Category: invasive species policy

30 years of Analyzing Forest Pest Issues

dead whitebark pine in Crater Lake National Park
photo by F.T. Campbell

I began studying and writing about the threat to North America’s forests from non-native insects and pathogens in the early 1990s – nearly 30 years ago. I reported my analyses of the evolving threat in the three “Fading Forests” reports – coauthored by Scott Schlarbaum – in 1994, 2003, and 2014. These reports are available here.

So what has changed over those 30 years? What remains the same? Why have both the changes and the stasis occurred? What can we do to fix the gaps, close unaddressed pathways, strengthen flabby policies? I will address these issues in this and following blogs.

experimental American chestnut planted in Fairfax County, VA
photo by F.T. Campbell

What has changed since the early 1990s:

  • Adoption and implementation of significant new international and national regulations and programs aimed at preventing introductions of non-native invasive species.
  • Despite the welter of new regulations, an alarming increase in numbers of highly damaging forest pests established in the country.  (By my count, about 50 new species have established on the continent, six on Pacific islands; see details below.)
  • Alarming spread of established pests to new geographic regions and new hosts (e.g., emerald ash borer in 35 states and 5 provinces; laurel wilt disease across the range of redbay and swamp bay; rapid ‘ōhi‘a death on three of the main Hawaiian islands).
  • Introductions via unexpected pathways and vectors far removed from phytosanitary agencies’ usual targets, e.g., ship superstructures, imported steel and stone …

What has remained the same since the early 1990s:

  • Inadequate resources provided to response and recovery efforts.
  • Available funding focused on only a few of the more than 90 species causing damage.
  • Adoption of insufficiently protective regulations that have failed to prevent introduction and spread of tree-killing pests.
  • Lengthy delays in implementing programs that tighten controls – another factor in continuing introductions and spread.
  • Continued importance of expected pathways – nursery stock and raw wood, especially crates, pallets, and other forms of wood packaging.
  • Federal and state agencies still choose not to take action on pests e.g., goldspotted oak borer, polyphagous and Kuroshio shothole borers, beech leaf disease.
  • Inadequate coordination despite several efforts to set priorities.
  • Spurts of attention by media and political decision-makers, contrasted by lengthy periods of inattention.
  • Failure of most stakeholders to support efforts to prevent and respond to introductions of tree-killing pests. 

Details: The Situations Then and Now

(Many of the individual species mentioned here are described more fully here.  Full citations of sources are at the end of blog.)

American elm on the National Mall, Washington, D.C.

photo by USDA Agricultural Research Service

In 1993:

  • The number of non-native forest pest species established in the U.S. was estimated at between 300 (Millers et al. 1993) and 380 (Mattson et al., 1994; Liebhold et al., 1995) .
  • The area suffering the greatest numbers and impacts was the Northeast.
  • Several highly damaging pests that had been established for decades, including chestnut blight, white pine blister rust, Port-Orford-cedar root disease, Dutch elm disease, hemlock woolly adelgid, butternut canker, and dogwood anthracnose were receiving some attention but continued to spread.
  • USDA Forest Service funding for management of exotic pest infestations was crisis-oriented, with “… priorities … set under political pressures for immediate answers, with too much regard for short-term problems and too little consideration for broader management objectives.” (NAS 1975)
  • Since few high-profile pests had been introduced in recent years, APHIS was not actively engaged. In FY92, APHIS spent $20 million on efforts to eradicate the Asian gypsy moth. The narrow focus is illustrated by the fact that in FY93, more than two-thirds of all USDA tree pest control funds were devoted to efforts to suppress or eradicate the European gypsy moth (See FFI).
  • Concern about possible new introductions had grown; it focused on proposals to import unprocessed wood from Siberia, New Zealand, and Chile. The USDA Forest Service, academic scientists, and therefore APHIS emphasized the risks of known Asian pests, e.g., Asian gypsy moth, to western coniferous forests (See FFI). While individual scientists had expressed concern about wood packaging material, there was little public discussion of this threat.
  • We would learn later that several of the most damaging pests were already present in the country but not yet recognized – Asian longhorned beetle, sudden oak death pathogen, probably emerald ash borer.

beech leaf disease

photo by John Pogacnik

In 2019:

  • Numbers of non-native insects and pathogens attacking trees in North America approach 500 species.  (In Fading Forests III, I calculated that by the first decade of the 21st Century, the number had risen to at least 475. Several more have been detected since 2014. More than 181 exotic insects that feed on woody plants had established in Canada. (Source: USDA APHIS. 2000. Wood packaging risk assessment.)
  • Of these, 91 are considered “serious” threats (Guo et al. 2019). This estimate excludes pests native to portions of North America that are causing severe damage in naïve hosts – e.g., goldspotted oak borer; pests of palms; and pests attacking trees on U.S. Pacific and Caribbean islands.
  • Introductions had continued.
    • Between 1980 and 2016, at least 30 non-native species of wood- or bark-boring insects (Scolytinae / Scolytidae) were newly detected in the U.S. (Haack and Rabaglia 2013; Rabaglia et al.  2019). A few of these are highly damaging, e.g. redbay ambrosia beetle, polyphagous and Kuroshio shothole borers.
    • In addition to these 30 new pests, other highly damaging tree-killing pests probably introduced since the 1980s include (on the continent):
      • Eight Cerambycids such as Asian longhorned beetle (Wu et al. 2017)
      • 7 Agrilus, including emerald ash borer and soapberry borer; plus goldspotted oak borer transported from Arizona to California (Digirolomo et al. 2019; R. Haack, pers. comm.)
      • Sirex woodwasp
      • Pests of palm trees, e.g., red palm mite, red palm weevil, South American palm weevil
      • Spotted lanternfly
      • Beech leaf disease
    • Also not included in the above estimate and lists are tree-killing pests on America’s Pacific Islands :
      • ‘ōhi‘a rust
      • Cycad scale
      • Cycad blue betterfly
      • Erythrina gall wasp
      • two Ceratocystis pathogens that cause rapid ‘ōhi‘a death
      • Coconut rhinoceros beetle
    • Authorities also carried out approximately 25 eradication programs targetting introductions of the Asian gypsy moth (USDA Pest Alert Asian Gypsy Moth plus additional outbreaks since 2014).
  • Impacts of exacerbated tree mortality rates linked to these introduced pests are seen across wide swaths of the country, and affect widespread species, genera, and families. 
dead redbay in Claxton, Georgia
photo by Scott Cameron

I will discuss the risk of continuing new introductions in a separate blog.

Trying to Develop the Big Picture and Set Priorities

In recent years, USDA Forest Service scientists have made several attempts to provide nation-wide assessments of the impact of these pests and criteria for establishing priorities.

The National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment predicted the loss of basal area to various pests over the 15-year time period 2012 – 2027. The assessment predicted the following losses for specific species: 90% for redbay; 60% for whitebark pine; more than 40% for limber pine; 24% for tanoak; 11% for coast live oak; 6% for eastern and Carolina hemlock; 27% for eight species of ash; 20% for American elm; 19% for red oak; 18% for American beech (Krist et al. 2014).

A separate group of scientists found that, nation-wide, non-native forest pests are causing an approximate 5% increase in total mortality by tree volume (Randy Morin at NEFPC). For details on Dr. Morin’s findings, see my blog here.

A third approach to developing a nation-wide picture, Project CAPTURE, (and my blog here) utilized FIA data to develop priorities for conservation action. Fifteen species were placed in the highest priority category, including Florida torreya (Torreya taxifolia), American chestnut and Allegheny and Ozark chinquapins, redbay, five species of ash, two species of hemlock, Port-Orford cedar, tanoak, and butternut (Potter et al. 2019(b).

According to Project CAPTURE, the non-native pests affecting the largest number of hosts are the European gypsy moth, which attacks 65 hosts; and oak wilt (Bretziella fagacearum), which infects 61 hosts. The Asian longhorned beetle attacks 43 hosts (Potter et al. 2019(b).

I note that several other non-native pests also have high numbers of host species. In the Project CAPTURE study, these pests are ranked lower because the project limited its evaluation to the five agents with the greatest effect on any particular host. Thus, of the 18 native tree species that host one or both of the invasive shothole borers and associated Fusarium disease complex (PSHB website), the project included only six. Of the 22 tree species listed by APHIS as hosts of Phytophtora ramorum, the project included 12 (K. Potter, pers. comm. April 17, 2019).

SOD-killed tanoak on the Big Sur peninsula, California
photo by Matteo Garbelotto, University of California Berkeley

More extensive discussions of non-native pests’ impacts are provided in Lovett et al. 2006, Lovett et al. 2016, and Potter et al. 2019. A book-length discussion of invasive species impacts – ranging from feral hogs to invasive plants, is expected in December; look for Poland et al. (in press).

SOURCES

Aukema, J.E., D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle, A.M. Liebhold, K. Britton, & S.J. Frankel. 2010. Historical Accumulation of Nonindigenous Forest Pests in the Continental United States. Bioscience. December 2010 / Vol. 60 No. 11

Digirolomo, M.F., E. Jendek, V.V. Grebennikov, O. Nakladal. 2019. First North American record of an unnamed West Palaearctic Agrilus (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) infesting European beech (Fagus sylvatica) in New York City, USA. European Journal of Entomology. Eur. J. Entomol. 116: 244-252, 2019

Guo, Q., S. Fei, K.M. Potter, A.M. Liebhold, and J. Wenf. 2019. Tree diversity regulates forest pest invasion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821039116

Haack, R.A. and R.J. Rabaglia. 2013. Exotic Bark and Ambrosia Beetles in the USA: Potential and Current Invaders. CAB International 2013. Potential Invasive Pests of Agricultural Crops (ed. J. Peña) 

Krist, F.J. Jr., J.R. Ellenwood, M.E. Woods, A. J. McMahan, J.P. Cowardin, D.E. Ryerson, F.J. Sapio, M.O. Zweifler, S.A. Romero 2014. National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team FHTET-14-01

Leung, B., M.R. Springborn, J.A. Turner, E.G. Brockerhoff. 2014. Pathway-level risk analysis: the net present value of an invasive species policy in the US. The Ecological Society of America. Frontiers of Ecology.org

Liebhold, A. M., W. L. MacDonald, D. Bergdahl, and V. C. Mastro.  1995.  Invasion by exotic forest pests:  a threat to forest ecosystems.  Forest Sci., Monograph 30. 49 pp.

Lovett, G.M., C.D. Canham, M.A. Arthur, K.C. Weathers, and R.D. Fitzhugh. Forest Ecosystem Responses to Exotic Pests and Pathogens in Eastern North America. BioScience Vol. 56 No. 5 (May 2006)

Lovett, G.M., M. Weiss, A.M. Liebhold, T.P. Holmes,  B. Leung, K.F. Lambert, D.A. Orwig, F.T. Campbell, J. Rosenthal, D.G. McCullough, R. Wildova, M.P. Ayres, C.D. Canham, D.R. Foster, SL. Ladeau, and T. Weldy. 2016. NIS forest insects and pathogens in the US: Impacts and policy options. Ecological Applications, 26(5), 2016, pp. 1437–1455

Mattson, W. J., P. Niemela, I. Millers, and Y. Ingauazo.  1994. Immigrant phytophagous insects on woody plants in the United States and Canada: an annotated list.  USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-169, 27 pp.

Millers, I. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Entomologist, Forest Health Protection Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. Durham, NH. Personal communication to F.T. Campbell, 1993.

Morin, R. presentation at Northeastern Forest Pest Council 81st Annual Meeting, March 12 – 14, 2019,  West Chester, Pennsylvania

National Academy of Sciences. 1975. Forest Pest Control. Washington, D.C.

Poland, T.M., Patel-Weynand, T., Finch, D., Miniat, C. F., and Lopez, V. (Eds) (2019), Invasive Species in Forests and Grasslands of the United States: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the United States Forest Sector.  Springer Verlag. (in press).

Polyphagous shothole borer website https://ucanr.edu/sites/pshb/overview/About_PSHB/

Potter, K.M., M.E. Escanferla, R.M. Jetton, and G. Man. 2019. Important Insect and Disease Threats to US Tree Species and Geographic Patterns of Their Potential Impacts. Forests 2019, 10, 304.

Potter, K.M., Escanferla, M.E., Jetton, R.M., Man, G., Crane, B.S. 2019. Prioritizing the conservation needs of US tree spp: Evaluating vulnerability to forest insect and disease threats, Global Ecology and Conservation (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/

Rabaglia, R.J., A.I. Cognato, E. R. Hoebeke, C.W. Johnson, J.R. LaBonte, M.E. Carter, and J.J. Vlach. 2019. Early Detection and Rapid Response. A Ten-Year Summary of the USDA Forest Service Program of Surveillance for Non-Native Bark and Ambrosia Beetles. American Entomologist Volume 65, Number 1 

USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2014. Asian gypsy moth pest alert https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/plant_health/content/printable_version/fs_phasiangm.pdf and pers. comm.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.  2009.  Risk analysis for the movement of wood packaging material (WPM) from Canada into the US.

Wu,Y., N.F. Trepanowski, J.J. Molongoski, P.F. Reagel, S.W. Lingafelter, H. Nadel1, S.W. Myers & A.M. Ray. 2017. Identification of wood-boring beetles (Cerambycidae and Buprestidae) intercepted in trade-associated solid wood packaging material using DNA barcoding and morphology  Scientific Reports 7:40316

Updates: SOD-infested Plants Shipped Widely; Possible Detections of Beech Leaf Disease in Connecticut and New York

rhododendron infected by P. ramorum;
photo by Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Sudden oak death (SOD) (Phytophthora ramorum)

As I reported in June, Indiana officials had detected the pathogen that attacks more than 100 plant species and that causes sudden oak death in shipments of rhododendron plants from two nurseries in Washington State and British Columbia.

After an unexplained delay, USDA APHIS finally issued an official statement  (reported on here) on the situation. Shipments of potentially infected plants already had been sent to 18 states — Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Through “trace forward” inspections, eight of those states have confirmed that their plant retailers received infected plants — Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Washington.

Plants that test positive for P. ramorum are being destroyed. All plants that have been kept within a two meter radius of an infected plant are also being destroyed. Host plants outside the two meter radius will be sampled intensively.

In addition, several major retailers have agreed to initiate a voluntary recall of plants from their stores.

APHIS advises people in these eighteen states who have bought a rhododendron from a retail outlet to monitor the plant for signs of disease, including leaf spots and shoot dieback. (APHIS provides no reference to a reliable on-line source of information on symptoms.) If people suspect their plant(s) might have the disease, they are advised to contact their local state department of agriculture or a county extension office.

Meanwhile, states are taking steps to inform their citizens. I described the rapid and extensive effort in Indiana in my earlier blog.   In Kansas, the Department of Agriculture announced the presence of the pathogen on rhododendron containerized plants on June 7. As in Indiana, most of the plants were being sold by Walmart stores; also one by Home Depot.

In Illinois, state officials announced the pathogen’s presence on July 2nd. Infected plants were detected at ten Walmarts and at one Hy Vee. Walmart and Rural King are participating in voluntary recalls.

It is unlikely that all the infected plants have been or will be detected and destroyed according to protocols. First, some plants had undoubtedly been sold to people who remain unaware of the issue.  Second, other plants were destroyed before they could be inspected by authorities. For example, Virginia authorities told me that the “original suspect plants” at a retail store had been destroyed before they arrived. As a result, authorities cannot know whether infected plants entered the state.

So, is this response adequate? Who will continue outreach to possible purchasers of the plants? Who will enhance monitoring of native vegetation in vulnerable areas, e.g., the Ozarks of Missouri (see the risk maps on pages 86-88 of Fading Forests III, available here. 

The Washington State nursery was operating under the program adopted by Federal Order in 2014 and formalized by the regulatory change last year. Because the Washington state nursery had not previously been detected to have infested plants, it was subject only to the standard state phytosanitary inspections with no special attention to possible sources of Phytophthora ramorum inoculum (on plants, in soil or water, in pots that have been used previously, …). Clearly this system was insufficient in this case – as it had been 15 years ago.  I do not know what regulations governed the British Columbia nursery or whether plants from BC are inspected more closely by APHIS when they are imported.

I repeat – what lessons will APHIS learn from this disturbing event, and how will it adjust its program? Will the states – 18 of which had to carry out expensive trace-forward programs – demand a more rigorous program?

Beech leaf disease (BLD)

beech leaves with symptoms;
photo by John Pogacnik, Cleveland Metroparks

In January I posted a blog about beech leaf disease. In May and June, two people commented, raising the question of whether BLD was killing trees on their properties in Connecticut.  Connecticut’s authorities have visited at least one of these sites, but I have heard nothing about their findings. Photographs from the first site, however, greatly worried Ohio’s experts.

More recently, a person in Westchester County, NY (which borders Connecticut) also raised the alarm. I don’t know whether New York authorities (some of whom have viewed symptomatic trees in western New York and Ohio) have checked this site.

Although these reports have not yet been verified by authorities, I think it would be wise for people throughout the range of American beech – or who have bought European beech trees in recent years from Ohio nurseries – to closely monitor their trees and report any suspicious findings to state authorities.

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.

Forest Protection Legislation! Plus two champions recognized

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.

Representative Peter Welch

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.

That bill – H.R. 3244 – can be read here https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr3244/text

Rep. Welch’s bill: 

·         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

Left to right: Enrico Bonello, Faith Campbell, John Kabashima

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.

Feral Hogs: Report Warns, “Spreading Fast, Act Early”

feral hogs in Missouri; photo by Missouri Department of Conservation

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.

Phytophthora ramorum spreads in nursery trade – again!

Rhodendron infected by P. ramorum
photo by Jennifer Parke, Oregon State University

It might be déjà vu all over again.

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.

Where is APHIS going?

As indicated by Strategic Plans and Annual Reports

APHIS HQ in Riverside Maryland

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.

USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue

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

CBP inspectors examining wood packaging material

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

a shipping container being offloaded at Port of Long Beach, California

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.

011817.N.DNT.INFESTEDFURNITUREc2 — The burrowing larvae of a velvet longhorned beetle was found in rustic log furniture imported form China. State insect experts are asking people who may have purchased imported log furniture to check for inspect damage and report any findings of insects. Photo courtesy Minnesota Department of Agriculture

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.

Timely reminder: Don’t Move Invasive Species!

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.  
tanoaks killed by Phytophtora ramorum (sudden oak death) Big Sur, California
  • 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. 
tangle of dead ash in Michigan killed by emerald ash borer
photo by Ned Siegert, USDA Forest Service
  • 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.  
spotted lanternfly
photo by Holly Raguza, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

  The website hprovides 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.

Collapse of Biodiversity – Causes and What We Can Do

frogs in California killed by chytrid fungus
photo by Rick Kyper, US Fish and Wildlife Service

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.

Recent Developments on Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramorum)

tanoak killed by SOD; photo by F.T. Campbell

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.

Promising Biocontrol to Protect Some Cacti

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.