invasive species policy – Page 19 – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

Recent Developments on Stopping Emerald Ash Borer

post-EAB ash forest in southern Michigan; photo by Nate Siebert, USFS

1) The Risks of Reliance on Biological Control

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 81^st 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.

USFS Lacks Sufficient Resources to Counter Threats to our Forests

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 81^st 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.)

map showing number of non-native forest pests established in each county of the Continental States; from Liebhold/USFS

Dr. Randall Morin’s map showing levels of tree mortality, based on FIA data

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 4^th)

Chellie Pingree (ME 1^st)
Derek Kilmer (WA 6^th)
José Serrano (NY 15^th)
Mike Quigley (IL 5^th)
Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ 12^th)
Brenda Lawrence (MI 14^th)
David Joyce, Ranking Member (OH 14^th)
Mike Simpson (ID 2^nd)
Chris Stewart (UT 2^nd)
Mark Amodei (NV 2^nd)

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

Progress in Combatting Invasives – with Caveats

Missouri Makes Progress in Eradicating Feral Hogs – Despite Sabotage

Feral hogs have expanded their range in the U.S. from 17 to 38 states over the past 30 years. Their populations grow rapidly because feral hogs can breed any time of the year and produce two litters of one to seven piglets every 12 to 15 months. [See MDC Press Release, January 25, 2019]

hog “sounder” in a trap in Missouri
Missouri Department of Conservation

Missouri’s program is increasingly successful: the numbers of hogs removed has risen from 5,358 in 2016, to 6,561 in 2017, to 9.365 in 2018. [See MDC Press Release, January 25, 2019] I have previously praised Missouri’s scientifically-based program to eradicate feral hogs – here and here (Missouri has extensive material on feral hogs posted here)

According to the Missouri Department of Conservation’s feral hog elimination team leader, Mark McLain, said “This strategic approach is important because if we leave even a few feral hogs behind in an area, they can reproduce quickly and put us back where we started.”

According to McLain, hunting is not an effective method for eliminating feral hog populations. “For over 20 years, unregulated hunting of feral hogs was allowed in Missouri, during which time our feral hog population expanded from a few counties to over 30 counties,” he said.

In 2017, MDC, the Corps of Engineers, and the LAD Foundation established regulations against feral hog hunting on lands owned and managed by these three organizations. Other agencies have passed regulations similar to MDC’s to eliminate hog hunting on land they own.

However, illegal releases of feral hogs continue. The February 2019 press release (referenced below) describes several examples of the problems such releases cause. McLain said that those who release feral hogs face hefty fines. Hunting, especially with dogs, pushes the hogs onto neighboring property, which causes problems for neighbors. The hogs travel back and forth between the properties, escaping and causing more damage. Trapping with no hunting interference is the best method to eliminate them.

MDC advises landowners to seek help from the Department and USDA APHIS. These agencies providetechnical advice and training; conduct on-site visits; and loan equipment.

Are feral hog programs in other states using the same methods? Are they as successful?

SOURCES

Missouri Department of Conservation. More than 9,300 Feral Hogs Eliminated from Missouri in 2018. Press Release. January 25, 2019.

Missouri Department of Conservation. Interference with feral hog trapping sites costs trappers time, taxpayers money. Press Release. February 21, 2019.

Florida Looks to Biocontrol to Makes Progress Against Some of its Worst Invasive Plants

Brazilian peppertree tangle
John Randall, The Nature Conservancy
www.bugwood.org

Until recently, melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) was considered the worst invasive tree or shrub in Florida. It threatened to convert the everglades “sea of grass” into a thicket of exotic trees which could not support native wildlife. Thanks to the biocontrol agent Oxyops vitiosa, melaleuca is considered to be under maintenance control on public conservation land in the state. Still, melaleuca control demands about $2 million per year because of the huge area previously (and still) affected by the tree.

Now Florida is about to release biocontrol agents to attack Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). In Florida, Brazilian peppertree is found from Monroe County in the south to St. Johns, Levy, and Nassau counties in the north plus Franklin County in the Panhandle. An estimated 283,000 hectares of south and central Florida are invaded. The South Florida Water Management District alone is spending approximately $1.7 million per year (as of 2011) to control it.

Brazilian peppertree invades disturbed sites such as canal banks and fallow farmlands. Of greater concern to me are the many natural communities invaded – Brazilian peppertree infests more natural areas in Florida than any other invasive plant species. Invaded ecosystems include pinelands, hardwood hammocks, and critically important mangrove forests. The coastal mangroves are valued because of their high productivity, wildlife habitat, and shoreline protection and stabilization.

Brazilian peppertree infestation in the Everglades
Tony Pernas, USDI National Park Service
www.bugwood.org

Dense stands of Brazilian peppertree shade out and may kill food plants used by white-tailed deer – key prey for the endangered Florida panther. Other mammals and birds might be poisoned by toxic resins in the bark, leaves and fruits — although some birds feed extensively on the fruits – and thereby contribute to spread of the invasive plant.

Existing options for management of Brazilian peppertree, including chemical, mechanical, and physical control measures, have been used with some success against this weed. However, applying these strategies repeatedly to prevent regrowth is costly and labor intensive. Furthermore, such practices can be detrimental to native vegetation. For example, mangroves are particularly sensitive to both herbicides and the soil disturbances associated with mechanical control

After more than 20 years of searching, Florida hopes it has identified useful biocontrol agents. USDA APHIS is seeking public comment on the proposed release of two insect species, Calophya latiforceps (a leaf galling psyllid) and Pseudophilothrips ichini (a thrips) as biological control agents targetting Brazilian pepper.

Much as I sympathize – Brazilian peppertree is a highly damaging invasive plant and there are no other effective control measures – I have questions. First, the psyllid is sedentary; dispersal would be by wind. Would this limit its efficacy?

More troubling is host specificity. The Environmental Assessment (available here) reveals that the thrips can reproduce in low numbers on several non-target plant species, including the Hawaiian sumac Rhus sandwicensis. True, the proposal is to release the biocontrol agents on the continent, not on Hawai`i. But insects have often been transported inadvertently to Hawai`i – and the islands’ plant species have often proved highly vulnerable to attack by non-native species (I confess that the most recent examples are pathogens, e.g., ‘ōhi‘a rust and rapid ‘ōhi‘a death.)

APHIS is accepting comments on the Environmental Assessment until March 29. Please consider providing your views. Again, the document is available here.

RESULTS

In June 2019, APHIS announced that it would issue permits for release of the two biocontrol agents on the continent – starting in Florida – without any restrictions. APHIS dismissed my concerns about the potential threat to native Hawaiian plants — Rhus sandwicensis and Dodonaea viscosa. See the agency’s responses in Appendix 7.

As regards the potential threat to the two Hawaiian species from the thrips Pseudophilothrips ichini APHIS chose to ignore my two greatest concerns:

1) that insects are introduced accidentally to Hawai`i frequently – so the threat from this thrips must be considered.

2) if introduced to Hawai`i, P. ichini would have ample resources to maintain high population levels and so could put constant pressure on Rhus sandwicensis and Dodonaea viscosa even ‘though neither plant itself supports more than one generation of the thrips.

In response to my query as to who in Texas would be consulted re: possible release of the biocontrol agents in that state, APHIS replied the chief state plant regulatory official (head of plant pest issues in the state Department of Agriculture) and the APHIS representative in the state. No conservation authorities are designated. Nor would APHIS prepare a new environmental assessment – although the current one cites data almost exclusively for Florida.

One good response: in response to my concerns that the psyllid Calophya latiforceps is too sedentary to spread through the hundreds of thousands of acres invaded by Brazilian pepper, APHIS clarifies that a mass rearing and release program is under development.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Invasive Species Policy: Will New Law Empower Agencies? Or Hinder Strategic Planning, Research, and Engaging the Public through Outreach?

Much-Heralded Major Conservation Legislation — S. 47 – Mandates “On-the-Ground” Actions

Senate bill S. 47 enjoyed strong support from the conservation community because it expanded protection for several National parks and wilderness areas, mandated easier access to public land for hunters and anglers, and provided permanent status for the most important program that funds purchase of lands and waters for recreation and other purposes – the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It passed the Senate on February 12, 2019 by a vote of 92 for, 8 against. The bill passed the House of Representatives on February 26, 2019 by a vote of 363 for, 62 against. Everyone expects President Trump to sign it into law.

The new language had previously been a stand-alone bill introduced in two previous sessions of Congress. The first version, S. 2240, was introduced in 2016; I blogged about a hearing on that legislation in May 2016, describing my reservations. The bill was not enacted in that Congress. It was reintroduced in 2017, when it was called the “WILD Act” (S. 826).

Title VII of the new legislation now expected to become law governs programs implemented by the Departments of Interior, Agriculture (specifically the Forest Service) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It also applies to the head of “any federal agency” having duties related to planning or treatment of invasive species “for the purpose of protecting water and wildlife on land and in water.”

Title VII takes the form of an amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)

As in the original 2016 bill (S. 2240), the new law – at Title VII, §10(c)(2)(C) – agencies are required to adopt strategic plans for their invasive species programs. The priorities in the federal agencies’ invasive species plans will be set by state governors – not the federal agency charged with managing that land unit and its resources.

Under§10(a)(4)(C), tribal, regional, State, or local authorities are authorized to weigh in on the determination of which terrestrial or aquatic species fit the definitions of ‘invasive’ and ‘alien’ species.
Under §10(c)(3).the Secretaries are required, in developing their strategic plans, to take into consideration the ecological as well as the economic costs of acting or not acting, I welcome this provision.

Like the original 2016 bill (S. 2240), the new law – at Title VII, §10(g) – (i) – requires land-managing agencies to allocate their invasive species funds according to the following formula: 75% for on-the-ground activity; 15% for combined research and outreach; 10% or less for administrative costs.

Fortunately, “on-the-ground” activities have been expanded to include
- detection and monitoring.
- “the use of appropriate methods to remove invasive species from a vehicle or vessel capable of conveyance.”
- “investigations regarding methods for early detection and rapid response, prevention, control, or management of the invasive species.”
- It is unclear whether “on-the-ground” activities include the salaries of staff who manage such programs from desks (as distinct from people who work in the field).
Unfortunately, the definition of “prevention” is unnecessarily limited by §10(a)(6) (B). This clause authorizes agencies ‘‘to impede the spread of the invasive species … by inspecting, intercepting, or confiscating invasive species threats prior to the establishment of the invasive species onto land or water of an eligible State.” This clause reflects too narrow an understanding of prevention actions. They are not limited to (inefficient) inspection and seizure programs at “borders”. It is much more efficient to apply measures intended to prevent the presence of a pest in the transported good in the place of production. One example is APHIS’ requirements governing nursery stock intended to be shipped interstate so as to prevent the spread of the sudden oak death pathogen.

Following the revised 2017 version of the bill (text here; see my blog here) the law requires the agencies to make “substantive annual net reduction of invasive species populations or infested acreage …” (The original bill mandated an annual reduction of 5%.) It is unclear whether this mandate applies to all invasive species on the affected acreage, or only those designated by a flawed process (see below) and included in the agency’s strategic plan [Title VII, §10(c)(1)].

Under Subsection (d), the plan is to prioritize the use of methods that are effective (as determined by the Secretary, based on sound scientific data); that minimize environmental impacts; and control and manage invasive species in the least costly manner. I worry that this requirement, combined with the mandate to achieve “annual net reductions” in invasive species numbers, will promote the use of chemical pesticides.

Under Section (f), agencies are to apply all available tools and flexibilities to expedite invasive species control projects and activities. Those projects are to be located in an area that is at high risk for invasive species introduction, establishment, or spread; and determined by the Secretary to require immediate action to address that risk. These actions are to be carried out in accordance with applicable agency procedures, including any applicable land or resource management plan. This language apparently replaces earlier efforts to exclude invasive species control projects from analysis under NEPA. How this mandate interacts with state governors’ setting priorities under §10(c)(2)(C) is unclear.

Remember that under the funding allocations specified in Title VII, §10(g) – (i), “… not more than 10% may be used for administrative costs incurred to carry out those programs, including costs relating to oversight and management of the programs, recordkeeping, and implementation of the strategic plan …”. At the same time, §§10(e), (j), and (l) require economic analyses and reports detailing compliance with requirements and results of projects. In other words, the new law restricts expenditure of funds for “administrative costs” but imposes significant additional administrative duties.

Fortunately, Title VII §10(k)(1) states that “Nothing in this section precludes the Secretary concerned from pursuing or supporting, pursuant to any other provision of law, any activity regarding [invasive species] control, prevention, or management …, including investigations to improve the control, prevention, or management of the invasive species.

In all iterations, the bills called for the projects to be carried out through collaboration with wide range of partners, including private individuals and entities – apparently including non-governmental organizations such as state or local invasive plant coalitions.

Earlier in Congressional consideration of the new law’s provisions, the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species (NECIS) responded by adopting its own description of an effective, comprehensive invasive species program. Under the title “Tackling the Challenge of Invasive Species,” the coalition makes the following major points:

Focus prevention efforts on pathways of introduction. Until they are closed, managing established infestations will be a never-ending burden.
Broader and more aggressive efforts to control existing invaders is a solid investment, but should not be at the expense of other aspects of a comprehensive national response.
Close loopholes in the “Injurious Wildlife” sections of the Lacey Act to provide agencies with more agile processes for regulating the importation and transport of harmful invasive species.
Enhance funding for invasive species control and management projects; prioritize efforts to reduce invasive species’ spread at landscape scales.
Ensure that federal actions do not inadvertently promote the introduction or spread of harmful invasive species; use caution when promoting nonnative species for biofuels, bioenergy, or other
purposes.
Adopt metrics to gauge the effectiveness of efforts to prevent the introduction and spread of new invasives and to achieve long-term control or removal of existing invaders.
Support robust research and outreach programs, which are essential to improving the efficacy of federal, state, and local invasive species prevention and control efforts.

Given the new legislation’s focus on land-managing agencies, I point to the importance the coalition gave to research on the invasion processes utilized by various species and education of land and water users so as to gain their cooperation. These recommendations are directly counter to the new law’s stringent limitations on research and “outreach”.

I think particularly pertinent are the recommendations on metrics to measure programs’ efficacy. Proper metrics should metrics address outcomes and program effectiveness re:

efforts to prevent species introduction and spread
activities that target pathways or vectors
the effectiveness of treatments in eradicating or reducing the target invasives.

Potential additional metrics include, but are not limited to:

Rate of new invasions; possibly categorized by type of invader or geography
Acres infested and changes in infestations over time
Acres protected, based on projections of future spread avoided by eradication
Economic impact of invasive species
Number of species intercepted.

The full document is available here .

Posted by Faith Campbell

Support Adequate Funding for Key USDA Programs

The people who work here ***work for us!!!***

As I have written often, inadequate funding is a major cause of shortfalls in USDA APHIS’ efforts to detect new invasions by tree-killing pests and to respond to those invasions in effective ways. So, I ask you to contact your Representative and Senators in support of appropriations for APHIS and –National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) for the next fiscal year – (FY)2020.

APHIS’ efforts to detect and respond to non-native tree-killing pests were rudely interrupted by the five-week Government Shutdown from 22 December until late January. While inspection of incoming shipments continued, U.S.-based activities were halted. Chaos and confusion continued until 15 February, when the President signed legislation that funds APHIS (and other government agencies) until the end of September – the remainder of FY2919.

Surprise! The funding bill provides increased funds for two key APHIS programs:

$60 million for the “tree and wood pests” program — $4 million above the funding provided in recent years; and
$186 million for “specialty crop” pests (including sudden oak death) — $7.8 million above recent levels.

I ask you to ask the Congress to maintain these funding levels for these budget “lines”.

I ask you also to support continuing the FY19 levels for two other programs:

Methods Development — $27.4 million; and
“Detection Funding” – $20. 7 million.

New this year, I hope you will support a $10 million appropriation to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to fund a competitive grant program intended to restore to forests tree species significantly damaged by non-native insects and plant pathogens.

Justification for the Funding Requests

As we know, non-native insects and pathogens that threaten native tree species have been and continue to be introduced to the United States. These pests impose significant costs: Aukema et al. 2011 (full reference at the end of the blog) estimated

municipal governments spend more than $2 billion per year to remove trees on city property that have been killed by these pests.
homeowners spend $1 billion every year to remove and replace trees on their properties
homeowners absorb an additional $1.5 billion in reduced property values.

Costs are rising: the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers are projected to cost municipalities and homeowners in California $36.2 billion if their further spread is not prevented (McPherson 2017)

When you contact your Representative or Senators, tell them about the impact of non-native pests in your location!

The significant ecological impacts are poorly quantified.

USDA APHIS is responsible for preventing such pests’ entry, detecting newly introduced pests, and initiating rapid eradication programs. Yet, despite rising risks of pest introduction commensurate with rising import volumes, funding for APHIS’ program targetting the “tree and wood pests” associated with crates and pallets has remained at or below $55 million since FY2012 – until the modest increase last year to $60 million. Among the forest pests detected during this period are the spotted lanternfly and here and Kuroshio shot hole borer.

Among the pests probably introduced on a second pathway, imports of living plants, are the two pathogens threatening Hawaii’s most widespread tree, ʻōhiʻa lehua and here, and beech leaf disease and here in the Northeastern states. The better-funded “specialty crops” account could help fund responses to these damaging pathogens.

Ask your Congressional representatives to urge APHIS to apply part of the increased funding for the “tree and wood pest” program to continue the regulatory program for the emerald ash borer (EAB) and here. In September, APHIS has proposed to terminate the EAB regulatory program. Program termination would greatly increase the risk that EAB will spread to the mountain and Pacific Coast states. California has five native species of ash vulnerable to EAB. Ash trees provide a higher percentage (8%) of Los Angeles’ tree canopy than any other species. This proportion will rise as other tree species succumb to the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers. Oregon’s one native species of ash is widespread in riparian areas and many urban plantings consist of ash. Ash trees are the fifth most common genus among Portland’s urban trees. Many stakeholders have urged APHIS to continue to regulate movement of firewood and other materials that facilitate EAB’s spread.

The “Specialty Crops” program currently funds APHIS’ regulation of nursery operations to prevent spread of the sudden oak death pathogen. In future, this budget line would be the logical source of funds to manage the spotted lanternfly, which has been carried out through a combination of emergency funding under 7 U.S.C. §7772 and grants funded through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Program (§7721 of the Plant Protection Act). (See below.)

Ask your Congressional representatives to support continued funding of APHIS’ “Methods Development” program at the FY19 level of $27.4 million. This program assists APHIS in developing detection and eradication tools essential for an effective response to new pests.

Similarly, ask your Congressional representatives to support continued funding of the “Detection” budget line at the FY19 level of $20.7 million. This program supports the critically important collaborative state –federal program pest-detection program that is critical to successful eradication and containment programs.

APHIS’ Additional sources of funds

APHIS has always had authority to obtain “emergency” funds through 7 U.S.C. §7772. Emergency funds come from permanent USDA funding; they are not subject to annual appropriations. This authority has been tightly controlled by the Office of Management and Budget; I believe the last time APHIS obtained “emergency” funds for a tree pest was the emerald ash borer a decade or more ago. A year ago, APHIS accessed $17 million in emergency funding to address the expanding spotted lanternfly outbreak [USDA Press Release No. 0031.18 February 7, 2018] and OMB also requires that APHIS quickly transfer programs started with emergency funds to the regular budget. As I note above, response to the expanding spotted lanternfly outbreak should logically be shifted to the “specialty crops” budget account.

For a decade, APHIS has had access to a separate source of funds: the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program. This program is also funded through permanent funds, not subject to the vagaries of annual budgeting and appropriations. Until last year, this program operated under Section 10007 of the 2014 Farm Bill; with passage of a new Farm Bill last year, it is now designated as Section 7721 of the Plant Protection Act. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2018, APHIS has authority to spend up to $75 million per year.

Funds are provided under a competitive grants program to universities, states, Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, non-profits, and Tribal organizations “to conduct critical projects that keep U.S. crops, nurseries, and forests healthy, boost the marketability of agricultural products within the country and abroad, and help us do right and feed everyone.” [USDA press release “USDA Provides $66 Million in Fiscal Year 2019 to Protect Agriculture and Natural Resources from Plant Pests and Diseases” February 15, 2019]

Over the decade since the program began, it has funded, but my calculation, about $77 million in projects targetting tree-killing pests. The proportion of total program funding allocated to tree-killing pests has risen in the most recent years, driven largely by funding to counter the spotted lanternfly outbreak which began in Pennsylvania but has since spread (see above). In the current year (FY2019), APHIS used this program to fund $10 million in projects to address the spotted lanternfly. The SLF funds equaled 57% of the total funding for tree pests provided under the program in FY2019.

Implications of the Tangle of Funding Sources

What is the significance of funding programs through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program as distinct from appropriated funds? Clearly, having access to $75 million that is not subject to the limits imposed by Administration budget priorities or Congressional appropriations allows considerable freedom. Does this freedom allow APHIS to support work on pests that might not qualify to be “quarantine” pests? For example, under the Plant Protection Act, APHIS normally does not engage on pests found only in one state. The polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers fall into this category. So did the spotted lanternfly for the first several years – until its detection in Delaware and Virginia in late 2017. If so, then the presence of the lanternfly in several states would seem now to indicate that funding sources should be shifted – at least in part – to appropriated funds. But would such a shift result in less funding – a result I think would be most unwise!

The beech leaf disease doesn’t clearly qualify for designation as a “quarantine pest” because of the uncertainty about the causal agent. So far, there has been no Section 7721 funding to support efforts to identify the causal agent or to improve detection or curtail spread of the disease.

a blight-resistant chestnut bred by the American Chestnut Foundation; photographed in Fairfax County, Virginia by F.T. Campbell

Funding for Resistance Breeding through NIFA

As we know, dozens of America’s tree species have been severely reduced or virtually eliminated from significant parts of their ranges by non-native insects and pathogens. Last year’s Farm Bill – the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 – included an amendment (Section 8708) that establishes a new priority for an existing grant program to support restoration to the forest of native tree species that have suffered severe levels of mortality caused by non-native insects, plant pathogens, or other pests. Grant-receiving programs would incorporate one or more of the following components: collection and conservation of native tree genetic material; production of sufficiently numerous propagules to support landscape-scale restoration; and planting and maintenance of seedlings in the landscape.

In January a panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommended that the U.S. apply multifaceted approaches to combat these threats to forest health. One component strategy is breeding of trees resistant to the pest.

Ask Congress to begin applying the Academies’ recommendation by providing $10 million to NIFA to fund the Competitive Forestry, Natural Resources, and Environmental Grants Program under Section 1232(c)(2) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 582A-8, as amended.

I hope everyone will contact your Representative and Senators. If your Congressional representative is listed below, your contact is particularly helpful because these are the members of the House or Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittees – the people with the greatest influence over what gets funded:

House Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee members:

Sanford Bishop Jr., Chairman
Rosa DeLauro CT
Chellie Pingree ME
Mark Pocan WI
Barbara Lee CA
Betty McCollum MN
Henry Cuellar TX
Jeff Fortenberry, Ranking Member NE
Robert Aderholt AL
Andy Harris MD
John Moolenaar MI

Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee members:

John Hoeven, Chairman ND
Mitch McConnell KY
Susan Collins ME
Roy Blunt MO
Jerry Moran KS
Cindy Hyde-Smith MS
John Kennedy LA
Jeff Merkley OR
Dianne Feinstein CA
Jon Tester MT
Tom Udall NM
Patrick Leahy VT
Tammy Baldwin WI

SOURCES

Aukema, J.E., B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K. O. Britton, J. Englin, S.J. Frankel, R. G. Haight, T. P. Holmes, A. Liebhold, D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle.^. 2011. Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States PLoS One September 2011 (Volume 6 Issue 9)

McPherson, Gregory. September 28, 2017. Memorandum to John Kabashima re: Potential Impact of ISHB-FD on Urban Forests of Southern California

Spotted Lanternfly – Government Shut-Down Hampered Vital Effort at Crucial Time

spotted lanternfly; photo by Holly Raguza, Penn. Dept. of Agriculture

I last blogged about the spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) two years ago. At that time, this insect from Asia (where else?) was established in some portions of six counties in southeastern Pennsylvania. While its principal host is tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), it was thought to feed on a wide range of plants, especially during the early stages of its development. Apparent hosts included many of the U.S.’s major canopy and undertory forest trees, e.g., maples, birches, hickories, dogwoods, beech, ash, walnuts, tulip tree, tupelo, sycamore, poplar, oaks, willows, sassafras, basswood, and elms. The principal focus of concern, however, is the economic damage the lanternflies cause to grapes, apples and stone fruits (e.g., peaches, plums, cherries), hops, and other crops.

In the two years since my first blog, the spotted lanternfly has spread – both through apparent natural flight (assisted by wind) and through human transport of the egg masses and possibly adults. By autumn 2018, detections of one or a few adults – alive or dead – had been found in six additional states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia.

spotted lanternfly quarantines (blue) & detection locations (yellow)
prepared by Cornell University

How many of these detections signal an outbreak? It is too early to know.

Impacts of the Government Shutdown

Unfortunately the federal government shutdown forced the cancellation of the annual USDA invasive species research meeting that occurs each January. The spotted lanternfly was to be the focus of six presentations. The most important of these was probably APHIS’ explanation of “where we are and where we are going.” The cancellation eliminated one of the most important opportunities for researchers to exchange information and ideas that could spur important insights. Equally important, the cancellation hampered communication of insights to practitioners trying to improve the pest’s management.

One pressing question was not on the meeting’s agenda, however. Would a much more aggressive and widespread response in 2014, when the lanternfly was first detected, have eradicated this initial outbreak? I have long thought that this question should be asked for every new pest program, so that we learn whether a too-cautious approach has doomed us to failure. However, authorities never address the issue – at least not in a public forum.

The shutdown also had an even more alarming impact. It interruptedaid by USDA APHIS and the Forest Service to states that should be actively trying to answer this question. Winter is the appropriate season to search for egg masses. It is also the season to plan for eradication projects.

spotted lanternfly egg mass; New York Department of Environmental Conservation

For the first several years, funding of studies of the lanternfly’s lifecycles and host preferences, research on possible biological or chemical treatments, and outreach and education came in the form of competitive grants under the auspices of the Farm Bill Section 10007. This funding totaled $5.5 million to Pennsylvania.

This commitment pales compared to Asian longhorned beetle or emerald ash borer h— which were also poorly known when they were first detected in the United States.

At the same time, the Pennsylvania infestation spread. It is now known to be established in portions of 13 counties and outbreaks were detected in neighboring Delaware and Virginia. h

This spread – and resulting political pressure – persuaded APHIS to multiply its engagement. A year ago, USDA made available $17.5 million in emergency funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation (that is, the funds are not subject to annual Congressional appropriation). APHIS said it would use the additional funds to expand its efforts to manage the outer perimeter of the infestation while the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture would focus on the core infested area. APHIS said it would use existing (appropriated) resources to conduct surveys, and control measures if necessary, in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Virginia.

Summary of Latest Status in the Seven States

(see also the write-up here)

Pennsylvania: infestation established (quarantine declared) in portions of thirteen counties (Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Delaware, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Philadelphia, Schuylkill). The quarantine regulates movement of any living stage of the insect brush, debris, bark, or yard waste; remodeling or construction waste; any tree parts including stumps and firewood; nursery stock; grape vines for decorative or propagative purposes; crated materials; and a range of outdoor household articles including lawn tractors, grills, grill and furniture covers, mobile homes, trucks, and tile or stone. See the regulation here: https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/Entomology/spotted_lanternfly/quarantine/Pages/default.aspx

Delaware: The state had been searching for the insect since the Pennsylvania outbreak was announced. After detection of a single adult female in New Castle County in November 2017, survey efforts and outreach to the public were intensified. Another dead adult spotted lanternfly was found in Dover, Delaware, in October 2018.

Virginia: infestation established (quarantine declared) in one county. Multiple live adults and egg cases of spotted lanternfly were confirmed in the town of Winchester, Virginia (Frederick County), in January 2018. As noted in my earlier blog, this region is important for apple and other orchard crops and near Virginia’s increasingly important wine region.

New Jersey: The New Jersey Department of Agriculture began surveying for lanternflies along the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border (the Delaware River) once the infestation was known. It found no lanternflies before 2018. In the summer, however, live nymphs were detected in two counties, Warren and Mercer. In response, the state quarantined both those counties and one located between them, Hunterdon. The state planned to continue surveillance in the immediate areas where the species has been found as well as along the Delaware River border in New Jersey.

New York: In 2017, a dead adult lanternfly was found in Delaware County.

State authorities expressed concern about possible transport of lanternflies from the Pennsylvania infested area.

In Autumn 2018, New York authorities confirmed several detections, including a single adult in Albany and a second single adult in Yates County. In response, the departments of Environmental Conservation and Agriculture and Marketing began extensive surveys throughout the area. Initially they found no additional lanternflies.

However, a live adult was later detected in Suffolk County (on Long Island).

Connecticut: a single dead adult was found lying on a driveway at a private residence in Farmington, CT, in October 2018. The homeowner was a state government employee educated about the insect. Relatives had recently visited from Pennsylvania (Victoria Smith, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, pers. comm.). Searches found no other spotted lanternflies on the property. The state plans additional surveys in the area to confirm that no other spotted lanternflies are present.

Maryland: A single adult spotted lanternfly (male) was caught in a survey trap in the northeast corner of Cecil County near the border of Pennsylvania and Delaware (an area of known infestation) in October 2018. Because of the lateness of the season and sex of the insect, the Maryland Department of Agriculture does not believe that the lanternfly has established there.

All the affected states are encouraging citizens to report any suspicious finds.

Posted by Faith Campbell

National Academies Endorse Suite of Pest Control Programs — and a Brand New Regulatory System for Biotech Trees

a blight-resistant chestnut tree bred using traditional breeding techniques by The American Chestnut Foundation; photo by F.T. Campbell

Nearly one-third of the continental United States is covered by forests, more than 1 million square miles. As demonstrated by many authorities and – I hope! – in my blogs, these forests face increasing threats, including introduction of rising numbers of non-native insects and pathogens that kill or severely damage the tree species that comprise those forests.

One response has been a request by the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, the Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Institute of Food and Agriculture) that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine consider the potential for the use of biotechnology to mitigate these threats to forest health.

The resulting report was released in January 2019 (see full citation at the end of the blog). The report is 240 pages long, very thorough, and wide-ranging. It does have a 12-page summary, listing the Panel’s many conclusions and its recommendations. While the preponderance of the report concerns forests on the North American continent, the panel did seek information about threats to endemic trees in Hawai`i, which (to my mind) are especially severe. See earlier blogs here and here.

To me, one of the report’s most important conclusions is that while there are multiple options for dealing with forest pests, their feasibility and success vary widely. Saying that no single management practice is likely to be effective by itself, the report calls for increasing investment in the full range of strategies other than biotechnology, i.e.,

preventing arrival of non-native pests (recognized as the first line of defense and the most cost-effective strategy);
site management practices;
biocontrol; and
enhancement of genetic resistance naturally present in affected tree species (including developing human capital in professions related to tree breeding).

The panel was not asked to examine the potential for biotech to reduce threats to forest health by altering the pests affecting North American tree species so it does not do so.

Summarizing the Threat

Citing Aukema et al. 2010 and other sources, the Academy panels reports that approximately 450 species of insects and at least 16 species of pathogens have been introduced and have established in continental U.S. forests. Of those, 62 insects and all of the pathogens are determined to have a high impact. A USDA Forest Service study estimates that 81.3 million acres (about 7% of all forested or treed land in the U.S.) are at risk of losing at least 25% of tree vegetation by 2027 due to insects and pathogens. These pests are both non-native, introduced species and native pests that are spreading to new regions as a result of climate change.

The Academy panel notes that loss of a tree species can have cascading adverse effects on the forest ecosystem and on the range of services it provides and the values it represents to human populations.

Part A. The Technology for Trees

The Academy panel was asked to assess the ecological, economic, and social implications of deploying genetically engineered trees. The experts also were asked to identify the knowledge needed to evaluate the ways such a tree might affect the prospects for forest health. The analysis was to include social and cultural impacts as well as impacts on forest and associated ecosystems – including their structure, composition, processes, function, productivity, and resilience.

This use of biotechnology to restore healthy forests differs from applications in industrial plantations or annual agricultural crops in that the biotech tree is intended to proliferate in a natural forest setting.

The authors chose four taxa — American chestnut (Castanea dentata), whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), ash (Fraxinus spp.), and poplars (Populus spp.) — to illustrate the variety of threats to forest health and efforts to date to protect the resource.

The committee defined forest health as:

A condition that sustains the structure, composition, processes, function, productivity, and resilience of forest ecosystems over time and space.

The panel says that “forest health” is assessed based on current knowledge and is influenced by human needs, cultural values, and land management objectives.

1. A Balanced Analysis

The report does not hype biotechnology for solving problems. The panel called for research on even the foundational question: whether resistance imparted to tree species through a genetic change will be sufficient to persist in trees that are expected to live for decades to centuries as well as in the generations they parent.

The report compares the two approaches to enhancing genetic resistance to pests, i.e., selective (traditional) breeding and relying on biotechnology. Both involve multiple steps, expense, and risks of pursuing what ultimately turn out to be dead ends.

Thus, in traditional selective breeding, scientists must complete the following steps:

1) Determine whether genetic resistance exists within the affected tree species’ population. According to the Academy report, while many tree species have some degree of resistance to particular native or non-native pests, finding suitable parent trees can be difficult, and even when they are found, not all the progeny will be resistant.

2) Evaluate the durability of resistance in order to protect trees over decades.

3) Propagate the resistant progeny in greenhouses or seed orchards to create sufficient resistant genotypes for restoration and reforestation. Many tree species are difficult to propagate using cell culture and regeneration.

In applying biotechnology techniques, scientists must complete the following steps:

1) Identify the genes carrying pertinent traits – which are to be modified, introduced, or silenced. Scientists don’t know what genetic mechanisms underlie important traits. This discovery process is more difficult for tree species than for agronomic crops due to the plants’ large size, long generation time, and (in the case of conifers) immense genomes. Another problem is that forest trees have high levels of heterozygosity due to their large population sizes and outcrossing breeding systems, which complicates genome assembly and modification. Still, recent technological improvements are making this identification process easier.

2) Insert the genes using various biotechnology tools such as transgenesis and genome editing.

3) Produce trees containing the desired gene sequence to regenerate plants from disorganized callus tissue. As noted above, many tree species are difficult to propagate using cell culture and regeneration. Even when this approach is possible, the regeneration of a plant from a single cell may not produce an individual that has the desired genetic change in every cell.

The time line for applying either approach to protect forest health will depend on several factors, including the biology of both the tree and the pest, and the environments in which the target tree species exists. It can vary from a few years to multiple decades.

2. Who Should Carry Out Genetic Improvement of Trees (and by implication, all long-term strategies to protect forest health)?

Trees provide private as well as public benefits, such as income from timber sales. However, the costs of developing a genetically resistant tree – whether achieved through traditional breeding or biotechnology processes – will be incurred up front and the benefits will follow later – often decades or even centuries later. Consequently, the sponsors need a long time horizon!

The panel suggests that the public sector can have greater patience when it perceives that significant public benefits will be forthcoming. The private sector is not likely to invest in the protection of forest health because it cannot fully capture the benefits that may accrue. The authors define “public sector” to include government agencies and non-profit organizations.

Part B. Impacts, Ethics, and Policy

1. Impacts

The report provides careful analysis of the ecological impacts that should be considered in evaluating the use of biotechnology to maintain or improve forest health. The report emphasizes that if the modified trees are to spread and restore the species to its role in the ecosystem, the modified trees must be competitive in the ecosystem (while not being invasive!). The trees must be suited to the variety of climates and other biophysical conditions found throughout the tree species’ range. The report even said that establishing the rangewide patterns of distribution of the target species’ natural standing genetic variation should be researched before a project is begun aimed at inserting pest resistance genes.

2. Public attitudes and ethical considerations

The panel was charged to consider social, cultural, and ethical issues related to the potential use of biotechnology to develop trees resistant to pests. They devote 13 pages to examining this complex set of issues, which range from Native Americans’ use of black ash to concepts of “wildness” and competing models of “conservation”. There have been few surveys or other studies of Americans’ attitudes. The panel also notes that the public lacks in-depth knowledge about genetic interventions and processes, so their attitudes are likely to change — for or against use of the technology — as they learn more or associate biotech with strongly held beliefs.

The Panel notes that important ethical questions fall outside any current “impact analysis” evaluation system, or any new analysis that focuses on “ecosystem services”. It calls for additional research on societal response to biotechnology applied to forest health and development of new forms of engaging full range of stakeholders.

3. Need for a New Impact Assessment Framework

The panel concludes that the current regulatory system does not provide for consideration of most aspects of forest health in assessing the safety of a tree developed through biotechnology, including those described above. Consequently, the panel calls for an entirely new assessment process in order to evaluate both the ecological and social/ethical considerations.

The long-standing Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology relies on existing federal statutes. Under this system, the regulatory agencies (USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Environmental Protection Agency, sometimes Food and Drug Administration) regulate specific products, not the process by which the products are produced. For example, USDA regulates only the small subset of biotech trees which were transformed via use of a bacterium, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, to insert the desired trait.

The panel says that an agency undertaking an environmental analysis under the terms of the National Environmental Protection Act would need to add an analysis of some components of forest health.

To rectify these analytical gaps, the panel suggests creation of an integrated impact assessment framework that combines ecological risk assessment with consideration of ecosystem services. This integrated framework would evaluate the effect of the pest threat – and responses to that threat – on forest processes –as well as on associated cultural and spiritual values. The impact assessment must make explicit the links between specific forest protections and their effects on important ecosystem services. The panel points to an EPA guidance document on economic impact analysis (see reference at the end of this blog) as a useful starting point. The panel suggests that this framework should be used to evaluate any forest health intervention, including use of selectively bred trees.

Because of the length of time until tree reproductive maturity and long life span of most trees, collecting data for an impact assessment might take years. The panel suggests adopting a tiered system which would allow field trials of low-risk transgenic trees to reach flowering stage so as to provide data on gene flow and climatic tolerances – data that are essential for a proper impact assessment that would evaluate the likelihood of ultimate success of the restoration effort. Such experiments and carefully developed models must also identify sources of uncertainty.

Adoption of such a stepwise, iterative process requires abandonment of the current regulatory system, which does not permit the flowering of biotech trees in most cases.

My Conclusions

The report makes clear several realities:

1) the magnitude of the threat to our forests from non-native pests – which warrants an effective response;

2) the strengths and weaknesses of the several response strategies – none of which can solve this problem in isolation;

3) the scientific challenges that need to be overcome to apply strategies aimed at enhancing tree species’ genetic resistance to pests;

4) the need for greatly expanded programs to implement the various strategies.

Also, the report shows how unprepared our country is to systematically assess the full impacts of new forms of tree breeding and forest health. To rectify this gap, the report also calls for a complete overhaul of the procedures by which the government currently evaluates the environmental risks associated with applying one of the strategies, genetic transformation of the plant host – which is defined (in the Glosssary) as including transgenesis, cisgenesis, RNA interference, genome editing, and insertion of synthetic DNA.

The recommended actions in this report – taken either individually or collectively – require a level of commitment by government and conservation organizations that far exceeds the current level.

I hope the Academies’ prestige can prompt such commitment. For example, development of a sufficiently robust coalition of groups could re-invigorate our society’s response to the invasive pest threat. The report has received some encouraging attention. It was reported in Nature and Scientific American. About 130 people tuned in live to the launch webinar on January 8^th. So far, almost 1,200 people have downloaded the report.

The government shutdown has delayed the sponsoring agencies’ (USDA and EPA) official reactions to the report. It probably curtailed some publicity efforts among all the sponsoring agencies. Also, the report will be only one item in the overflowing inboxes of agency scientists and managers after 35 days on furlough. I hope it won’t be lost, especially with the threat of a second shut-down.

How can those of us in the public who care about our forests ramp up our activity to support these recommendations?

A reminder: Scott Schlarbaum and I addressed the need for a greatly expanded restoration component as part of a comprehensive response to non-native tree-killing pests in our report Fading Forests III, released five years ago. It is available here.

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

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Forest Health and Biotech: Possibilities and Considerations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25221.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington, D.C.

Beech Leaf Disease Update

A year ago, I alerted you to a new threat to American beech (Fagus grandifolia). In that blog I reported that conservation and park managers in northeastern Ohio had begun noticing troubling decline and mortality of beech saplings beginning in 2012. The problem was spreading: we now know that over the four years between 2012 and 2016, the apparent disease spread from an estimated 84 ha to 2,525 ha within Lake County, Ohio (Ewing et al. 2018; full citation provided at end of the blog).

By 2018, trees with symptoms had been detected in 24 counties across three states and one province: 10 counties in Ohio, 8 counties in Pennsylvania, 1 county in New York, and 5 counties in Ontario). A map is provided in Ewing et al.

The rate of decline within beech stands varies, suggesting that trees differ in susceptibility. This is a promising for breeding resistance (Ewing et al.).

Symptoms

A number of organizations have produced fact sheets and related material. I recommend the fact sheet available here.

Disease Progression

In Northeast Ohio, Cleveland Metroparks’ intensive monitoring program revealed a 4% mortality rate from 2015 to 2017. More than half of the plots now have dead trees that had previously been only symptomatic. Most of the dead trees are small – less than 4.9 cm dbh. However, some larger trees have died and others bore only a few leaves this past summer. Leaves with light, medium, or heavy symptoms of infection – as well as asymptomatic leaves – can occur on the same branch of an individual tree.

The disease seems to spread faster between the stems of trees growing in beech clone clusters by spreading along the interlocking roots.

Serious science effort finally initiated – and funded!

The cause of beech dieback and mortality has still not been definitively determined. Most scientists agree that the cause is some kind of disease agent, not abiotic factors. A growing number of scientists from USDA’s Agriculture Research Service and Forest Service; Ohio’s Division of Forestry and Department of Agriculture; the Holden Arboretum; Ohio State University; and groups in Canada are researching possibilities.

The most promising candidate is a previously undescribed nematode detected by David McCann of the Ohio Department of Agriculture. That nematode has since been described by Japanese researchers on Japanese beech F. crenata (Kanzaki et al.) and given the name Litylenchus crenatae. Thousands of live Litylenchus nematodes (at least 10,000) can swim out from a single leaf. Scientists at the USDA Agriculture Research Service and Holden Arboretum are waiting for bud break this spring to see whether plant material inoculated with the nematode develops disease symptoms.

Still, other possible disease agents could also play a role.

An international working group has been formed to continue studies of both disease agents and disease progression in seedlings, saplings, and mature trees.

Still, no regulation to counter long-range spread via nurseries!

Long range spread of the disease is probably assisted by anthropogenic transport, especially of nursery stock. As I reported in May, an Ontario retailer received – and rejected – a shipment of diseased beech from an Ohio nursery.

Despite the evident risk, no official agency has adopted regulations to prevent spread on nursery stock. None of the states or provinces in which the disease is present has adopted regulations. None of the neighboring states or provinces has acted to protect its nursery industry or forests. Neither USDA APHIS nor the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has adopted regulations. The disease was not mentioned during the annual meeting of the National Plant Board – which took place in Cleveland in August! Connie Hausman of Cleveland MetroParks did include the issue during her presentation on the extensive park complex to the group during the group’s field trip.

The absence of regulation is a puzzling omission because Lake County, Ohio, has many nurseries that grow and ship European beech — which can also be infected by beech leaf disease.

The Importance of American Beech – and Protecting

Our American beech is not a major timber species – in fact, the species is actively disliked by managers focused on timber production because beech bark disease kills trees before they reach commercial size. Beech trees also often have cavities which reduce their timber value – but which are valuable to wildlife.

However, American beech is extremely important ecologically in northern parts of the United States and in Canada east of the Great Plains. Beech is co-dominant (with sugar maple) in the Northern Hardwood Forest. A summary of the species’ ecological importance can be found in Lovett et al. 2006. Beech nuts are a primary source of food for many woodland birds and mammals. In the central part of the northern hardwood forest – including in southern Canada – beech trees are the only source of hard mast. Furthermore, beech trees create a dense canopy; drastic defoliation modifies light levels at ground level, thereby affecting understory competition and other forest ecosystem services. Beech leaf litter decays more slowly than maple’s, which affects nutrient cycling. While beech leaf disease is unlikely to eradicate American beech, it could cause functional eradication of the species. Ohio alone has more than 17 million American beech trees, according to Tom Macy of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (Ewing et al. 2018).

The threat appears to be widespread because both European (F. sylvatica) and Asian (F. orientalis) beech have shown symptoms. Ewing et al. 2018 call for detection efforts across Northern Hemisphere.

Of course, the species is already under threat from beech bark disease. Promising efforts to breed beech trees resistant to BBD now face the complication of having to incorporate resistance to this new disease (Ewing et al. 2018).

European Beech Weevil

I will remind you that last year I noted a third threat to beech trees – the European leaf weevil. Originally detected in Nova Scotia, it continues to spread. About 95% of beech trees in forest plots near Halifax are dead. In the city, half the beech trees have died and the rest are in severe decline. While neither the province nor CFIA has imposed a quarantine or other regulations to govern the movement of beech material, Canadian officials are exploring possible chemical treatments. They are working with European colleagues to explore biocontrol agents (Jon Sweeney, Natural Resources Canada, pers. comm.).

Conclusion

These new threats are getting far too little attention! Some can be blamed on the difficulty of regulating an unknown disease agent (e.g., beech leaf disease). Attempting this would stretch traditional policy practice and, possibly, legal authorities. And it has not yet been demonstrated that this disease can kill mature beech. However, neither of these caveats applies to the weevil, which is an identified species, documented to kill mature trees, and a problem still not addressed.

Sources

Ewing, C.J., C.E. Hausman, J. Pogacnik, J. Slot, P. Bonello. 2018. Beech leaf disease: An emerging forest epidemic. Short Communication. Forest Pathology 2018;e12488

Kanzaki, N., Y. Ichihara, T. Aikawa, T. Ekino, and H. Masuya. 2019. Litylenchus crenatae n. sp. (Tylenchomorpha: Anguinidae), a leaf gall nematode parasitising Fagus crenata Blume. Nematology. Volume 21: Issue 1

Lovett et al. 2006. Forest Ecosystem Responses to Exotic Pests and Pathogens in Eastern North America. BioScience Vol. 56 No. 5.

Sharon Reed’s presentation on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDBbik7cUrI

Posted by Faith Campbell

2018 – More Bad News on Sudden Oak Death

Tanoak mortality at Big Sur photo by Matteo Garbelotto

Outbreaks intensified in western North America and Western Europe (UK, France).
Outbreaks are increasingly genetically diverse – raising the possibility of sexual reproduction and evolution.
Evidence accumulated that eradicating Phytophthora ramorum from the environment once it is present is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Meanwhile, APHIS proposed revisions that would weaken its regulation of nursery stock. See my earlier blog. Copies of all comments can be viewed here.

1) Intensifying Outbreaks

North America

According to the California Oak Mortality Task Force’s (COMTF) November 2018 newsletter, about 50 million trees have been killed by P. ramorum in California and Oregon. This breaks down to:

29 – 44 million tanoaks (Notholithocarpus densiflorus) (1.6 – 2.5% of the species’ total population in California and Oregon);
1.9 – 3.3 million coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and Shreve oaks (Q. parvula var. shrevei), combined (0.4 – 0.7% of their populations); and
up to 1.1 million California black oaks (Q. kelloggii) (less than 0.17% of their population).

Of course, the oaks face additional threats from goldspotted oak borer and polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers hin more southern parts of California.

California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) is not killed by P. ramorum but instead drives the spread of the outbreak in California. The state has an estimated 91.4 million infected California bay laurel trees.

These estimates are considered to be conservative. They are based only on trees that have been confirmed to be infected by direct, cultural isolation during the period up to 2014 — more than four years ago! And before a sharp intensification of infection (see below).

Data from a USDA Forest Service aerial detection survey – reported in COMTF’s September 2018 newsletter — detected a large increase in tanoak mortality in counties California counties reaching from Mendocino south to Monterey. This intensification in tree mortality was expected because the pattern is already well established: two seasons after a wet winter seasons, trees die. Such a wet and extended winter occurred in 2016-2017.

United Kingdom

Outbreaks of the EU1 strain of P. ramorum on larch (Larix kaempferi) in Scotland have also intensified. The infection is now found throughout much of Scotland, not just in the heavily infested zone in the the southwest part of the country. See updated map of outbreaks on Larch sites in woodland settings at https://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/supporting/forest-industries/tree-health/phytophthora- ramorum?highlight=WyJyYW1vcnVtIiwiJ3JhbW9ydW0iLCIncmFtb3J1bSciXQ

–

There is more on the status of P. ramorum in the the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) in a situation report posted by Forestry Commission England in 2018. Find it here: https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/PRamorumSituationReport30June2018.pdf/$FILE/PRamorumSituationReport30June2018.pdfh

As in North America, the large number of outbreaks is attributed to favorable, wet conditions in the summer and fall of 2017. (This situation was summarized in COMTF’s September 2018 newsletter.

France

The outbreak on larch in France, first reported in 2015, is also spreading. This is particularly significant because, first, it is the first report of P. ramorum outside of nurseries and ornamental settings in mainland Europe and, second, because it is a new genotype not tied to any other outbreak. By May 2018, about 80% of the trees in the Saint-Cadou larch plantations in Brittany (Northwest France) were symptomatic or dead in the more infected plots. A second outbreak has been detected a few kilometers away in a mixed forest stand of larch, oak, and sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa). There, disease prevalence was much lower. Both stands have been removed.

(This was also summarized in COMTF’s September newsletter.

2) Increasing Genetic Diversity

EU1 Strain in Oregon

As I have reported in the past, Oregon now has a second strain of Phytophthora ramorum – the “EU1” strain. This opens the possibility of sexual reproduction between it and the NA1 strain already established in forests in Oregon’s Curry County.

According to a presentation by Chris Benemann of the Oregon Department of Agriculture to the Continental Dialogue on Non-Native Forest Insects and Diseases, in 2018 – three years after the initial detection of one tree in 2015 – the number of trees infected by the EU1 strain has risen to 73. Oregon has prioritized removing these trees and treating (burning) the immediate area – now more than 355 acres. The legislature has provided $2.3 million for SOD treatments for 2017-2019. ODA believes that eradication of the EU1 outbreak is still possible.

3) But Is Eradication Possible?

According to the COMTF September newsletter, P. ramorum was detected by a water bait in a small pond downstream from a previously-infected botanical garden in Kitsap County, Washington. The garden undertook extensive mitigation efforts – including soil steaming – and the pathogen had not been detected in this managed landscape for about 2 ½ years. Hundreds of samples of host plants were collected in September, with only one warranting further analysis to determine whether it was positive. Surveys will continue in 2019.

In the East, USDA has baited streams to detect P. ramorum for several years. Seven states participated in the 2018 Spring National P. ramorum Early Detection Survey of Forests: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. As reported in the COMTF’s September newsletter, h292 samples were collected from 48 sites. As in past years, positive samples were collected from streams associated with previously positive nurseries. These included three samples from two locations in Alabama; two samples from one location in Mississippi; and one sample from North Carolina. The Alabama and Mississippi sites have tested positive for approximately a decade.

So, the pathogen is persisting in water – but how? I have been told that P. ramorum requires plant material on which to survive – so how is it persisting without detectable infested plants? Also, does the presence of zoospores pose a threat of infesting streamside plant material? What studies are examining this issue?

Awareness through Art

Artists have transformed a SOD-infected tanoak tree into 7,000 pencils as part of their thoughtful “7,000 Marks” project. They explore issues around global industrial trade, quarantine boundaries as a conservation tools, and the opposing concern that restricting trade can echo a rising tide of xenophobia. You can learn more (and buy pencils) here.

SOURCES

Cobb, R.; Ross, N.; Hayden, K.J.; Eyre, C.A.; Dodd, R.S.; Frankel, S.; Garbelotto, M. and Rizzo, D.M. 2018. Promise and pitfalls of endemic resistance for cultural resources threatened by Phytophthora ramorum . Phytopathology. Early view.

https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PHYTO-04-18-0142-R

Harris, A.R.; Mullett, M.S.; Webber, J.F. 2018. Changes in the population structure and sporulation behaviour of Phytophthora ramorum associated with the epidemic on Larix (larch) in Britain. Biological Invasions. 20(9): 2313–2328.

Posted by Faith Campbell

New Study of Why People Move Firewood – and Its Relation to EAB Deregulation

We know that people moving firewood long distances is cause for great concern because of the likelihood that tree-killing pests will be transported to new and previously uninfested locations. This concern has been heightened by the USDA APHIS proposal to deregulate the emerald ash borer (EAB). As the principal federal “quarantine pest” transported by firewood, the EAB provides the legal foundation for most federal and state firewood regulations. (Of course, the EAB regulations also govern other articles that could transport wood-boring pests). (See earlier blogs here and here.)

Most forest pest professionals agree that the greatest risks are associated with individuals who transport firewood for recreational camping or summer homes. These people have proven to be the most difficult to regulate and the most likely to not see – or to ignore – messages intended to discourage them from moving firewood. The Nature Conservancy manages the “Don’t Move Firewood” program. It has done polling on messages and impact and concludes that the percentage of U.S. voters who have heard a “don’t move firewood” message remains steady and that those who have heard that message are less likely to transport firewood, especially over distances greater than 50 miles. More details are here

A recently published study by several academics and one forest service scientist reinforces The Conservancy’s earlier conclusion about the importance of outreach efforts as an essential component of programs intended to manage wood-boring pests. On the other hand, the new study points to additional nuances in crafting messages that will be effective in changing people’s behavior.

Findings

Daigle et al. 2018 (see full citation at the end of the blog) surveyed 272 people who were camping in public (state) or private campgrounds in three New England states in 2013 – four years after each of those states adopted regulations prohibiting out-of-state firewood and began their outreach efforts. Some campers apparently feel a strong connection to the place they are visiting, as shown by the fact that 84% of the 79 campers at private campgrounds had spent two or more nights camping in the same state in the previous year. That emotional connection might provide a motivation that could be activated to persuade those campers to stop transporting firewood (see below).

The authors found that slightly more than 25% of the 272 respondents reported that they often or always brought firewood from home for camping. More discouraging is that they found that people might not comply even when informed about the risks. Instead, compliance depended largely on the individual’s motivation and commitment level rather than knowledge. Worse yet, campers categorized as “highly involved” in the forest pest issue were just as likely to transport firewood from home as were others. Apparently, these non-compliant campers did not fully “connect the dots” between their concerns about forest health and their own actions. See below for Daigle et al.’s suggestions for ways to help people make those connections.

To understand the role of motivation, Daigle et al. tried to assess the strength of each camper’s beliefs about the relationship between tree-killing pests and the transport of firewood by recreational campers.

Overall, 25% of respondents were very highly involved with tree pest issues; another 22% were highly involved. Respondents’ perception of the relationship between damaging tree pests and transport of firewood differed significantly based on their levels of involvement. Respondents with a low level of involvement were less likely to agree with three statements (listed below) that firewood-associated pests pose a serious threat. Campers with very high levels of involvement strongly disagreed with three other statements that either downplayed the threat or portrayed the respondent’s compliance as “useless” as long as others continue to transport firewood.

Perception questions against which respondents’ agreement or disagreement was measured:

“There is not much one individual can do about invasive pests brought in by firewood”
“I don’t think invasive pests brought in by firewood are very important.”
“The threat of invasive pests brought in by firewood is serious.”
“As long as other people continue to bring firewood from home, my efforts to prevent invasive pests are useless.”
“The invasive forest pest risk from firewood is exaggerated.”
“In the long run, things will balance out with invasive pests.”

Rationale

Respondents’ most frequent explanations for why they take firewood from home when they go camping were cost, quality, and convenience. The most frequently cited reason for not transporting firewood was that the respondent knew that it was not allowed.

Level of pest awareness:

While nearly all respondents (92%) had heard something about non-native pests killing trees, but 57% could not recall the name of a specific pest in the absence of a prompt. When asked about the emerald ash borer and Asian longhorned beetle, more respondents had heard about the ALB (77% v. 52%). Most said the principal source of information was a state agency.

Suggested Actions

Daigle et al. conclude that authorities need to increase citizens’ exposure to outreach materials in order to activate concern and bring about desired actions to curtail risk of pests in firewood.

One clear need is to counter many campers’ belief that their wood is safe so it is okay to transport it regardless of the regulations. Often they based that belief on the fact that their home is not in a designated quarantine zone. Daigle et al. suggested that educational material should try to counter this belief by emphasizing the time lag between a pest’s establishment and its detection.

To help “connect the dots” between campers’ concerns about forest health and the implications of their actions (transporting firewood), survey respondents suggested using more visuals showing the destruction caused by the invasive forest pests, especially in areas they care about – close to home or favorite recreation areas. Daigle et al. thought such pictures would “help the campers with high involvement to trigger activation of attitudes with the association of forest pests and firewood transport.”

Other suggestions for strengthening outreach were to ensure that the message

Is novel – that it does not simply reiterate a camper’s initial belief system.
Produces agreement by the recipient without generating counterarguments.
Is relevant to the audience’s concerns.

They also suggested that campgrounds (public and private) help motivate campers to leave firewood at home by coordinating with local firewood vendors to provide competitively priced firewood at the campground or by including the cost of providing some firewood in the camping fee.

Daigle et al. made two other suggestions that call for stronger actions.

First, they suggested that outreach programs incorporate incentives or rewards to engage people who don’t have a high level of involvement in forest health issues.

Second, they suggested that authorities reinforce the educational message by using “more direct” actions, such as

confiscating illegally transported firewood at check stations,
issuing warnings about such actions, or
administering fines for moving non-compliant firewood.

The authors suggest that state agencies should consider taking these actions – but I see no reason why federal agencies should not also.

EAB; David Cappaert

Conclusions re APHIS’ Proposal to Deregulate EAB

Daigle et al. conclude that outreach efforts aimed at curtailing movement of firewood need to be continued. They are a critical component of overall management programs targetting non-native tree-killing pests – programs developed through decades of research and trials. The motive is clear: more effectively delaying these pests’ spread provides large benefits to municipalities and homeowners.

These are the same points made by many who opposed APHIS’ proposal to deregulate the emerald ash borer.

In its comments to APHIS, The Nature Conservancy noted that the domestic EAB quarantine had been effective in limiting spread of the pest through two of the most important pathways – firewood and nursery stock. The resulting slower spread had protected three-quarters of the ash range in the United States and bought time to develop mitigation measures.

Further, eliminating the federal quarantine would not only unleash this pathway for long-range movement of EAB but undermine the many federal, state, regional, tribal, private, and non-profit partners’ efforts to curtail movement of all invasive forest pests in firewood.

Many other commenters, including several state agencies, the National Association of State Foresters and Southern Group of State Foresters called for APHIS to continue leading national efforts to curtail spread of EAB and other pests through careless movement of infested firewood. The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and NASF specifically urged that APHIS reinstate the National Firewood Task Force (which APHIS led in 2009-2010).

The Don’t Move Firewood program has a more informal blog on this topic, available here.

Source

Daigle, J.J., C.L. Straub, J.E. Leahy, S.M.De Urioste-Stone, D.J. Ranco, N.W. Siegert. How Campers’ Beliefs about Forest Pests Affect Firewood Transport Behavior An Application of Involvement Theory. Forest Science XX(XX):1-10 https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/forsci/fxy056/5232804