As CISP President, I have been working with forest conservationists from across the country to gain Congressional support for programs which would fund programs to explore breeding resistance into pest-decimated tree species. Last year, I focused on amending the Farm Bill – but those efforts had disappointing results.
So
I am very pleased to inform you that our principal champion, Rep. Peter Welch
of Vermont, has introduced a new, improved! version of his bill to support (1)
APHIS tree pest management programs; (2) research into resistance
breeding; and (3) putting the
results of such research to work in growing and planting resistant tree
seedlings.
· Expands the APHIS’ access to emergency
funding to combat invasive species when existing federal funds are insufficient
and broadens the range of actives that these funds can support;
· Establishes a grant program to support
institutions focused on researching methods to restore native tree species that
have been severely damaged by invasive pests; and
· Authorizes funding to implement promising
research findings on how to protect native tree species.
In
introducing the bill, Rep. Welch referenced the emerald ash borer. Rest assured
that the legislation is not limited to any specific pest; any native tree
species suffering high levels of mortality due to non-native pests are
eligible.
Please
ask your Representative to cosponsor HR. 3244.
Ask your Senators to sponsor a companion bill in the Senate.
Awards Presented to Two Key Forest Pest Combatants
The
Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition (RRISC) website
has recognized the important contribution to combatting forest pest incursions.
John
Kabashima received the 2019 Outstanding
Volunteer Award for his years of effort to build a coalition that persuaded
California phytosanitary agencies to address the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot
hole borers. John,
who had recently retired from the state university extension service,
volunteered in 2016 to try to persuade the California Department of Food and
Agriculture to address the shot hole borers. Steps to success included
organizing an “Invasive Species Summit” in January 2018 to develop consensus
recommendations; working with the staffs of two members of the state Assembly
to develop legislation that provided funding for invasive species management,
with $5 million allocated to the shot hole borers. The process of identifying
specific actions involved dozens of people who have been working on the borers
– in the absence of state funding or engagement – over the same period.
Pierluigi (Enrico) Bonello of The Ohio State won the award for Outstanding Innovation for his work developing a chemical process that allows rapid identification of trees that are resistant to introduced pathogens. His initial work focused on coast live oaks resistant to the sudden oak death pathogen. Colleagues have also used the technique in Europe to identify ash trees resistant to ash dieback caused by Hymenoscyphus fraxineus.
RRISC has posted more information about these and the additional award recipients here
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.
A new report by several experts confirms fears that the feral pig threat is widespread and re-emphasizes the value of taking action early. (I have blogged several times about efforts to manage damaged caused by feral hogs – see here and here.
Lewis
et al. (full reference at end of
blog) used two national-scale data sets to estimate historical, current, and
future potential population size of wild pigs in the U.S. from 1982 to 2016.
They
found that both wild pig distribution and abundance have nearly tripled over
this period (from ~2.4 to 6.9 million). If no effective action is taken and pigs
spread to all available habitat, the U.S.
wild pig population could reach ~21.4 million at some unspecified future date. This
would represent a 210% increase above the 2016 population; or a 784% increase
above the 1982 population.
The authors cite successful control of wild pigs in Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, and Nebraska as evidence of the value of early detection and rapid response.
Lewis
et al. provide brief summaries of
economic and ecological damage caused by feral hogs. They damage a wide range
of ecological communities, especially riparian areas, grasslands, and deciduous
forests. Biological diversity is hurt through habitat destruction, direct
predation, and competition for resources. In addition, wild pigs can host a
suite of viruses, bacteria, and parasites, many of which can be transmitted to
other wildlife, humans, and livestock.
The
report notes that much of the recent spread of pigs has been caused by widespread
and illegal releases of wild animals for sport hunting. Other contributing factors
are land-use patterns, because hogs do well in agricultural areas. Warmer
winter temperatures and increased forest mast production are also to blame –
both related to climate-change
Wild
pigs can persist in a range of environments, including cold northern climates,
arid regions, and mixed forests. That is, all regions of the continental U.S. The
vast majority of states – especially in the West, North, and East – could see
major expansions in wild pig populations if animals are allowed to become
established over currently unoccupied habitat.
While
states that have had large established wild pig populations – e.g., Texas, California, and Florida – will
not see major expansions, damage is already severe and widespread. Texas alone
has an estimated 2.5 million feral hogs!
Preventing
the alarming expansion of feral hog populations outlined above, Lewis et al. call for adoption and
implementation of proactive management. The
priority is to quickly identify and eradicate populations that invade
unoccupied habitat. This applies particularly to those states which currently
have low populations of feral hogs.
The
same approach can be applied within states. Officials can use one data set to
identify areas where wild pigs are currently absent and the predicted
population density data to designate priority areas to counter spread. Such
efforts should include public education and outreach, regulatory enforcement,
and surveillance.
Lewis
et al. note that implementation of the
proposed strategy will require a coordinated
effort among federal, state, and local governments and the public. They
call especially for state regulations
classifying feral hogs as an invasive and harmful species supported by action
to halt pig translocation for the purposes of recreational sport hunting.
The authors promised that the findings of the study would be applied by the National Feral Swine Damage Management Program, which is led by USDA APHIS. One of the “tactics” to achieve Objective 2.4 in the APHIS Strategic Plan for 2019-2023 says the agency will “expand feral swine damage management for agricultural, livestock, property, ecological and human health and safety purposes.” Still, states will find it challenging to take any actions opposed by hunters.
At the end of June 2019, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a $75 million program called the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program (FSCP). (This works out to about $15 million per year.) The program is a joint effort by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and APHIS. It was established by the 2018 Farm Bill. Additional information is available at the program webpage.
The
webpage describes how to apply for funding for projects lasting up to three
years. The pilot projects will
consist broadly of three coordinated components: 1) feral swine removal by
APHIS; 2) restoration efforts supported by NRCS; and 3) assistance to producers
for feral swine control provided through partnership agreements with
non-federal partners.
The initial funding will target specific locations in the South that have experienced recent increases in wild pigs (shown on the map below). The goal is to reduce the numbers of pigs (and associated damage) in those identified localized areas of the South. These “pilot” areas have been identified by the USDA Secretary as under threat from feral swine. The first round of projects – 20 projects – are targetted at a few counties in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. APHIS has determined these states and California have highest feral swine populations.
The new program builds on successes in recent years. Funding of APHIS’ feral hog program at about $20 million per year has helped several states become “pig free”. Idaho, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey and New York are currently monitoring (using eDNA and scat dogs) to make sure that the pigs are truly gone.
SOURCE
Lewis, J.S., J.L. Corn, J.J. Mayer, T.R. Jordan, M.L. Farnsworth, C.L. Burdett, K.C. VerCauteren, S.J. Sweeney, R.S. Miller. 2019. Historical, current, and potential population size estimates of invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in the United States. Biological Invasions, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 2373-2384.
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.
Fifteen
years ago, in the spring of 2004, officials discovered that the disease called
“sudden oak death” or “ramorum blight” was present on camellias at a large
California nursery that shipped $30 million worth of plants interstate on an
annual basis. The nursery was in southern California, far from the wetter areas
of northern California where the disease is established in the wild and where
regulatory efforts were focused. By the end of 2004, 176 nurseries in 21 states
had received infected plants, 125 of which were linked to the California
supplier. APHIS and the affected states and
nurseries had to spend millions to find and destroy infected plants and conduct
intensive surveys to try to ensure this situation was not repeated.
APHIS had begun regulating P. ramorum in nurseries in northern California and Oregon in February 2002. These regulations went through several rounds of change after the 2004 outbreak – discussed in Chapter 5 of Fading Forests III, available here.
Beginning in 2014, APHIS issued two Federal orders that relaxed some of the regulatory requirements for nurseries.
Just this past May, APHIS completed the process of integrating these changes into its formal regulations. (See my blog from May and the text of the new regulations here.) APHIS stated in replying to comments on the rulemaking that it was confident that the new regime provided sufficient protection.
Even
as APHIS was finalizing this rule change, Indiana officials discovered that
rhododendron plants imported into the state were infected with Phytophthora ramorum!!
Indiana authorities reported that potentially infested plants were received at more than 70 WalMart stores and 18 Rural King stores. By the end of May, state inspectors have destroyed more than 1,500 rhododendrons and have put another 1,500 other plants on hold [source: Indianapolis Star website 29 May, 2019]
Indiana
authorities also said that the same source nurseries had shipped plants to nine
other states – unnamed.
In mid-June – more than a month after Indiana’s initial detection [Indianapolis Star website 23 May] – APHIS issued a statement. In an email to me, Evelia Sosa, Assistant Director of Pest Management, reported that potentially infested plants from the original suppliers were sent to 18 states! These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. State officials Agriculture officials in these States are currently visiting nursery locations to sample plants received from the originating nurseries. Plants that test positive for P. ramorum will be destroyed. All plants that are within a 2 meter radius of an infected plant will also be destroyed. Host plants outside the 2 meter radius will be sampled intensively. Other hosts in the impacted facilities will be monitored for signs of the disease.
Homeowners who might have purchased infected plants are advised by APHIS to monitor them carefully for symptoms; a website is provided — ironically (see below), it is the website of the California Oak Mortality Task Force!
Several of the states which received potentially infected plants have already been through this routine because infected plants were shipped to their nurseries in the 2004 – 2008 period. These include Alabama, North Carolina, and Texas. P. ramorum has been found multiple times in streams or ponds associated with the receiving nurseries (see my blog from May here)
There
are several reasons for particular concern. First, the source nurseries were in
Washington State and British Columbia. How did the inspection system fail to
detect the outbreaks before the plants were shipped? Inspections now include
testing of soil and standing water, not just visual inspection of plants. Second,
at least some of the infected plants are rhododendrons – which are taxa well
known to be vulnerable to the pathogen and the specified focus of detection
efforts!
This
would seem to verify concerns raised in its comments on the proposal (see the
above website) by the California Oak Mortality Task Force, whose members have
been studying and managing the outbreak for close to twenty years. COMTF said:
“The revised framework, in many ways, matches
the rule structure present in 2004, when the pathogen was inadvertently,
potentially shipped to over 1,200 nurseries in 39 states from a few nurseries in
Southern California, Oregon and Washington. At that time, the APHIS P. ramorum regulation restricted
shipments in the quarantine area, defined as the known infested counties in California
and part of Curry Co., Oregon; however, the source nurseries were located in
counties where P. ramorum was not
present in wildlands. This revised framework does not adequately protect
against the reality, that any nursery with host plants, anywhere, is a
potential source for infested plants
How is APHIS going to respond – not just in leading efforts to detect and destroy infected plants but also to review its regulatory program? Why did APHIS wait so long to inform me – and presumably others in the public – about this most recent outbreak. (Although as of the time of posting, APHIS had not issued an announcement to the people registered on its stakeholder registry.)
It is not a surprise that APHIS is backing away from regulations. As I document in my blog here, the agency began some years ago to stress collaborative approaches rather than regulations. But there are risks and costs associated with these decisions.
There
are troubling situations applying to other forest pests that I hope to blog
about soon.
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.
As indicated by Strategic Plans and Annual Reports
In recent months, APHIS has released its 2019–2023 Strategic Plan and its 2018 annual report – which outlines how well the agency is doing in achieving goals from the 2015-2018 Strategic Plan. There is lots of information in these documents – but it is often presented in ways that make understanding it difficult. Still, I will attempt to compare the APHIS’ 2015 Strategic Plan and the 2019 Plan as well as review recent annual reports to see what priorities APHIS has set and how well it is realizing them.
APHIS’ Mission
According
to the APHIS website, the agency’s mission is to safeguard U.S. agricultural
and natural resources against the entry, establishment, and spread of
economically and environmentally significant pests and to facilitate the safe
trade of agricultural products.
The 2019 Plan shortened this Mission: To
safeguard the health, welfare, and value of American agriculture and natural
resources.
The 2019 Plan links the Mission tightly to U.S. Department of Agriculture priorities, e.g., honesty and integrity, commitment, accountability, reliability, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources. There follow promises to deliver services with a customer focus, efficiency and responsiveness, and ensuring that phytosanitary protection is at a reasonable cost. There is great emphasis in the 2019 plan on understanding how agricultural businesses operate, collaborating with partners, and seeking alternatives to regulation.
Goals
The
2019 Strategic Plan also amends the agency’s goals – they are much more
general, less specific. The new goals emphasize program efficiency, collaborative
approaches, and empowering employees. Perhaps these changes were made because
the 2019 Plan covers the entire agency while the earlier (2015) Plan guided
only Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ. However, I fear that the new goals
reflect a much greater emphasis on non-regulatory approaches.
Contrasting
Goals
The
2015 Strategic Plan’s three goals are:
1.
Strengthen APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine’s (PPQ) pest exclusion system;
2.
Optimize domestic pest management and eradication programs; and
3.
Increase the safety of agricultural trade to expand economic opportunities in
the global marketplace.
The 2019 Strategic
Plan goals:
1. Deliver
efficient, effective, and responsive programs.
2. Safeguard
American agriculture.
3. Facilitate safe
U.S. agricultural exports.
I excluded from my
analysis generalized goals and objectives pertaining to employee training,
empowerment, etc.
Each of the plans’
goals is supported by several objectives, and in the 2019 Plan by tactics.
These are the specific actions that are to be taken – and progress measured.
All the objectives and actions in the 2015 Strategic Plan are relevant to APHIS’
Plant Protection and Quarantine program, whereas only a few of the 2019 Plan
are.
Will this mean that
we will lose track of what is happening in important areas?
For now, I provide
a summary of events and progress as reported in the annual reports from 2015 to
2018.
2015 Strategic
Plan Goal 1. Strengthen PPQ’s pest exclusion system. The objectives
called for addressing pest risks at the first opportunity – preferably at the
point of origine; and making better use of the information the agency collects to
target and reduce pest threats.
Strategic Plan Goal 2. Optimizing pest management and eradication. The objectives called for closer coordination with partners to focus combined resources on obtaining the greatest results.
Strategic Plan
Goal 3: Increase the safety of agricultural trade to expand economic
opportunities in the global marketplace. These objectives integrated APHIS into
collaborating with foreign counterparts to promote the development and use of
internationally and regionally harmonized, science-based phytosanitary
measures. The purpose is to reduce barriers to trade, especially U.S.
agricultural exports.
APHIS
also promised to use the best available science, data, and technologies to
strengthen the agency’s effectiveness and deliver results for the industries it
serves.
Assessing
Progress
Unfortunately,
APHIS did not stick to standardized metrics in the annual reports. This lapse undermines
efforts to use the reports to evaluate progress. Use of different metrics are
apparent in reporting on a) numbers of pre-clearance programs, b) Asian gypsy
moth detections; c) volumes of seed imported; d) amounts of illegal imports
seized.
Progress
on Goal 1, Objective 1: Address Risks Early
The
first opportunity to counter a pest risk is offshore – before the product or
crate or container even starts its journey to the U.S.
APHIS
has expanded its off-shore pre-clearance programs under which shipments of
fruit, vegetables, bulbs and plants are inspected overseas – so as to catch
pests before the products even begin their journey. Between 2015 and 2018, the
number of programs grew from 30 programs in an unspecified number of countries to
programs covering 72 different types of commodities in 22 countries.
APHIS
is concerned about the pest risks associated with the huge volume of ornamental
plant cuttings shipped to the US. As pointed out in the 2017 report, more than
half of the bedding plants sold at retail started from a cutting produced in a
greenhouse located offshore – usually in a tropical or subtropical country. The
high-volume imports impose a heavy burden on inspectors at APHIS’ 16 Plant
Inspection Stations. APHIS already had a small program encouraging producers to
follow “clean” procedures in growing plants; in 2016 it involved 17 facilities.
That same year, APHIS began framing a larger program that would provide
incentives to encourage production facilities voluntarily to adopt integrated pest
management measures. However, a
six-month test in 2017
did not demonstrate that the program brought about a statistically significant
reduction in risk. So PPQ and its partners in the U.S. nursery industry agreed
to repeat the pilot during the 2018–2019 shipping season and refine the voluntary
certification program (2018
report).
Post-Entry
Safeguards
A second line of defense is quarantine within the United States after plants are imported – so-called “post-entry quarantine”. This program allows importers to bring in small numbers of plants that pose a particularly high risk of transporting pests so that they can be incorporated into U.S. agricultural (including horticultural) production. These plants are placed in a certified quarantine facility for close observation – usually for a two-year period. Program requirements are described here. Over the years covered by these annual reports, the number of plants released from PEQ varied considerably – as high as 898 in 2017, half as many (425) in 2018, with intermediate numbers in the earlier years. The number of species has varied less – between 10 and 14, with the highest in 2017. I was unable to detect a pattern.
Results of these
efforts – Numbers of pests detected
1. Detections at the Ports
The 2015 report stated that the agency had detected more new pest detections and saw higher numbers of pest outbreaks than in previous years (but it did not provide specific numbers). Subsequent reports show declines in pests detected (although we cannot evaluate the “pest approach rate” because key information is not collected) [see Appendix II of Fading Forests III, available here] In 2016, APHIS identified 162,000 pests in imported shipments; of this total, 73,700 were quarantine pests. The 2017 report said APHIS identified 143,411 pests in imported shipments; of this total, 71,158 were quarantine pests. In 2018, APHIS identified 140,822 pests; nearly half of this total were quarantine pests.
A particularly dangerous pest: Asian Gypsy Moth
Among the detections reported are those of the Asian gypsy moth egg masses on ships from Asia.
Phytosanitary officials and conservationists have been concerned about this threat since the early 1990s. APHIS and its Canadian counterpart (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) and the two countries’ customs agencies have worked together since then to minimize the likelihood that AGM egg masses will be transported on ships or hard cargo (containers, automobiles, etc.). The most important step was the adoption by the North American Plant Protection Organization link of Regional Standard of Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM) No. 33 in 2009; it was revised in 2015 and 2017.
While
the standard has apparently resulted in significant declines in arrivals of
ships contaminated by egg masses, the lack of
consistent reporting measures make it difficult to compare detection results
from year to year. In the various reports, APHIS reports varying types
of data – e.g., sometimes percentage
of ships, sometimes number of ships, sometimes percentage decline in number of
egg masses found on ships For example, the 2017 report stated that the number
of incoming ships with AGM egg masses had been reduced from 48 in 2014 to 0
2017. The 2018 report is confusing. In a single paragraph (p. 5) it states both
that more than 98% of inspected vessels entering U.S. ports from Asia were free
of AGM; and that the compliance rate hit an all-time high of 92%, a 10% increase
over the previous year’s rate.
The annual reports also
describe regional and international efforts to reduce the likelihood that AGM
egg masses will be transported to North America. The 2016
and 2017 reports described meetings with Canada and Chile – other
countries worried about AGM introductions – and with four “source” countries —
China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea – to promote better compliance with vessel
certification program requirements. Also, APHIS began monitoring for AGM on
U.S. military bases in Japan and South Korea.
The reports also
note progress in ensuring eradication of AGM outbreaks in various U.S.
locations. There had been single AGM moths detected in Oklahoma in 2013 and 2014;
in South Carolina in 2014 and 2015; and in Georgia in 2015. (News releases had
also reported AGM egg masses on a ship in Baltimore harbor in 2013.) The 2017
report notes that after three years of negative surveys, PPQ confirmed that Oklahoma
is free of the pest. The 2018 report said South Carolina and Georgia also had
been declared free of AGM. Surveys continue in treated areas of Washington and
Oregon, where 14 moths were found in 2015 (2017 report).
2. Pests Detected in Sea Containers
In
2016, PPQ initiated a collaborative exploration with Canada and the shipping and
sea container industries to address pest risks associated with the movement of
sea containers. The goal of the initiative is to develop container-cleaning
guidelines that can be implemented on a global scale. In 2017, PPQ gave a
presentation to the members of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)
re: the complexity of this issue. The IPPC formed a Sea Container Task Force,
which continues to work.
A
specific case (which should not have been a surprise)
In
2017, APHIS was startled to learn from an importer that containers of airplane
parts shipped from Italy were infested by snails. APHIS began working with both
the importers and the suppliers to minimize the presence of snails. I confess
to a sense of irony. Wood packaging from Italy has been a well-recognized
pathway for the movement of snails since at least 1985! How could APHIS staff
be surprised when snails turn up on containers? I hope APHIS’ effort to
persuade Italian machinery manufacturers to clean up their loading docks and
storage facilities are more successful than similar efforts in the past
targetting marble quarries and tile manufacturers.
3. Pests
Detected in Imports of Living Plants and Seeds.
Plant import volumes have averaged about 1.5 billion
units (cuttings, whole plants, other propagative materials) per year in 2015
through 2018. (The recent import level is less than half the volume of imported
plants before the Great Recession in 2008 – those imports exceeded 3.15 billion
plants in 2007 – Liebhold et al.
2012; full citation at end of blog.) Reported imports of seed were sometimes in
pounds, sometimes in tons (not clear whether Imperial or metric tons), and once
in kilograms. So, if my math is correct, seed imports probably varied from a
low of 1.39 million pounds in 2018 to a high of 3.74 million pounds in 2017.
The number of shipments in which the plant units were packaged varied from a
high of more than 19,000 in 2015 to a low of 17,000 in 2017. Again, I cannot
detect a pattern.
The number of quarantine pests detected varied from
a low of 690 in 2016 to a high of 1,173 in 2918. That last year also had the
highest number of plant units imported – 1.7 billion – 100,000 to 200,000 more
than in previous years. Whether these detection numbers accurately reflect the
true pest approach rate via this
pathway is difficult to know. A study by Liebhold et al. (2012 full citation at end of blog) found that up to 72% of
infested shipments were not detected by inspectors.
Progress
on Goal 1, Objective 2: Making Better Use of Information
A
major thread in past analyses of APHIS programs is the poor use of data to
evaluate and improve program efficacy. APHIS is trying to overcome these
deficiencies (although note the use of inconsistent numbers in the annual
reports).
One
important focus is the on-going effort to implement risk-based sampling
protocols at the Plant Inspection Stations. APHIS says its goal is to ensure
that an inspector
operating with 80% efficiency is able to detect any shipment with a 5%
infestation level. The level of confidence that such a detection has been
accurate should be 95%. Developing the sampling and inspection system has been
a challenge; APHIS adjusted one aspect of it in 2018 (according to that year’s
annual report). APHIS is also using statistical methods to try to estimate the
pest approach rates for specific types of plant material (2017 report).
APHIS is also striving to integrate its data analysis programs with those of DHS Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). A pilot program testing risk-based sampling at four Texas border ports focuses on imported commodities rather than the accompanying wood packaging. This is unfortunate given the high levels of detection of wood packaging from Mexico that is in violation of applicable international rules in ISPM#15). [See my discussion from February 2017.]
Finally,
APHIS is testing use of molecular diagnostics to detect diseases that may not
be found through visual inspection –
although this is still experimental in 2018 after more than two years of
evaluation.
Progress
on Goal 2: Optimizing Pest Management and Eradication
Remember that the
objectives emphasized coordinating with and “wisely us[ing]” partners’
abilities.
Seizures of
illegal imports
Again, the reporting units vary so it is hard to compare between years. In 2015 and 2016, seizures were reported in pounds of prohibited plants, plant products, meat, and meat products that had entered the country illegally. Such seizures fell from more than 290,000 pounds in 2015 to 102,000 pounds in 2016. In 2017 and 2018, seizures were reported as numbers of prohibited items and their retail value. In 2017, APHIS seized 2,347 prohibited agricultural items valued at more than $554,000 from retail stores, internet sales, and express shipment courier inspections. In 2018, seizures rose to 3,222 prohibited items valued at over $2.6 million.
APHIS also
sometimes recalled items – there were 24 national recalls in 2017, 28 in 2018.
In 2016, PPQ’s Furniture Recall Team coordinated a nationwide consumer-level
recall of imported pine furniture after customers complained that insects,
later identified as brown fir longhorned beetles, were emerging from the
furniture. The combined federal-state-retailer effort recovered and destroyed
83% of the purchased furniture pieces and 100 % of the furniture that remained
in the warehouse. This effort won APHIS’ internal Safeguarding Award in 2016.
Pest
Eradications
(I include here only tree pests; the reports note success on European grape
vine moth and pink bollworm.)
Annual reports noted gradual progress in eradicating Asian longhorned beetle outbreaks. As of 2016, APHIS reported eradication of 85% of the ALB-infested area in New York, 34% of the area Massachusetts, and 15% of the OH infestation. In 2018, APHIS announced eradication of ALB from two townships in Clermont County, Ohio.
In 2016 APHIS reported that it has begun focusing the emerald ash borer program on biocontrol. The agency reported releasing more than 1.2 million parasitic wasps in 20 states in what the agency called “trial releases” in 2015. By 2017 the agency released wasps in 25 states and the District of Columbia and reported detections of reproducing wasp populations in 14 states. In 2018, APHIS released more than 1 million wasps – again in 25 states; and reported recoveries of offspring in 17 states. In that last year, APHIS issued a formal proposal to end the regulatory program restricting movement of EAB vectors. In earlier blogs I explained my opposition to this proposal. See earlier blogs here and here.
This
proposal was adopted after APHIS implemented a new “decision framework” (see
2016 report). Presumably APHIS considers this framework to implement Goal 2,” Optimize
domestic pest management and eradication programs.” Given the
controversy around the emerald ash borer proposal, however, I am skeptical that
it fulfills the two objectives – coordinating with partners and using partners’
“ unique capacities … to strengthen and extend PPQ’s domestic programs.” Instead,
to me, this decision reflects the agency’s eagerness to dump difficult programs
onto others – in this case, state agencies and conservation organizations. For
more on this “dumping” proclivity, see also “FRSMP” below.
In 2018 APHIS also reported expanding its engagement with the spotted lanternfly — which I think should have been much more vigorous earlier [see here]. APHIS said it would focus on the leading edge of the infestation in Pennsylvania, while the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture took the lead within the core infested area. APHIS also said it would assist State departments of Agriculture in Virginia, New Jersey, and Delaware, where outbreaks have been detected.
Surveys
Pest surveys are one tool for early detection of pests, so they are important to pest eradication and management. Surveys have long been collaborative efforts with the states and others, funded through the CAPS and Farm Bill programs (see below). The number of pests targeted in the surveys have crept up from 346 in 2015 to 386 in 2018. The number of quarantine pests detected varies year-to-year: 16 in 2016; 30 in 2017; 12 in 2018. According to the report, all were detected before they could cause significant damage.
APHIS has been
testing use of both dogs and unmanned aircraft (drones) for surveys of tree
pests. Dogs have shown promise in detecting AGM egg masses on ships, coconut
rhinoceros beetle in mulch piles, and insect frass in wood packaging.
Other Initiatives
APHIS
is actively pressing for widespread adoption of electronic phytosanitary
certificates, which it expects to both ease processing burdens and reduce
opportunities for fraud. Efforts include test exchanges of electronic
certificates with a growing number of countries and development of an action
plan to be presented to the International Plant Protection Convention
decision-making body in 2018.
Another
initiative is to develop a holistic, integrated management systems approach to
reduce risks associated with international movement of seed (a very complex trade!).
Farm
Bill projects
Funding
for projects under
the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster
Program (Section
10007 of the Farm Bill; now Section 7721 of the Plant Protection Act) was not
reported in the 2015 or 2016 annual reports. My analysis of the program website
found that $62.5 million worth of projects was funded in FY15; 58.25 million was
funded in FY17. By 2018, a total of $75 million worth of projects was funded.
The number of
projects funded has increased as a result – from about 430 in 2015 and 2016 to
483 in 2017 and 519 in 2018. According
to my calculations, the proportion of the funding going to tree pests has
averaged a little over 10% in most years. 2016 saw a spike because of spending
to suppress the spotted lanternfly in Pennsylvania and to eradicate AGM
outbreaks in Washington and Oregon.
Federally
Recognized State Managed Phytosanitary (FRSMP) Program
In
theory, the FRSMP program supports states’ efforts to prevent pests that are no
longer federally regulated from entering the state’s territory. To be covered
under the FRSMP Program, a pest must pose an economic or environmental risk to
a state, and the state must have a program in place to eradicate, exclude or
contain it. In those cases, a State may petition PPQ to list the species under
the program. Between 2010 and 2018, APHIS, in collaboration with the National
Plant Board, changed the regulatory status of 105 pests. I worry that at least
some of these pests should continue to be the target of a federal program. My
worry is exacerbated by APHIS’ plan to deregulate the emerald ash borer
(described above).
Goal 3: International
Coordination to Develop Science-Based Standards
The
APHIS annual reports demonstrate APHIS’ active engagement with international
standard-setting bodies in pursuit of its goal of pre-empting conflicts with
trade partners by getting international agreement to appropriate phytosanitary
measures. Since 2016, the International Plant Protection Convention has adopted
36 new international standards. The North American Plant Protection
Organization adopted a new standard for using systems approaches to manage pest
risks associated with the movement of forest products. APHIS assigns staff to participate
on expert panels and committees, comments on draft standards, and help define
the organizations’ agendas.
Forest-pest
related issues addressed through one or both of these organizations include
both an international and regional standard for the movement of wood products,
and adoption of two new treatments for wood packaging. APHIS was also a key
player in organizing two workshops aimed at improving compliance with the
international wood packaging standard (ISPM#15) and another aimed at improving compliance
with the ship-sanitation program intended to curtail transport of AGM egg
masses. APHIS also coordinates closely with Australia, New Zealand, as well as Canada
(called “the Quads”), to advance shared standard-setting priorities at the IPPC
and launch key initiatives of mutual interest.
As I said at the beginning of the blog, APHIS issued a new Strategic Plan [available here] in autumn 2018. A table in Appendix A of the report provides support for some of my concerns.
Regarding
APHIS’ backing away from regulatory programs and difficult pests, the table shows
that 11 deregulatory actions were published in FY2017; the target for FY18 is 10,
the target for FY19 is 15. Furthermore, Objective 1.3, states that APHIS will
remove obstacles by ending regulations that place burdens on stakeholders but that
are not supported by current science or practices. APHIS has also reinstated an
internal executive regulatory management group to identify APHIS’ regulatory
needs early and track them through approval.
I
am even more concerned that the “performance measure” in the table in Appendix
A anticipates that the percentage of high-risk pests surveyed for under the
CAPS program will fall from 96% in FY17 to just 80% in FY19.
The
2019 Strategic Plan continues an earlier emphasis on science-based decisions,
modernizing procedures, improving utilization of data, the need to be flexible
and adjust to new situations, to work closely with partners, and to maintain
leadership role in international bodies aimed at achieving protection goals
while promoting safe trade. The vast majority of examples and specific actions listed
in the plan pertain to animal disease issues; some actions could be interpreted
as applying to both animal and plant sanitary issues. The table in Appendix A
anticipates that ten new regional or international standards will be adopted in
both FY2018 and FY2019.
The few plant-specific actions in
the plan include the following matters that continue from previous years – but
without any recognition of problems revealed in the annual reports:
•
Imported plant cuttings that are produced in approved offshore facilities will
be processed through a streamlined system. No mention is made that the 2017 pilot
program failed to demonstrate the expected reduction of pest risk.
•
By FY2019 (the current year), 60% of incoming shipments of plants will be inspected
under the Risk Based Sampling (RBS) system. No mention is made of the still “in
development” aspect of this system, as revealed in the 2018 and other annual
reports.
•
Development will continue of a new regulatory approach for seed imports based
on Regulatory Framework for Seed Health (ReFreSH) (a systems approach which has
been under development for several years).
•
Addressing the threat of invasive pests and diseases associated with the
international movement of sea containers (an international initiative begun a
few years ago).
•
Strengthening the North American perimeter against pest threats from outside
the region.
•
Preventing the sale of prohibited plant material via the internet or
e-commerce.
SOURCE
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. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment, 10(3): 135-143. Online at: http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2012/nrs_2012_liebhold_001.pdf. Accessed December 7, 2012.
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.
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has teamed up with the North American Invasive Species Management Association and The Nature Conservancy to sponsor the first-ever national PlayCleanGo Awareness Week beginning Saturday – June 1-8. The program’s goal is to help outdoor enthusiasts understand how they can help stop the spread of invasive plants and pests—while still enjoying the great outdoors.
APHIS’ announcement suggests some helpful steps people going outdoors can take:
Before moving from one location to another, clean your shoes with a brush to remove any soil, plants or seeds that might be trapped in your treads. This action will help prevent your accidentally spreading damaging microscopic organisms or invasive weeds to new areas.
Avoid giving hitchhiking pests a free ride in your firewood by purchasing your firewood where you plan to burn it or taking only heat-treated firewood with you. Careless movement of wood can spread tree-killing beetles and other pests that can harm our forests.
If you are driving, remove any visible pests, plants, soil, or egg masses from your vehicle, RV or camper. It only takes a few minutes to stop tree-killing insects and other potentially harmful plant pests from traveling with you to your next destination.
The websitehprovides educational materials as well as such tools for interaction as pledges and hashtags!
Help spread the word while doing
your part.
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.
I expect you have heard about the report issued on May 6 by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. The executive summary is available here
Based on thousands of scientific
studies, the report concludes that the biosphere, upon which humanity as a whole
depends, is being altered to an unparalleled degree across all spatial scales. The
trends of decline are accelerating. As many as 1 million species (75% of which are
insects) are threatened with extinction, many within decades.
Humans dominate Earth: natural
ecosystems have declined by 47% on average. Especially hard-hit are inland
waters and freshwater ecosystems: only 13% of the wetland present in 1700
remained by 2000. Losses have continued rapidly since then.
The report lists the most important
direct drivers of biodiversity decline – in descending order – as habitat loss
due to changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of organisms; climate
change; pollution; and invasive species. The relative importance of each driver
varies across regions.
If you have been paying attention, these
conclusions are not “news”.
However, the report serves two valuable
purposes. First, it provides a global overview, a compilation of all the data
and trends. Second, the report ties the direct drivers to underlying causes
which are in turn underpinned by societal values and behaviors. Specifically
mentioned are production and consumption patterns, human population dynamics
and trends, trade, technological innovations, and governance (decision making
at all levels, from local to global).
The report goes to great lengths to
demonstrate that biological diversity and associated ecosystem services are
vital for human existence and good quality of life – especially for supporting
humanity’s ability to choose alternative approaches in the face of an uncertain
future. The report concludes that while more food, energy and materials than
ever before are now being supplied to people, future supplies are undermined by
the impact of this production and consumption on Nature’s ability to provide.
The report also emphasizes that both the
benefits and burdens associated with the use of biodiversity and ecosystem
services are distributed and experienced inequitably among social groups,
countries and regions. Furthermore, benefits provided to some people often come
at the expense of other people, particularly the most vulnerable. However, there are also synergies – e.g., sustainable agricultural practices
enhance soil quality, thereby improving productivity and other ecosystem
functions and services such as carbon sequestration and water quality
regulation.
The report contains vast amounts of data
on the recent explosion of human numbers and – especially – consumption – of
agricultural production, fish harvests, forest products, bioenergy production …
and on the associated declines in “regulating” and “non-material contributions”
ecosystem services. In consequence, the report concludes, these recent gains in
material contributions are often not sustainable.
While invasive species rank fifth as a
causal agent of biodiversity decline globally, alien species have increased by
40% since 1980, associated with increased trade and human population dynamics
and trends. The authors report that nearly 20% of Earth’s surface is at risk of
bioinvasion. The rate of invasive species introduction seems higher than ever
and shows no signs of slowing.
The report notes that the extinction
threat is especially severe in areas of high endemism. Invasive species play a
more important role as an extinction agent in many such areas, especially
islands. However, some bioinvaders also have devastating effects on mainlands;
the report cites the threat of the pathogen Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis to nearly 400 amphibian species worldwide.
The report also mentions that the combination
of species extinctions and transport of species to new ecosystems is resulting
in biological communities – both managed and unmanaged — becoming more similar
to each other — biotic homogenization.
The report notes that human-induced
changes are creating conditions for fast biological evolution of species in all
taxonomic groups. The authors recommend adopting conservation strategies
designed to influence evolutionary trajectories so as to protect vulnerable species
and reduce the impact of unwanted species (e.g.,
weeds, pests or pathogens).
The report says conservation efforts
have yielded positive outcomes – but they have not been sufficient to stem the
direct and indirect drivers of environmental deterioration. Since 1970, nations
have adopted six treaties aimed at protection of nature and the environmental,
but few of the strategic objectives and goals adopted by the treaties’ parties
are being realized. One objective that is on track to partial achievement is
the Aichi Biological Diversity Target that calls for identification and
prioritization of invasive species.
That might well be true – but I would not consider global efforts to manage invasive species to be a success story in any way. I have blogged often about studies showing that introductions continue unabated … and management of established bioinvaders only rarely results in measurable improvements. [For example, see here and here.]
The report gives considerable attention
to problems caused by some people’s simultaneous lack of access to material
goods and bearing heavier burden from pollution and other negative results of
biodiversity collapse. Extraction of living biomass (e.g. crops, fisheries) to meet the global demand is highest in
developing countries whereas material consumption per capita is highest in developed countries. The report says that
conservation of biodiversity must be closely linked to sustainable approaches
to more equal economic development. The authors say both conservation and economic
goals can be achieved – but this will require transformative changes across
economic, social, political and technological factors.
One key transformation is changing
people’s conception of a good life to downplay consumption and waste. Other
attitudinal changes include emphasizing social norms promoting sustainability
and personal responsibility for the environmental impacts of one’s consumption.
Economic measures and goals need to address inequalities and integrate impacts
currently considered to be “economic externalities”. The report also calls for inclusive
forms of decision-making and promoting education about the importance of
biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Economic instruments that promote
damaging, unsustainable exploitation of biological resources (or their damage
by pollution) include subsidies, financial transfers, subsidized credit, tax
abatements, and commodity and industrial goods prices that hide environmental
and social costs. These need to be changed.
Finally, limiting global warming to well
below 2oC would have multiple co-benefits for protecting
biodiversity and ecosystem services. Care must be exercised to ensure that large-scale
land-based climate mitigation measures, e.g.,
allocating conservation lands to bioenergy crops, planting of monocultures,
hydroelectric dams) do not themselves cause serious damage to biodiversity or
other ecosystem services.
The threats to biodiversity and
ecosystem services are most urgent in South America, Africa and parts of Asia. North
America and Europe are expected to have low conversion to crops and continued
reforestation.
Table SPM.1 lays out a long set of approaches
to achieve sustainability and possible actions and pathways for achieving them.
The list is not exhaustive, but rather illustrative, using examples from the
report.
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
recent months there have been several developments affecting efforts to manage
the sudden oak death infestation in West Coast states and to prevent its spread
to other parts of the country.
1) APHIS
regulations
Most notably, APHIS has formalized revisions to its regulations governing nursery stock. This revision was proposed last June (see my blog about this here). The revisions largely implement changes to practices that APHIS had adopted in 4014 and 1015 through Federal Orders. The final regulation is posted here. The new regulation goes into effect on May 20th.
APHIS received only 10 comments (posted here) on the proposal – from researchers, State agriculture and conservation agencies, environmental advocacy groups, research foundations, and private citizens. I summarized points raised in their comments by CISP and others in an earlier blog.
APHIS
responded to most of these comments by reiterating that it has been operating
under the current program since 2014 and believes the existing testing
protocols and conditions are sufficient to mitigate the risk. The measures to monitor
nurseries for infections include testing soil and water, that is, they do not
rely exclusively on visual inspection of the plants. This is a step forward. In
response to comments by CISP and California Oak Mortality Task Force that all
nurseries that grow host plants are a potential source of contamination, APHIS points
out that it is not authorized to regulate nurseries that don’t ship plants
interstate. This limitation is a serious problem arising from the underlying
statute – the Plant Protection Act. APHIS said it would continue to monitor
detection of the pathogen, and would reevaluate program protocols “should the
need arise” – but it made no promise on how frequently it would reevaluate the program.
APHIS
did make some adjustments, based on comments. It agreed to one state’s request
that it clarify the minimum
number of samples that must be taken during annual inspection of nurseries that
had not previously tested positive for the pathogen when those nurseries are
located in counties that have SOD infestations in the environment. (Such
counties are found only in California and Oregon.)
The
agency also said it plans to restructure the list of host species so that it
can be updated more quickly. APHIS plans to remove the lists from formal regulations
(which require public notice and comment to amend) and post them on the APHIS
website. APHIS also expects to merge the lists of proven and associated hosts
into a single host list. However, these plans would, themselves, constitute
rulemaking and require another public comment period.
APHIS
also agreed to reinstate its quarterly program updates, beginning in April of
2019. I have not yet seen an alert telling me how to find the first such update,
though.
2) P. ramorum in California and Washington
According to the most recent (April 2019) newsletter of the California Oak Mortality Task Force, tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus) mortality in California attributed to Phytophthora ramorum increased by more than 1.6 million trees across 106,000 acres in 2018. The dead trees are concentrated west of the coastal range.
In
the meantime, P. ramorum continues to
be detected in nurseries shipping plants from West Coast nurseries. As of
April, the California Department of Food and Agriculture had detected P. ramorum in nine nurseries – six from
previous years, three new in 2019. (Sixty-four additional infected plants were
found in one nursery that had been confirmed positive in an earlier year –
raising questions in my mind about the efficacy of the Confirmed Nursery
Protocol for eliminating the pathogen.)
As I noted in a previous blog, Washington is finding it difficult to eliminate P. ramorum from the soil of a botanical garden in Kitsap County. For the third time in less than a year, a pond that is downhill from previously “mitigated” sites has tested positive for P. ramorum.
I remind you that scientists do not believe that P. ramorum persists in water – it must be surviving on some plant tissue in both Washington and the Eastern states (see below).
3) P. ramorum in Oregon
The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) commissioned a study of the economic impact of Phytophthora ramorum in the state. The study found that to date, sudden oak death has caused minor impacts on the regional economy. There was no impact on timber harvest, export or log prices or recreation or tourism revenues and only anecdotal reports of losses to real estate transaction values in some areas. Meantime, the state and several federal agencies are spending $1.5 million per year to try to contain the outbreak.
However, sudden oak death has the potential to cause harm to core values that elude economic quantification, particularly to tribal cultural values and the “existence value” of tanoak-dominated forests. SOD may be an existential threat to tanoak and associated obligate species (e.g., dusky-footed woodrats, Northern flying squirrels, and Allen’s chipmunks – which are important prey items for northern spotted owl, cougar, coyote, and Pacific fisher. More widespread wildlife — e.g., deer, elk, bear, Coho salmon, and a variety of bird species – might also be harmed.)
Immediate
termination of the ODF treatment regime might lead to serious impacts due to
more rapid expansion of sudden oak death into Coos County, Oregon. These could
include Asian governments restricting timber and fiber exports from southwest
Oregon and resulting loss of 1,200 jobs and forest products harvest tax. There
might also be a collapse of residential property value and real estate
transaction revenues. Finally, there might be a decline in recreation and
tourism in affected areas. Maintaining the current treatment regime was
expected to delay the spread of SOD north of the Rogue River until 2028, and
prevent infestation of Coos County beyond 2038. Continued funding SOD
treatments for a total cost of $30 million over the next 20 years could offset
loss of 1,200 jobs by 2028 and $580 million in wages from 2028 to 2038.
The study
authors note that other factors – such as major wildfires or trade wars – could
render these impacts moot.
4) P. ramorum in the East
According to the most recent newsletter of the California Oak Mortality Task Force, over the nine years since 2010, the pathogen has been detected from 11 streams in six eastern states – four in Alabama; one in Florida; two in Georgia; one in Mississippi; one in North Carolina; and two in Texas. P. ramorum has been found multiple times in eight of these streams; it is consistently present in two steams in Alabama, one each in Mississippi and North Carolina.
In
2018, seven states participated in the stream survey (which is operated by the
USDA Forest Service): (AL, GA, MS, NC,
PA, SC, and TX). This was the smallest number of participating states, which
has fallen from14 in 2010 to seven in 2018.
The
number of streams surveyed annually has ranged from 45 to 95. The number of
streams sampled in 2018 was also close to the smallest number: 47. P. ramorum was detected from six streams
– four in Alabama, one each in Mississippi and North Carolina. All positive
streams were associated with previously P.
ramorum-positive nurseries.
Remember
that P. ramorum continues to be detected in West Coast nurseries that ship
plants interstate (see the second section of this blog).
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.
Photo of infested cactus at Cabo Rojo National Wildlife Refuge, Puerto Rico. Taken August 20, 2018 by Yorelyz Rodríguez-Reyes
Three and a half years ago, I blogged about the threat to columnar cacti in Puerto Rico from the Harrisia cactus mealybug. The mealybug clearly threatens the endemic cacti of the Caribbean islands, and possibly some of the hundreds of other columnar cacti growing across two million square miles of desert ecosystems that straddle the U.S.-Mexico border region.
I am pleased to report that scientists continue efforts to find biocontrol agents to reduce this insect’s damage on Caribbean islands. Much of this work is being done by the Center for Excellence in Quarantine and Invasive Species at University of Puerto Rico. The team consists of Michael West Ortiz, Yorelys Rodrígues Reyes, Ferdinand Correa and Jose Carlos Verle Rodrigues.
As of February 2019, the Center is conducting host specificity tests on a primary parasitoid of the Harrisia Cactus mealybug — Anagyrus cachamai. This wasp was found as a result of almost a decade of searching in South America and other locations. It is native to Argentina and Paraguay (Triapitsyn et al. 2018; sources listed at the end of the blog).The Center also continues surveys and studies of other primary and secondary parasitoids of the mealybug.
The work to develop a biocontrol agent for the
mealybug continues despite continuing uncertainty about the true species of the mealybug. At the time
of its discovery on Puerto Rico, the mealybug was believed to belong to a
species used as a biocontrol agent for invasive cacti in Australia and South
Africa, designated as Hypogeococcus
pungens.
However, H. pungens is now thought to
be a species complex, and the species in Puerto Rico differs from the earlier
designation (Triapitsyn et al.
2018).
Apparently
the mealybug was introduced in Puerto Rico around 2000 — probably on the ornamental common
purslane (Portulaca olerácea), an
annual succulent. (Note: the
introduction was on a host different from the vulnerable cacti.) Within five
years of the first detection in San Juan, the mealybug was sighted on cacti on
the other side of the island in the Guánica State Forest and Biosphere Reserve.
By 2010, the mealybug was widely distributed in most dry districts. Surveys
found it in all 11 municipalities surveyed in southern Puerto Rico. At some
locations, infestation levels were extremely high – e.g., 86% of stems surveyed were infested at Guánica. Infestation
rates were lower in other municipalities. As of 2010, infestations were
estimated to be present on about 1,400 km2 on the southern coast;
the rate of new infestations suggests that the mealybug was spreading rapidly
(Segarra-Carmona et al. 2010). I have been unable to obtain more recent
estimates.
The
mealybug impacts seven of 14 native cactus species occurring in dry forests of
the island, including three endemic and two endangered species in the subfamily
Cactoideae. The two endangered species are Harrisia
portoricensis and Leptocereus grantianus (USDA ARS). The tissue
damage caused by the mealybug interferes with sexual reproduction and can cause
direct mortality of the plant (Triapitsyn et
al. 2018). These
cacti provide food or shelter for endemic bats, birds, moths and other
pollinators (Segarra & Ramirez; USDA ARS). The mealybug is also now killing
native cacti on the U.S. Virgin Islands (H. Diaz-Soltero pers. comm. August
2015).
USDA Funds Conservation Efforts Despite
Apparent Absence of a Constituency Calling for Such Action
Efforts
to identify and test possible biocontrol agents targetting the Harrisia cactus
mealybug received significant funds from the Plant
Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program. This is a
competitive grant program managed by APHIS. It is permanently funded and thus
not subject to the vagaries of annual appropriations. Until last year, this
program operated under Section
10007 of the 2014 Farm Bill. With passage of a new Farm Bill, it is now
designated as Section 7721 of the Plant Protection Act.
Since Fiscal Year 2018, APHIS has had authority to spend more than $60 million per year on this program. In Fiscal Year 2017, , the program provided $120,000 to an unspecified federal agency, $70,000 to an academic institution in Puerto Rico (presumably the Center), $15,000 to another academic institution in California, and $3,000 divided among two APHIS facilities – for a total of $208,000. The next round of funds came in FY19, when the program provided $277,267 to an unspecified federal agency to continue work on biocontrol. In addition, the program provided $78,507 to an unspecified federal agency to “safeguard[e] genetic diversity of native and listed cacti threatened by Harrisia cactus mealybug in Puerto Rico”.
No Apparent Action on
Threats to Opuntia Cacti
In my earlier blog, I also described the threat to flat-padded Opuntia (prickly pear) cacti from the cactus moth Cactoblastis cactorum. Various federal, state, and academic entities received $463,000 from the permanent fund in Fiscal Year 2016 and another $100,000 in FY2017. No cactus moth programs have received funds in more recent years.
SOURCES
Segarra-Carmona, A.E., A.
Ramirez-Lluch. No date. Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae): A
new threat to biodiversity in fragile dry tropical forests.
Segarra-Carmona,
A.E., A. Ramírez-Lluch, I. Cabrera-Asencio and A.N. Jiménez-López. 2010. FIRST REPORT OF A NEW INVASIVE MEALYBUG, THE
HARRISIA CACTUS MEALYBUG HYPOGEOCOCCUS PUNGENS (HEMIPTERA: PSEUDOCOCCIDAE). J.
Agrie. Univ. RR. 94(1-2):183-187 (2010)
Triapitsyn,
Aguirre, Logarzo, Hight, Ciomperlik, Rugman-Jones, Rodriguez. 2018. Complex of
primary and secondary parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae and Signiphoridae)
of Hypogeococcus spp. mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in the New World. Florida
Entomologist Volume 101, No. 3 411
USDA Agriculture Research Service, Research Project:
Biological Control of the Harrisia Cactus Mealybug, Hypogeococcus pungens
(Hemiptera:pseudococcidae) in Puerto Rico Project Number: 0211-22000-006-10
Project Type: Reimbursable
West Ortiz, M. pers. comm. February 2019
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.
An article published lately indicates yet another complication that might undercut reliance on biocontrol to counter mortality of eastern ash populations caused by the emerald ash borer (EAB) (See my blogs from November — here and here) regarding APHIS’ proposal to eliminate EAB quarantines in favor of relying chiefly on biocontrol – with little data to back up the change.)
Olson
and Rieske (full citation at the end of this blog) found that one of the
principal biocontrol agents now in use, and on which APHIS proposes to rely, Tetrastichus planipennisi, does not parasitize
EAB larvae living in white fringetree, Chionanthus
virginicus. While this tree is a suboptimal host for EAB – lower numbers of
the beetle survive – the white fringetree would support survival of some EAB –
thereby undermining efficacy of the biocontrol program.
Since white fringetree grows a cross much of the eastern range of ash trees — from New York to Texas, as shown by the map posted here, the presence of this reservoir that can be exploited by EAB will challenge the efficacy of biocontrol.
Olson
and Rieske believe the reason that T.
planipennisi does not attack EAB living in white fringetree is that the
fringetree’s wood is so dense that the wasp cannot detect the presence of EAB
in the tree (T. planipennisi apparently
relies on tactile and vibratory clues to find its prey).
2) A Possible New
Biopesticide to Suppress EAB?
A presentation at the 81st Northeastern Forest Pest Council by Mark Ardis of C.D.G. Environment described tests in the United States and Canada of methods for killing EAB by contaminating the beetles with the fungus Beauveria bassiana. The company is testing traps in which male beetles enter, become covered by fungal spores, then they fly out. The males not only become ill themselves, they also contaminate females during mating. Average overall beetle mortality from several test sites is 25%.
Given the terrible
impact of the EAB invasions, I find it exciting to contemplate development of
additional tools to be used in suppressing the beetles. However, I worry about
possible impacts on non-target insects which might also be exposed to the
fungal spores. A decade ago, David Wagner identified 21 species of insects that
were specialists on Fraxinus, and said
he expected additional species would also be associated with ash trees (full
citation at end of blog). Mr. Ardis assured me that they had detected no
insects other than EAB in the traps. I wish to see additional research on this
issue.
The US Environmental Protection Agency would have
to approve use of this biopesticide. I suggest that we all keep an eye on this
process.
3) Citizen
Scientists Searching for EAB- resistant “Lingering Ash”
Jonathan Rosenthal
and Radka Wildova of the Ecosystem Research Institute have established a
citizen science program to find ash trees that have survived the EAB invasion. These
trees will become the foundation of efforts to breed more trees resistant to
the EAB, which could be used to restore our forests.
The program is called
“MaMa” – Monitoring and Managing Ash. So far, about 30 plots have been set up
in New York, New Jersey, and Vermont where citizens are monitoring ash trees
that have apparently survived the EAB invasion. The program seeks additional
partners from other areas.
Searches for
lingering ash must be strategically timed to ensure that the trees identified
are truly resistant to EAB – not just late to become infested. But you can’t
wait too long after the infestation wave has gone through an area, because the
tree might die due to wind throw or human activity. Or, if a tree has just partial
resistance (an important attribute for breeding!), it might eventually succumb.
It is also imperative to avoid confusing stump sprouts with truly lingering
ash. The conclusion: monitor the infestation and search for lingering trees two
years after 95% of ash have been killed, or four years after 50% have been
killed.
The MaMa program
provides guidance, maps, electronic reporting systems … so you can help!
If you wish to participate
– or to learn more – contact the program at monitoringAsh.org or 845-419-5229.
SOURCES
Olson,
D.G. and L.K. Rieske. 2019. Host range expansion may provide enemy free space
for the highly invasive emerald ash borer. Biol Invasions (2019) 21:625–635
Wagner, D.L. Emerald Ash Borer Threatens Ash-feeding Lepidoptera. 2007. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society. Volume 49, No. 1 (Spring 2007)
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.
We
have long known that significant damage to our forests have been caused by
non-native insects and diseases. Now USFS scientists have found that
exacerbated mortality caused by these pests is showing up in official
monitoring data – the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data. In a presentation
at the 81st Northeastern Forest Pest Council, Randall Morin
described the results of applying FIA data to determine mortality levels caused by several of the most
damaging invaders. He found an approximately 5% increase in total mortality
volume nation-wide.
Morin also compared a map prepared by Andrew Liebhold showing the number of non-native tree-killing pests established in each county of the continent to the mortality rates for those counties based on the FIA data. (See two maps below.)
Counties showing the highest mortality rates in FIA data do not align with counties with highest numbers of invasive species. Morin thinks the discrepancy is explained by such human factors as invasion pressure and the ease of pest movement through the good transportation network in the Northeast. He assigns less importance to habitat invasibility.
The increase in mortality above the background rate was the worst for redbay due to laurel wilt disease – the annual mortality rate rose from 2.6% to 10.9% — slightly more than a four-fold increase. Almost as great an increase in mortality rates – to approximately three-fold – was found for ash trees attacked by the emerald ash borer (from 2.6% to 10.9%); beech dying from beech bark disease (from 0.7% to 2.1%); and hemlock killed by hemlock woolly adelgid, hemlock looper, and other pests (from 0.5% to 1.7%).
Some species are presumed to have an elevated mortality rate, but the pre-invasion “background” rate could not be calculated. These included American chestnut (mortality rate of 7%), butternut succumbing to butternut canker (mortality rate of 5.6%), and elm trees succumbing to “Dutch” elm disease (mortality rate of 3.5%).
The non-native pests and pathogens that have invaded the largest number of counties are white pine blister rust (955 counties), European gypsy moth (630 counties), dogwood anthracnose (609 counties in the East; the western counties were not calculated); emerald ash borer (479 counties); and hemlock woolly adelgid (432 counties).
The invaders posing the most widespread threat as measured by the volume of wood of host species are European gypsy moth (230.9 trillion ft3), Asian longhorned beetle (120.5 trillion ft3), balsam woolly adelgid (61 trillion ft3), sudden oak death (44.6 trillion ft3), and white pine blister rust (27.7 trillion ft3).
The proportion of
the host volume invaded by these non-native pests is 94% for white pine blister
rust, 48% for balsam wooly adelgid, 29% for European gypsy moth, 12% for sudden
oak death, and one half of one percent for Asian longhorned beetle.
Of
course, measuring impact by wood volume excludes some of the species suffering
the greatest losses because the trees are small in stature. This applies
particularly to redbay, but also dogwoods. Also, American chestnut was so
depleted before FIA inventories began that it is also not included – despite
the species’ wide natural range and large size.
[You can see the details for particular species by visiting the FIA “dashboards”. A particularly good example is that for hemlock woolly adelgid, available here.
USFS Response
Of
course, the Forest Service has been trying to counter the impact of invasive
insects and pathogens for decades, long before this study documented measurable
changes in mortality rates.
Unfortunately, funding for the agency’s response has been falling for decades – with concomitant reduction in staffs needed to carry out the work. See the graph below from p. 108 of my report, Fading Forests III, available here.
The
President’s FY2020 budget proposes additional cuts.
The proposal would cut funding for
the USFS Research division by $42.5 million
(14%); cut staff by 212 staff years
(12.5%). It would refocus the research program on inventory and monitoring;
water and biological resources; forest and rangeland management issues, especially
fire; forest products innovations; and people and the environment.
As shown by the above graph, this
proposed cut follows years of loss of expertise and research capacity.
The President’s budget
proposes to slash the State & Private Forestry account by 45.6% – from $335
million to just $182 million. The critically important Forest Health Management
program is included under State & Private Forestry. The cuts proposed for
FHM are 7% for work done on federal lands (from $44.9 million to $41.7 million;
and 16% for work done on non-federal “cooperative” lands (from $38 million to
$31.9 million). Staffing would be reduced by 4% for those working on federal
lands, a startling 38% for those working on cooperative lands.
For
details, view the USDA Forest Service budget justification, which can be found
by entering into your favorite search engine “FY2020 USFS Budget”. Funding
details begin on p. 12; staffing number details on p. 15.
These
severe cuts are proposed despite the fact that the budget justification notes
that pests (native as well as exotic) threaten more than four million acres and
that those pests know no boundaries. The document claims that the Service continues
to apply an “all lands” approach.
When
considering individual invasive pest species, these proposed cuts exacerbate reductions
in previous years. Some cuts are probably justified by changes in
circumstances, such as improved understanding of a species’ life cycle
resulting from past research. However, some are still troubling. (Again, for
details, view the USDA Forest Service budget justification, which can be found
by entering into your favorite search engine “FY2020 USFS Budget”. A table
listing species-specific expenditures in recent years, and the proposed FY2020
levels, is on pp. 38-39.)
The budget proposes to eliminate spending to manage Port-Orford-cedar root disease – which was funded at just $20,000 in recent years but received $200,000 as recently as FY2016. Forest Health Management would cease funding restoration for whitebark pine pests, including white pine blister – despite widespread recognition of the ecological importance of this species. Research on blister rust would continue, but at just over half the funding of recent years. Spending on oak wilt disease would be cut by 45%; funding for protecting hemlocks by 40% (the latter received $3.5 million in FY16). Funding for management of sudden oak death is proposed to be cut by 31% . Cuts to these programs seem particularly odd given that much of the threat is on federal lands – the supposed priority of the Administration’s budget.
The budget calls for a 12% cut in funding for the emerald ash borer – at the very time that USDA APHIS plans to terminate its regulatory program and state agencies and conservationists are looking to the Forest Service to provide leadership.
According to Bob Rabaglia, entomologist for the Forest Health Management program, the proportion of the FHM budget allocated to invasive alien species (as distinct from native pests) has been rising in recent years. Some of this increase is handled through a new “emerging pest” account. Species targeted by these funds, I have been told, include beach leaf disease; goldspotted oak borer; and the invasive polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers.
Unfortunately, the
“emerging pest” account funds are not included in the table on pp. 38-39 of the
budget justification. Nor have I been able to learn from program staff how much
money is in the fund and how much has been allocated to these or other pest or
disease threats.
Adequate
funding of the USFS Research and Forest Health Management programs could allow
the agency to support, inter alia,
efforts by agency and academic scientists to breed trees resistant to the
damaging pest. I am aware, for example, of efforts to find “lingering” ash,
beech, hemlock, whitebark pine, and possibly also redbay. None is adequately
funded.
Please contact your member of Congress and Senators
and urge them to support adequate funding for these two Forest Service
programs. Research should be funded at $310 million (usually 5% or less of these funds is devoted to invasive species);
Forest Health should be funded at $51 million for
cooperative lands and $59 million for federal lands. It
is particularly important to advocate for funding for the “cooperative lands”
account since both the Administration and many members of Congress think the
Forest Service should focus more narrowly on federal lands.
It is particularly important to contact your member if
s/he is on the Interior Appropriations subcommittees. Those members are:
House:
Betty McCollum, Chair (MN 4th)
Chellie Pingree (ME 1st)
Derek Kilmer (WA 6th)
José Serrano (NY 15th)
Mike Quigley (IL 5th)
Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ 12th)
Brenda Lawrence (MI 14th)
David Joyce, Ranking Member (OH 14th)
Mike Simpson (ID 2nd)
Chris Stewart (UT 2nd)
Mark Amodei (NV 2nd)
Senate:
Lisa
Murkowski, Chair (AK)
Lamar
Alexander (TN)
Roy
Blunt (MO)
Mitch
McConnell (KY)
Shelly
Moore Capito (WV)
Cindy
Hyde-Smith (MS)
Steve
Daines (MT)
Marco
Rubio (FL)
Tom
Udall, Ranking (NM)
Diane
Feinstein (CA)
Patrick
Leahy (VT)
Jack
Reed (RI)
Jon
Tester (MT)
Jeff
Merkley (OR)
Chris
van Hollen (MD)
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.