assessment also recommended [true?] improving detection of this insect by developing male pheromones as lures. These have not been acted on. Guidance on best timing for treatment [trunk injections of systemic insecticides] also appears to have been taken up by Greece but not by Spain (Sarto i Monteys, Savin, Torras i Tutusaus & Bedós i Balsach 2024).

These authors include more information about the Xylotrechus chinensis life cycle and trajectory of the invasion,. They note that climate change appears to be altering the insect’s phenology. Especially, the adult flight period is beginning earlier in the spring.

Lamprodila festiva; Udo Schmidt via flickr

Cypress jewel beetle

This second pest of concern is a buprestid that attacks trees in the Cupressaceae. Infested trees generally die within a few years.

In its native Mediterranean range, the beetle feeds on native Juniperus, Cupressus and Tetraclinis. In invaded urban landscapes of Europe it attacks primarily introduced Cupressaceae , particularly Thuja, Chamaecyparis, Platycladus, Callitris, and some hybrids (Cupressocyparis). It has also been recorded as damaging Sequoia sempervirens (Brunescu, et al., 2024). (Genera in bold are native to North America.)

Thuja occidentalis; photo by H. Zell via Wikimedia

White cedar, Thuja occidentalis is the focus of Brunescu, et al.’s article. It is native to eastern Canada and much of the north-central and northeastern United States. The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) has identified eight species in the Lamprodila genus as important pests, (Brunescu et al. 2024) so the danger might be more widespread. The invasion of Europe is probably the result of adult flight or other short-range transport. The article does not suggest pathways that the species might exploit to cross oceans.

SOURCES

Bunescu, H., T. Florian, D. Dragan, A. Mara, I-B. Hulujan, X-D. Rau. 2024  The Cypress Jewel Beetle Lamprodila Festiva Linné, 1767 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), an Invasive Major Pest of Thuja Occidentalis Linné in Romania Hop and Medicinal Plants, 2024 XXXII, No. 1-2, 2024.

Saarto i Monteyu V., A. Costa Ribeu. I. Savin. 2021a. The invasive longhorn beetle Xylotrechus chinensis, pest of mulberries, in Euro: Study on its local spread & efficacy of abamectin control Plos One January 29, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245527

Sarto i Monteys, V., I. Savin, G. Torras i Tutusaus & M. Bedós i Balsach. 2024b. New evidence on the spread in Catalonia of the invasive longhorn beetle, Xylotrechus chinensis, & the efficacy of abamectin control. Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:26754 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78265-x  www.nature.com/scientificreports/

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  https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/

or

www.fadingforests.org

New Shothole Borer in California — Alert! & Opportunity to Advise Whether the State or County Should Lead the Response

several Euwallaceae species; E. interjectus is 2nd from the top. Photo from Gomez et al. 2018; ZooKeys 768 19-68

In December 2024, California officials announced detection of a third species of invasive shothole borer beetle in the state. This invasion was found in Santa Cruz County in October 2024. The beetle has been identified as Euwallacea interjectus; the associated fungus is Fusarium floridanum. Like other non-native shothole borers in the same genus already known to be in California, Euwallacea interjectus is native to Southeast Asia.

So far, the infestation extends across at least 75 acres (CDFA proposal). It is affecting primarily box elders (Acer negundo). Other tree species have also been attacked: California sycamore (Platanus racemose), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), red willow (Salix laevigata), and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa). [See the CDFA risk assessment referred to below]. While it is too early to know precisely, E. interjectus is expected to pose a risk of tree dieback in urban, wildland and agricultural landscapes similar to that already caused by its relatives — the Polyphagous shot hole borer (Euwallacea fornicatus s.s. [PSHB]) and Kuroshio shot hole borer (Euwallacea kuroshio [(KSHB)].

The Santa Cruz County Department of Agriculture and University of California Cooperative Extension Service are coordinating with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to monitor and respond to the infestation. Research is being conducted by the University of California to evaluate the full range of potential tree species that may be affected by the beetle.

CDFA is seeking input on whether to designate Euwallacea interjectus as a category “B” pest. Under this category, response to the pest would be carried out by the counties at their own discretion, not by the state. You can advise CDFA’s on this decision until 17 February. Go here.

In its proposal, CDFA notes that several tree hosts of the beetle grow throughout California. The analysis gave a risk ranking of “High (3)” in four categories: climate/host interaction, host range, dispersal and reproduction, and ecosystem-level impacts. The economic risk rank is “Medium (2)” because it might attack only stressed trees – although CDFA concedes that drought stress is common in California. The overall determination is that the consequences of Euwallacea interjectus’ introduction to California is “High (14)”. Still, CDFA proposes to leave response to this introduction up to affected counties.

Santa Cruz County is outside the areas identified by a model developed by Lynch et al. (full citation below) as being at high risk of establishment of the Euwallacea-Fusarium complex, based on analysis of sites where Euwallacea fornicatus and E. kuroshio are already established. Nearby areas are ranked at high risk; these include drier areas in the San Francisco Bay region.

There are at least three four beetles in the Euwallacea fornicatus species complex. Several look almost identical to one another; the only reliable way to tell them apart is by looking at their DNA. However, E. interjectus is substantially larger than E. fornicatus and E. kuroshio, the two already-established shothole borers causing damage in southern California.

Various members of the Euwallacea fornicatus species complex have invaded countries around the world and other parts of the United States. While many of these introductions occurred decades ago – e.g., Hawai`i, Florida, possibly Israel, there appears to have been a spurt of introductions around or after 2000. The PSHB was first detected in California in 2003; the KSHB in 2013. As of 2022, disease caused by these two complexes had spread throughout Orange, San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. Outbreaks have been detected as far north as Santa Barbara /Santa Clarita. The KSHB had “jumped” to more distant locations in San Luis Obispo and Santa Clara counties. So far, the two later detections apparently do not represent established populations. In November 2023, the PSHB beetle–pathogen complex was confirmed killing hundreds of trees in riparian forests in San Jose, in the San Francisco Bay region. Two host trees – California sycamore and valley oaks – are important in the urban forest canopy of the region

NOTE: the invasive shot hole borers and their associated fungi attacking trees in California are completely unrelated to the laurel wilt complex killing trees in the Lauraceae family in eastern States.  This complex involves an ambrosia beetle Xyleborus glabratus and associated fungus Harringtonia (formerly Raffaelea) lauricola.

SOURCES

California Department of Food and Agriculture, California Pest Rating Proposal Euwallaceae interjectus (Blanford): Boxelder ambrosia beetle https://blogs.cdfa.ca.gov/Section3162/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Euwallacea-interjectus.pdf  

Comments due by February 17, 2025.

Lynch, S.C., E. Reyes-Gonzalez, E.L. Bossard, K.S. Alarcon, N.L.R. Love, A.D. Hollander, B.E. Nobua-Behrmann & G.S. Gilbert. 2024. A phylogenetic epidemiology approach to predicting the establishment of multi-host plant pests  Communications Biology

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  https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/

or

www.fadingforests.org

Urban forests – resource under many threats

ash tree in Michigan killed by emerald ash borer; photo courtesy of (then) Mayor John Hieftje

The Forest Service is promoting its efforts to protect urban forests [see the Northeast Region’s “Roots in Research” in mid-December 2024]. The rationale is that urban forests provide substantial environmental and economic benefits that deserve more attention. These include air purification, temperature regulation and energy savings, water absorption, and improved public health. At the same time, urban forests face multiple and overlapping threats – including the one of greatest concern to us, introduction of tree-killing non-native insects and pathogens.

The article on which the Roots in Research “Science Brief” is based was actually published in 2022 in the Journal of Forestry. In it, David Nowak, Eric Greenfield, and Alexis Ellis evaluated historical and current threats to urban forests across the contiguous states and projected them 50 years into the future. Threats included urban expansion, climate change, insect infestation, and extreme weather events. Their goal was to help urban forest managers and policymakers prioritize resources and planning efforts.

I believe stakeholders should view these projects as underestimates because the sources Nowak et al. relied on for both future climatic conditions and non-native pest impacts are incomplete or outdated. I am not criticizing the choice of sources – they are the standard ones. But events have raised questions about their accuracy.

Nowak, Greenfield, and Ellis expected that urban tree cover will decline significantly by 2060. The principle cause is urban expansion — development of previously wooded areas. Development has traditionally been the leading cause of urban forest loss.

Newer threats have become obvious in recent decades – i.e., pest and disease attacks and extreme weather events.

coast live oak infected by GSOB; Heisey County Park, San Diego County photo by F.T. Campbell

The most troubling example of the sources’ weaknesses is the Alien Forest Pest Explorer (AFPE), on which the authors rely for their list of non-native insects and pathogens present in the United States. However, the compilers of this database decided not to include pests that are native to some parts of North America but are behaving as bioinvaders in other regions. The premier example is the goldspotted oak borer (GSOB), Agrilus auroguttatus. This insect kills three species of oaks native to southern California – coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California black oak (Q. kelloggii), and canyon live oak (Q. chrysolepis). Twelve years ago scientists estimated that GSOB had killed at least 100,000 trees in San Diego County; it has since been detected in widespread infestations in four other counties in southern California.

Not including GSOB (or Mediterranean oak borer; see below) skews the findings because of the importance of the oaks in California’s urban forests. Their genus is the second most-abundant native genus in the state’s urban forest, making up 6.5% of the trees. Because many of these trees are large, they contribute significantly to the ecosystem benefits provided by urban forests. Out of the 152,594 coast live oaks in 287 cities statewide, at least 30,000 of them meet GSOB’s preferred size limit (DBH greater than 18 – 20 inches [~45 cm]) (Love et al. 2022). The highest presence of oaks in urban forests in the South is in Santa Barbara – which has not yet been invaded by GSOB. However, built-up sections of Los Angeles – which are heavily invaded already — have between 250,000 and 300,000 coast live oak trees.

The Alien Forest Pest Explorer also does not include pests of palms. Palms are the first and second most the abundant species in urban areas of both the Southern California Coast and Southwest Desert regions (Love et al. 2022). Of course, palms contribute little to the ecosystem benefit associated with urban forests, but they are iconic symbols of the region. California’s palms are under attack by the South American palm weevil. https://cisr.ucr.edu/invasive-species/south-american-palm-weevil

More difficult to understand is the AFPC’s failure to include the Mediterranean oak borer, (MOB) (Xyleborus monographus). MOB has been introduced from Europe, so it fits the AFPE’s criteria for inclusion. MOB is killing valley (Quercus lobata) and blue oaks (Q. douglasii) in Lake, Napa, Sacramento, and Sonoma counties in California and Oregon oak (Q. garryana) in Troutdale, Salem, and other towns in Oregon.

Quercus lobata, killed by Mediterranean oak beetle

As to the data sources relied on for projections of future climatic factors, several measurements of the changing climate already exceed projections in the models. They expect intensified threats from changes in air temperature, precipitation, aridity, wildfire risk, flooding, and sea level rise. By 2060, temperatures in urban areas are expected to increase by 1.2 – 3.5° C. Nowak and colleagues expected this warming to exacerbate threats from heat stress, flooding, increased salinity, drought, and wildfire. Less certain but possible are more intense storms and pest outbreaks. As I noted above, perhaps even these projections understate the threats.

For example, in discussing flooding the authors relied on measurements of the historic 100-year flood plain. I understand that experts now say this standard is inadequate, given existing records and projected further increases in precipitation (especially high-intensity storms). Urban areas in 98% of the 2,424 counties Nowak et al. analyzed contain flood-prone areas.

Nowak et al. do mention two additional elements exacerbating the flood risk: the spread of impervious surfaces and location of many cities next to bays or wide rivers. In these latter cases, risks might include salt intrusion linked to higher water levels, even in the absence of flooding. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s “intermediate high” scenario projects sea level will rise 61 cm by 2060. 

Nowak, Greenfield, and Ellis said the greatest overall threat is in the eastern states, especially New England other than Vermont and Maine; the mid-Atlantic; South Carolina; and Ohio. They say this arises from the combination of high levels of urbanization and accumulation of several threats. The specific threats include projected precipitation changes, storms (hurricanes in the southeast; ice storms in the Appalachians); sea level rise; and the abundance of non-native pests. I think that reliance on data from the past results in understating the hurricane risk in the Northeast (especially the Hudson and Connecticut river basins) and in North Carolina.

Nowak, Greenfield, and Ellis reminded us that a healthy urban forest canopy can help mitigate some of the threats associated with climate change. This applies particularly to local air temperatures. Reducing urban heat islands not only addresses a direct threat; it can also moderate such other threats as pest infestations, wildfire, aridity, and storm damage, especially runoff. They advocate science-based tree management programs including preserving existing trees and planting species that can thrive in the expected new local and regional environment, e.g., withstand droughts, flooding, saltwater exposure, or extreme temperatures.

I think their recommendation on pest threats is lame: they suggested “monitoring and managing local pest threats.” Non-native pests demand additional actions at all levels of authority — local, state, and federal.  (See the “Fading Forests” reports linked to at the end of this blog, and earlier blogs under the category “invasive species policy”.) I have already noted troubling exclusion of some pests already present in urban areas of the continental United States. I understand that it is impossible to predict which additional pests might be introduced in the next 50 years. But I would have appreciated a sentence stating the near certainty that more pests will be introduced and cause damage to urban forests in the next 50 years.  

Given the recent fires in the Los Angeles region, I believe we need new analyses of the risk of wildfire in cities and the positive and negative interactions with the urban forest.

SOURCES

Threats to Urban Forests in the United States Roots in Research Issue 45 | December 2024 https://research.fs.usda.gov/nrs/  products/rooted-research/threats-urban-forests-united-states?utm_source=MarketingCloud&utm_medium=email  accessed 24-12/31

Nowak, D.J., E.J. Greenfield, and A. Ellis. 2022. Assessing Urban Forest Threats across the conterminous United States. Journal of Forestry, 2022, Vol. 120, No. 6

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  https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/

or

www.fadingforests.org

APHIS funding for pests that kill trees (& cacti)

emerald ash borer; some of PPA grants are funding evaluation of biocontrol efficacy

USDA APHIS has released information about its most recent annual allocation of funds under the Plant Pest and Disease Management & Disaster Prevention Program under §7721 of the Plant Protection Act. (Also see Fading Forests II and III; links provided at the end of this blog.) These funds support both critical needs and opportunities to strengthen the nation’s infrastructure for pest detection, surveillance, identification, and threat mitigation. Since 2009, this USDA program has provided nearly $940 million to more than 5,890 projects.

For FY25 APHIS allocated $62.725 million to fund 339 projects, about 58% of the proposals submitted. About $10 million has reserved for responding to pest and plant health emergencies throughout the year.

According to APHIS’ press release, the highest amount of funds (almost $16 million) is allocated to the category “Enhanced Plant Pest/Disease Survey.” Projects on “Enhanced Mitigation Capabilities” received $13.6 million. “Targetting Domestic Inspection Efforts to Vulnerable Points” received nearly $6 million. “Improving Pest Identification and Detection Technology” was funded at $5 million. Outreach & education received $4 million.  I am not sure why these do not total $63 million.

Funding for States and Specific Pests

Wood-boring insects received about $2.3 million. These included more than $869,800 to assess the efficacy of biocontrol for controlling emerald ash borer (EAB) Agrilus planipennis, $687,410 was provided for various detection projects, and $450,000 for outreach efforts related to various pests. Ohio State received $93,000 to optimize traps for the detection of non-native scolytines (bark beetles).

Biocontrol efficacy will also be assessed for hemlock woolly adelgid, invasive shot hole borers, cactus moth, and several invasive plants (including Brazilian pepper). (Contact me to obtain a copy of CISP’s comments on this biocontrol program.)

Opuntia basilaris in Anza Boreggo; one of flat-padded Opuntia vulnerable to the cactus moth; photo by F.T. Campbell

Funding for other pests exceeded $1 million for spotted lanternfly (nearly $1.4 million), Asian defoliators ($1.2 million) and box tree moth (just over $1 million).

$630,000 was provided for detection surveys and studies of the sudden oak death pathogen Phytophthora ramorum, especially how it infects nursery stock. Nursery surveys are funded in Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Most of these states are in regions considered most at risk to SOD infection of wildland plants.    

sudden oak mortality of tanoak trees in southern Oregon; photo by Oregon Department of Forestry

Oregon received much-deserved $41,000 to evaluate the threat of the NA2 and EU2 lineages of P. ramorum to nurseries and forests Oregon also received $104,000 to respond to the detection of Phytophthora austrocedri in nurseries in the state. The Oregon outbreak has been traced to Ohio, but I see no record of funds to assist that state in determining how it was introduced.

Asian defoliator (e.g., Lymantrid moths) surveys have been funded for several years. This year’s projects are in Alaska, Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. While I agree that the introduction risk is not limited to coastal states with maritime ports, I don’t what criteria were applied in choosing the non-coastal states which are funded to search for these insects

Spotted lanternfly surveys (including technological improvements) or related outreach are funded in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. California’s project is focused on postharvest treatments.

The Don’t Move Firewood project continues to be funded by APHIS. Several states also direct attention specifically to the firewood pathway: Kentucky, Maine, and Michigan.

I applaud the precautionary funding of the Agriculture Research Service to generate of high-quality genomic resources for managing the causal agent of Japanese oak wilt Dryadomyces quercivorous

Florida Department of Agriculture, North Carolina State University, and West Virginia University each received more than $100,000 to improve detection and management of invasive hornets.

Tennessee State University got $100,000 to continue efforts to detect and understand Vascular Streak Dieback in redbud Cercis canadensis.

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  https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/

or

www.fadingforests.org

Protect salamanders from fatal disease

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has taken new action to protect North America’s salamanders from the pathogenic Salamander Chytrid Fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans; Bsal). The Center for Invasive Species Prevention (CISP) welcomes this action and urges you to help the Service to finalize it.

To read and comment on the interim rule, go here. The comment period closes on March 11.

oriental fire-bellied newt (Cynops orientalis); one of the non-native species imported in largest numbers before the 2016 Lacey Act interim rule; photo by Sebastian Voitel

USFWS acted under its authority to contained in the “injurious wildlife” provisions of the Lacey Act [18 U.S.C. 42(a)]. This statute, first adopted in 1900, empowers the Secretary of Interior to regulate human-mediated transport of any species of wild mammal, wild bird, fish, mollusk, crustacean, amphibian, or reptile found to be injurious to human beings; to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, or forestry; or to America’s wildlife or wildlife resources. Regulated articles include offspring or eggs of the listed species, dead specimens, and animal parts.

Any importation of a listed taxon into the U.S. is regulated. However, regulation of transport within the United States is complicated because of clumsy wording of the statute. In 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals [U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers, Inc. v. Zinke [852 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2017)] ruled that the law regulates transport of listed species (and their progeny, parts, etc.) between the contiguous 48 States and several other jurisdictions: Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, other U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. However, transport among the “lower 48” states (e.g., from Virginia to Kentucky) or from the “lower 48” states to Alaska, is not regulated (unless the route to or from Alaska passes through Canada). In past years conservationists asked Congress to amend the law to close this obvious gap in protection, but without success.

It is still illegal to transport listed species across any state borders if the wildlife specimen was either imported to the U.S. or transported between the above-enumerated jurisdictions in violation of any U.S. law. [Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, 16 U.S.C. 3372(a)(1)] 

Those wishing to transport a listed species for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific purposes may apply for a permit from USFWS to do so.

The threat to salamanders

The United States is a center of diversity for salamanders. Our nation is home to 221 species of salamanders, more than any other country. These species are in 23 genera in nine families. In fact, nine of the 10 families of salamanders worldwide are found in the U.S. Highest diversity is found along the Pacific Coast and in the southern Appalachian Mountains. As the most abundant vertebrates in their forest habitats, salamanders make significant contributions to nutrient cycling and even carbon sequestration.

Because they depend on both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, salamanders face many threats to their existence. Twenty species of American salamanders from 6 genera (Ambystoma, Batrachoseps, Eurycea, Necturus, Phaeognathus, Plethodon) are listed under the Endangered Species Act link as endangered or threatened. A subspecies of hellbender salamander (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleghaniensis) has been proposed for listing.

Amylosterium xxx – marbled salamander; photo by John B. Clare via Flickr

Over the last 12 years, they have faced an alarming new threat.

In 2013, European scientists detected rapid, widespread death of salamander populations in the Netherlands. They determined that the cause was a fungal disease caused by Batrachochytrium salamandrivoran (Bsal). Their alarm was heightened because this fungus is closely related to another, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), which had recently caused serious decline of more than 100 frog and toad species, including driving several to extinction, and had been transported to all continents except Antartica.

Responding to this new threat, amphibian conservation specialists and wildlife groups generally banded together to put pressure on the USFWS to take regulatory action. In response, in 2016, the USFWS adopted an interim rule link prohibiting importation of 20 genera of salamanders. These genera had been shown by scientists to contain at least one species which either suffered mortality when it was exposed to  Bsal or could transmit the disease to other salamanders. At the time, Bsal had been shown by scientific studies to be lethal to two American species; USFWS had evidence that U.S. species in other genera could “carry” the pathogen and infect other animals. Three of the species included in the 2016 action had already been listed as endangered or threatened. USFWS’ action cut down the number of salamanders being imported annually by ~95% (based on official import data compiled by the USFWS’ Office of Law Enforcement).

The prohibitions do not apply to articles that cannot transmit the fungus. These include eggs or gametes; parts or tissues that have been chemically preserved, chemically treated, or heat treated so that the pathogen, if present, is rendered non-viable; and molecular specimens consisting of only the nucleic acids from organisms.

Now, 8 years later, the USFWS is acting to finalize the 2016 “interim” rule and to regulate importation and transportation of an additional 16 genera of salamanders. This step had been urged by the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species (NECIS), and many others, in their public comments on that Interim Rule. Extending protection to these 16 genera is based on research conducted since the 2016 Rule. Species in 13 of the newly protected genera are considered likely carriers of the disease. Nine species have been demonstrated to be killed by Bsal. No studies have yet determined the vulnerability of more than 50 species in 10 genera of North American salamanders, including four species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

The 36 genera covered by the combined actions of 2016 and 2025 actions are currently considered to comprise ~ 426 species. However, changes in taxonomy are frequent. So USFWS is no longer enumerating the species protected, but is instead relying on listing genera. The regulations apply to all species in a listed genus (whether so classified now or in the future) as well as hybrids of species in any listed genus, including offspring from a pair in which only one of the parents is in a genus listed as injurious.

Appalachian hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleghaniensis; historic book illustration via Flickr

USFWS chose to issue “interim” rules in both 2016 and 2025 because that action takes effect almost immediately. (The 2025 interim rule take effect on January 25th.) The usual rulemaking process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) often takes years to complete. During that time, the species proposed for listing may still be imported and transported – that is, they could place additional salamander populations at risk of infection by Bsal. The USFWS states that it is unlikely to be able to protect or restore species and ecosystems if the pathogen does become established in the U.S.

In the interval between 2016 and now, Canada banned importation of all living or dead salamanders, eggs, sperm, tissue cultures, and embryos in response to the Bsal threat.

During these years scientists also completed several studies aimed at clarifying which salamander species are either at risk of infection by Bsal or are able to harbor and transmit the pathogen to other salamanders. The USFWS cites studies by, inter alia, Yuan et al. 2018, Carter et al. 2020, Barnhart et al. 2020, Grear et al. 2021, and Gray et al. 2023. USFWS says it cannot act in the absence of such studies, since it must justify its protective actions on scientifically defensible information.

Another relevant question is whether Bsal is already established in North America? Waddle et al. 2020 carried out an intensive search in 35 states that found no evidence that it is. The USFWS concludes that prohibiting importation of additional salamander taxa is still an effective measure to protect North American biodiversity. This is because the international commercial trade in salamanders is the most likely pathway by which Bsal would be introduced to the United States. We note in support of this assertion that former USFWS employee Su Jewell found years ago that none of the 288 non-indigenous species listed as injurious while they are not established in the U.S. has become established since the listing. 

The Federal Register document includes a lengthy discussions of why the USFWS has chosen to act under the Lacey Act rather than try some other approach, e.g., setting up quarantine areas or a disease-free certification program for traded salamanders. Among the factors they considered were the current absence of certainty in testing procedures and the possibility of falsified documentation.

WEAKNESSES THE LACEY ACT

The Lacey Act is the principal statute under which the U.S. Government tries to manage invasive species of wildlife – at least those that are not considered “plant pests”. It is not surprising that a law written 125 years ago is no longer the best fit for current conservation needs. See our earlier blog and discussions by, inter alia, Fowler, Lodge, and Hsia and Anderson.

Here, the USFWS lacks authority to regulate pathogens [viruses, bacteria, and fungi that cause disease] or fomites (materials, such as water, that can act as passive carriers and transfer pathogens). Instead, USFWS regulates the hosts. The USFWS previously listed dead salmonids as “injurious” because their carcasses can transmit several viruses.   

Another issue is that USFWS cannot designate a taxon “injurious” and regulate trade in it until the Service has conclusive scientific evidence that the species or genus meets the definition. The USFWS has chosen to rely on genus-level data rather than require that each species be tested. Still, as we noted above, American salamanders in 10 genera remain outside the Lacey Act’s protections because studies have not yet been conducted. The USFWS concedes that many of these genera might contain species that are vulnerable to this potentially deadly fungus.

As to relying on laboratory tests of a taxon’s response to the pathogen, the USFWS believes that environmental stresses inherent living in the wild might exacerbate a salamander species’ vulnerability to the disease.

The USFWS is requesting public comment specifically on:

(1) the extent to which species in the 16 genera listed by this interim rule are currently in domestic production for sale – and in which States this occurs? How many businesses sell salamanders from the listed genera between enumerated jurisdictions (e.g., between “lower 48” states and Hawai`i or the District of Columbia)?

(2) What state-listed endangered or threatened species would be affected by introduction of Bsal?

(3) How could this interim rule be modified to reduce costs or burdens for some or all entities, including small entities, while still meeting USFWS’s goals? What are the costs and benefits of the modifications?

(4) Is there any evidence suggesting that Bsal has been established in the U.S.? Or that any of these genera are not carriers of Bsal? Or that additional genera are carriers of Bsal? Is there evidence that eggs or other reproductive material pose a greater risk than USFWS determined, so should be regulated?

(5) Could a reliable health certificate system be developed that would allow imports of Bsal-free salamanders? Are there treatments that would ensure imported salamanders are reliably free of Bsal? How could compliance be monitored? As to salamander specimens, parts, or products, are there other treatments proven adequate to render Bsal non-viable?

(6) Do any Federal, State, or local rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict w/ this interim rule?

CISP encourages those with knowledge of amphibian conservation and disease to comment. Slow progress has been made toward blocking Bsal from the U.S., but the story is not yet closed.

See also the articles by Su Jewell,

Jewell, S.D. 2020 A century of injurious wildlife listing under the Lacey Act: a history. Management of Biological Invasions 11(3): 356–371, https://doi.org/10. 3391/mbi.2020.11.3.01

Jewell, S.D. and P.L. Fuller 2021 The unsung success of injurious wildlife listing under the Lacey Act. Management of Biological Invasions 2021 Volume 12 Issue 3

Posted by Faith Campbell and Peter Jenkins (former member of CISP’s board and consultant to NECIS and other groups on amphibian disease regulation)

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.

Import volumes continue to rise (although exact numbers elusive)

obvious risk of pest introduction! photo by F.T. Campbell

Because of the many damaging insects introduced in wood packaging, I often blog about numbers of shipping containers entering the country. [On the “nivemnic.us” website, scroll down below “archives” to “categories”, then click on “wood packaging” to see my previous blogs discussing this issue.]

The Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reports processing 36.6 million shipping containers holding imports in Fiscal Year 2023 – which ended in September 2023. These presumably included about 13 – 16 million containers arriving via ship from Asia, Europe, and other overseas trading partners. The remaining millions probably entering from Mexico and Canada via land transport. Together, Mexico and Canada provided 30% of U.S. imports in 2022.

It is difficult to pin down the actual number of containers entering the country. In contrast to the figure provided by CBP, Laura Robb of the Journal of Commerce reports that 25.6 million TEUs carrying imports entered the country in 2024. This figure apparently includes containers carried by all forms of transport. CBP counts containers by actual numbers, and about 90% of waterborne containers are actually 40 feet long, not the 20 feet measured by “TEU” (U.S. DoT). Halving the JOC number results in a total of about 13 million – well below that reported by CBP.

Overall volumes of imports carried by ship continue to rise. The monetary value of goods imported by the U.S. in maritime trade grew 15% from 2021 to 2022 (U.S. DoT). Robb reported that trade experts believe imports rose another 15% between 2023 and 2024. This rise is driven by retailers trying to protect themselves from a possible longshoremen’s strike (which might occur beginning 15 January), Trump’s threatened tariffs (he might act as early as 20 January); and the annual slowdown of production in Asia during Tet (which begins on 29 January). If import volumes meet expectations and continue through April, the series will outdo the previous (pandemic-era) record of 19 straight months when imports exceeded 2 million TEUs. What happens later in 2025 depends in part on whether the anticipated strike happens and/or actual levels of any new tariffs.

One concern about imports from Mexico and Canada is that some proportion of these goods actually originated in Asia or Europe, but were shipped through Mexican or Canadian ports. I have not found a source to clarify how many shipments fit this pattern. USDA APHIS used to blame forest pests introduced to the Great Lakes region on goods transported from the principal Canadian Atlantic port, St. John, Nova Scotia.

A useful publication for identifying where the pest-introduction risk is highest are the annual reports issued by U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics. In calendar year 2022, U.S. maritime ports handled just under 43% of U.S. international trade (measured by value). There are two caveats: the data include both imports and exports; and the most recent data are from 2021.

Two-thirds of America’s maritime cargo (imports and exports) is shipped in traditional containers. This includes most consumer goods. The top 25 container ports handled a total of 45.6 million TEU (U.S. DoT). Map 4-3 in the report shows these ports and the proportions that are imports and exports.

The highest-ranking Container Ports in 2021 are those we expect. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were numbers one and two. Together they received 10.7 million TEU. The third highest number of containers entered through the Port of New York & New Jersey. Nearly 5 million TEU entered there. The Port of Savannah ranked fourth. Savannah and nearby Charleston (ranked seventh) handled 4.2 million incoming TEUs in 2021.

Ranked above Charleston were the Port of Virginia and Houston. Each processed approximately 1.8 million containers filled with imports. Three West coast ports follow: Oakland, California and Tacoma and Seattle. Just over 1 million TEUs entered Oakland. The two Washington ports received a little over 1.5 million. Florida has four ports ranked in the “top 25”. In total, they processed 1.2 million TEU; most entered through PortMiami and Port Everglades. Baltimore, Philadelphia, Mobile, New Orleans, Wilmington, North Carolina and Wilmington, Delaware, South Jersey Port Corporation, and Boston all handled less than 500 imported containers in 2021. Domestic shipments from other U.S. states  dominated containers processed through the ports of San Juan, Honolulu, and Alaska.

gantry crane in operation at the Port of Savannah; photo by F.T. Campbell

The top ports must have appropriate facilities needed to load / unload container vessels efficiently– that is, adequate numbers of gantry cranes, especially super post-Panamax cranes, which have the greatest capacity. The top 25 container ports of 2021 operated a total of 539 ship-to-shore gantry cranes in 2023, of which 322 (60%) are post-Panamax cranes. Ports are adding cranes – there were 29 more in 2023 than in 2021. The Port of Virginia appears to be striving for significant increases in tonnage; it has 28 Panamax cranes, more than Charleston and almost as many as Savannah (U.S. DoT).

Another important port component is efficient facilities to load containers onto rail cars or trucks for transfer to land-based warehouses and retailers. Ports have more than one terminal; for example, the Port of Long Beach has six, New York/New Jersey has five. Nationwide, 70% of container terminals have on-dock facilities to transfer containers directly onto rail cars. All but three of the 33 terminals located at Long Beach. Los Angeles, New York, Savannah, Charleston, Houston 2/2, Seattle, and Tacoma have on-dock transfer equipment.

The U.S. DoT reports also inform us about the top 25 ports that handle other categories of cargo: overall tonnage, dry and liquid bulk cargo, break bulk cargo, and roll-on-roll-off cargo. Visit the report to view these data.

SOURCES

Robb, L. 2024. U.S. import “surge” to persist into spring amid continued frontloading: retailers. Journal of Commerce Daily Newswire December 10, 2024

U.S. Customs and Border Protection FY 2023 CBP TRADE SHEET https://www.cbp.gov/document/annual-report/fy-2023-cbp-trade-fact-sheet  

U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Annual Report 2024 Port Performance Freight Statistics January 2024 https://www.bts.gov/explore-topics-and-geography/modes/maritime-and-inland-waterways/2024-port-performance-freight

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  https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/

or

www.fadingforests.org